2009-IC-Capability-Report

OMB-0694-0119-PRA-Package-2009-IC-Capability-Report-120916.pdf

National Security and Critical Technology Assessments of the US Industrial Base

2009-IC-Capability-Report

OMB: 0694-0119

⚠️ Notice: This form may be outdated. More recent filings and information on OMB 0694-0119 can be found here:

Document [pdf]

Download: pdf | pdf

Defense Industrial Base Assessment:

U.S. Integrated Circuit Design
and Fabrication Capability

U.S. Department of Commerce
Bureau of Industry and Security
Office of Technology Evaluation

March 2009

DEFENSE INDUSTRIAL BASE ASSESSMENT:
U.S. INTEGRATED CIRCUIT FABRICATION AND
DESIGN CAPABILITY

PREPARED BY

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
BUREAU OF INDUSTRY AND SECURITY
OFFICE OF TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION
May 2009
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION ABOUT THIS REPORT, CONTACT:
Mark Crawford, Senior Trade & Industry Analyst, (202) 482-8239
Teresa Telesco, Trade & Industry Analyst, (202) 482-4959
Christopher Nelson, Trade & Industry Analyst, (202) 482-4727
Brad Botwin, Director, Industrial Base Studies, (202) 482-4060
Email: [email protected]
Fax: (202) 482-5361
For more information about the Bureau of Industry and Security, please visit:
http://bis.doc.gov/defenseindustrialbaseprograms/

TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................... i
BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................ iii
SURVEY RESPONDENTS ............................................................................................................... iv
METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................................................... v
REPORT FINDINGS .......................................................................................................................... 1
CONVENTIONAL IC PRODUCTS – FABRICATION CAPABILITY ....................................................... 1
RADIATION RESISTANT IC PRODUCTS – FABRICATION CAPABILITY ............................................ 2
CONVENTIONAL PRODUCTS – DESIGN CAPABILITY OF FABRICATION COMPANIES ...................... 3
RADIATION RESISTANT IC PRODUCTS – DESIGN CAPABILITY OF FABRICATION COMPANIES ...... 4
CONVENTIONAL PRODUCTS – FABLESS DESIGN CAPABILITY ...................................................... 6
RADIATION RESISTANT IC PRODUCTS – FABLESS DESIGN CAPABILITY....................................... 7
UTILIZATION RATES .................................................................................................................... 8
FABRICATION AND DESIGN OF NATIONAL SECURITY PRODUCTS ................................................. 9
PERFORMANCE AND OUTSOURCING OF PRODUCTION FUNCTIONS BY FABRICATION .................. 10
PERFORMANCE AND OUTSOURCING OF DESIGN FUNCTIONS BY FABRICATION .......................... 12
PERFORMANCE AND OUTSOURCING OF DESIGN FUNCTIONS BY FABLESS COMPANIES .............. 12
INDUSTRY FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE ....................................................................................... 13
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT AND RELATED EMPLOYMENT .................................................. 15
CAPITAL EXPENDITURES ............................................................................................................ 16
REPORT DATA AND ANALYSIS ..................................................................................................... 18
I. CONVENTIONAL IC PRODUCTS – FABRICATION CAPABILITY ............................................ 18
TECHNOLOGY NODE RANGE .................................................................................................. 19
SEMICONDUCTOR MATERIALS ............................................................................................... 22
FABRICATION CAPABILITY BY WAFER SIZE .......................................................................... 26
DEVICE FABRICATION CAPABILITIES ..................................................................................... 28
II. RADIATION RESISTANT IC PRODUCTS – FABRICATION CAPABILITY .............................. 32
PREVIOUS RADIATION RESISTANT MANUFACTURING EXPERIENCE ....................................... 35
WILLINGNESS TO MANUFACTURE FOR THE U.S. GOVERNMENT ............................................ 36
TECHNOLOGY NODE RANGE .................................................................................................. 38
SEMICONDUCTOR MATERIALS ............................................................................................... 40
FABRICATION CAPABILITY BY WAFER SIZE .......................................................................... 44
DEVICE FABRICATION CAPABILITIES ..................................................................................... 45
III. CONVENTIONAL PRODUCTS – DESIGN CAPABILITY OF FABRICATION COMPANIES ...... 48
TECHNOLOGY NODE RANGE .................................................................................................. 49
SEMICONDUCTOR MATERIALS ............................................................................................... 50
DEVICE DESIGN CAPABILITY ................................................................................................. 52
IV. RADIATION RESISTANT IC PRODUCTS – DESIGN CAPABILITY OF FABRICATION
COMPANIES ........................................................................................................................ 56
PREVIOUS RADIATION RESISTANT DESIGN EXPERIENCE........................................................ 58
WILLINGNESS TO MANUFACTURE FOR THE U.S. GOVERNMENT ............................................ 60
TECHNOLOGY NODE RANGE .................................................................................................. 61
SEMICONDUCTOR MATERIALS ............................................................................................... 63
DEVICE TYPE DESIGN CAPABILITY ........................................................................................ 65

V. CONVENTIONAL PRODUCTS – FABLESS DESIGN CAPABILITY........................................... 68
TECHNOLOGY NODE RANGE .................................................................................................. 68
SEMICONDUCTOR MATERIALS ............................................................................................... 71
DEVICE DESIGN CAPABILITY ................................................................................................. 72
VI. RADIATION RESISTANT IC PRODUCTS – FABLESS DESIGN CAPABILITY ........................ 76
PREVIOUS RATION RESISTANT DESIGN EXPERIENCE ............................................................. 79
WILLINGNESS TO MANUFACTURE FOR THE U.S. GOVERNMENT ............................................ 80
TECHNOLOGY NODE RANGE .................................................................................................. 82
SEMICONDUCTOR MATERIALS ............................................................................................... 83
DEVICE DESIGN CAPABILITY ................................................................................................. 84
VII. UTILIZATION RATES ........................................................................................................ 87
WAFER START CAPACITY AND COMPANY UTILIZATION RATES............................................. 87
FACILITY CLOSINGS BY 2011................................................................................................. 90
VIII. FABRICATION AND DESIGN OF NATIONAL SECURITY PRODUCTS ................................ 92
FABRICATION OF NATIONAL SECURITY-RELATED PRODUCTS ............................................... 92
DESIGN OF NATIONAL SECURITY-RELATED PRODUCTS ......................................................... 93
TRUSTED SUPPLIERS - BACKGROUND .................................................................................... 95
OUTLOOK FOR TRUSTED SUPPLIERS ...................................................................................... 97
IX. PERFORMANCE AND OUTSOURCING OF PRODUCTION FUNCTIONS BY FABRICATION
COMPANIES ..................................................................................................................... 100
U.S.-BASED MANUFACTURING STEPS ................................................................................. 100
NON-U.S. OUTSOURCING OF MANUFACTURING STEPS ........................................................ 102
OUTSOURCING BY TECHNOLOGY NODE AND MATERIAL TYPE ............................................ 104
REASONS FOR OUTSOURCING .............................................................................................. 105
RETENTION OF MANUFACTURING STEP CAPABILITY THROUGH 2011.................................. 106
PROJECTED U.S.-BASED AND NON-U.S. OUTSOURCING ...................................................... 108
X. PERFORMANCE AND OUTSOURCING OF DESIGN FUNCTIONS BY FABRICATION
COMPANIES ....................................................................................................................... 111
U.S.-BASED DESIGN STEPS .................................................................................................. 111
NON-U.S. OUTSOURCING OF DESIGN STEPS ........................................................................ 112
RETENTION OF DESIGN STEP CAPABILITY THROUGH 2011 .................................................. 114
XI. PERFORMANCE AND OUTSOURCING OF DESIGN FUNCTIONS BY FABLESS COMPANIES 119
U.S.-BASED DESIGN STEPS .................................................................................................. 119
NON-U.S. OUTSOURCING OF DESIGN STEPS ........................................................................ 120
RETENTION OF DESIGN STEP CAPABILITY THROUGH 2011 .................................................. 122
PROJECTED U.S.-BASED AND NON-U.S. OUTSOURCING ...................................................... 124
XII. INDUSTRY FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE.......................................................................... 127
FABRICATION NET SALES .................................................................................................... 128
IC Design Net Sales ............................................................................................................ 130
CURRENT RATIO .................................................................................................................. 131
XIII. RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT AND RELATED EMPLOYMENT ................................. 136
R&D EXPENDITURES BY COMPANY SIZE ............................................................................. 140
R&D EXPENDITURES BY FUNCTION .................................................................................... 144
SOURCES OF R&D FUNDING ................................................................................................ 149
R&D EMPLOYMENT............................................................................................................. 152
TOP COUNTRIES FOR R&D EXPENDITURES .......................................................................... 155

XIV. CAPITAL EXPENDITURES ............................................................................................. 159
CAPITAL EXPENDITURES BY FABRICATION COMPANIES ...................................................... 160
ALLOCATION OF CAPITAL EXPENDITURES BY FABRICATION COMPANIES ............................ 162
NON-U.S. CAPITAL EXPENDITURES BY FABRICATION COMPANIES...................................... 165
CAPITAL EXPENDITURES BY FABLESS COMPANIES .............................................................. 167
ALLOCATION OF CAPITAL EXPENDITURES BY FABLESS COMPANIES ................................... 169
NON-U.S. CAPITAL EXPENDITURES BY FABLESS COMPANIES ............................................. 172
APPENDIX A: SURVEY AUTHORITY .......................................................................................... 175
APPENDIX B: GLOSSARY ........................................................................................................... 176
APPENDIX C: LIST OF SUPPLIERS ACCREDITED BY THE DEFENSE MICROELECTRONICS
AGENCY (DMEA).............................................................................................................. 182
APPENDIX D: ASSESSMENT COVERAGE – SURVEY INSTRUMENT ............................................ 183
APPENDIX E: DEFENSE INDUSTRIAL BASE ASSESSMENT: U.S. INTEGRATED CIRCUIT DESIGN
AND MANUFACTURING CAPABILITY ................................................................................. 188

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The capability to design and fabricate integrated circuit (IC) products is critical to the economic
and national security of the United States. IC products are fundamental building blocks for
commercial, industrial, and national security electronic systems. In recent years, there have been
questions about the possible erosion of the U.S. manufacturing base and increasing reliance on
offshore producers to supply microprocessors, memory chips, and other IC devices.

In July 2007, the Department of Commerce’s (DOC) Office of Technology Evaluation (OTE) in
the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS), with support from the U.S. Department of Defense,
initiated a study to assess U.S. IC design and fabrication capabilities. Forty-nine fabricators and
106 fabless firms participated in an OTE survey and provided detailed information on their
ability to create a range of conventional and radiation resistant IC devices across technology
nodes, using standard and non-standard semiconductor materials. Data collected through the
OTE survey covered the period of 2003 to 2006, with projections through 2011.

Overall, companies reported broad capability in the United States to manufacture and design
both conventional and radiation resistant ICs across almost all technology nodes, materials,
wafer sizes, and device types. Based on projections through 2011, this core capability
reportedly will be maintained despite some increases in outsourcing to non-U.S. locations.

During the 2003-2006 period, U.S. manufacturing and design activity was supported by
significant growth in corporate net sales, research and development (R&D) spending, and capital
expenditures. The vast majority of R&D and capital expenditures was allocated to activities
within the United States, with a small but growing portion directed to overseas operations.

It is important to note that five large-size fabricators dominate most facets of the U.S. IC industry
in terms of production, design, employment, and financial performance. However, small- and
medium-size fabrication and fabless companies serving commercial and defense markets are
important to the supply base. Much of the capability to manufacture radiation resistant ICs and

ICs using non-standard materials, which are required for critical industrial and national security
applications, resides with these companies.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and Security, in coordination with the Office
of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology & Logistics, will review and
report every two years on the following:
•

Changes in the health, competitiveness, and global operations of the top five large-size
fabrication companies, which could have significant repercussions for the U.S. IC industry
and national security because of these companies’ dominant positions in the industry;

•

Future activity in leading-edge IC production to assess any erosion or expansion of domestic
capabilities, as few companies can currently fabricate ICs at the leading-edge technology
nodes below 65 nm;

•

The state of domestic mask making capability, because there is currently minimal in-house
production capability and outsourcing to non-U.S. companies is projected to increase;

•

The financial performance of the U.S. IC industry in order to assess the impact of the current
global financial situation on the stability of the domestic IC industry, particularly on smalland medium-size IC fabrication and design companies.

BACKGROUND
This defense industrial base assessment was initiated by the Bureau of Industry and Security to
provide a comprehensive overview of the U.S. design and fabrication infrastructure available for
manufacturing Integrated Circuit (IC) products now and in the future. ICs are used to meet U.S.
national security and other defense critical requirements, as well as commercial/industrial needs.
On a world-wide basis, IC production totaled $257 billion in 2007, with U.S. producers
accounting for $118 billion or 46 percent of output.1

Over the past decade, questions have been raised by a number of industry and governmentsponsored entities regarding the state of U.S. IC design and fabrication capabilities, with some
attention being focused on facility shutdowns and the addition of new production capacity
offshore. For example, a February 2005 report issued by the Defense Science Board (DSB) Task
Force on High Performance Microchip Supply, in particular, warned of significant erosion of
U.S. IC technical, human capital, and manufacturing advantages to foreign countries, and of the
negative strategic consequences of such trends continuing in the future. 2

For the U.S. national security community, the central problem associated with this diminishing
capability to design and fabricate IC products is a lessening of trustworthiness in components
used in critical applications.3 This concern has several dimensions, including the quality of
component manufacturing, protection of design intellectual property, and assurance that
component function is not compromised by design changes made in unsecured settings. The
DSB report stated that the United States must retain leading edge IC design and fabrication
capability in order to maintain technological advantage in weapon systems and other national
security products.4

Semiconductor Industry Assn., April 29, 2008. www.sia-online.org/pre_release.cfm?ID=474
See the Defense Science Board Task Force on High Performance Microchip Supply report, December 2005, Office
of the Under Secretary for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, U.S. Department of Defense.
3
IBID; also see Office of the Secretary of Defense Research, Development, Technology, and Engineering Budget
Item Justification (R2 Exhibit) February 2006, p. 412.
4
See the Defense Science Board Task Force on High Performance Microchip Supply report, December 2005, Office
of the Under Secretary for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, U.S. Department of Defense, p. 12 and p. 47.
2

iii

The U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS), Office of
Technology Evaluation (OTE) performed this assessment in cooperation with the U.S.
Department of Defense (DOD), Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Industrial
Policy. Extensive input was also provided by IC experts in government, industry, and academia.
Initiated in August 2007, the assessment’s overall goal is to provide decision-makers in both
industry and government with: (1) the status of conventional and radiation-resistant IC
fabrication and design capabilities in the United States; (2) information on domestic and foreign
outsourcing of IC design and fabrication capabilities; (3) detailed information on the financial
health of fabrication and fabless companies, including capital investment and research and
development spending; and (4) the outlook for maintaining domestic design and fabrication
activities in the future.

This report, based almost exclusively on the comprehensive survey data collected from industry,
government, and university facilities, also provides background support by way of facilityspecific information for the defense community’s management and procurement of electronic
components and systems, including the Defense Department’s Trusted Foundry Program for ICs
and printed circuit boards.

SURVEY RESPONDENTS
A total of 155 surveys were received, representing responses from 106 U.S. IC design/fabless
companies and 49 U.S. IC manufacturing/fabrication companies. Survey respondents were
designated as fabrication or fabless companies based upon their capabilities in the United States.
Fabrication companies are those that have IC manufacturing operations in the United States;
most of these companies also have significant design capabilities. Fabless companies only have
IC design capability in the United States. Although these companies may have fabrication
operations overseas, from an OTE perspective they are considered fabless.

These 155 responses represent more than 379 facilities in the United States. Data collected from
the 49 fabrication firms covers the operations of more than 90 facilities located in 23 states; 45 of
the 49 companies have related design capabilities. In addition, OTE surveyed three government
facilities (two have both design/fabrication capabilities; one design only) and five university
iv

facilities (all have both design/fabrication capabilities).5 Data supplied by respondents covered
their operations for 2003-2007 period, and included projections on future fabrication and design
capability through 2011.

The capabilities of IC fabrication companies were analyzed based on their net sales: small-size
companies had net sales of less than $100 million; medium-size companies had net sales of $100
million to $1 billion; and large-size companies had net sales exceeding $1 billion. The
capabilities of IC fabless firms were also analyzed based on their net sales: small-size companies
had net sales of less than $25 million; medium-size companies had net sales of $25 to $350
million; and large-size companies had net sales greater than $350 million.

METHODOLOGY
Working with industry and government experts, OTE created a survey questionnaire to assess
both IC fabrication and design capabilities in the U.S for the period 2003-2006, with projections
to 2011.6 The resulting draft OTE survey was field tested for accuracy and usability with a
variety of fabrication and fabless firms, as well as government facilities. Once comments were
received and incorporated into the survey instrument, the document was formally sent to the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval as required under the
Paperwork Reduction Act.

After receiving OMB approval, OTE disseminated the survey to fabrication and fabless
companies, government facilities, and universities. Data collected through the survey was
supplemented with OTE staff site visits to a number of design and manufacturing facilities,
interviews with industry and government experts, participation in IC-related conferences and
technical sessions, and reviews of previous studies of the U.S. and global IC industry.

Results on government and university facilities were not included due to the proprietary nature of the limited
number of responses.
6
A copy of the Defense Industrial Base Assessment: U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability
survey questionnaire is included in Appendix E.

REPORT FINDINGS7
I. CONVENTIONAL IC PRODUCTS – FABRICATION CAPABILITY
Fabrication companies were asked to report on their fabrication capabilities for the 2003 – 2006
period. The 49 companies that reported data operated more than 90 fabrication facilities in the
United States in 2006 that were capable of making conventional IC products.

Almost all of these companies (45), can manufacture IC products with technology nodes between
10,000 nanometers (nm) and 250 nm. Approximately half of the companies (22) can make ICs
in the United States with technology nodes from 250 nm - 65 nm. A significantly smaller
number of firms, six, can make IC products at dimensions below 65 nm, and just three of them
have commercial-volume capability for 45 nm and 32 nm dimensions.

Most of the 49 fabrication companies manufacture IC products using three standard silicon
materials: bulk silicon (35 companies), silicon-on-insulator (19 companies), and silicon geranium
(11 companies). Substantially fewer companies can manufacture using seven non-standard
materials, which are required for some high-performance IC products. For example, 15
companies can manufacture ICs using gallium arsenide and 11 companies can manufacture ICs
using gallium nitride materials. Company capability diminishes with more exotic materials such
as antimonides (7), silicon-on-sapphire (4), and silicon carbide (3). Much of the capability to
manufacture ICs using non-standard materials, which are important to the performance of some
national security ICs, resides with small- and medium-size companies.

The bulk of IC manufacturing capacity is concentrated in facilities using 4-inch (21 companies),
6-inch (35 companies), and 8-inch wafers (25 companies). Eight U.S. fabricators, mostly largesize companies, reported operating 14 facilities capable of manufacturing ICs on 12-inch wafers.
The capability to manufacture ICs on 2-or-3 inch wafers resides with small- and medium-size
companies.

This section is based on the Report Data and Analysis portion of this document, which explores each of the finding
categories in extensive detail.

U.S. fabrication companies can manufacture a wide array of IC devices ranging from memory
products and microprocessors to custom application specific integrated circuits (ASICs) to field
programmable gate arrays (FPGAs). Companies of all sizes can manufacture these IC devices.

II. RADIATION RESISTANT IC PRODUCTS – FABRICATION CAPABILITY

In addition to conventional IC products, fabrication companies were asked to identify their
abilities to manufacture radiation resistant IC products for the 2003 – 2006 period.8 Twenty-six
of 49 fabrication companies in the United States reported they can produce one or more types of
radiation resistant IC products: 16 are capable of making single-event effects resistant ICs; 15
can produce radiation tolerant ICs; 12 can produce radiation hardened ICs; and eight companies
can fabricate neutron hardened ICs. A majority of this fabrication capability rests within smalland medium-size companies, eight and 12 respectively, with only six large-size companies able
to do so.

Nine of the fabrication companies reported having previous experience manufacturing all four
types of radiation resistant ICs, but do not currently perform such work. The majority of these
companies, four, were large-size firms.

Twenty-eight fabrication companies indicated a willingness to manufacture radiation resistant
ICs for the U.S. Government. Of these companies, 15 currently manufacture radiation resistant
IC products. The majority of companies (25) were interested in producing radiation tolerant ICs
for the U.S. Government.

The capability of the 26 fabrication companies that manufacture radiation resistant IC products is
largely concentrated in three ranges of technology nodes: 10,000 nm - 1,000 nm (14 companies),

Due to evolving refinements in the IC manufacturing process, which cause some commercial IC products to
become unintentionally radiation hardened, the U.S. Department of State transferred control of exports of IC
products at lower radiation hardened thresholds to the U.S. Department of Commerce on July 17th, 2007. For more
information, see 72 Federal Register 136.

1,000 nm - 250 nm (19 companies), and 250 nm - 65 nm (16 companies). Four companies, three
of them large in size, can fabricate radiation resistant ICs at dimensions smaller than 65 nm.

Bulk silicon is the standard semiconductor material most frequently employed by fabricators
producing radiation resistant IC products, with 21 companies reporting capability to manufacture
product using it. Eleven companies can use silicon-on-insulator and five are able to manufacture
with silicon germanium. With the exception of gallium nitride, fewer than six companies are
able to fabricate radiation resistant IC product using non-standard materials; none of these
companies are large-size fabricators.

Most capability to manufacture radiation resistant IC products resides in fabrication facilities
using 4-inch (14 companies), 6-inch (18 companies), and 8-inch (12 companies). Only three
companies reported a capability to manufacture radiation resistant products on 12-inch wafers,
all of them classified as large-size IC manufacturers.

Twenty-one of the 26 companies can fabricate custom ASIC radiation resistant IC products.
There is less fabrication capability for other kinds of radiation resistant IC devices. Small-,
medium-, and large-size fabrication companies have diverse capabilities across all device types.

III. CONVENTIONAL PRODUCTS – DESIGN CAPABILITY OF FABRICATION COMPANIES

Fabrication companies were also asked to report on their design capabilities for the 2003 - 2006
period. Forty-five of the 49 companies that reported data had in-house capability to design IC
products in 2006, although this capability varied by company and facility.

Thirty-two fabrication companies can design ICs with technology nodes in the 10,000 nm - 1,000
nm range, 36 are able to design for the 1,000 nm - 250 nm range, and 32 are able to design for
250 nm - 65 nm range. Nine fabricators are able to design IC products using leading-edge
technology nodes (45 nm and 32 nm). Most of this capability is held by six large-size IC
fabricators.

The design capability of fabricators is focused primarily in products using standard silicon
materials: bulk silicon (37 companies), silicon-on-insulator (26 companies), or silicon geranium
(17 companies). The design capabilities of fabricators decrease for IC products employing nonstandard materials. For example, 13 of 49 companies reported design capability for ICs using
gallium arsenide material, while three are able to design devices using antimonides material.

U.S. fabricators are capable of designing a wide variety of IC products, including custom chips,
memory devices, and processors. More than 70 percent of fabricators surveyed are able to
design mixed signal ICs and custom ASICs. Capability resides in 17 companies to make static
random access memory (SRAM), but only four fabricator design houses can produce dynamic
random access memory (DRAM) devices. Sixteen fabricators can design for nonvolatile
memory ICs.

IV. RADIATION RESISTANT IC PRODUCTS – DESIGN CAPABILITY OF FABRICATION
COMPANIES
In addition to conventional IC products, fabrication companies were asked to identify their
abilities to design radiation resistant IC products for the 2003 – 2006 period. Thirty-one of 49
fabrication companies have experience designing one or more types of radiation resistant IC
products: 18 are capable of designing single-event effects resistant ICs; 14 can design radiation
tolerant ICs; 10 can design radiation hardened ICs, and nine companies can design neutron
hardened ICs. Fifteen of these manufacturers are medium-size, eight are small-size, and eight
are large-size companies.

Across all four types of radiation resistant ICs, a majority of design capability is found in smalland medium-size companies. Only five large-size companies can design single-event effects
resistant ICs, two can design radiation tolerant ICs, one can design radiation hardened ICs, and
two can design neutron hardened ICs. Design capability is nearly equal between and small- and
medium-size companies for all four types of radiation resistant products.

Twenty-one companies have previous experience designing radiation resistant ICs, but do not
currently perform such work. Eight companies each no longer design single event effects
resistant, radiation tolerant, and neutron hardened ICs, while six companies no longer design
radiation hardened ICs.

Thirty-four companies are willing to design radiation resistant products for the U.S. Government,
including 12 companies that did not indicate that they have previous experience doing so. There
was a relatively even level of interest across companies, regardless of size, in designing radiation
resistant ICs for the U.S. Government.

There are significant differences in the ability of the 31 fabrication companies to design radiation
resistant products across the range of technology nodes. Fifteen companies reported capability to
design IC products with circuit feature sizes ranging from 10,000 nm - 1,000 nm; 22 companies
have capability to design ICs from 1,000 nm - 250 nm; and 24 companies are able to design ICs
at dimensions of 250 nm - 65 nm. Seven companies, mostly large-size firms, can design
radiation resistant ICs with circuit feature dimensions smaller than 65 nm.

Fabrication company design capability for radiation resistant IC products is concentrated in
standard semiconductor materials. Of the 31 companies with this capability, 23 reported they
can design devices based on bulk silicon; 13 can design devices using silicon-on-insulator; and
10 can design for silicon germanium material.

There is limited capability across fabrication companies to design radiation resistant ICs using
non-standard materials. Small- and medium-size companies are the sole providers of design for
radiation resistant ICs using non-standard materials.

Significant capability exists among the 31 fabricators that have experience in designing radiation
resistant ICs to create a wide variety of products. Twenty-three companies reported the
capability to design custom ASIC products. In contrast, nine companies can design standard cell
ASICs and eight can design structured ASICs. Capability to design radiation resistant gate array
ICs varies. Sixteen companies are able to design one-time electronically programmable gate

array (EPGA) products while nine are able to design FPGA products. Fourteen fabricators are
able to design radiation resistant SRAM products, but only one company can design DRAM ICs.

V. CONVENTIONAL PRODUCTS – FABLESS DESIGN CAPABILITY

Fabless companies, those firms that only have design capability in the United States, were asked
to report on their design capabilities for the 2003 - 2006 period. The 106 fabless companies that
reported data showed significant capability to design a wide range of products in 2006. The vast
majority of fabless companies (65) are small-size companies, while 27 are medium-size
companies and 14 are large-size companies.

The capability of the 106 fabless companies surveyed spans all technology nodes. Most of their
design capability, however, is concentrated in two technology ranges: 51 companies can design
product in the 1,000 nm - 250 nm range, and 76 companies have design capability at nodes
between 250 nm - 65 nm. For the technology nodes of 10,000 nm - 1,000 nm, 21 companies
reported capability. Twenty-three fabless companies stated they can work at technology nodes
below 65 nm. Most of this capability (71 percent) is held within large-size fabless companies.

Much of the design capability of fabless companies is concentrated in three standard silicon
materials: bulk silicon (88 companies), silicon-on-insulator (13 companies), or silicon
germanium (19 companies). Only a small number of fabless companies can design product
employing non-standard materials, which are required for some high-performance IC products.
Seven companies can design ICs using gallium arsenide, and 11 can design ICs using gallium
nitride materials. The number of companies with capability diminishes with more exotic
materials such as antimonides (7), silicon-on-sapphire (4), or silicon carbide (1).

U.S. fabless companies possess capability to design a broad selection of IC devices. Of the 106
companies queried, 63 are able to design mixed signal technology devices and 57 can design
custom ASIC products. Twenty-eight companies can create microprocessor designs. Fewer

fabless IC design companies can design memory products. For example, 16 have SRAM
capability, eight can design nonvolatile memory, and seven can design DRAM product designs.

VI. RADIATION RESISTANT IC PRODUCTS – FABLESS DESIGN CAPABILITY

In addition to conventional IC products, design companies were asked to identify their abilities
to design radiation resistant IC products in the 2003 – 2006 period. Only 19 of 106 fabless IC
companies can design radiation resistant products: 14 firms are capable of designing single-event
effects resistant ICs, nine can design radiation tolerant ICs, eight can design radiation hardened
ICs, and six companies can develop neutron hardened ICs.

The capability to design radiation resistant IC products is held by eight small-size, six mediumsize, and five large-size companies. Four small-, six medium-, and four large-size firms can
design single-event effects resistant ICs. One small-, six medium-, and two large-size fabless
companies can design radiation tolerant product, while radiation hardened ICs can be designed
by one small-, five medium-, and one large-size fabless company. Of the six fabless firms
capable of designing neutron-hardened ICs, two are small-, three are medium-, and one is largesize.

Five companies reported having previous experience designing radiation resistant ICs, but do not
currently perform such work. This previous experience is largely concentrated in small-size
companies, though large-size companies did report previous capability across all four types of
radiation resistant devices. Medium-size companies did not indicate any previous capability.

Twenty-three companies, mostly small- and medium-size, indicated they are willing to design
radiation resistant products for the U.S. Government. This includes nine companies that did not
indicate having previous experience.

The capability of the 19 fabless companies that can design radiation resistant IC products spans
all technology nodes. Most of their design capability, however, is concentrated in two

technology ranges: 13 companies reported capability for the technology nodes spanning 1,000
nm - 250 nm, and 17 reported capability product in the 250 nm - 65 nm range. Nine companies
are able to design ICs for technology nodes between 10,000 nm and 1,000 nm, and nine fabless
companies can design products with circuit features below 65 nm. The latter capability resides
in one small-, three medium-, and five large-size fabless companies.

Fabless company capability to design radiation resistant ICs is concentrated in products using
standard semiconductor materials. Sixteen of the 19 companies can design products using bulk
silicon, seven can design ICs using silicon-on-insulator, and three can design ICs using silicon
germanium. The ability of fabless companies to design radiation resistant ICs using nonstandard materials is very limited. Most of this capability is centered in medium-size fabless
companies.

Significant capability exists among the 19 fabless companies to design radiation resistant ICs.
The majority of fabless design ability for these products rests with medium- and large-size
companies. The greatest IC design ability is for custom ASIC products, with 15 companies able
to undertake this work. In contrast, only six companies design standard cell ASICs and five
design structured ASICs. Capability to design radiation resistant gate array ICs varies. Thirteen
companies are able to design one-time Electronically Programmable Gate Arrays (EPGAs) while
nine are able to design Field Programmable Gate Arrays (FPGAs). Eight fabless companies are
able to design radiation resistant SRAM product, but only four companies can design DRAM
products.

VII. UTILIZATION RATES

Average utilization rates of fabrication facilities operating in the United States for years 20032007 showed steady increases overall. Large-size companies saw facility utilization climb from
78 percent in 2004 to 90 percent in 2006 before falling in 2007 to 81 percent. Utilization rates
for medium-size companies rose from 72 percent to 82 percent in 2007. Small-size companies
experienced a rise in utilization rates, but relative to bigger competitors operated at significantly

lower levels ranging from 47 percent in 2004 to 52 percent in 2006, before slipping to 50 percent
in 2007.

Most IC wafer processing capacity in the United States is held by large-size fabricators, which
collectively had a maximum capacity to process 291,262 wafers per week in 2007. Medium-size
companies have a fraction of the processing capacity of large-size fabricators, approximately
54,811 wafer starts per week in 2007. Small-size companies operated at far less processing
capacity – 11,947 wafer starts per week in 2007.

Fabricators project there will be two fewer fabrication facilities (net) operating in the United
States in 2011 than there were in 2006. Medium-size companies expect to close three wafer
processing facilities by 2011, and large-size companies plan to close four facilities. Small-size
companies plan to close two facilities. At the same time fabricators indicated they would build
at least seven new fabrication facilities in the United States; small-size fabricators plan to add at
least four of those seven new facilities.

VIII. FABRICATION AND DESIGN OF NATIONAL SECURITY PRODUCTS

Twenty-three of the 49 fabricators surveyed manufactured IC products used for national securityrelated applications in 2007.9 Eighteen companies reported that this work now occupies 10
percent or less of their capacity. Nineteen companies are willing to dedicate more production
capacity to national security-related work. Fifteen of the 49 companies surveyed are not willing
manufacture ICs for national security applications. Eleven other fabricators reported that they
are willing to start accepting orders to produce ICs for national security applications under the
appropriate financial conditions.

Access to commercial IC design and fabrication capabilities in the United States is important for the Department of
Defense (DOD) and other federal agencies to maintain and upgrade the capabilities of existing defense systems, as
well as to produce critical parts for future national security applications. See Joint U.S. Defense Science Board/UK
Defense Scientific Advisory Council - Task Force on Defense Critical Technologies, March 2006, p. 67.

Eighteen fabrication companies also perform IC design work for national security-related
products; the activity accounts for more than 50 percent of their design work. Sixteen fabrication
companies indicated they would undertake work designing national security-related products if
given an opportunity. Another 15 companies declared they were not interested in this kind of
work.

Fourteen of the 106 fabless companies currently perform design work for national securityrelated IC products. Of these, five allocate more than 50 percent of their capacity for this
purpose. Forty fabless design companies not now engaged in developing IC products for
national security applications indicated they would consider taking on such work.
Nine fabrication companies are accredited as trusted suppliers to the Department of Defense.10
Fifteen additional fabrication and six fabless companies are now seeking or plan to seek U.S.
Government certification as a trusted supplier. Eleven fabrication and 18 fabless companies
have reviewed federal requirements to be trusted suppliers and concluded they would be able to
comply, but have not been certified at this time.

Some companies have not pursued national security-related IC product fabrication and design
work because they do not have adequate knowledge of the opportunities or do not comprehend
the requirements and associated costs. Others are concerned that working with federal agencies
would be too complicated, or that the order volume and predictability for national security work
is too uncertain.

IX. PERFORMANCE AND OUTSOURCING OF PRODUCTION FUNCTIONS BY FABRICATION
COMPANIES
U.S. IC fabricators retain significant in-house capability to perform seven IC manufacturing
steps (mask making, wafer manufacturing [front-end and back-end], wafer sorting, circuit
testing, packaging, and final testing), although capability to perform the mask making and
packaging steps is much smaller.
10

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

Fabrication companies only utilize a small number of U.S.-based vendors for six of the seven
key manufacturing steps. However, more than 71 percent of the fabrication companies, or 35
firms, utilize other U.S.-based vendors for the mask making manufacturing step.

Outside of the United States, fabrication companies tend to outsource to non-U.S., non-affiliated
facilities more often than to non-U.S. facilities they own and operate, although companies still
use a significant number of their own non-U.S. facilities to perform select IC processing steps.
Only five fabrication companies utilize non-U.S. facilities they own and operate for mask
making, while 17 use non-U.S., non-affiliated facilities for this manufacturing step. Since so few
fabrication companies perform mask making in their own facilities, fabrication companies
largely rely on both domestic and non-U.S. outsourced support for this operation.

Fabrication companies, in addition to maintaining domestic capabilities, outsource
manufacturing steps across all technology nodes, with the 1,000 nm – 250 nm and the 250 nm –
65 nm ranges being the most common. Of the six fabrication companies that can manufacture at
less than 65 nm, five outsource manufacturing steps for this technology node range.

The majority of outsourced manufacturing steps (88 percent) are conducted in Asia, with Taiwan
and China being the most prominent locations. Six percent of outsourced manufacturing steps are
conducted in Europe, and three percent are conducted in Canada and Mexico.

Most U.S. fabrication companies expect to maintain capability to perform each of the seven IC
manufacturing steps at their U.S.-based operations through 2011. A slight decrease in the
number of companies capable of in-house production is anticipated for each of the seven
manufacturing steps. The majority of fabricators expect to maintain or increase their level of
capability for each manufacturing step through 2011, with mask making being the only step
where there is no planned increase in capability level.

The number of companies that anticipate outsourcing manufacturing steps to U.S.-based vendors
is projected to remain steady through 2011. However, the overall level of manufacturing step
capability they outsource is anticipated to increase.

X. PERFORMANCE AND OUTSOURCING OF DESIGN FUNCTIONS BY FABRICATION
COMPANIES
More than half of U.S. fabricators are capable of performing all seven key IC design functions
(digital, analog, RTL design, synthesis, physical layout, function verification, and test vector
generation) in their domestic facilities. While most fabrication companies do not outsource any
design steps to U.S.-based vendors, 20 fabricators outsource design work to varying degrees to
non-U.S. locations. Most of these companies, however, outsource to non-U.S. facilities they
own and operate. Relatively few fabricators reported outsourcing design functions to nonaffiliated, non-U.S. facilities.

China and India are the prime locations for design work outsourced by fabricators, although
France, Japan, and Taiwan also are significant service providers. As a region, European
countries are more prevalent destinations for the outsourcing of design operations by fabricators,
representing 35 percent of outsourcing operations.

Most U.S. fabricators expect that they will still retain most, if not all of the domestic IC design
capabilities, from 2006 through 2011. Three companies acknowledged that their abilities will
diminish by 2011 in the digital, analog, and synthesis design functions; 18 fabricators plan to
strengthen in-house design capability through 2011. Fifteen fabricators plan to increase
outsourcing of one or more design functions to United States and non-U.S. locations by 2011.

XI. PERFORMANCE AND OUTSOURCING OF DESIGN FUNCTIONS BY FABLESS COMPANIES

Eighty-one of 106 fabless companies have capability to perform all seven major design steps
(digital, analog, RTL design, synthesis, physical layout, function verification, and test vector

generation) in their domestic facilities. Twenty-one fabless companies outsource portions of
their design work to U.S.-based vendors, with analog and test vector generation being the most
frequently cited.

Forty-nine fabless firms report outsourcing one or more design functions to non-U.S. locations,
but mostly to facilities they own and operate. Approximately 20 percent of fabless companies
outsource one or more design steps to non-affiliated, non-U.S. facilities. In addition,
approximately 20 percent of fabless companies outsource design steps to both non-U.S. facilities
they own and operate and to non-affiliated, non-U.S. facilities. Countries most cited by U.S.
fabless companies for performing outsourced IC design work are: India, Taiwan, China, United
Kingdom, Israel, and Canada.

Almost all of the 81 fabless companies reporting capability to perform all seven design steps
expect to retain this ability through 2011. Nearly 50 percent of those fabless design companies
expect to strengthen their design capabilities between now and 2011. Most fabless companies
will retain or expand current capability levels. A significant number of companies also plan to
expand outsourcing of design steps between now and 2011.

XII. INDUSTRY FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE

The 49 IC fabrication companies and 106 fabless companies surveyed experienced steady growth
in net sales for the 2003-2006 period. Combined net sales rose from $81.4 billion to $116 billion
over four years, an average annual increase of 19.3 percent.

Fabricators in total accounted for 75 percent of net sales on average for the four-year period. Net
sales climbed from $62 billion in 2003 to $83.5 billion in 2006, an average annual increase of
10.6 percent. Ten large-size companies generated 90 percent of IC fabricator net sales over the
reporting period; five large-size fabricators dominate U.S. IC production, accounting for $65.2
million in net sales in 2006, or 86 percent of all net sales of large-size companies surveyed. Net

sales of 20 medium-size companies in 2006 represented nine percent of total industry sales,
while net sales of 19 small-size IC fabricators represented one percent.

Net sales for 106 reporting fabless IC companies increased rapidly from 2003-2006, rising from
$19.3 billion to $32.8 billion. As with IC fabricators, 14 large-size fabless companies dominated
their segment of the market, generating 90 percent of net revenues in 2006. Net sales by 27
medium-size companies in 2006 totaled $2.9 billion, just less than nine percent of total fabless
IC company net sales. Sixty-five small-size companies reported collective net sales of $500
million.

For the four-year period, fabricator and fabless IC design companies had an average combined
current ratio score of 2.77.11 This means the industry’s overall assets are more than double its
liabilities, and it could theoretically pay its debts with its existing resources. Their combined
current ratio scores decreased from 2.88 in 2003 to 2.71 in 2006.

Fabrication companies had an average current ratio score of 2.56. Their combined current ratio
scores declined over the 2003-2006 period from 2.75 to 2.38, reflecting sliding performance in
some large-size companies. Small-size fabrication companies experienced an increase in their
current ratios from 2.65 in 2003 to 3.79 in 2006.

Fabless companies had an average current ratio score of 3.37. Their combined current ratio
scores increased from 3.26 in 2003 to 3.51 in 2006. Improvements in current ratio scores is
attributed to gains in financial performance of large- and medium-size fabless companies.
Small-size fabless companies as a group experienced a decline in current ratio scores from 4.73
in 2003 to 2.7 in 2006.

A company’s current ratio measures its ability to pay its debts with its existing resources over a twelve-month
period. It is calculated by dividing current assets by current liabilities.

XIII. RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT AND RELATED EMPLOYMENT

R&D spending by fabrication and fabless companies grew substantially from 2003 to 2006,
rising from $14.8 billion to $19.9 billion – a 34 percent increase. Seventy-one percent of the
$19.9 billion in R&D expenditures reported in 2006 was made by fabricators.

Fabricator R&D spending as a group rose 28 percent from $11.1 billion to $14.1 billion for the
2003-2006 period. Most R&D spending by fabricators is attributable to the top five companies.
Their expenditures of $10.8 billion in 2006 accounted for 76 percent of the $14.1 billion in R&D
funding reported.

Of the $14.1 billion spent on four R&D functions in 2006 by fabricators, $6.6 billion (49
percent) was focused on product development; $3.9 billion was spent by just five large-size
companies. Spending on process development in 2006 accounted for about 28 percent of all
R&D spending.

R&D expenditures by fabless companies increased between 2003 and 2006, rising from $3.8
billion to $5.8 billion. Of the $5.8 billion in R&D investment made by fabless IC design
companies in 2006, $4.5 billion (79 percent) is attributable to the 10 largest fabless design firms.
Medium-size fabless companies allocated $1.4 billion to R&D in 2006. R&D expenditures by
small-size companies totaled $77 million, or one percent of R&D spending.

Of the $5.8 billion spent on four R&D functions in 2006 by fabless companies, $3.1 billion (55
percent) of it was focused on product development. Applied research also commanded
substantial R&D support, claiming 38 percent of all R&D funding in 2006.

Fabrication and fabless companies obtained 95 percent of R&D funding from parent company
and/or internal corporate resources in 2006. External funding from U.S. private entities totaled
2.3 percent of 2006 R&D funding, while funding from foreign sources represented 1.9 percent.
Federal and local government support for IC R&D in 2006 was less than one percent of R&D
spending.

There was substantial growth in R&D staffs employed by fabrication and fabless companies in
the 2003-2006 period; total employment increased from 83,000 to 95,000 positions. Fabricators
account for the majority of R&D employment, which increased 12 percent from 60,000 to more
than 67,000 positions from 2003 through 2006. R&D employment is concentrated in large-size
fabrication companies, which in 2006 accounted for 57,000 positions.

Fabless companies' R&D staffing levels rose from just over 23,000 to nearly 28,000 positions.
Most R&D employment in fabless firms occurs in large-size companies, which in 2006
employed nearly 22,000 people.

Non-U.S. countries were recipients of $3.1 billion or 16 percent of total R&D expenditures by
U.S. fabrication and fabless companies in 2006. This non-U.S. funding increased at an average
rate of 19 percent for the 2003-2006 period. Fabrication companies were responsible for $2.19
billion in non-U.S. R&D spending in 2006, 66 percent of the total; fabless company R&D
spending outside the United States totaled $880 million. Expenditures for R&D conducted at
non-U.S. locations in 2006 were concentrated in five countries: Israel ($728 million); India
($464 million); Germany ($386 million); France ($270 million); and Malaysia ($190 million).

XIV. CAPITAL EXPENDITURES

Capital spending by U.S. fabrication and fabless companies rose rapidly from 2003 to 2006,
climbing from $8.3 billion to $14.7 billion. Fabrication companies spending accounted for 89
percent of the total, increasing from $7.5 billion in 2003 to $13 billion in 2006. As a percent of
net sales, capital expenditures by fabricators during this period jumped from 12 percent in 2003
to 16 percent in 2006. Expenditures by large-size fabricators accounted for $12.3 billion of the
$13 billion total capital spending by fabricators in 2006.

Fabless companies devote a small portion of net sales to capital spending. For 2003-2006,
capital spending by fabless companies averaged 5.5 percent. Capital spending increased from

$817 million to $1.57 billion over the four-year period. Large-size fabless companies fueled the
majority of growth in capital spending, boosting expenditures from $700 million in 2003 to $1.3
billion in 2006.

For 2006, U.S. IC fabricators allocated $3.9 billion to non-U.S. capital investment, an increase of
$1.25 billion from 2003 levels. Non-U.S. locations receiving this capital investment from
fabricators included Ireland ($528 million), Singapore ($493 million), Malaysia ($348 million),
Philippines ($274 million), Japan ($223 million), China ($189 million), and Thailand ($123
million).

U.S. fabless companies increased capital spending in non-U.S. locations from $98 million in
2003 to $417 million in 2006. In 2006, the destinations for non-U.S. capital investment by
fabless companies included Japan ($123 million), Thailand ($96 million), India ($31 million),
China ($26 million), Singapore ($16 million), Korea ($4 million) and Taiwan ($3 million).

RECOMMENDATIONS
The Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and Security, in coordination with the Office
of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology & Logistics, will review and
report every two years on the following:
•

•

The state of domestic mask making capability, because there currently is minimal in-house
production capability and outsourcing to non-U.S. companies is projected to increase;

•

REPORT DATA AND ANALYSIS
I. CONVENTIONAL IC PRODUCTS – FABRICATION CAPABILITY
To assess the state of IC fabrication capability in the United States, OTE surveyed 49 fabrication
companies. Responses were requested on a facility basis, and data was provided for more than
90 facilities.12 Fabricators were categorized as small-, medium-, and large-size based on average
net sales from 2003 – 2006 (see Figure I-1).

Figure I-1: Total Number of Fabrication Companies
Manufacturing Conventional IC Products
Size

Number of Companies

Net Sales

Small

Less than $100 million

Medium

$100 million - $1 billion

Large

Greater than $1 billion

Total

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,
U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

Fabrication companies were asked whether they can manufacture ICs with circuit feature sizes
ranging from 10,000 nanometers (nm) to less than 32 nm, a range encompassing most major
industry technology nodes.13 In addition, OTE requested companies to provide detailed
information on the types of IC devices they are capable of producing. Survey participants also
specified the types of semiconductor materials they could employ in manufacturing IC products.
Besides standard silicon formulations (bulk silicon, silicon-on-insulator, and silicon germanium),
fabricators were queried on their ability to manufacture products using gallium arsenide, gallium
nitride, indium phosphate, and other non-standard materials. Finally, manufacturers were asked
to identify capability in terms of the size of semiconductor wafers (e.g. 2-, 4-, 6-, 8-, 12-inch
diameter) their fabrication plants can process. The larger the wafer size, the greater the number
of ICs produced from a single wafer processing cycle.14
12

Certain companies were permitted by OTE to consolidate facility responses.
Responses indicating an ability to manufacture at a given technology node, semiconductor chemistry, or device
type does not mean the company is actually producing product at this time.
14
IC design patterns are imaged onto silicon wafers coated with light-sensitive films and are etched. Once a wafer
is fully processed, IC die or “chips” are cut from the wafer, which can hold hundreds of copies of an IC product.
13

TECHNOLOGY NODE RANGE
A technology node, sometimes referred to as a “process node” or “process technology,” indicates
the smallest circuit feature size that can be drawn on a chip with a microlithography tool. Most
commonly measured in nanometers (nm), technology nodes are generally accepted
manufacturing benchmarks used by fabricators. Circuit feature dimensions dictate how much
circuitry can be placed in a given area on a microchip. As technology nodes step down, circuit
lines can be placed closer together, allowing for the manufacture of more complex devices and
enabling enhanced performance.

For the purposes of this study, technology nodes were grouped into four ranges: 10,000 nm –
1,000 nm; 1,000 nm – 250 nm; 250 nm – 65 nm; and less than 65 nm (see Figure I-2).

Figure I-2: IC Technology
Node Groups
Technology Node
Number of
(nanometers)
Companies
10,000- 6,000
19
6,000-3,000
24
3,000-1,500
28
1,500-1,000
28
1,000-800
800-500
500-350
350-250

18
24
24
21

250-180
180-130
130-90
90-65

16
17
15
10

65-45
45-32
32 or smaller

6
4
2

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce,
Office of Technology Evaluation,
U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication
Capability Survey, November 2008.

U.S.-based IC fabrication capability in 2006 was primarily concentrated across two technology
node ranges: 10,000 nm – 1,000 nm and 1,000 nm – 250 nm (see Figure I-3). Thirty-six
fabricators were identified as operating fabrication facilities in the United States that can

manufacture IC product in the 10,000 nm – 1,000 nm range. Most of this production capability
is owned by small- and medium-size companies. Six of the 10 large-size companies produce IC
product using this older IC manufacturing technology node.

Figure I-3: U.S.-Based Integrated Circuit Fabrication Capability
by Technology Node Range
50

Number of Companies

45
40

35
30
25

20
15
10

5
0
10,000 - 1,000 nm

1,000 - 250 nm

250 - 65 nm

Less than 65 nm

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

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,
U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

Similarly, survey data shows 37 companies have the capability to manufacture ICs at 1,000-250
nm technology node range. Again, the majority of this manufacturing capability is held by 15 of
the 21 small-size companies and 16 of the 18 medium-size IC fabricators. Six large-size
companies also operate such production facilities.

Far fewer companies operating in the United States, 22 of the 49 fabricators, are able to
manufacture IC products in the 250 nm – 65 nm range. Of those 22, seven companies can
fabricate product at 65 nm.

At the leading edge, the fabrication of commercial ICs at 65 nm began in 2005, and some
fabricators are now making product at 45 nm and 32 nm.15 Six IC companies in the United
15

Intel Demonstrates Industry's First 32 nm Chip and Next-Generation Nehalem Microprocessor Architecture, Intel
Corp., September 18, 2007. www.intel.com/archive/releases/20-70918corp_a.htm; IBM Alliance Partners 'Open for

States, 12 percent of fabrication companies, can manufacture conventional IC products with
circuit line widths below 65 nm. Of these six, three have limited production capability; their
facilities are not designed for sustained, high-volume manufacturing.

Based on company size, small- and medium-size companies have the vast majority of their
capability in two technology node ranges: 10,000 nm – 1,000 nm and 1,000 nm – 250 nm (see
Figure I-4). As stated previously, these are the most common technology node ranges for the
fabrication of conventional IC products. Large-size companies, however, fabricate more often
on the 250 nm – 65 nm range. Eighty percent of large-size companies manufacture IC products
in this range, as opposed to only 32 percent and 40 percent of small- and medium-size
companies, respectively.

Figure I-4: Percent of Companies Capable of Fabrication
Per Technology Node Range
Small

Medium

Large

(19 Companies)

(20 Companies)

(10 Companies)

10,000 nm – 1,000 nm

84%

70%

60%

1,000 nm – 250 nm

79%

80%

60%

250 nm – 65 nm

32%

40%

80%

Less than 65 nm

40%

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,
U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

Business' for 32 nm High-k/Metal Gate Designs, Semiconductor International, April 14, 2008.
www.semiconductor.net/article/CA6551303.html

These numbers indicate that large-size companies are at the forefront of leading-edge IC
fabrication in the United States. Four of the companies able to manufacture IC products at less
than 65 nm are large-size, whereas only one small- and medium-size company possess this
capability.

SEMICONDUCTOR MATERIALS
Most IC products manufactured are based on one of three standard silicon materials – bulk
silicon, silicon-on-insulator, and silicon germanium. Other types of non-standard silicon and
non-silicon materials are also used in manufacturing ICs and other semiconductor devices.
Materials such as gallium arsenide, gallium nitride, and indium phosphate are increasingly
employed in ICs used in products such as cell phones and network switches to enable higher
operating speed than what may be achieved with conventional silicon-based devices. These
materials also more readily support low-voltage electronic device architectures.

OTE surveyed manufacturers on their capabilities to produce IC products using 10 standard and
non-standard materials. Most fabrication capacity in the United States in 2006 was concentrated
in standard silicon technologies (see Figure I-5). Specifically, 35 of 49 companies can produce
IC product in bulk silicon. Of these, 10 companies are large-size, 15 are medium-size, and
another 10 are small-size. Nineteen companies reported being able to manufacture ICs using
silicon-on-insulator technology: six large-size, seven medium-size, and six small-size. Eleven IC
fabricators can make product using silicon germanium alloy. Five of these fabricators are largesize, four are medium-size, and two are small-size.

Figure I-5: U.S.-Based Fabrication Capability
- By Company Size

Material Type

Bulk Silicon
Silicon-on-Insulator

Gallium Arsenide

8
4

Silicon Germanium

4
2

Antimonides

Indium Phosphate
Silicon-on-Sapphire

2 2

Amorphous Silicon

2 1

Silicon Carbide

2 1
0

Gallium Nitride

Number of Companies
Small

Medium

Large

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,
U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

Beyond standard materials, OTE asked fabricators to identify their capabilities to manufacture IC
products using non-standard materials: silicon-on-sapphire (SOS), silicon carbide, gallium
arsenide, gallium nitride, indium phosphate, amorphous silicon, and compounds containing
antimonides.

Gallium arsenide IC products first received significant use in military, aerospace, and
supercomputer applications, but in recent years ICs built with this material have been widely
deployed in cell phones, networking equipment, telecommunications switches, and other devices.
Fifteen of 49 companies reported an ability to manufacture gallium arsenide IC products. One of
these 15 companies is large-size, eight are medium-size, and six are small-size.

IC products fashioned from gallium nitride offer performance advantages superior to those of
gallium arsenide, including faster speed and far better heat tolerance for power amplifiers,
microwave communications, and radar uses. Eleven companies reported capability to
manufacture gallium nitride ICs in the United States. Seven of these are small-size companies
and four are medium-size.

Antimonides encompass a class of semiconductor alloys including indium antimonide, gallium
antimonide, and aluminum antimonide. Three companies operating in the United States, two
medium-size and one small-size, reported a capability to manufacture products with antimonide
materials.

Indium phosphate is a compound semiconductor material that can achieve faster speeds in ICs
than what is attainable with common silicon transistors. Its advantages for some applications,
however, have been eclipsed by advances in silicon germanium.16 Eight companies stated they
are capable of fabricating IC products employing indium phosphate materials. Of these, five are
small-size and three are medium-size manufacturers.

IC products built using SOS offer performance advantages over standard silicon for high
frequency devices and superior thermal conductivity. The use of this material for ICs, however,
has been limited because of cost and process problems. Just four companies in the United States
report an ability to manufacture SOS product – two are medium-size and two are small-size.

Amorphous silicon has limited application in IC products, but is used in some devices such as
specialized silicon memory devices. Three companies operating in the United States, one
medium-size and the other two small-size, indicated they can fabricate with the material for IC
and sensor products.

The manufacturing base for IC products based on silicon carbide is similar to that of SOS.
Silicon carbide is used in high-voltage ICs, light-emitting diodes, Schottky diodes, high
temperature thyristors, and other products made using semiconductor device manufacturing
processes. There are just three companies that can make devices in the United States using this
material, which has excellent thermal conduction properties. Of these three fabricators, one is
medium-size and two are small-size companies.

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

Figure I-6 below summarizes the percent of fabrication capability per material type for the 49
U.S.-based fabrication companies.

Figure I-6: Fabrication Capability – by Material Type
(As a Percent of 49 Total Fabrication Companies)
Standard Silicon Materials
Bulk Silicon

71 %

Silicon on Insulator

39 %

Silicon Germanium

22 %
Non-Standard Materials

Gallium Arsenide

31 %

Gallium Nitride

22 %

Indium Phosphate

16 %

Antimonides

16 %

Silicon Sapphire

Silicon Carbide

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,
U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

Several patterns emerge in summarizing fabrication capabilities by material types (see Figure I7). Large-size companies fabricate nearly exclusively on the three most common material types:
bulk silicon, silicon-on-insulator, and silicon germanium. The percent of large-size companies
fabricating with these material types is much greater than for small- and medium-size companies.
Only 53 percent of small-size companies and 75 percent of medium-size companies fabricate IC
bulk silicon, whereas all large-size companies do so.

Figure I-7: Percent of U.S.-Based Companies
Capable of Fabricating by Material Type
Small
(19 Companies)

Medium
(20 Companies)

Large
(10 Companies)

Standard Silicon Materials
Bulk Silicon

53%

75%

100%

Silicon-on-Insulator

32%

35%

60%

Silicon Germanium

11%

20%

50%

Non-Standard Materials
Silicon-on-Sapphire

11%

10%

Gallium Nitride

37%

20%

Silicon Carbide

11%

Gallium Arsenide

32%

40%

10%

Indium Phosphate

26%

15%

Antimonides

32%

10%

Amorphous Silicon

11%

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,
U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

Survey findings highlight that many small- and medium-size companies often fabricate across a
more diverse range of material types compared to larger manufacturers. Frequently, the reason
for this is the opportunity to exploit niche markets and to manufacture product lines where sales
volumes are not sufficiently high to interest larger manufacturers. In fact, the large-size
companies surveyed reported having capability to fabricate IC products using only the nonstandard material gallium arsenide.

FABRICATION CAPABILITY BY WAFER SIZE
The foundation upon which IC devices are fabricated are circular wafers made of silicon, gallium
arsenide, or other materials. Silicon is the most widely used wafer material. Wafers come in a
range of sizes, including 2-, 3-, 4-, 6-, 8-, and 12-inch diameter. The IC industry has steadily
migrated to larger diameter wafers because they offer significant improvements in economies-ofscale in manufacturing. The larger the diameter of a wafer, the larger the area there is on which
to pattern IC die and the greater the number of microchips that can be produced in a single
processing cycle.

The most common wafer size fabrication capability reported is 6-inch wafers, followed by 8-inch
and then 4-inch (See Figure I-8). Thirty-five of 49 fabrication companies can utilize a 6-inch
wafer, 71 percent of the total. Twelve-inch wafer fabrication capability is limited; only eight
companies are able to manufacture on the largest wafer diameter now in use, 16 percent of total
fabrication companies.

Figure I-8: U.S.-Based Fabrication Capability
- by Wafer Size
40

Number of Companies

35
30

25
25

21
20

15
15

10
5
0

2 or 3 Inch

4 Inch

6 Inch

8 Inch

12 Inch

Wafer Size
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,
U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

There appears to be correlation between company size as measured in net sales and wafer-size
capability of the production facilities they operate. Large-size company production capacity is
concentrated in 8- and 12-inch wafer production, although six companies operate 6-inch
fabrication lines (see Figure I-9). Similarly, 65 percent of medium-size companies operate 6and 8-inch production capacity; the remaining 35 percent being facilities using 2-, 3-, and 4-inch
wafers. For 2-, 3-, and 4-inch wafers, more small-size companies have fabrication capability
than medium- and large-size companies.

The fact that large-size fabricators are virtually the only companies operating 12-inch production
lines can be attributed to the high costs associated with building and operating this kind of
manufacturing facility – and the need for a steady flow of high-volume orders to sustain them

economically. It makes economic sense for small- and medium-size firms to use smaller wafer
sizes, because they use smaller production runs of ICs to meet their customers’ needs.

Figure I-9: U.S.-Based Fabrication Capability
- by Wafer and Company
16

Number of Companies

12
12
10

11
9

4
2

2 or 3 Inch

4 Inch

6 Inch

8 Inch

12 Inch

Wafer Size
Small

Medium

Large

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,
U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

DEVICE FABRICATION CAPABILITIES
The OTE survey requested information on the types of IC components companies are capable of
manufacturing. OTE queried companies on four groups of IC product: application specific
integrated circuits (ASICs), gate arrays, memory, and other IC products (see Figure I-10).

Figure I-10: U.S.-Based Device Manufacturing
- by Company Size
Custom ASICs
Mixed Signal Technologies
6

Standard Cell ASICs

MMIC Technologies

Device Type

Structured ASICs

SRAM

MPGA

3
3

FPGA

DRAM

2 1

8
4

One Time EPGA

Display Electronics

5
4

2
4

0
Medium

Digital Signal Processors

Small

Nonvolatile Memory

Microprocessors/Coprocessors

Large

Number of Companies

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,
U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

ASIC chips are designed to perform specific instructions and tasks and can provide performance
advantages over general purpose microprocessors. Manufacturers were asked whether they
could make any of four types of ASIC products: structured ASICs, standard cell ASICs, custom
ASICs, and microprocessors/coprocessors.17

Seventeen manufacturers can make structured ASIC products, including four large-size
companies, eight medium-size, and five small-size. For standard cell ASICs, 19 companies said
they csn fabricate such products – four large-size, nine medium-size, and six small-size firms.
Thirty-three companies reported an ability to produce custom ASICs – six large-size, 14
medium-size, and 13 small-size. Nineteen companies stated that they can manufacture
microprocessors and coprocessors – five of them large-size, eight medium-size, and six smallsize.

Gate arrays are IC devices containing cells with rows of transistors and resistors that are not
connected. The appropriate interconnections are made using software to form a custom-designed
working device. For the purpose of this report, the gate arrays group consists of field
17

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

programmable gate arrays (FPGAs), one-time electronically programmable gate arrays (EPGAs),
and mask programmable gate arrays (MPGAs). Fifteen companies reported a capability to
manufacture MPGAs – two large-size, eight medium-size, and five small-size. Nine
manufacturers were able to produce one-time EPGAs - four large-size, two medium-size, and
three small-size. Slightly fewer companies can manufacture FPGAS: one large-size, four
medium-size, and three small-size fabricators.

Manufacturers provided information on their ability to make three forms of memory ICs:
dynamic random access memory (DRAM), static random access memory (SRAM), and
nonvolatile memory. These are widely used in consumer, industrial, and defense electronic
systems. Six companies reported an ability to fabricate DRAM in the United States – three
large-size companies, one medium-size, and two small-size. Almost three times as many
companies, 16 in total, can make SRAM in the United States: four large-size, seven mediumsize, and six small-size.

Seventeen companies said they possess domestic manufacturing capability to produce
nonvolatile memory products – six large-size, eight medium-size, and four small-size fabricators.
Specifically, manufacturers were queried on 11 different categories of nonvolatile memory
products: electronically erasable read-only memory (EEPROM), erasable read-only memory
(EPROM), flash memory, ferro-electric random access memory (FeRAM), micro electromechanical systems memory (MEMS), magneto-resistive random access memory (MRAM),
polymer memory, one-time programmable memory (XPM), phase change memory, zero
capacitor random access memory (ZRAM), and other memory types (see Figure I-11).

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

EEPROM

Memory Device Type

6
4
2

Flash

EPROM

1
1
1
1
1

Other
MEMS
MRAM
Phase Change
FeRAM

3
2
1

ZRAM
XPM
Polymer
0

Number of Companies
Small

Medium

Large

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,
U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

Eleven companies are able to manufacture EEPROMs and six can produce EPROMs. Seven
companies reported an ability to make flash memory. Three companies stated they can fabricate
MEMS memory product and two can make MRAM product. Only one company is able to
produce phase change memory and only one can manufacture FeRAM memory. No company
reported an ability to produce ZRAM, XPM, or polymer non-volatile memory in the United
States.

Fabricators were also asked about their ability to produce digital signal processors,
micromonolithic integrated circuits (MMICs), mixed signal analog-digital ICs, and visual display
IC devices (see Figure I-10). Digital signal processors can be fabricated by 14 manufacturers:
four large-size companies, six medium-size companies, and four small-size companies.

Seventeen companies posted capabilities to manufacture MMICs in the United States – eight
medium-size companies and nine small-size. For mixed-signal analog-digital ICs, 32 companies
stated they can produce the devices – nine large-size, 14 medium-size, and nine small-size
companies. In the area of digital display ICs, fabrication capability was reported by two largesize, five medium-size, and three small-size companies.

II. RADIATION RESISTANT IC PRODUCTS – FABRICATION CAPABILITY
To assess the state of radiation resistant IC manufacturing capability in the United States, OTE
surveyed 49 companies on their ability to make radiation tolerant, radiation hardened, neutron
hardened, and single-event-effects resistant IC products.18 Fabrication companies were asked
whether they could manufacture radiation resistant ICs with circuit feature sizes ranging from
10,000 nanometers (nm) to 32 nm.19

Survey participants were also asked to specify the types of semiconductor materials they could
employ in manufacturing radiation resistant IC products. These materials were divided into
standard silicon and non-standard groups. The former consists of bulk silicon, silicon-oninsulator, and silicon germanium materials. The non-standard materials included in the survey
were silicon-on-sapphire, silicon carbide, gallium nitride, gallium arsenide, indium phosphate,
antimonides, and amorphous silicon. Finally, fabrication companies were asked to identify these
capabilities in relation to the size of semiconductor wafers (2-, 4-, 6-, 8-, and 12-inch) used in
fabricating IC products.20

IC fabricators were categorized as small-, medium-, and large-size based on average net
corporate sales from 2003-2006 (see Figure II-1). Of the 49 fabrication companies surveyed, 26
were capable of manufacturing radiation resistant products in 2006, 53 percent of the total. Eight
of these companies were small-size, 12 were medium-size, and six were large-size.

A discussion of conventional fabrication capabilities is in Chapter I.
Responses indicating an ability to manufacture at a given technology node, semiconductor chemistry, or device
type does not mean the company is actually producing product at this time.
20
IC design patterns are imaged onto silicon wafers coated with light-sensitive films (resist) and are etched. Once a
wafer is fully processed, IC die or “chips” are cut from the wafer, which can hold hundreds of copies of an IC
product.
19

Figure II-1: Total Number of Fabrication Companies
Manufacturing Radiation Resistant IC Products
Size

Number of Companies

Net Sales

Small

Less than $100 million

Medium

$100 million - $1 billion

Large

Greater than $1 billion

Total

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,
U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

Fabrication companies were asked to identify the types of radiation resistant products they can
produce (see Figure II-2 and II-3). The greatest capability reported was for single-event effects
resistant IC products, which are designed to continue functioning after a single energetic particle
strikes the device. Sixteen out of 26 companies manufacture these products, a third of all
fabrication companies.

Figure II-2: U.S.-Based Companies With Radiation
Resistant Fabrication Capability in 2006
18
16
Number of Companies

14
12
12
10
8
8
6
4
2
0
Single Event
Effects Resistant

Radiation
Tolerant

Radiation
Hardened

Neutron
Hardened

Capability
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,
U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

Radiation tolerant products have a limited capacity to resist radiation damage that would
otherwise disable the IC device.21 Fifteen companies manufacture radiation tolerant products,
58 percent of all fabrication companies with radiation resistant capabilities. Radiation hardened
IC products are designed to withstand even higher doses of radiation than radiation tolerant
products.22 Twelve fabrication companies manufacture these types of IC products, 46 percent of
radiation resistant-capable fabrication companies.

Finally, only eight companies manufacture neutron hardened products. These chips are designed
to withstand the effects of high speed neutrons, gamma rays, and electromagnetic pulses that
accompany a nuclear weapons detonation.

Number of Companies

Figure II-3: U.S.-Based Companies With Radiation
Resistant Fabrication Capability - by Company Size
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0

8
7

6
5
4
3
2
1

Single Event
Effects
Resistant

Radiation
Tolerant

Radiation
Hardened

Neutron
Hardened

Capability
Small

Medium

Large

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,
U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

Radiation tolerant refers to parts that can withstand a total dose failure of greater than 100 kilorad (krad), but less
than 300 krad. A krad equals 1,000 rad. One rad = 0.01 joules/kilogram; 1 krad = 10J/kg.
22
Radiation hardened refers to parts that can withstand a total dose failure of greater than 300 krad. The
International Traffic in Arms (ITAR) regulations have a baseline of 500 krad for radiation hardened products.

PREVIOUS RADIATION RESISTANT MANUFACTURING EXPERIENCE
There are a number of fabrication companies that have previous experience with, but do not
currently engage in the manufacture of radiation resistant ICs. In total, nine fabrication
companies, 18 percent of the total, previously manufactured radiation resistant ICs but no longer
did so as of 2006. Of these, four companies were large-size, three medium-size, and two smallsize. This previous experience is spread relatively evenly amongst the four radiation resistant
product types (see Figure II-4 and II-5).

Number of Companies

Figure II-4: U.S.-Based Companies With Previous
Fabrication Radiation Resistant Experience
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0

7
6

Radiation
Tolerant

Radiation
Hardened

Single Event
Effects Resistant

Neutron
Hardened

Capability
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,
U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

Figure II-5: U.S.-Based Companies With Previous
Fabrication Radiation Resistant Experience
- by Company Size
Number of Companies

5
4
3

3
2

2
1

Radiation
Hardened

Neutron
Hardened

1
0
Single Event
Effects
Resistant

Radiation
Tolerant

Capability
Small

Medium

Large

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,
U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

WILLINGNESS TO MANUFACTURE FOR THE U.S. GOVERNMENT
Fabrication companies were also asked to indicate whether or not they would be willing to
manufacture radiation resistant ICs for the U.S. Government. Twenty-eight fabrication
companies indicated a willingness to do so (see Figure II-6 and II-7). Of those responding
favorably, 13 do not currently engage in the manufacture of radiation resistant IC products.
There was a relatively even spread of interest by company size in designing these products for
the U.S. Government.

Figure II-6: Interest in Fabricating Radiation Resistant
Products for the U.S. Government
50

Number of Companies

45
40
35
30

15
10
5
0
Single Event
Effects Resistant

Radiation
Tolerant

Radiation
Hardened

Neutron
Hardened

Capability
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,
U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

Figure II-7: Interest in Fabricating Radiation Resistant
Products for the U.S. Government - By Company Size

Number of Companies

25
20
15

12
10

10
5

9
6

7
3

0
Single Event
Effects Resistant

Radiation Tolerant

Radiation
Hardened

Neutron Hardened

Capability
Small

Medium

Large

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,
U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

For the purpose of this study, technology nodes were grouped into four ranges: 10,000 nm –
1,000 nm; 1,000 nm – 250 nm; 250 nm – 65 nm; and less than 65 nm. Fabrication at less than 65
nm is a relatively recent practice in the industry.

Nineteen of the 26 companies capable of fabricating radiation resistant products, 73 percent,
could manufacture in the 1,000 nm – 250 nm range in 2006 (see figure II-8). There is slightly
less manufacturing capability at the 250 nm – 65 nm and 10,000 nm – 1,000 nm ranges, with 16
and 14 companies capable of utilizing these technology node ranges, respectively.

Figure II-8: U.S.-Based Integrated Circuit Radiation Resistant
Fabrication Capability - by Technology Node Range
50
45

Number of Companies

40
35
30
25

20
15

5
0
10,000 - 1,000 nm

1,000 - 250 nm

250 - 65 nm

Less than 65 nm

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

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,
U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

Few companies manufacture radiation resistant products at the leading edge. Only four
companies, 8 percent of total fabrication companies, are capable of manufacturing radiation
resistant products at less than 65 nm. Three of these companies are not capable of high volume
production of ICs at less than 65 nm because of limitations in their fabrication facilities.

Based on company size, small- and medium-size companies are able to manufacture radiation
resistant ICs almost exclusively in the 10,000nm – 1,000nm, 1,000nm – 250nm, and 250nm –
65nm technology node ranges (see Figure II-9). These companies are commonly capable of
manufacturing radiation resistant ICs in the 1,000 nm – 250 nm range, with slightly fewer
companies able to fabricate in the other two ranges. Only one medium-size company can
manufacture radiation resistant products at less than 65 nm.

Large-size companies possess capabilities across all technology node ranges, with the capability
to manufacture in the 250 nm – 65 nm range being the most common. Three of the four
companies that can fabricate radiation resistant ICs at less than 65 nm are large-size.

Figure II-9: Percent of Companies Capable of Radiation
Resistant Fabrication Per Technology Node Range
Small

Medium

Large

(8 Companies)

(12 Companies)

(6 Companies)

10,000 nm – 1,000 nm

63%

58%

33%

1,000 nm – 250 nm

88%

75%

50%

250 nm – 65 nm

63%

58%

67%

Less than 65 nm

50%

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,
U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

SEMICONDUCTOR MATERIALS
Most IC products are based on one of three silicon materials – bulk silicon, silicon-on-insulator,
silicon germanium. Other types of non-standard materials are also used in manufacturing ICs
and other semiconductor devices. Materials such as gallium arsenide, gallium nitride, and
indium phosphate are increasingly employed in ICs used in products such as cell phones,
network switches to enable higher operating speeds than what may be achieved with
conventional silicon-based devices. These materials also more readily support low-voltage
electronic device architectures.

As with conventional products, bulk silicon was the most commonly cited material for radiation
resistant IC products in 2006 (see Figure II-10). Twenty-one companies, or 81 percent of
radiation resistant-capable fabricators, can utilize bulk silicon. This includes all six large-size
companies. In contrast, 11 fabricators reported being able to manufacture ICs using silicon-oninsulator (SOI) technology. Only five companies can manufacture radiation resistant ICs using
silicon germanium.

Figure II-10: Scope of U.S.-Based Radiation
Resistant Fabrication Capability
21

Bulk Silicon

Silicon-on-Insulator

Material Type

Gallium Nitride
Gallium Arsenide

Silicon Germanium

Indium Phosphate

Silicon-on-Sapphire

4
3

Antimonides
Silicon Carbide

Amorphous Silicon

2
0

Number of Companies
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,
U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

In addition, there is capability in the United States to manufacture radiation resistant IC devices
using non-standard IC materials (see figure II-11). These materials offer various performance
advantages over standard silicon materials, with some materials offering inherent resistance to
radiation. However, they often require specialized manufacturing processes and present higher
production costs.

Figure II-11: Fabrication Capability – by Material Type
(As a Percent of 26 Fabrication Companies
Manufacturing Radiation Resistant Products)

Standard Silicon Materials
Bulk Silicon

81%

Silicon on Insulator

42%

Silicon Germanium

19%

Non-Standard Materials
Gallium Nitride

27%

Gallium Arsenide

19%

Indium Phosphate

15%

Silicon Sapphire

15%

Antimonides

12%

Silicon Carbide

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,
U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

Gallium nitride is the most commonly cited non-standard material type used in radiation resistant
ICs. Seven of the 26 companies, 27 percent of all radiation resistant-capable fabricators, can
manufacture gallium nitride radiation resistant IC products. There are fewer fabricators capable
of utilizing the other non-standard material types (see Figures II-12 and II-13). Survey data
showed no large-size companies are able to manufacture radiation resistant products using nonstandard material types.

Figure II-12: Scope of U.S.-Based Radiation Resistant
Fabrication Capability - by Company Size

Material Type

Bulk Silicon
Silicon-on-Insulator

Gallium Nitride

Silicon Germanium

4
3
2

Gallium Arsenide

Silicon-on-Sapphire

Indium Phosphate

Antimonides

1 1

Amorphous Silicon

1 1

Silicon Carbide
0

Number of Companies

Small

Medium

Large

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,
U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

Figure II-13: Percent of U.S.-Based Companies Capable of
Fabricating Radiation Resistant Products - by Material Type
Small
(19 Companies)

Medium
(20 Companies)

Large
(10 Companies)

Standard Silicon Materials
Bulk Silicon

32%

45%

60%

Silicon-on-Insulator

21%

20%

30%

10%

20%

Silicon Germanium

Non-Standard Materials
Silicon-on-Sapphire

11%

10%

Gallium Nitride

21%

15%

Silicon Carbide

Gallium Arsenide

11%

15%

Indium Phosphate

11%

10%

Antimonides

11%

Amorphous Silicon

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,
U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

FABRICATION CAPABILITY BY WAFER SIZE
Only three companies reported that they can manufacture radiation resistant products on 12-inch
wafers (the largest wafer size), 11.5 percent of the 26 radiation resistant-capable fabrication
companies surveyed. There is broader capability across the 26 fabrication companies that
manufacture radiation resistant products at smaller wafer diameters. Twelve companies can
operate production lines using 8-inch wafers and 18 firms report operating 6-inch wafer
facilities. Fourteen companies can manufacture using 4-inch facilities, and eight companies said
they use plants processing 2- or 3-inch wafers for producing radiation resistant IC products.

Figure II-14: U.S.-Based Radiation Resistant
Fabrication Capability - by Wafer Size
20
18
18
Number of Companies

16
14
14
12
12
10
8
8
6
4

2
0
2 or 3 Inch

4 Inch

6 Inch

8 Inch

12 Inch

Wafer Size
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,
U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

Figure II-15: U.S.-Based Radiation Resistant Fabrication
Capability - by Wafer and Company Size
7
6

Number of Companies

6
5
4

4
3
3
2

2
1
0
2 or 3 Inch

4 Inch

6 Inch

8 Inch

12 Inch

Wafer Size
Small

Medium

Large

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,
U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

DEVICE FABRICATION CAPABILITIES
The OTE survey requested fabrication companies to identify their capability to manufacture
various radiation resistant devices. OTE queried companies on four groups of IC products:
application specific integrated circuits (ASICs), gate arrays, memory, and other IC products (see
figure II-16).

Device Type

Figure II-16: U.S.-Based Radiation Resistant
Fabrication Capability - by Device Type
21

Custom ASICs
Mixed Signal Technologies
Standard ASICs
Structured ASICs
Processors
MMIC
SRAM
Digital Signal Processors
MPGA
Nonvolatile Memory
FPGA
One-Time EPGA
DRAM
Display Electronics

18
13
12
11
11
10
9
8
8
7
4
2
2
0

Number of Companies
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,
U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

Manufacturers were asked whether they could make any of four types of ASIC products:
structured ASICs, standard ASICs, custom ASICs, and microprocessors/coprocessors. The
greatest capability is in custom ASICS, which 21 companies reported being able to manufacture.
The second greatest capability is in standard ASICs, with 13 companies reporting capability.
Twelve companies can manufacture radiation resistant structured ASICs, while 11 are able to
manufacture microprocessors/coprocessors.

The gate arrays group consists of field programmable gate arrays (FPGAs), one-time
electronically programmable gate arrays (EPGAs), and mask programmable gate arrays
(MPGAs). MPGAs are the most common, with 16 percent of all fabrication companies able to
manufacture radiation resistant versions of these devices. There are four companies that can
make radiation resistant one-time EPGAs, and seven that can make radiation resistant FPGAs.

With regard to radiation resistant memory ICs, manufacturers provided information on their
ability to make three forms of memory ICs: dynamic random access memory (DRAM), static
random access memory (SRAM), and nonvolatile memory. Two companies reported an ability

to fabricate DRAM in 2006. Ten companies are able to manufacture radiation resistant SRAM,
while eight companies can manufacture nonvolatile memory.

For the remaining IC products, the number of fabricators capable of producing radiation resistant
products are as follows:
•
•
•
•
•

Digital signal processors – 9
Micromonolithic integrated circuits (MMICs) – 11
Mixed signal analog-digital ICs - 18
Anti-tamper technology - 4
Infrared focal plane arrays – 9

There is little correlation between company size and their fabrication of particular radiation
resistant devices. Small-, medium-, and large-size fabrication companies have diverse
capabilities across all the device types. Generally, large-size companies are capable of
manufacturing a wider range of devices, albeit on a narrower band of material types. Small- and
medium-size companies are more likely to specialize in one or two device types on a wider
spectrum of material types (see Figure II-17).

Figure II-17: U.S.-Based Radiation Resistant
Fabrication Capability - by Device Type
6

Custom ASICs

Standard ASICs

Structured ASICs

Device Type

MPGA

1
5

FPGA

One-Time EPGA

1 1

DRAM

1 1

Display Electronics
0

Large

Nonvolatile Memory

Medium

3
6

Digital Signal Processors

2
2
5

SRAM

7
6

MMIC

Processors

Small

Mixed Signal Technologies

Number of Companies

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,
U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

III. CONVENTIONAL PRODUCTS – DESIGN CAPABILITY OF FABRICATION
COMPANIES
In addition to their capability to manufacture integrated circuit (IC) products, most fabrication
companies operating in the United States also have capability to design IC components. To
understand the extent of this design capability relative to fabless firms, OTE asked fabrication
companies to describe their design capabilities. The 49 IC fabrication companies that
participated in the survey were divided by size into three groups based on average net sales for
2003-2006 (see Figure III-1).

Figure III-1: Total Number of Fabrication Companies
Designing Conventional IC Products
Size

Number of Companies

Net Sales

Small

Less than $100 million

Medium

$100 million - $1 billion

Large

Greater than $1 billion

Total

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,
U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

OTE asked fabrication companies to identify their capability to develop ICs with circuit feature
sizes ranging from 10,000 nanometers (nm) to less than 32 nm.23 Companies were also
requested to specify the kinds of IC products they can design, as well as the specific types of
semiconductor materials their designs can employ. This included their ability to employ
standard silicon formulations (bulk silicon, silicon-on-insulator, and silicon germanium), as well
as non-standard materials such as gallium arsenide, gallium nitride, indium phosphate, and other
semiconducting materials.

Responses indicating an ability to manufacture at a given technology node, semiconductor chemistry, or device
type does not mean the company is actually producing product at this time corresponding to their responses.

TECHNOLOGY NODE RANGE
The technical design abilities of the 49 fabrication companies vary considerably, with some able
to develop IC products for a broad range of physical requirements while other firms have
distinctly narrower capabilities. As with manufacturing capability, fabrication companies can
primarily design products for the 1,000 nm – 250 nm technology node ranges (see Figure III2).24 Fewer fabrication companies design products for less than 65 nm, only 10 out of 49.

Figure III-2: U.S.-Based Fabrication Company Design
Capability - by Technology Node Range
40

36
Number of Companies

30
25
20
15

10
10
5
0
10,000 - 1,000 nm

1,000 - 250 nm

250 - 65 nm

Less than 65 nm

Technology Node
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,
U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

When company size is factored into the ability of fabrication companies to design by technology
node, some differences appear. At least 60 percent of small-, medium-, and large-size companies
can design IC products over the 10,000 nm – 1,000 nm and 1,000 nm – 250 nm ranges (see
Figure III-3). However, there is a substantial drop in the number of small- and medium-size
companies that can design in the 250 – 65nm and less than 65nm ranges. Six large-size
companies design products at less than 65 nm, while only two small- and two medium-size
companies do the same.

For the purposes of this study, technology nodes were grouped into four ranges: 10,000 nm – 1,000 nm; 1,000 nm
– 250 nm; 250 nm – 65 nm; and less than 65 nm.

Figure III-3: Percent of Fabrication Companies Capable of
Design Per Technology Node Range
Small

Medium

Large

(19 Companies)

(20 Companies)

(10 Companies)

10,000 nm – 1,000 nm

63%

70%

60%

1,000 nm – 250 nm

63%

90%

60%

250 nm – 65 nm

37%

80%

90%

Less than 65 nm

11%

10%

60%

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,
U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

SEMICONDUCTOR MATERIALS
Fabrication companies were asked to state their ability to design IC products that rely not only on
the standard silicon materials (bulk silicon, silicon-on-insulator, and silicon germanium), but also
on a range of non-standard materials: gallium arsenide, silicon-on-sapphire, gallium nitride,
antimonides, indium phosphate, silicon carbide, and amorphous silicon. In all, fabrication
companies described their capabilities to design IC devices utilizing 10 different material types.

Similar to fabless companies, the majority of fabrication companies, 76 percent, design IC
products with bulk silicon (Figure III-4). Fabrication companies are more likely to design with
the other standard silicon materials than design-only companies. Fifty-three percent of
fabrication companies design with silicon-on-insulator materials, whereas only 12 percent of
fabless companies do the same. This also holds true for silicon germanium where 35 percent of
fabrication companies reported capability while only 18 percent of design-only companies can
design products using this material.

With regard to non-standard materials, 13 fabrication companies are able to design IC devices
based on gallium arsenide and 11 can design ICs employing gallium nitride. Design capability of
the fabrication companies declines steadily for the other non-standard materials.

Figure III-4: Scope of U.S.-Based Conventional
Design Capability - Fabrication Companies
37

Bulk Silicon

Silicon-on-Insulator

Material Type

Silicon Germanium

Gallium Arsenide

Gallium Nitride

Indium Phosphate

Silicon Carbide
Amorphous Silicon

Antimonides

Silicon-on-Sapphire

3
0

Number of Companies
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,
U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

The design capabilities of IC fabricators vary by size. Large-size fabrication companies, for
example, focus their design efforts on products employing the four most common IC materials:
bulk silicon, silicon-on-insulator, silicon germanium, and gallium arsenide (see Figure III-5).
The design capabilities of the small- and medium-size companies are more diverse, covering the
three most-commonly utilized materials as well as the full range of non-standard materials.

Figure III-5: Scope of U.S.-Based Fabrication Company Design
Capability - by Company Size

Silicon Germ anium

Indium Phosphate

Silicon Carbide
Am orphous Silicon

2
4

Gallium Nitride

Gallium Arsenide

Silicon-on-Insulator

Material Type

Bulk Silicon

2 1
3

Antim onides

2 1

Silicon-on-Sapphire

Number of Companies

Small

Medium

Large

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,
U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

DEVICE DESIGN CAPABILITY
OTE asked fabrication companies to identify the types of IC components they can design in the
United States. Specific information was requested on four product groups: application specific
integrated circuits (ASICs), gate arrays, memory, and other IC products (see Figure III-6).

Figure III-6: U.S.-Based Device Design Capability
- Fabrication Companies
35
35

Mixed Signal Technologies
Custom ASICs

Standard Cell ASICs

19
19

Structured ASICs

Device Type

Microprocessors/Coprocessors

17
17
16

SRAM
Digital Signal Processors
Nonvolatile Memory

14
13
13
12

MMIC Technologies
One Time EPGA
FPGA
MPGA

Display Electronics

DRAM

Number of Companies
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,
U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

Survey participants reported capability to design four types of ASIC products: structured ASICs,
standard ASICs, custom ASICs, and microprocessors/coprocessors.25 Significant differences in
fabricators’ design abilities can be seen across these product categories. The largest reported
capability is for custom ASICs where 35 fabrication companies (71 percent) possess the
manufacturing capability. Twenty-four companies reported capability for standard ASICs, while
19 firms can design structured ASICs and 19 can design microprocessors/coprocessors.
Fabrication companies also reported capability to design a variety of gate array devices.26 For
the purposes of this report, the gate arrays group consists of field programmable gate arrays
(FPGAs), one-time electronically programmable gate arrays (EPGAs), and mask programmable
gate arrays (MPGAs). Thirteen fabrication companies are capable of designing FPGAs and onetime EPGAs, 27 percent of the total, while twelve companies, or 24 percent, design can MPGAs.

ASIC chips are designed to perform specific instructions and tasks, and can provide performance advantages over
general purpose microprocessors.
26
Gate arrays are IC devices containing cells with rows of transistors and resistors that are not connected. The
appropriate interconnections are made using software to form a custom-designed working device.

With regard to memory, IC fabrication companies indicated their capability to design three forms
of memory: dynamic random access memory (DRAM), static random access memory (SRAM),
and nonvolatile memory.27 SRAM is the most commonly designed memory device, with 17
fabrication companies doing so. Sixteen fabrication companies design nonvolatile memory,
nearly a third of the total companies. Only four out of 49 fabrication companies indicated an
ability to design DRAM products.

IC fabrication companies were asked to further delineate their nonvolatile memory product
capabilities in 11 different categories: electronically erasable read-only memory (EEPROM),
erasable read-only memory (EPROM), flash memory, ferro-electric random access memory
(FeRAM), micro electro-mechanical systems memory (MEMS), magneto-resistive random
access memory (MRAM), polymer memory, one-time programmable memory (XPM), zero
capacitor random access memory (ZRAM), phase change memory, and other memory types (see
Figure III-7).

12
10

1
Phase
Change

MEMS

Number of Companies

Figure III-7: U.S.-Based Capability to Design Nonvolatile Memory
Products - Fabrication Companies
13
12

FeRAM

ZRAM

XPM

Polymer

MRAM

EPROM

Other

Flash

EEPROM

Memory Device Type
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,
U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

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

Of the 11 nonvolatile memory categories, only EEPROM, flash, other, EPROM, and MRAM
memory can be developed by multiple fabrication companies. Only one company can design
MEMS and phase change products, respectively. No fabrication company reported an ability to
design polymer, XPM, ZRAM, or FeRAM nonvolatile memory.

For the remaining device types, there is a variety of design capability present in the fabrication
companies. This ranges from 35 firms that can design mixed signal technologies, to 19 firms
capable of designing digital signal processors, to seven firms that can design display electronics.

IV. RADIATION RESISTANT IC PRODUCTS – DESIGN CAPABILITY OF
FABRICATION COMPANIES
OTE surveyed 49 integrated circuit (IC) fabrication companies with regard to their ability to
design four types of radiation resistant products: single-event effects resistant, radiation tolerant,
radiation hardened, and neutron hardened. Fabrication firms were asked to state their ability to
design radiation resistant ICs with circuit feature sizes ranging from 10,000 nanometers (nm) to
32 nm.28

Of the 49 fabrication companies surveyed, 31 indicated an ability to design some form of
radiation resistant IC product (Figure IV-1). Eighty percent of all large-size companies surveyed
can design radiation resistant ICs and 75 percent of all medium-size companies can do the same.
Only 42 percent of all small-size firms reported this capability.

Figure IV-1: Total Number of Fabrication Companies
Designing Radiation Resistant IC Products
Size

Number of Companies

Net Sales

Small

Less than $100 million

Medium

$100 million - $1 billion

Large

Greater than $1 billion

Total

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,
U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

Eighteen fabricators, 58 percent of companies capable of designing radiation resistant ICs,
indicated that in 2006 they were able to design single-event effect resistant products (see Figure
IV-2 and IV-3). These ICs can continue operating after being disrupted by a single energetic
particle that would cause a conventional device to fail.

Responses indicating an ability to design at a given technology node, semiconductor chemistry, or device type
does not mean the company is actually performing such work at this time.

Figure IV-2: U.S.-Based Fabrication Companies With
Radiation Resistant Design Capability in 2006
20

Number of Companies

18
16

14
12

10
8
6
4
2
0
Single Event
Effects Resistant

Radiation
Tolerant

Radiation
Hardened

Neutron
Hardened

Capability
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,
U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

Figure IV-3: U.S.-Based Fabrication Companies With
Radiation Resistant Design Capability in 2006
- by Company Size
Number of Companies

8
7
6

7
6
5

1
0
Single Event
Effects
Resistant

Radiation
Tolerant

Radiation
Hardened

Neutron
Hardened

Capability
Small

Medium

Large

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,
U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

Fourteen fabrication companies, 45 percent of all radiation resistant-capable fabrication firms,
said they can design radiation tolerant products. Radiation tolerant products have a limited

capacity to resist radiation that would otherwise disable an IC device.29 Ten fabrication
companies, 32 percent of radiation resistant-capable fabrication firms, are able to design
radiation hardened IC products, which can withstand higher doses of radiation relative to
radiation tolerant products.

Finally, nine fabrication companies, 29 percent of radiation resistant-capable fabrication firms,
can design neutron-hardened IC products. Neutron-hardened ICs are able to withstand neutron
radiation damage caused by gamma rays and electromagnetic pulses, such as those associated
with a nuclear weapon detonation.

PREVIOUS RADIATION RESISTANT DESIGN EXPERIENCE
Twenty-one companies indicated previous experience in designing with one or more of these
products (Figure IV-4).30 Seventy-six percent of these companies (eight firms) indicated that
they had previously but no longer design for each of the single-event effects resistant, radiation
hardened, or neutron hardened product types. Six companies indicated that they previously
designed radiation tolerant products, 29 percent of fabrication companies with previous
experience.

Radiation tolerant consists of parts that can withstand a total dose failure of greater than 100 krad, but less than
300 krad.
30
Previous experience does not indicate a company currently has capability.

Number of Companies

Figure IV-4: U.S.-Based Fabrication Companies With
Previous Radiation Resistant Design Experience
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0

8
6

Single Event
Effects Resistant

Radiation
Tolerant

Radiation
Hardened

Neutron
Hardened

Capability
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,
U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

Number of Companies

Figure IV-5: U.S.-Based Fabrication Companies
With Previous Radiation Resistant Design
Experience - by Company Size
5
4

4
3

3
2

2
1
1
0
Single Event
Effects
Resistant

Radiation
Tolerant

Radiation
Hardened

Neutron
Hardened

Capability
Small

Medium

Large

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,
U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

WILLINGNESS TO DESIGN FOR THE U.S. GOVERNMENT
Fabrication companies were also asked whether they would be interested in designing radiation
resistant IC products if called upon by the U.S. Government (see Figure IV-6). Thirty-four
companies responded favorably, including twelve companies that did not indicate having an
existing capability to design radiation resistant IC products. There was a relatively even level of
interest across companies, regardless of size, in designing radiation resistant IC products for the
U.S. Government.

Figure IV-6: Interest in Designing Radiation Resistant Products
for the U.S. Government - Fabrication Companies
50

Number of Companies

45
40
35
30

30
27
24

25
20
15
10
5
0
Single Event
Effects Resistant

Radiation
Tolerant

Radiation
Hardened

Neutron
Hardened

Capability
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,
U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

Figure IV-7: Interest in Designing Radiation Resistant
Products for the U.S. Government by Company Size Fabrication Companies
Number of Companies

25
20
15
15

13
10

8
5

Radiation
Hardened

Neutron
Hardened

5
0
Radiation
Tolerant

Single Event
Effects
Resistant

Capability
Small

Medium

Large

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,
U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

TECHNOLOGY NODE RANGE
Although 31 IC fabricators stated they can design radiation resistant products, not all have equal
capabilities. Beyond differences in company ability to design specific types of radiation resistant
products, there are major differences in the ability to create ICs to meet some physical and
performance characteristics. This is illustrated in the number of companies able to design for
certain technology nodes.

Fabrication companies were asked to specify capabilities to design radiation resistant IC products
for 15 technology nodes, ranging from 10,000nm to less than 65mn. For the purposes of this
study, technology nodes were grouped into four ranges: 10,000 nm – 1,000 nm; 1,000 nm – 250
nm; 250 nm – 65 nm; and less than 65 nm. Fifteen fabrication firms reported having design
ability in the 10,000 – 1,000 nm range, 22 companies in the 1,000 - 250 nm range, 24 companies
in the 250 – 65 nm range, and seven companies at technology nodes less than 65 nm (see Figure
IV-8).

Figure IV-8: U.S.-Based Radiation Resistant Design Capability
by Technology Node Range - Fabrication Companies
50

Number of Companies

45
40
35
30
25

15
15
10

5
0
10,000 - 1,000 nm

1,000 - 250 nm

250 - 65 nm

Less than 65 nm

Technology Node
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,
U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

Design capability for radiation resistant products at different technology nodes is spread evenly
amongst the fabrication companies, although some trends based on company size are apparent
(see Figure IV-9). Small- and medium-size companies mainly design in the 1,000 nm -250 nm
and 250 nm – 65 nm ranges. Large-size companies are more focused on designing for the 250
nm – 65 nm and less than 65 nm ranges.

Figure IV-9: Percent of Fabrication Companies Capable of
Radiation Resistant Design Per Technology Node Range
Small

Medium

Large

(19 Companies)

(20 Companies)

(10 Companies)

10,000 nm – 1,000 nm

21%

40%

30%

1,000 nm – 250 nm

32%

65%

30%

250 nm – 65 nm

32%

60%

Less than 65 nm

10%

40%

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,
U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

SEMICONDUCTOR MATERIALS
Survey participants identified their ability to design radiation resistant IC products employing
specific types of semiconductor materials. For the purposes of analysis, these materials were
divided into two groups: standard silicon materials – bulk silicon, silicon-on-insulator, and
silicon germanium materials; and non-standard materials – silicon-on-sapphire, silicon carbide,
gallium nitride, gallium arsenide, indium phosphate, antimonides, and amorphous silicon.

As with conventional IC products, fabrication companies are most capable of designing radiation
resistant products utilizing bulk silicon. Twenty-three of the 31 fabrication companies declaring
capability to design radiation resistant products (74 percent) said they could design devices based
on bulk silicon (see Figure IV-10). For the other standard silicon materials, thirteen companies
said they could design radiation resistant ICs manufactured using silicon-on-insulator, and 10
could design for devices using silicon germanium.

Figure IV-10: Scope of U.S.-Based Radiation Resistant
Design Capability - Fabrication Companies
23

Bulk Silicon

Silicon-on-Insulator

Material Type

Silicon Germanium

10
7

Gallium Nitride
Indium Phosphate

Gallium Arsenide

5
4

Silicon-on-Sapphire
Amorphous Silicon

Antimonides

3
2

Silicon Carbide
0

Number of Companies
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,
U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

The ability of fabrication companies to design radiation resistant products using non-standard
materials drops significantly when compared to standard materials. Gallium nitride is the most
prevalent with seven companies, four small-size and three medium-size, capable of designing on
this material. On the other hand, silicon carbide is the least prevalent, with only two fabrication
companies, one small-size and one medium-size, indicating capability (see Figure IV-11). No
large-size fabrication companies design for non-standard materials.

Figure IV-11: Scope of U.S.-Based Radiation Resistant
Design Capability by Company Size
- Fabrication Companies
6

Bulk Silicon

Silicon Germanium

Material Type

Silicon-on-Insulator

Gallium Nitride

Indium Phosphate

Gallium Arsenide

4
2

Silicon-on-Sapphire

Amorphous Silicon

2
2

Antimonides

1 1

Silicon Carbide
0

Number of Companies
Small

Medium

Large

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,
U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

DEVICE TYPE DESIGN CAPABILITY
Fabrication companies also identified the types of radiation resistant IC devices they are capable
of designing. OTE queried companies on four groups of IC products: application specific
integrated circuits (ASICs), gate arrays, memory, and other IC products (see figure IV-12).

Figure IV-12: U.S.-Based Radiation Resistant Device
Design Capability - Fabrication Companies
23

Custom ASICs

Microprocessors/Coprocessors

One Time EPGA

14
14

SRAM

Device Type

Nonvolatile Memory

MPGA

9
9
9

Standard Cell ASICs
Mixed Signal Technologies
FPGA

Structured ASICs

7
7

MMIC Technologies
Display Electronics

Digital Signal Processors

DRAM

Number of Companies
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,
U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

For the purpose of this survey, the ASICs group consists of four device types: custom ASICs,
standard cell ASICs, structured ASICs, and microprocessors/coprocessors. Amongst this group,
custom ASICs is the most commonly designed device, with 23 fabrication companies indicating
a capability to design these devices. Twenty-one fabrication companies can design radiation
resistant microprocessors/ coprocessors, the second most common device design capability.
Companies have less capability to design radiation resistant standard cell ASICs and structured
ASICs, with nine and eight companies designing these devices, respectively.

Gate arrays consist of one-time electronically programmable gate arrays (EPGAs), mask
programmable gate arrays (MPGAs), and field programmable gate arrays (FGPAs). One-time
EPGAs are the most prevalent gate array, with 16 companies that can design these devices. Ten
companies can design MPGAs, while nine companies are capable of designing FPGAs.

Fabrication companies indicated their ability to develop three forms of radiation resistant
memory: dynamic random access memory (DRAM), static random access memory (SRAM), and
nonvolatile memory. SRAM and nonvolatile memory are the memory devices most commonly

designed, with 14 fabrication companies doing so. Significantly fewer can design radiation
resistant DRAM products, only one of 31 fabrication companies.

Beyond these devices, mixed signal technologies are the most commonly designed radiation
resistant product. Nine companies can design radiation resistant versions of these devices, 29
percent of radiation resistant-capable fabrication companies. Seven companies can design
radiation resistant MMIC technologies or display electronics, 22.5 percent of fabrication
companies with radiation resistant capabilities. Only two fabrication companies can design
digital signal processors, six percent of radiation resistant-capable fabrication companies.

V. CONVENTIONAL PRODUCTS – FABLESS DESIGN CAPABILITY
OTE surveyed fabless integrated circuit (IC) companies in the United States, companies that
design and develop IC product but do not own and operate fabrication facilities. The 106 fabless
companies that participated in the survey were divided into three groups based on average net
sales for 2003-2006 (see Figure V-1).

Figure V-1: Total Number of Fabless Companies
Designing Conventional IC Products
Size

Number of Companies

Net Sales

Small

Less than $25 million

Medium

$25 million - $350 million

Large

Greater than $350 million

Total

106

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,
U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

OTE asked fabless companies to indicate their capability to develop ICs with circuit feature sizes
ranging from 10,000 nanometers (nm) to less than 32 nm.31 Companies were also requested to
specify the kinds of IC products they can design, as well as the specific types of semiconductor
materials their designs can employ. This included their ability to employ standard silicon
formulations (bulk silicon, silicon-on-insulator, and silicon germanium), as well as non-standard
materials such as gallium arsenide, gallium nitride, indium phosphate, and other semiconducting
materials.

TECHNOLOGY NODE RANGE
The technical abilities of the 106 fabless companies vary considerably. Some are able to develop
IC products for a broad range of physical requirements, while other firms have distinctly
narrower capabilities. The capability of the majority of surveyed fabless firms is primarily

concentrated across two technology node ranges, 250 – 65 nm and 1,000 – 250 nm, with 76
companies able to design for the former and 51 for the latter (see Table V-2). 32

Figure V-2: U.S.-Based Fabless Capability for Conventional IC
Products - by Technology Node
76

Number of Companies

70
60

51
50
40
30

21
20
10
0
10,000 - 1,000 nm

1,000 - 250 nm

250 - 65 nm

Less than 65 nm

Technology Node
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,
U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

Fabless company IC design capability is concentrated in the 250 – 65 nm and 1,000 – 250 nm
ranges, 76 and 51, respectively; the majority of these companies are small-size (see Figures V-3
and V-4). Considerably fewer fabless companies, 21, are able to design IC product in the 10,000
nm – 1,000 nm technology range. Of this total, 11 are small-size, six are medium-size, and four
are large-size fabless firms. At leading edge technology nodes of less than 65 nm, 23 companies
report being capable of performing design work for conventional IC product. Much of this
design capability rests with 10 large-size fabless firms. Eight small-size and five medium-size
companies also have capability to work in this design range.

A technology node indicates the smallest circuit feature size that can be drawn on a chip with a microlithography
tool. For the purposes of this study, technology nodes were grouped into four ranges: 10,000 nm – 1,000 nm; 1,000
nm – 250 nm; 250 nm – 65 nm; and less than 65 nm.

Figure V-3: U.S.-Based Fabless Capability for
Conventional IC Products - by Company Size

Number of Companies

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

26
20

17
11
8

11 10

Small

Medium

Large

Size
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,
U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

Figure V-4: Percent of Fabless Companies Capable of
Design Per Technology Node Range
Small

Medium

Large

(65 Companies)

(27 Companies)

(14 Companies)

10,000 nm – 1,000 nm

17%

22%

29%

1,000 nm – 250 nm

40%

63%

57%

250 nm – 65 nm

69%

74%

79%

Less than 65 nm

12%

19%

71%

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,
U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

SEMICONDUCTOR MATERIALS
Fabless companies were asked to state their ability to develop IC products that rely not only on
standard silicon materials (bulk silicon, silicon-on-insulator, and silicon germanium), but also on
a range of non-standard materials.33 In all, design companies addressed their capabilities to
develop IC devices utilizing one or more of 10 material types.

Survey data shows most of the IC design capacity in the United States is concentrated in standard
silicon technologies (See table V-5). In particular, bulk silicon is the material type most fabless
companies are prepared to design products around. Specifically, 88 of 106 companies currently
design for IC products in bulk silicon. Of these companies, 11 are large-size, 21 medium-size,
and 56 small-size.

Figure V-5: Scope of U.S.-Based Fabless Capability
- by Company Size
56

Bulk Silicon

Silicon Germanium

Silicon-on-Insulator

Material Type

Gallium Nitride

5 3
4 2

4 12

Gallium Arsenide
Silicon-on-Sapphire

211
11

Antimonides

Indium Phosphate

Silicon Carbide

Amorphous Silicon

Number of Companies

Small

Medium

Large

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,
U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

While 83 percent of fabless companies can develop IC product to be manufactured with bulk
silicon, only 18 percent of the 106 companies (19 firms) can design ICs using silicon

Silicon-on-sapphire, silicon carbide, gallium arsenide, gallium nitride, indium phosphate, amorphous silicon, and
compounds containing antimonides.

germanium. Three of the companies are large-size companies, five are medium-size, and 11 are
small-size. Fabless company capability for designing product using silicon-on-insulator is
limited to 13 firms: two large-size, four medium-size, and seven small-size companies.

In the case of non-standard silicon products, fabless companies have minimal to no ability to
develop product using these material types. The count of fabless companies capable of using
non-standard materials breaks out as follows: gallium arsenide, 7; silicon-on-sapphire, 4; gallium
nitride, 2; antimonides, 1; indium phosphate, 1; silicon carbide, 1; organic technologies, 0; and
amorphous silicon, 0.

DEVICE DESIGN CAPABILITY
OTE also asked fabless companies to identify the types of IC components they are able to
develop in the United States. Specific information was requested on four product groups:
application specific integrated circuits (ASICs), gate arrays, memory, and other IC products (see
Figure V-6).

Figure V-6: U.S.-Based Device Design
by Company Size - Fabless Companies
36

Mixed Signal Technologies

FPGA

Device Type

Digital Signal Processors

SRAM

MPGA

3 3

3
4

4 31
3 31

DRAM

3 12

MMIC Technologies

2 31
0

Medium

8
6

2 4 3

Nonvolatile Memory

Small

3 4

Structured ASICs

Display Electronics

Microprocessors/Coprocessors

Standard Cell ASICs

One Time EPGA

Custom ASICs

Large

Number of Companies

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,
U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

Survey participants were also asked whether they could design four types of ASIC products:
structured ASICs, standard ASICs, custom ASICs, and microprocessors/coprocessors.34 Fiftyseven companies reported capability to design custom ASICs, of which eight are large-size
companies, 18 are medium-size and 31 are small-size. For standard cell ASICs, 36 companies
said they were able to design such products: eight large-size, nine medium-size, and 19 smallsize firms. Fifteen companies can design structured ASIC products, including four large-size
companies, five medium-size, and six small-size. Twenty-eight companies stated that they can
design microprocessors and coprocessors – six of them large-size companies, six medium-size,
and 16 small-size
Fabless companies reported capability to design a variety of gate array devices.35 For the
purposes of this report, the gate arrays group consists of field programmable gate arrays
(FPGAs), one-time electronically programmable gate arrays (EPGAs), and mask programmable
gate arrays (MPGAs). In total, 21 companies can design FPGA product, of which 14 are smallsize, three are medium-size, and four are large-size companies. Twelve companies reported
capability to manufacture MPGAs, of which three are large-size designers, three are mediumsize, and six are small-size. Nine were able to design one-time EPGAs: three large-size
companies, four medium-size, and two small-size.

With regard to memory ICs, fabless firms provided responses on their ability to develop three
forms of memory: dynamic random access memory (DRAM), static random access memory
(SRAM), and nonvolatile memory. These are widely used in consumer, industrial, and defense
electronic systems. Seven fabless firms reported being able to design for DRAM, of which one
is a large-size company, three are medium-size, and three are small-size. In contrast, twice as
many companies (16) can design for SRAM, of which three are large-size firms, five are
medium-size, and three are small-size.

ASIC chips are designed to perform specific instructions and tasks, and can provide performance advantages over
general purpose microprocessors.
35
Gate arrays are IC devices containing cells with rows of transistors and resistors that are not connected. The
appropriate interconnections are made using software to form a custom-designed working device.

Eight companies said they possess design capability for nonvolatile memory products: one largesize design firm, three medium-size firms, and four small-size firms. Designers were asked to
further report their nonvolatile memory product capabilities in 11 categories: electronically
erasable read-only memory (EEPROM), erasable read-only memory (EPROM), flash memory,
ferro-electric random access memory (FeRAM), micro electro-mechanical systems memory
(MEMS), magneto-resistive random access memory (MRAM), polymer memory, one-time
programmable memory (XPM), zero capacitor random access memory (ZRAM), phase change
memory, and other memory types (see Figure V-7).

Figure V-7: U.S.-Based Capability to Design Nonvolatile
Memory Products - Fabless Companies
8

Number of Companies

7
6

5
4

3
2

XPM

Polymer

Phase
Change

MEMS

MRAM

FeRAM

EPROM

Other

Flash

EEPROM

ZRAM

Memory Device Type
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,
U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

Of the 11 nonvolatile memory categories, only EEPROM, flash, and other memory can be
developed by multiple fabless companies. Only one company can design EPROM and FeRAM
products, respectively. No fabless company reported an ability to develop MRAM, MEMS,
phase change, polymer, one-time programmable (XPM), or ZRAM memory products.

Beyond memory, fabless firms were asked about their ability to design digital signal processors,
micromonolithic integrated circuits (MMICs), mixed signal analog-digital ICs, and visual display
IC devices. Digital signal processors can be designed by 28 fabless firms: six are large-size, 10

are medium-size, and 12 are small-size. Six companies reported capabilities to design MMICs,
including two large-size companies, one medium-size, and three small-size. For mixed-signal
analog-digital ICs, 63 companies stated they can design the devices, of which seven are largesize companies, 20 are medium-size, and 36 are small-size. In the area of digital display ICs,
design capability was reported by one large-size company, three medium-size, and two smallsize – six fabless companies in total.

VI. RADIATION RESISTANT IC PRODUCTS – FABLESS DESIGN CAPABILITY
OTE surveyed 106 fabless companies on their ability to develop radiation resistant products:
single-event effects resistant, radiation tolerant, radiation hardened, and neutron hardened.
Fabless firms were asked to state their ability to design radiation resistant ICs with circuit feature
sizes ranging from 10,000 nanometers (nm) to 32 nm.36

Survey participants were also asked to specify their ability to design radiation resistant IC
products employing specific types of semiconductor materials. For the purposes of analysis,
these materials were divided into standard silicon materials – bulk silicon, silicon-on-insulator,
and silicon germanium materials, and non-standard materials –silicon-on-sapphire, silicon
carbide, gallium nitride, gallium arsenide, indium phosphate, and amorphous silicon.

Fabless IC design companies were categorized as small, medium, and large in size based on
average net corporate sales from 2003-2006 (see Figure VI-1). In 2006, 19 fabless firms, 18
percent of the 106 survey respondents, reported capability to design one or more types of
radiation resistant products. Based on net sales, eight of these companies were categorized as
small, 12 were categorized as medium, and six were categorized as large in size.

Figure VI-1: Total Number of Fabless Companies
Designing Radiation Resistant IC Products
Size

Number of Companies

Net Sales

Small

Less than $25 million

Medium

$25 million - $350 million

Large

Greater than $350 million

Total

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,
U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

Responses indicating an ability to design at a given technology node, semiconductor chemistry, or device type
does not mean the company is actually performing such work at this time.

Fabless firms specified the types of radiation resistant products they can produce. Fabless design
capability, in terms of number of companies, is greatest for single-event effects resistant ICs,
which can continue to function after a single energetic particle strikes the device.37 Fourteen of
19 companies reported capability to design these devices, or 74 percent of all fabless firms with
radiation resistant capability (see Figures VI-2 and VI-3).

Figure VI-2: U.S.-Based Fabless Companies With
Radiation Resistant Design Capability in 2006
16
14
Number of Companies

14
12
10

9
8

8
6
6
4
2
0
Single Event
Effects Resistant

Radiation
Tolerant

Radiation
Hardened

Neutron
Hardened

Capability
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,
U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

Single-event effects are caused by a single energetic particle striking an integrated circuit device. Performance of
the device is not compromised to a point where it is inoperable or not reliable for executing a mission as a result of
latch-up, burnout, or gate rupture.

Figure VI-3: U.S.-Based Fabless Companies With Radiation
Resistant Design Capability in 2006 - by Company Size
7
Number of Companies

6
5
5
4

4
3
3
2

2
1

Radiation
Hardened

Neutron
Hardened

1
0
Single Event
Effects
Resistant

Radiation
Tolerant

Capability
Small

Medium

Large

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,
U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

Radiation tolerant products have a limited capacity to resist radiation damage that would
otherwise critically damage an IC device. 38 Nine fabless companies responding to the survey,
47 percent of radiation resistant-capable fabless firms, said they can design radiation tolerant
products.

Radiation hardened IC products can withstand higher doses of radiation relative to radiation
tolerant products. Eight fabless companies, or 42 percent of those with radiation resistant
capabilities, can produce such IC product designs.

Neutron-hardened ICs are capable of withstanding neutron radiation damage attributable to
gamma rays and electromagnetic pulses such as those associated with a nuclear weapon
detonation. Six fabless companies stated they can design neutron-hardened ICs.

Radiation tolerant consists of parts that can withstand a total dose failure of greater than 100 kilorad (krad), but
less than 300 krad. A krad equals 1,000 rad. One rad = 0.01 joules/kilogram; 1 krad = 10J/kg.

PREVIOUS RADIATION RESISTANT DESIGN EXPERIENCE
Five fabless companies reported having previous experience in the design of radiation resistant
ICs; as of 2006, they were not designing radiation resistant IC devices. This previous
experience is largely concentrated in small-size companies (see Figure VI-4). Large-size
companies, however, reported previous capability across all four types of radiation resistant
devices covered in the survey. Medium-size companies did not indicate any previous capability.

Four fabless firms said they previously have performed design work on single-event effect
devices, and five companies reported the same for radiation tolerant ICs. Five companies
reported prior design work on radiation hardened devices. Only three companies acknowledged
previous design work for neutron hardened ICs.

Figure VI-4: U.S.-Based Fabless Companies With
Previous Radiation Resistant Design Experience

Number of Companies

4
3
3

0
Single Event
Effects Resistant

Radiation
Tolerant

Radiation
Hardened

Neutron
Hardened

Capability
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,
U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

Figure VI-5: U.S.-Based Fabless Companies With
Previous Radiation Resistant Design Experience
- by Company Size
Number of Companies

5
4

4
3
2

2
1

Radiation
Tolerant

Radiation
Hardened

1
0
Single Event
Effects
Resistant

Neutron
Hardened

Capability
Small

Medium

Large

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,
U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

WILLINGNESS TO DESIGN FOR THE U.S. GOVERNMENT
Although only 19 of the 106 companies reported current business in designing radiation resistant
IC products, survey data indicates that if needed, more design companies could engage in such
work. Fabless companies were specifically asked if they would be interested in designing
radiation resistant IC products if called upon by the U.S. Government. Twenty-three companies
responded favorably, including nine companies that did not indicate having an existing capability
to design radiation resistant IC products.

IC fabless company interest in carrying out work for U.S. Government customers in the four
product categories is greatest in small- and medium-size companies, where 30 small-size and 27
medium-size companies expressed interest (see Figure VI-6). Large-size fabless firms were least
interested in performing government work, with nine companies responding positively.

Design work on single-event effects resistant and radiation tolerant IC devices were areas of high
interest for 21 and 17 fabless companies, respectively, that expressed a willingness to do work

for the U.S. Government. Fourteen companies stated interest in design work for the government
for both radiation hardened IC and neutron hardened product.

Figure VI-6: Interest in Designing Radiation Resistant
Products for the U.S. Government - Fabless Companies
50

Number of Companies

45
40
35
30
25

21
17

Radiation
Hardened

Neutron
Hardened

15
10
5
0
Single Event
Effects Resistant

Radiation
Tolerant

Capability

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,
U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

Figure VI-7: Interest in Designing Radiation Resistant
Products for the U.S. Government by Company Size
- Fabless Companies
Number of Companies

25
20
15
10
5

4
2

0
Single Event
Effects
Resistant

Radiation
Tolerant

Neutron
Hardened

Radiation
Hardened

Capability
Small

Medium

Large

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,
U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

TECHNOLOGY NODE RANGE
IC fabless companies were asked to disclose abilities to design radiation resistant products not
only by type of radiation resistant product, but also in terms of physical and material
characteristics. Capability to design radiation resistant IC products across technology nodes,
ranging from 10,000 nm to less than 65 nm, was reported by fabless design firms.

The technology nodes were broken into four ranges. Nine firms reported having design ability in
the 10,000 – 1,000 nm range, 13 in the 1,000 - 250 nm range, 17 in the 250 – 65 nm range, and
nine at technology nodes below 65 nm (see Figure VI-8).

Figure VI-8: U.S.-Based Fabless Companies with Radiation
Resistant Design Capability - by Technology Node Range
30

Number of Companies

17
15

13
9

0
10,000 - 1,000 nm

1,000 - 250 nm

250 - 65 nm

Less than 65 nm

Technology Node
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,
U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

Capability to design ICs at larger dimensions, in the 10,000 nm - 1,000 nm range is dispersed
across the industry with two small-, four medium-, and three large-size companies (see Figure
VI-9). By number of firms, most fabless firm capability for designing radiation resistant product
is concentrated in the 1,000 nm-250 nm and 250-65 nm ranges. Three medium-size companies
and five large-size companies reported capabilities to design radiation resistant IC products at the
65 nm technology node or smaller; only one small-size company reported such capability.

Figure VI-9: U.S.-Based Radiation Resistant Design
Capability by Technology Node - Fabless Companies

Number of Companies

8
7

7
6
4

4
3
2

5 5

5
4

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

1
0
Small

Medium

Large

Size

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,
U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

SEMICONDUCTOR MATERIALS
IC design companies also stated their capability to design radiation resistant IC devices using a
variety of different materials. As with conventional products, bulk silicon is a material with
which IC design companies appear most capable (see Figure VI-10). Sixteen of the 19 fabless
companies declared capability to design radiation resistant products in bulk silicon. The number
of small-, medium-, and large-size companies with this ability are nearly equal. Seven
companies said they could design radiation resistant ICs that would be manufactured using
silicon-on-insulator, and three could design for devices using silicon germanium.

Figure VI-10: Scope of U.S.-Based Radiation Resistant
Design Capability by Company Size - Fabless Companies
Bulk Silicon

Material Type

Silicon-on-Insulator

Amorphous Silicon

Gallium Arsenide

Silicon Germanium

Silicon-on-Sapphire

Antimonides

Indium Phosphate

Silicon Carbide

Gallium Nitride

1
0

4
2
1

1
1

2
1

Number of Companies
Small

Medium

Large

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,
U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

As noted earlier, materials such as gallium arsenide, gallium nitride, and indium phosphate are
increasingly used in ICs for cell phones, network switches and other products. These materials
deliver higher speeds and more readily support lower voltage electronic device architectures
compared to conventional silicon-based devices.

Very few fabless companies, however, declared an ability to design radiation resistant IC
products built with non-standard materials. Two companies reported capability to design for
silicon-on-sapphire, while three companies stated they were able to design devices using gallium
arsenide. For radiation resistant IC devices using gallium nitride, indium phosphate,
antimonides, silicon carbide, and amorphous silicon materials, only one company reported
capability to design product in each category. All capability to design radiation resistant IC
products using non-standard materials resides in medium-size companies.

DEVICE DESIGN CAPABILITY
Beyond designing for specific types of materials, fabless companies were also asked to identify
the types of IC devices they can design. OTE queried companies on four groups of IC products:

application specific integrated circuits (ASICs), gate arrays, memory, and other IC products (see
figure VI-9).

Figure VI-11: U.S.-Based Radiation Resistant Design
Capability by Device Type - Fabless Companies
Custom ASICs

One Time EPGA

7
4

MPGA

Device Type

2
1

3
2

DRAM

Digital Signal Processors

Mixed Signal Technologies
0

Structured ASICs

MMIC Technologies

Large

Standard Cell ASICs

Display Electronics

Nonvolatile Memory

Medium

FPGA
SRAM

2
2

Microprocessors/Coprocessors

Small

6
4

2
1
2

Number of Companies

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,
U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

For three types of ASICs – custom, standard cell, and structured – 15 fabless companies can
design one or more product types as radiation resistant. Specifically, 15 companies can design
custom ASICs, 13 companies can design standard cell ASICs, and eight companies can design
structured cell ASICs. Most of this design capability resides in small- and medium-size fabless
firms. Only two large-size fabless companies have design capability for custom, standard cell,
and structured ASICs. With respect to microprocessors/coprocessors, nine firms said they are
able to design radiation resistant devices: four small-, three medium-, and two large-size
companies.

Nine fabless firms reported the ability to design one or more varieties of radiation resistant gate
arrays: field programmable gate arrays (FPGAs), nine companies; mask programmable gate
arrays (MPGAs), six companies; and one-time electrically programmable gate arrays (EPGAs),
five companies. For these gate array devices, medium- and large-size companies account for a
majority of this design capability.

The design capability of fabless companies narrows for the three types of memory products:
dynamic random access memory (DRAM), static random access memory (SRAM), and
nonvolatile memory. Seven companies, five small-size and two medium-size, said they were
able to design static random access memory (SRAM) product. Three small-size companies and
one medium-size can design nonvolatile radiation resistant memory devices. Only one smallsize company and two medium-size companies reported having the ability to design dynamic
random access (DRAM) memory.

The ability of fabless companies to design for a range of other IC devices is varied. Thirteen
firms said they can design for mixed signal technology products: five small-size, seven mediumsize, and one large-size. Seven companies – three small-, three medium-, and one large-size –
also reported capability to design digital signal processors. Two small- and two medium-size
companies said they can design electronic display IC products. Only two firms, one small-size
and one medium-size, indicated they can design radiation resistant micromonolithic integrated
circuits (MMICs).

VII. UTILIZATION RATES
To understand manufacturing activity levels and gain insight into the industry’s ability to handle
surges in production orders, fabrication companies were asked to provide their average
manufacturing capacity utilization at each of their U.S.-based fabrication facilities for 20032006.39 Each facility was also required to provide their maximum number of wafer starts and
average actual wafer starts per week for 2007 to see how well companies could handle a surge in
production.40 Finally, companies reported plans for continuing operation of each of their
fabrication facilities through 2011.

WAFER START CAPACITY AND COMPANY UTILIZATION RATES
Large-size companies represent the vast majority of production capability with an average
maximum wafer start capacity of 29,126 starts per week in 2007 and actual average wafer starts
per week of 23,725, a utilization rate of 81 percent (see Figure VII-1). Medium-size companies
have a slightly higher utilization rate of 82 percent, but have a much lower wafer start capacity.
In fact, these companies have an average maximum capacity of 26,000 fewer wafer starts per
week than large-size companies. Small-size companies have an even lower maximum capacity
than medium-size companies, an average of 629 wafer starts per week. Of this small number,
the average actual wafer starts for this industry segment was 313 per week, a utilization rate of
only 50 percent.

For fabrication companies with more than one facility, utilization rates, maximum wafer starts, and average actual
wafer starts per week were averaged to provide a single company response.
40
The number of semiconductor wafers that can be processed on an integrated circuit product fabrication line in 7day period.

Figure VII-1: Average/Maximum Wafer Starts per Week (2007)
Average Wafer
Starts per Week

Average
Maximum Wafer
Starts per Week

Average
Utilization Rate

Small Companies
(19)

313

629

50%

Medium Companies
(20)

2,260

2,741

82%

Large Companies
(10)

23,725

29,126

81%

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,
U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

As a group, fabrication companies steadily increased overall utilization rates at U.S. fabrication
facilities between 2003 and 2006, peaking at 87 percent (see Figures VII-2).41 In 2007, however,
overall utilization dropped to 81 percent. Survey data shows available capacity to expand
production existed at many facilities. It is important to note that most of the excess production
capacity is controlled by large-size companies (see Figure VII-3). Accessing this excess capacity
for new orders may be difficult, however, because production volumes may not be sufficient or
because of manufacturing process compatibility.

These utilization rates were weighted against the 2007 maximum wafer starts per week. The average actual wafer
starts per week were estimated by multiplying the utilization rate per year by the company’s maximum wafer starts
in 2007. These numbers were added together and divided by the all the fabrication companies’ maximum wafer
starts per week to get a percentage. This provides a better macro-level analysis of utilization rates that takes into
account the capacity of the various companies.

Figure VII-2: Overall Utilization Rate Per Year
(Weighted)
100%

Utilization Rate

95%

90%
87%
84%

85%
82%

81%

80%
76%
75%
2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

Year
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,
U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

Figure VII-3: Wafer Starts per Week (2007)
350,000
291,262

300,000
237,250

Wafer Starts

250,000
200,000
150,000
100,000
45,200

50,000
5,956

54,811

11,947

Small
Total Average Wafer Starts Per Week

Medium

Large

Maximum Average Wafer Starts Per Week

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,
U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

An examination of utilization rates for large-, medium-, and small-size companies reveals
different levels of business activity. Large-size companies increased their utilization from 78
percent in 2003 to 90 percent by 2006, but declined nine percent in 2007 (see Figure VII-4). In

fact, eight out of 10 companies experienced reduced average utilization rates at their facilities in
2007. Unlike large-size companies, medium-size fabricators saw utilization rates continue to
climb in 2007, reaching 82 percent. Average utilization rates for small-size companies were
substantially lower than those of large- and medium-size fabricators, remaining at approximately
50 percent utilization throughout the 2003-2007 period. While utilization data indicates the
potential to expand IC production if necessary, small-size companies remain limited by their low
overall maximum wafer start capacity.

Figure VII-4: Average Capacity Utilization Rate
(Weighted by 2007 Maximum Wafer Starts)
100%

% Capacity

90%
80%
70%
60%
50%

87%

85%
74%

73%

72%

47%

82% 81%

79% 80%

78%

52%

51%

50%

40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
2003

2004
Small

2005
Medium

2006

2007

Large

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,
U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

FACILITY CLOSINGS BY 2011
Of the 49 fabrication companies surveyed, eight indicated that a facility currently in use will be
closed by 2011. One of these companies stated that two of their fabrication facilities will cease
operation by the end of this period, bringing the total facility closings to nine.

Figure VII-5: Number of U.S.-Based Fabrication Facilities (2003-2011)

(Projected)

Total
Difference

-5

-2

-4

Total
Facilities

2003

2004

2005

2006

Small

Medium

Large

Total

2011

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,
U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

Based on overall facility count, there will be slightly fewer fabrication facilities in the United
States by 2011. Although the facilities count per year remains relatively stable for all company
sizes, there is a significant degree of facility openings and closings for individual companies,
particularly large-size ones. As stated previously, nine facilities in use in 2007 are predicted to
shut down by 2011. Since the overall projection of facility counts remains relatively stable, this
means that new facilities will be opening to make up for ‘lost’ capability. As companies begin to
transition their operations, utilization at older facilities may begin to drop off before a new
facility can open. Based on survey data, large-size companies will open at least four new
fabrication facilities between 2007 and 2011.

VIII. FABRICATION AND DESIGN OF NATIONAL SECURITY PRODUCTS
Access to commercial integrated circuit (IC) design and fabrication capabilities in the United
States is important for the Department of Defense (DOD) and other federal agencies to maintain
and upgrade the capabilities of existing defense systems, as well as to produce critical parts for
future national security applications. Survey results show at this time there are significant
numbers of design and fabrication companies that currently provide defense-related services, or
are willing to provide such services if called upon.

FABRICATION OF NATIONAL SECURITY-RELATED PRODUCTS
Twenty-three of 49 fabrication companies participating in the survey reported manufacturing
national security-related IC products in their facilities in 2007 (see Figure VIII-1). Eighteen of
these companies utilize 10 percent or less of their manufacturing capacity for national securityrelated products. Four companies, however, reported this type of business represented between
50 and 100 percent of their production capacity. Only one of the 23 companies reported
fabricating national security-related items in non-U.S. facilities.

Figure VIII-1: Fabrication of National SecurityRelated IC Products
Performed National
Security Work in
2007

Would be Willing to
Perform National
Security Work

Not Willing to
Perform National
Security Work

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,
U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

Of the 23 companies that now fabricate national security-related IC products in the United
States, 19 said they would be willing to dedicate more of their production capacity to such work.
These companies, on average, declared a willingness to increase national security-related
production by 24 percent.

An additional 11 fabrication companies operating in the United States indicated they are willing
to take on national security-related fabrication work under the right financial circumstances. Of
these companies, nine would dedicate over 10 percent of their manufacturing capacity to such
production, with two willing to potentially dedicate 90 percent or more.

DESIGN OF NATIONAL SECURITY-RELATED PRODUCTS
OTE survey results show that 14 out of 106 IC fabless companies (13 percent) performed work
on national security-related IC products in 2007 (see Figure VIII-2). Five of these 14 companies
have already committed 50 percent or more of their capabilities to national security-related work.
If necessary, eight of the 14 firms were prepared to allocate more design capacity to this line of
work. Three fabless companies reported conducting national security-related design work in nonU.S. facilities.

Figure VIII-2: Design of National SecurityRelated IC Products - Fabless Companies
Performed National
Security Work in
2007

Would be Willing to
Perform National
Security Work

Not Willing to
Perform National
Security Work

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,
U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

Another 40 fabless companies indicated they would be willing to commit some portion of their
IC design capability to national security-related products in the future. Most offered to dedicate
one to 25 percent of current capability to national security-related work. Two companies
indicated a willingness to focus upwards of 90 percent of capacity on such work.

In addition to the national security design work carried out by fabless companies, 18 fabrication
companies perform design work for national security-related products (see Figure VIII-3).
Fourteen of the 18 companies said they were prepared to take on additional national securityrelated IC product design work. Five of these companies reported that national security-related
work consumes 50 percent or more of their IC design capacity. For three of the five companies,
more than 90 percent of their design capacity is allocated to national security-related work.

Figure VIII-3: Design of National SecurityRelated IC Products - Fabrication Companies
Performed National
Security Work in
2007

Would be Willing to
Perform National
Security Work

Not Willing to
Perform National
Security Work

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,
U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

Sixteen fabrication companies indicated that they would be willing to start designing national
security-related products. Of these companies, the majority were willing to dedicate between 10
and 50 percent of their design capacity to national security work. Two fabricators would be
willing to dedicate upwards of 90 percent of their overall design capacity.

TRUSTED SUPPLIERS - BACKGROUND
For some types of electronic components, DOD and other federal agencies require that U.S.
firms possess more than just a capability to design and fabricate national security-related
products. They require companies to have very secure design and manufacturing environments
for critical design and manufacturing steps.

In 2003, DOD launched the Defense Trusted Integrated Circuits Strategy (DTICS) to prevent
infiltration into the supply chain of IC products subjected to tampering or counterfeiting. “Trust”
is defined as “the confidence in one’s ability to secure national security systems by assessing the

integrity of the people and process used to design, generate, manufacture, and distribute national
security critical components.” 42

The aims of the program are to assure that DOD and other federal agencies have access to
conventional and leading edge design and manufacturing facilities where critical national
security IC products can be produced securely. The program is structured to protect critical IC
products in design and development phases through each step of IC fabrication, testing and
packaging.

Without such capability, operational readiness, battlefield effectiveness, critical infrastructure,
and the lives of civilians and military personnel may be placed at risk. U.S. commercial,
industrial, and military organizations have experienced problems with the integrity of electronic
parts being compromised. Based on data from an ongoing assessment of counterfeit electronic
parts, conducted by BIS and the Naval Air Systems Command, BIS has evidence that both new
and older IC products can be subject to counterfeiting practices.43

A cornerstone of the DTICS effort was the initiation of the Trusted Foundry Program in 2003.
The first trusted IC manufacturing center established in the private sector under this program was
at IBM’s production facilities in Burlington, VT, and East Fishkill, NY, which were selected for
their ability to provide leading edge IC product.44 These facilities can fabricate IC designs
carrying “secret” level designations. The fabrication capabilities of these facilities include
application specific integrated circuits (ASICs) and tamper-resistant architectures for field
programmable gate arrays (FPGAs).

Through the Trusted Foundry Program, DOD customers, other U.S. Government agencies, and
government contractors are assured access to certified secure design, prototyping and production
facilities located in the United States. IC manufacturers interested in supplying certain types of
national security IC products to DOD and other federal agencies must be accredited through the
Trusted Foundry Access (TFA) program. The process of accrediting companies as “trusted
42

Military Information Technology, Online Archives, Volume 12 Issue 3, April 25, 2008.
The completed study on counterfeit electronic parts will be released in the summer of 2009.
44
Gerald Etzold, Technical Director, Trusted Access Programs Office, National Security Agency.
43

suppliers” is administered by the Trusted Access Programs Office (TAPO) at the National
Security Agency (NSA) and by Defense Microelectronic Activity (DMEA).45 TAPO has
accredited eight additional IC companies in the United States that can provide foundry services
to DOD and its contractors.46 DOD recently expanded the scope of the trusted program to
include other IC- related manufacturing activities. This includes IC design, IC photomask
production, packaging, assembly, and testing of IC die.

Three companies have been accredited to provide packaging, assembly, and test services, while
two companies have been accredited to provide design services. Three companies are also
accredited to aggregate specialized or low-volume IC product fabrication into consolidated
production lots that can be manufactured more efficiently as a group rather than in separate job
runs. According to DMEA, another 35 companies have applied for accreditation in what is now
being called the Trusted Supplier Program.47

The trusted supplier program continues to evolve. In March of 2008, DOD indicated that it will
incorporate the production of printed circuit boards (PrCBs) into the DTICS program. Extending
the DTICS strategy to include PrCBs (and possibly other PrCB-mounted components) could
further mitigate the risks posed by tampering and counterfeiting. DOD noted that it is possible to
extend the Defense Logistics Agency’s (DLA) current PrCB qualification standards to assure
trustworthiness issues in circuit board products.48

OUTLOOK FOR TRUSTED SUPPLIERS
Of the 49 fabrication companies surveyed, nine are accredited as trusted suppliers for fabrication
work.49 An additional 14 fabrication companies reported having the self-assessed capability to
45

The Defense Microelectronics Activity was established prior to the creation of the Trusted Foundry Program, but
its capabilities were limited and it was not able to produce leading edge integrated circuit products. The National
Security Agency also operated a foundry, but costs for modernizing it were considered prohibitive. See
www.dmea.osd.mil/trustedic.html
46
A foundry is a wafer production and processing plant that is available on a contract basis to other companies.
47
Dan Booth, Defense Microelectronics Activity (DMEA), July 18, 2008.
48
Report to United States House and Senate Armed Services Committees on Department of Defense
Implementation of The National Research Council Committee on Manufacturing Trends in Printed Circuit Board
Technology Recommendations, U.S. Department of Defense, March 2008.
49
Companies that have gained accreditation since the conclusion of the survey are not included in this number.

conform to DOD standards to manufacture custom IC products in a trusted environment located
in the United States (see Figure VIII-4).50 Fifteen survey respondents, some already certified in
one or more areas and some with self-assessed capability, identified themselves as seeking or
planning to seek Trusted Supplier status.

Figure VIII-4: Fabrication Companies Capable of
DOD "Trusted" Standards

DOD Certified as
Trusted

Seeking or Planning
to Seek Trusted
Status

Self-Assessed to
Meet DOD Trusted
Standard but Not
Certified

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,
U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

For 2007, 29 of 155 survey respondents declared the self-assessed ability to design custom IC
products in a trusted, U.S.-located environment that conforms to DOD standards (see Figure
VIII-5). Of these companies, 18 were fabless IC design companies and 11 were IC fabrication
companies. Six fabless companies, some already certified in one or more areas and some with
self-assessed capability, identified themselves as seeking or planning to seek Trusted Supplier
status. Nine separate fabrication companies surveyed are accredited as trusted suppliers for
design work. Fifteen fabrication companies, some already certified in one or more areas and
some with self-assessed capability, identified themselves as seeking or planning to seek Trusted
Supplier status for design work.

Self-determination for being qualified to act as a trusted foundry does not mean companies actually can meet
Department of Defense standards. Companies must obtain certification for the trusted supplier program through the
Trusted Access Programs Office at the National Security Agency and the Defense Microelectronics Activity.

Figure VIII-4: Companies Capable of DOD
"Trusted" Design Standards
9

DOD Certified as
Trusted

Seeking or Planning
to Seek Trusted
Status

Self-Assessed to
Meet DOD Trusted
Standard but Not
Certified

11
18
0

Fabless Companies

Fabrication Companies

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,
U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

As for why some companies are not interested in performing national security work, survey
participants provided the following comments:
•

Company is focused on commercial, industrial, and/or consumer markets;

•

Can not easily isolate national security IC work from commercial work;

•

Order volume and predictability for national security products is too uncertain; and

•

Concern that working with federal agencies would be too complicated.

A number of companies left open the possibility that they would undertake IC national securityrelated design and/or manufacturing work. These IC companies explained that they have not
pursued work in national security-related product areas because they do not understand the
opportunities or comprehend the requirements and possible associated costs.

IX. PERFORMANCE AND OUTSOURCING OF PRODUCTION FUNCTIONS BY
FABRICATION COMPANIES
OTE queried the 49 fabrication companies regarding their ability to execute seven manufacturing
steps for the production of integrated circuit products. These functions include mask making,
wafer manufacturing (front and back ends), wafer sorting, circuit testing, packaging, and final
testing.51 Fabrication firms reported their in-house production capabilities and capabilities
outsourced to domestic and non-U.S. firms. Lastly, firms were asked about the prospects for
maintaining and outsourcing future capabilities to perform each of these manufacturing steps
through 2011.52

U.S.-BASED MANUFACTURING STEPS
A significant number of fabrication companies have the capability to conduct five of seven
manufacturing steps: front- and back-end wafer manufacturing, wafer sorting, circuit testing, and
final testing and inspection (see Figure IX-1). More than 80 percent of fabrication companies are
capable of performing some or all of these manufacturing steps at U.S. facilities they own and
operate. There are a limited number of companies, however, that are able to conduct their own
mask making operations in the United States. In 2007, only seven, or 14 percent of fabrication
companies, produced masks in their U.S. owned and operated facilities. The remaining
manufacturing step, packaging, is also commonly outsourced by 27 of the 49 companies.

For definitions of these seven manufacturing steps, please see Appendix C.
A number of fabrication companies stated that for certain operations they maintain in-house capability, but they
also use outside domestic and foreign companies.

100

Figure IX-1: Manufacturing Steps Performed at U.S.
Owned and Operated Facilities
50

Number of Companies

39
33

35
30
25

20
15
10

5
0
Mask Making

Wafer Sorting Circuit Testing
Wafer
Wafer
Manufacturing Manufacturing
(Back End)
(Front End)

Packaging

Final Test &
Inspection

Manufacturing Step
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,
U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

Fabrication companies only utilize a small number of U.S.-based vendors for six manufacturing
steps, seemingly to augment their in-house capabilities (see Figure IX-2). The exception to this
practice is mask making. More than 71 percent of the fabrication companies, or 35 firms, utilize
other U.S.-based vendors for this part of the production process. Fabrication companies
employing outside vendors to conduct specific manufacturing steps (other than mask making) are
more likely to use non-U.S. firms than U.S.-based vendors (see Figures IX-2 and IX-3).

101

Figure IX-2: Manufacturing Steps Outsourced to Other
U.S.-Based Vendors
40
35
Number of Companies

35
30
25
20
15
10
10
3

0
Mask Making

Wafer
Wafer
Wafer Sorting Circuit Test
Manufacturing Manufacturing
(Front End)
(Back End)

Packaging

Final Test &
Inspection

Manufacturing Step
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,
U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

NON-U.S. OUTSOURCING OF MANUFACTURING STEPS
When IC fabricators use offshore facilities to conduct one or more of the seven manufacturing
steps, they tend to use non-affiliated facilities more often than non-U.S. facilities they own and
operate (see Figure IX-3). Although the use of non-affiliated facilities was more prevalent, the
companies did report using a significant number of their own non-U.S. facilities.

Dependence on non-affiliated companies to perform production steps is greatest for mask
making. Just seven fabrication companies perform mask making in their own U.S.-based
facilities, and only five fabrication companies own and operate non-U.S. facilities that can
perform this manufacturing step. Most fabrication companies rely on non-affiliated domestic
and non-U.S. vendors to produce the masks they require to manufacture IC products.

102

Figure IX-3: Foreign Outsourcing of IC Manufacturing Steps
35

30
Number of Companies

25
25

17
14

5
5
0
Mask Making

Wafer
Wafer
Wafer Sorting
M anufacturing M anufacturing
(Front End)
(Back End)

Circuit Test

Packaging

Final Test &
Inspection

Manufacturing Step
Facilities owned outside the U.S.

Facilities owned by foreign companies outside the U.S.

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,
U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

Geographically, the overwhelming majority of manufacturing steps outsourced by U.S.
fabricators, 88 percent, are sent to Asia (see Figure IX-4). Taiwan and China were the most cited
destinations, with a combined 33 percent of all non-U.S. outsourced manufacturing steps. Only
seven companies reported outsourcing to European countries, mostly to the United Kingdom,
representing six percent of destination countries. Outsourcing to Canada and Mexico accounts
for three percent of the total destination countries.

103

Figure IX-4: Outsourcing of Manufacturing Steps Destination Countries
South Korea
10%

Singapore
7%

Japan
7%

Other Asia
3%

Thailand
3%

Malaysia
13%

North America
3%

Other
3%

Other
15%
Philippians
13%

China
15%

Taiwan
17%

Europe
6%

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,
U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

OUTSOURCING BY TECHNOLOGY NODE AND MATERIAL TYPE
Companies were asked to identify the technology nodes outsourced ranging from 10,000
nanometers (nm) to less than 65 nm. For the purposes of this assessment, OTE combined the 15
distinct technology node categories into four ranges: 10,000 nm – 1,000 nm; 1,000 nm – 250 nm;
250 nm – 65 nm; and less than 65 nm.

Fabrication companies, in addition to maintaining domestic capabilities, outsource
manufacturing steps across all technology nodes, with the 1,000 nm – 250 nm and the 250 nm –
65 nm ranges being the most common (see Figure IX-5). Twenty-five companies, more than
half of all fabrication companies, outsource fabrication steps over the 1,000 nm – 250 nm range.
Nine companies outsource fabrication steps for products at less than 65 nm. As indicated earlier,
only six companies can manufacture at this leading-edge technology node range, and five of
these companies outsource fabrication steps at less than 65 nm. Thus, more fabrication
companies outsource at the leading-edge technology node range than are fabricating in the
United States.

104

Figure IX-5: Outsourcing by Technology Node Range
30
25
Number of Companies

25
20

23
18

15
9

10
5
0
10,000 nm - 1,000 nm

1,000 nm - 250 nm

250 nm - 65 nm

Less than 65 nm

Technology Node
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,
U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

Outsourcing practices are also revealed by examining the types of materials employed in IC
products for which fabrication is outsourced. Production functions for IC products based on bulk
silicon process technology are most often outsourced, followed by product employing silicon-oninsulator. The types of devices employing these two materials for which some manufacturing
steps are most frequently outsourced are custom ASICs and mixed signal ASICs.

REASONS FOR OUTSOURCING
The 49 fabrication companies were asked to identify the primary reasons for outsourcing
production to non-U.S. locations. The top three reasons were lower costs, maximizing profits,
and competitive pricing pressures (see Figure IX-6). Companies selected these three reasons
nearly twice as often as the next highest reason, a lack of tax incentives in the United States.
Very few companies found the American workforce to be insufficient for their needs. Direct and
indirect foreign government subsidies were a factor for a small number of companies. Based on
the survey responses, it appears competition and economics are the driving forces behind U.S.
firms shifting IC fabrication operations overseas.

105

Figure IX-6: Reasons for Outsourcing
Reasons for Outsourcing

Number of Companies

Lower Costs

To Maximize Profits

Competitive Pricing Pressures

Lack of Tax Incentives

To Better Serve Overseas Markets

To Assure Better Market Access

No U.S. Capability

Indirect Foreign Government Subsidies

No U.S. Contractor Found

Direct Foreign Government Subsidies

Insufficient U.S. Workforce

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,
U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

RETENTION OF MANUFACTURING STEP CAPABILITY THROUGH 2011
Fabrication companies were asked to predict if they will maintain capability to perform each of
seven IC manufacturing steps at their U.S.-based operations through 2011. Most firms anticipate
maintaining capability to perform manufacturing steps at U.S. owned and operated facilities
through this period (see Figure IX-7). The number of companies retaining fabrication capability
will remain relatively stable, although there will be a slight decrease in the number of companies
capable of in-house production for each of the seven manufacturing steps.

106

Figure IX-7: Manufacturing Steps Retained by U.S. Owned and
Operated Facilities (2008-2011)
50
43

Number of Companies

30
25
19

20
15
10
5

6
1

0
Mask Making

Wafer Sorting
Wafer
Wafer
Manufacturing Manufacturing
(Back End)
(Front End)

Circuit Test

Packaging

Final Test &
Inspection

Manufacturing Step
Will Retain Capability

Will Not Retain Capability

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,
U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

The majority of fabrication companies plan to retain their current level of manufacturing
capability, with many projecting increases through 2011. 53 For example, U.S.-based capability
to perform front end wafer manufacturing will increase as 19 companies expand their domestic
capability (see Figure IX-8). Levels of circuit testing will also increase significantly, with 15
companies projected to expand domestic capabilities through 2011. In-house mask making is the
only manufacturing step where there is no planned increase in production capability over the
2007-2011 period.

In contrast to the previous section detailing outsourcing trends, this section explains whether levels of production
capability will increase, decrease, or remain unchanged through 2011. A company can outsource a portion of a
manufacturing step while increasing its base-line capacity to perform this step in its U.S.-based facilities.

107

Figure IX-8: Projected U.S.-Based Capability Trends for
2007 - 2011
25

Number of Companies

21
19

19
17

6
4

1
0
Mask Making

Wafer
Wafer
Wafer Sorting
Manufacturing Manufacturing
(Front End)
(Back End)

Circuit Test

Packaging

Final Test &
Inspection

Manufacturing Step
Increase

No Change

Decline

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,
U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

PROJECTED U.S.-BASED AND NON-U.S. OUTSOURCING
The number of companies that anticipate outsourcing manufacturing steps to U.S.-based vendors
will remain steady through 2011, which is similar to predictions for in-house fabrication activity.
During this period, the number of companies outsourcing to U.S.-based vendors is projected to
increase slightly for wafer manufacturing (back end), packaging, and final test and inspection.
Conversely, the number of fabricators outsourcing the mask making and wafer manufacturing
(front end) manufacturing steps to U.S.-based vendors is projected to decrease slightly (see
Figure IX-9).

108

Figure IX-9: Manufacturing Steps Outsourced to Other
U.S.-Based Vendors (2008-2011)
40
35
Number of Companies

30
25
20
15

10 11

10
3

0
Mask Making

Wafer
Wafer
Wafer Sorting
Manufacturing Manufacturing
(Front End)
(Back End)

Circuit Test

Packaging

Final Test &
Inspection

Manufacturing Step

Outsourced to Vendor in 2007

Will Outsource to Vendors by 2011

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,
U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

The number of companies performing mask making and front end wafer manufacturing in U.S.based facilities is decreasing along with the utilization of U.S.-based vendors for these
manufacturing steps. This suggests that a portion of these operations will move to non-U.S.
facilities.54 Specifically, four companies indicated that by 2011 they will shift their entire mask
making and front end wafer manufacturing to non-U.S. facilities.

As highlighted in Figure IX-10, fabrication companies anticipate increasing outsourced
production capability for all seven manufacturing steps by 2011. 55 The outsourcing of
packaging is due to increase the most, with 47 percent of fabrication companies planning to
expand domestic and non-U.S., non-affiliated operations. Also noteworthy is the fact that the 17
companies that will increase outsourcing of mask making capabilities. With minimal in-house
production, mask making is an area that should be monitored in the future.

This assumes that IC production will remain at current levels.
It should be noted that outsourcing of capability in this context does not necessarily indicate a company is fully
outsourcing that capability. Many companies may split manufacturing steps between U.S. owned and operated
facilities, U.S.-based vendors, and/or overseas facilities.

109

Figure IX-10: Projected Outsourcing of Manufacturing
Steps (2007 - 2011)

Number of Companies

30
25

23
21

20
18

13
11

10
5

3
1

0
Mask Making

Wafer
Wafer
Wafer Sorting
Manufacturing Manufacturing
(Front End)
(Back End)

Circuit Test

Packaging

Final Test &
Inspection

Manufacturing Step
Increase

No Change

Decline

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,
U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

110

X. PERFORMANCE AND OUTSOURCING OF DESIGN FUNCTIONS BY FABRICATION
COMPANIES
OTE queried fabrication companies regarding their ability to perform seven steps in designing
integrated circuit (IC) products: digital, analog, RTL design, synthesis, physical layout, function
verification, and test vector generation. Fabrication firms reported on their U.S. owned and
operated capabilities, design functions outsourced to United States and non-U.S. companies, and
future capabilities to perform each of these design steps. This chapter focuses exclusively on
design step performance of 49 U.S.-based fabrication companies through 2011.

U.S.-BASED DESIGN STEPS
More than half of fabrication companies are capable of performing all seven design steps in their
U.S.-based facilities (see Figure X-1). Synthesis is the design step least likely to be performed
in-house, with only 49 percent fabrication companies (24 firms) doing so. Analog design is most
commonly performed in-house, with 40 fabrication companies, or 82 percent, doing so. Four
fabrication companies reported having no design capability in their U.S.-operated facilities.

Figure X-1: Design Steps at U.S. Owned and Operated Facilities
- Fabrication Companies

Number of Companies

30
25

0
Digital

Analog

RTL Design

Synthesis

Physical
Layout

Functional
Verification

Test Vector
Generation

Design Step
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,
U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

111

Most IC fabrication companies do not outsource any design steps to U.S.-based vendors (see
Figure X-2). The two design steps most frequently outsourced to U.S.-based vendors are RTL
design and synthesis, but only four fabrication companies do so for each step.

Figure X-2: Design Steps Outsourced to Other U.S.-Based
Vendors - Fabrication Companies
10

Number of Companies

6
4

4
2

Digital

Analog

Physical
Layout

Functional
Verification

Test Vector
Generation

0
RTL Design

Synthesis

Design Step
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,
U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

NON-U.S. OUTSOURCING OF DESIGN STEPS
Overall, 20 fabrication companies (41 percent) outsource design steps to non-U.S. firms to some
degree (see Figure X-3). The majority of these companies outsource to non-U.S. facilities they
own and operate. The three design steps most frequently outsourced to affiliated non-U.S.
facilities are digital (17 companies), analog (16 companies), and physical layout (14 companies).
With regard to non-affiliated, non-U.S. facilities, only seven companies, 14 percent of the total,
outsource analog design, the highest level of outsourcing amongst the seven design steps.

112

Figure X-3: Outsourcing to Foreign Owned/Operated and NonAffiliated Facilities – Fabrication Companies

Number of Companies

16
14

7
5

0
Digital

Analog

RTL Design

Synthesis

Own/Operated Non-U.S. Facility

Physical
Layout

Funcation Test Vector
Verficiation Generation

Non-Affiliated Non-U.S. Facility

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,
U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

When IC fabrication companies outsource design steps to non-U.S. firms, they do so to providers
in a wide range of countries (see Figure X-4). China and India are the most common individual
destinations, but are considerably less common for design steps as opposed to manufacturing
operations. As a region, European countries are more prevalent destinations for the outsourcing
of design operations by fabricators, representing 35 percent of outsourcing operations.

113

Figure X-4: Outsourcing of Design Steps - Countries

France
8%

Japan
8%

Other Europe
27%

Taiwan
8%

Other
42%

India
15%

Other
10%
China
19%

Other Asia
5%

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,
U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

RETENTION OF DESIGN STEP CAPABILITY THROUGH 2011
Nearly all IC fabrication companies expect to retain their ability to perform core design steps at
their U.S.-based facilities through 2011 (see Figure X-5). In total, only three companies will not
retain their ability to perform one or more design steps in-house through 2011. The digital
design step will experience the largest reduction, with three fabrication companies, or six
percent, projected to diminish capability.

114

Figure X-5: Design Steps Retained by U.S. Owned and Operated
Facilities (2008-2011) - Fabrication Companies
50

Number of Companies

45
38

40
35

25
20
15
10
5

Digital

Analog

0
RTL Design

Synthesis

Physical
Layout

Functional
Verification

Test Vector
Generation

Design Step
Will Retain Capability

Not Retain Capability

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,
U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

Fabrication companies do not expect to change the amount of design work done in their U.S.
facilities (Figure X-6). For five of the seven design steps, 37 percent of companies anticipate no
change in their design capability through 2011, with the test vector generation and digital steps
close behind. There is a significant trend, however, of increasing in-house design capability
through 2011. Capability to perform the digital design step will increase the most, with 18
companies expanding their operations in the United States.

115

Figure X-6: Projected U.S.-Based Capability Trends for
2007 - 2011 - Fabrication Companies

Number of Companies

15
12

10
7

5
1

Synthesis

Physical
Layout

0
Digital

Analog

RTL Design

Functional
Verification

Test Vector
Generation

Design Step
Increase

No Change

Decrease

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,
U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

IC fabrication companies reported a wide-range of answers on projected outsourcing of design
steps to U.S.-based vendors. Although most companies do not currently utilize U.S.-based
vendors to perform design steps, a few fabrication firms predict outsourcing to U.S.-based
companies will increase by 2011. This outsourcing will most likely be in the digital, analog,
RTL design, and synthesis design steps (see Figure X-7). Outsourcing of physical layout and
function verification steps is anticipated to remain steady, while all fabrication companies expect
to cease using U.S.-based vendors to perform test vector generation design work.

116

Figure X-7: Design Steps Outsourced to Other U.S.-Based
Vendors (2008-2011) - Fabrication Companies
7
6

Number of Companies

6
5
4

4
3

3
2

Digital

Analog

2
1
0
RTL Design

Synthesis

Physical
Layout

Functional
Verification

Test Vector
Generation

Design Step

Outsourced to Vendor in 2007

Will Outsource to Vendors

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,
U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

For most IC fabrication companies, the level of outsourcing of design steps will not change
through 2011 (see Figure X-8). However, 31 percent of fabricators (15 firms) plan to increase
their level of outsourcing of at least one design step over this period. Of these companies, 10 (20
percent of all fabrication firms) expect to expand their level of outsourcing for all seven design
steps. Data shows that fabrication companies intend to maintain design capability in the United
States while expanding outsourcing operations.

117

Figure X-8: Projected Outsourcing of Design Steps
(2007 - 2011) - Fabrication Companies
25

Number of Companies

20
15

13
11

14
10

14
11

5
1

0
Digital

Analog

RTL Design

Synthesis

Physical
Layout

Functional
Verification

Test Vector
Generation

Design Step
Increase

No Change

Decline

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,
U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

118

XI. PERFORMANCE AND OUTSOURCING OF DESIGN FUNCTIONS BY FABLESS
COMPANIES
OTE queried 106 fabless companies regarding their ability to perform seven main design steps in
the development of integrated circuit (IC) products. These steps include digital, analog, RTL
design, synthesis, physical layout, function verification, and test vector generation.56 Fabless
firms reported on their U.S. owned and operated capabilities, design functions outsourced to
U.S.-based vendors and non-U.S. companies, and future capabilities to perform each of these
design steps through 2011.

U.S.-BASED DESIGN STEPS
The vast majority of design companies can perform all seven design steps at U.S. owned and
operated facilities (see Figure XI-1). Although analog design work is the least likely step to be
performed in-house, more than 76 percent of the 106 design companies (81 firms) have the
capability. Ninety-two percent of the 106 design companies (97 firms) can perform the digital
design step in U.S. owned and operated facilities, the most frequently identified capability.

Figure XI-1: Design Steps at U.S. Owned and Operated Facilities Fabless Companies
110
100

97
90

Number of Companies

RTL Design

Synthesis

80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Digital

Analog

Physical
Layout

Functional
Verification

Test Vector
Generation

Design Step
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,
U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

For definitions of these seven manufacturing steps, please see Appendix C.

119

Twenty-one fabless companies outsource specific design steps to U.S.-based vendors (see Figure
XI-2). Analog and test vector generation are most frequently cited as design steps outsourced to
U.S.-based vendors. Only eight percent of companies (nine firms) outsource each of the analog
and test vector generation design steps.

Figure XI-2: Design Steps Outsourced to Other U.S.-Based
Vendors - Fabless Companies
16

Number of Companies

14
12
10

7
6

2
0
Digital

Analog

RTL Design

Synthesis

Physical
Layout

Functional
Verification

Test Vector
Generation

Design Step
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,
U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

NON-U.S. OUTSOURCING OF DESIGN STEPS
In addition to outsourcing to U.S.-based vendors, companies were asked to describe their nonU.S. outsourcing activities. Forty-nine of the 106 IC design companies (46 percent) outsource
design steps to non-U.S. locations at some level (see Figure XI-3). Most of the companies that
reported outsourcing design steps to other countries do so to non-U.S. facilities they own and
operate. A smaller number of design firms outsource to non-affiliated, non-U.S. facilities.

120

Figure XI-3: Outsourcing to Foreign Owned/Operated and NonAffiliated Facilities – Fabless Companies
50

Number of Companies

45
40

35
30
25

27
24
20

22
19

15
10
5
0
Digital

Analog

RTL Design Synthesis

Own/Operated Non-U.S. Facility

Physical
Layout

Funcation Test Vector
Verficiation Generation

Non-Affiliated Non-U.S. Facility

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,
U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

A significant number of IC design companies simultaneously outsource design steps to both
affiliated and non-affiliated, non-U.S. facilities. For example, 21 of the 24 design companies
that outsource the digital design step to non-affiliated, non-U.S. facilities also have non-U.S.
facilities they own performing the same step.

Fabless firms were also asked to identify the locations of the non-U.S. facilities where design
work is performed. The largest number of fabless companies, 32 percent, outsource design steps
to Asia, with 12 percent going to Taiwan and nine percent going to China (see Figure XI-4).
Twenty-nine percent of the companies outsource to Europe, with eight percent using facilities in
the United Kingdom. A quarter of the fabless companies outsource to India, and seven percent
outsource to Israel and to Canada, respectively.

121

Figure XI-4: Outsourcing of Design Steps
- Destination Countries

UK
8%

Israel
7%

Canada
7%
Other Europe
21%

China
9%
Other
33%

Taiwan
12%

India
25%

Other Asia
11%

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,
U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

Design of IC products is most commonly outsourced in the 1,000 nm – 250 nm, 250 nm – 65 nm
and the less than 65 nm technology node ranges. Outsourced design work is primarily for
devices employing bulk silicon; design steps for devices that employ silicon-on-insulator and
silicon germanium are much less commonly outsourced. Design work for ASIC products is
outsourced to a greater degree than design work for gate arrays or memory devices. Finally, the
vast majority of outsourced design work occurs for conventional IC products; very few design
steps are outsourced for radiation resistant products.

RETENTION OF DESIGN STEP CAPABILITY THROUGH 2011
Nearly all fabless companies expect to retain capability to perform seven main design steps at
their U.S. owned and operated facilities through 2011. A slight drop is expected in the number
of companies with capabilities in each of the seven categories, with the most companies
expecting to eliminate the physical layout design step (see Figure XI-5). Only four of the 106
companies (less than 4 percent), however, plan to eliminate capability for the physical layout
step at their U.S. owned and operated facilities.

122

Figure XI-5: Design Steps Retained by U.S. Owned and Operated
Facilities (2008-2011) - Fabless Companies
110

Number of Companies

100

95
89

70
60
50
40
30
20
10

Digital

Analog

0
RTL Design

Synthesis

Physical
Layout

Functional
Verification

Test Vector
Generation

Design Step
Will Retain Capability

Not Retain Capability

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,
U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

Fabless companies were also asked to project the level of capability they will have for each of
the seven design steps at their U.S.-based facilities through 2011. The majority of fabless
companies expect to increase their capability across all design steps (see Figure XI-6). A lesser
number of fabless companies predicted no changes in their design step capabilities. Very few
fabless companies plan to decrease capability levels through 2011.

123

Figure XI-6: Projected U.S.-Based Capability Trends for
2007 - 2011 - Fabless Companies
90

Number of Companies

80
70
60

50
40

30
20
10

Synthesis

Physical
Layout

0
Digital

Analog

RTL Design

Functional
Verification

Test Vector
Generation

Design Step
Increase

No Change

Decrease

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,
U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

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

As stated previously, very few fabless companies outsource the seven design steps to U.S.-based
vendors; these low levels of outsourcing are projected to continue through 2011 (see Figure XI7). The outsourcing of three design steps are projected to decline: physical layout, functional
verification, and test vector generation. The RTL design and synthesis design steps will see
slight increases in U.S.-based vendor outsourcing. All companies that currently outsource the
digital and analog design steps are expected to continue to do so through 2011.

124

Figure XI-7: Design Steps Outsourced to Other U.S.-Based
Vendors (2008-2011) - Fabless Companies
10
9

Number of Companies

9
8
7
7
6

6
6
5

5
4
4
3
3
2

2
1
0
Digital

Analog

RTL Design

Synthesis

Physical
Layout

Functional
Verification

Test Vector
Generation

Design Step
Outsourced to Vendor in 2007

Will Outsource to Vendors

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,
U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

Most fabless companies project that the amount of outsourcing will not change through 2011
(see Figure XI-8). Nevertheless, the data shows that approximately 40 percent of fabless
companies expect to increase their levels of outsourcing through 2011. When compared with the
data from Figure X-5, which shows that most companies will retain design capability in their
U.S.-based facilities, this indicates that a portion of design companies will seek to expand their
operations overseas while maintaining robust capability domestically.

125

Figure XI-8: Projected Outsourcing of Design Steps
(2007 - 2011) - Fabless Companies
40

35
Number of Companies

20
15
10

5
5

0
Digital

Analog

RTL Design

Synthesis

Physical
Layout

Functional
Verification

Test Vector
Generation

Design Step
Increase

No Change

Decline

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,
U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

126

XII. INDUSTRY FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE
As a group, integrated circuit (IC) fabrication and fabless companies surveyed by OTE reported
steady increases in net sales over a four-year reporting period from 2003 through 2006.
Combined net sales climbed from $81.4 billion in 2003 to $116 billion in 2006, growing an
average of 12.7 percent annually.

IC fabrication companies accounted for the bulk of combined industry net sales, averaging 75
percent of total sales over the four-year period. Fabricators’ net sales grew from $62 billion in
2003 to $83.5 billion in 2006, with an average increase per year of 10.6 percent (see figure XII1). Fabless companies accounted for the rest of combined industry net sales. Their net sales
grew from $19 billion in 2003 to $33 billion in 2006, with an average increase per year of 19.3
percent.

$ Billions

Figure XII-1: Net Sales
$90
$80
$70
$60

$83.6

$81.4
$73.0
$62.1

$50
$40
$30
$20

$19.3

$23.8

$32.8

$27.1

$10
$2003

2004

2005

2006

Year
Fabrication Companies

Fabless Companies

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,
U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

127

FABRICATION NET SALES
In analyzing net sales data, IC fabricators’ were categorized as small-, medium-, and large-size
based on average net corporate sales from 2003 – 2006 (see Figures XII-2 and XII-3).

Figure XII-2: Size Classification – Fabrication Companies
Size

Number of Companies

Net Sales

Small

Less than $100 million

Medium

$100 million - $1 billion

Large

Greater than $1 billion

Total

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,
U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

Figure XII-3: Fabrication Net Sales
$80

$75.5

$74.5
$66.2

$70

$ Billions

$60 $56.1
$50
$40
$30
$20
$10

$6.5

$5.8
$0.2

$7.7

$6.6
$0.3

$0.4

$0.3

$2003

2004

2005

2006

Year
Large

Medium

Small

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,
U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

Large-size companies reported net sales of $75.5 billion in 2006 up from $56.1 billion in 2003,
an average annual increase of 8.6 percent. Five of the ten large-size fabrication companies
dominate the industry, accounting for $240 billion of $272.3 billion nets sales (88 percent)

128

posted for the 2003-2006 period by the large-size companies. Net sales for these five companies
over the four-year period grew at a faster rate, 9.2 percent, than for all IC fabricators as a group.

The lower five large-size firms combined net earnings totaled only $32 billion in 2003-2006,
although their growth rate as a group, an average of 21.9 percent annually, was stronger than the
top five large-size firms. Their net sales rose from $5.7 billion in 2003 to $10.3 billion in 2006
(see Figure XII-4).

Medium-size fabrication companies totaled $26.5 billion in net sales over the four-year period.
Net sales increased from $5.7 billion in 2003 to $7.7 billion in 2006, an average annual percent
change per year of 10.2 percent.

Small-size fabrication companies recorded the lowest net sales, $1.2 billion from 2003 to 2006.
Their combined gains in net sales, however, were high, increasing from $233 million in 2003 to
$402 million in 2006, an average percent change per year of 20.1 percent.

Figure XII-4: Fabrication Net Sales –
Excluding Top 5 Companies
$12
$10.3

$ Billions

$10

$9.2

$8
$6

$7.1
$5.7 $5.8

$7.7
$6.6

$6.5

$4
$2
$0.4

$0.3

$0.2

$2003

2004

2005

2006

Year
Large

Medium

Small

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,
U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

129

IC DESIGN NET SALES
In analyzing net sales data, fabless companies were categorized as small-, medium-, and largesized based on average net corporate sales from 2003 – 2006 (see Figure XII-5).

Figure XII-5: Size Classification – Fabless Companies
Size

Number of Companies

Net Sales

Small

Less than $25 million

Medium

$25 million - $350 million

Large

Greater than $350 million

Total

106

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,
U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

Based on average net corporate sales from 2003 – 2006, large-size fabless companies reported
$92.6 billion in net sales over the four-year period, accounting for 90 percent of total fabless net
sales. Their net sales increased from $17 billion in 2003 to $29 billion in 2006, with an average
percent change per year of 19.2 percent (see Figure XII-6).

Making up nine percent of total design net sales, medium-size fabless companies totalled $9.6
billion from 2003 to 2006. Their net sales increased at a slightly slower pace than large-size
design companies, increasing from 1.9 billion in 2003 to $3 billion in 2006 with an average
percent change per year of 16 percent.

Small-size fabless companies registered just one percent of total design sales, totalling $912
million in net sales over the four-year period. This group, however, grew at the fastest pace with
an average increase of 80 percent, rising from $82.6 million in 2003 to $469 million in 2006.

130

Figure XII-6: Fabless Net Sales
$35
$29.4

$ Billions

$30
$24.4

$25
$20

$21.5
$17.4

$15
$10
$5

$1.9

$2003

$0.1

$2.2

$2.9

$2.5

2004

$0.5

$0.2

$0.1

2005

2006

Year
Large

Medium

Small

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,
U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

CURRENT RATIO
To gain insight into the competitive position of U.S. IC fabricators and fabless companies, OTE
used a standard business measure, the current ratio. It measures the ability of a company to pay
its debts with its existing resources over the next twelve months.57 A ratio score of 2.0 or above
is generally considered to be acceptable, because it means a company’s assets are double its
liabilities.

For perspective on financial performance relative to peers, individual company scores were
weighed against the overall industry current ratio. As a group, fabrication and fabless companies
had a combined average current ratio of 2.77 for the four-year period. The current ratio score
during the period slipped from 2.88 in 2003 to 2.71 in 2006 (see Figure XII-7).

The current ratio is calculated by dividing current assets by current liabilities.

131

Figure XII-7: Current Ratio
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0

3.5

3.3
2.9

2.8

3.5

3.2
2.9

2.7

2003

2.7

2.7
2.4

2004

2.4

2005

2006

Year
Fabrication Companies

Fabless Companies

Total

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,
U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

For fabrication companies as a group, the current ratio declined from 2.75 in 2003 to 2.38 in
2006. This decrease is attributed largely to sliding financial performance in some large-size IC
fabrication companies, which caused their collective current ratio to fall from 2.7 in 2003 to 2.25
in 2006 (see Figure XII-8). In contrast, both medium- and small-size IC fabrication companies
saw current ratios scores improve for their respective groups.

132

Figure XII-8: Fabrication Companies’ Current
Ratio – By Company Size
4
3.5
3
2.5

3.8

3.6
3.3

3.0
2.7

3.1

2.9

2.6
2.3

2.3

2
1.5
1
0.5
0
2003

2004

2005

2006

Year
Large

Medium

Small

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,
U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

A review of the financial information provided by nine individual large-size fabricators showed
that three companies experienced decreases in current ratio scores from 2003 to 2006, indicating
either an increase in debt or a decrease in assets. One large-size company posted an average
current ratio below 2.0 for each of the four years, but improved its current ratio score over
reporting period. Three large-size companies’ financial performance produced current ratios that
hovered between 2.0 and 3.0 over the four years; one of these companies experienced a net
decrease in its ratio score for the reporting period.

Of the 17 medium-size IC fabricators providing adequate financial data, 10 companies scored
three or higher for the 2003-2006 period. Seven fabricators, however, saw current ratios fall
between 2003 and 2006. Five medium-size companies’ current ratios averaged between 2.0 and
3.0, with a decrease in current ratios occurring for two companies over the survey period. One
medium-size company’s average current ratio scored below 2.0 over the four-year period, but it
improved its current ratio during this time.

Only seven small-size IC fabricators provided enough financial data to enable OTE to calculate
current ratios. Three of these companies experienced decreases in their current ratios over the

133

survey period. Three small-size companies had average current ratios below 2.0, but all managed
to improve their scores over the four-year period. One small-size company’s current ratio
average floated between 2.0 and 3.0, but the score trended down between 2003 and 2006.

The financial performances of many fabless IC design companies appear stronger than those of
IC fabricators when the average current ratios of the two industry segments are compared.
Indeed, industry analysts note that fabrication companies have greater scale in terms of net sales
and more capital assets that can be used to secure debt.58 This is not an absolute measure of
financial strength, however.

IC Design companies surveyed by OTE had an average current ratio for the four-year period of
3.37 (see Figure XII-7). The score is attributable to improvement in company financial
performance, which lifted the average current ratios from 3.26 in 2003 to 3.51 in 2006. This
improvement can be traced primarily to current ratios of large- and medium-size design
companies. Small-size IC design companies as a group saw their score fall from 4.73 in 2003 to
2.7 in 2006 see Figure XII-9).

Of the 11 large-size IC design companies that reported sufficient financial information, six had
current ratios over 3.0. Five other companies, however, saw current ratios decline from 2003 to
2006. Three of these companies scored average current ratios below 2.0, though only one
experienced a decrease in its current ratio over the four-year period.

Among the 23 medium-size IC design companies providing adequate financial data, seven
experienced decreases in their current ratios over the four-year period. Five companies had
current ratios between 2.0 and 3.0, two of which saw current ratios fall from 2003 to 2006. Only
two design companies scored average current ratios below 2.0, but scores improved for both of
those firms over the survey period.

Observations made to OTE in discussions with Robert Markunas, consultant, SoCit LLC; and Tristen Gerra,
analyst, Robert W. Baird & Co., Inc., October 2008.

134

Thirty-five small-size IC design companies provided financial data sufficient for calculating
current ratios. For 18 companies current ratios fell from 2003 to 2006. Six small-size companies
had current ratios between 2.0 and 3.0, and two experienced decreases in their current ratios over
the four-year period. Four companies had current ratios below 2.0, and only one saw
improvement in its current ratio over the survey period.

Figure XII-9: Fabless Companies’ Current Ratio
- By Company Size
6

5.2

4.9

4.7

5
4.0

4
3.1

4.7
4.0

3.8

3.4

3.1

2.7

3
2
1
0
2003

2004

2005

2006

Year
Large

Medium

Small

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,
U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

135

XIII. RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT AND RELATED EMPLOYMENT
Expenditures for research and development (R&D) have been a pivotal force propelling
innovation and expansion in the semiconductor industry over the last four decades. With
intensifying global competition, R&D spending remains critical to sustaining the
competitiveness of U.S. designers and manufacturers of integrated circuit (IC) products.

From 2003 to 2006, IC fabrication and fabless companies allocated a total of $68 billion for
R&D activities (see Figure XIII-1). These expenditures rose from $14.9 billion in 2003 to $19.9
billion in 2006, a 34 percent increase.59

Figure XIII-1: Total R&D Expenditures
$14.1

$15

$ Billions

$12

$12.4

$12.0

$11.1

$9
$6
$3.8

$5.8

$4.8

$4.1

$3
$2003

2004

2005

2006

Year
Fabrication Companies

Fabless Companies

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,
U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

To better understand R&D spending by IC firms, expenditures were weighed against net sales
figures.60 R&D spending as a percent of net sales was relatively steady for fabrication
companies, decreasing from a high of 18 percent in 2003 to a low of 15 percent in 2005, before

59
60

2003 data is based on 115 company responses; 2006 data is based on 133 company responses.
Calculated by dividing company R&D expenditures by net sales figures.

136

rising again to 17 percent in 2006 (see Figure XII-2).61 For fabless companies, R&D spending as
a percent of net sales also remained relatively constant, averaging 23 percent in 2003 and then
leveling off to 20 percent during each of the following three years.62

Figure XIII-2: R&D Spending as a Percent of Net Sales
25%

23%

Percent of Net Sales

20%

18%

20%
17%

16%

15%

15%
10%
5%
0%
2003

2004

2005

2006

Year
Fabrication Companies

Fabless Companies

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,
U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

IC fabrication companies allotted $49.5 billion to R&D investment over the 2003- 2006 period
(see Figure XIII-3). Fabrication R&D expenditures during this period rose from $11 billion to
$14 billion, an increase of nearly 28 percent.63 The top five fabrication firms were responsible
for $38.4 billion, or 77 percent, of total IC fabrication company R&D expenditures. In 2006
alone, the top five fabrication firms spent $10.8 billion on R&D, 76 percent of the $14 billion
total fabrication R&D expenditures.

Data is based on 77 IC fabless company responses.
Data is based on 40 IC fabrication company responses.
63
The $14 billion figure is based on 41 IC Fabrication company responses in 2006.
62

137

Figure XIII-3: Fabrication Companies’ R&D Spending
$14.1

$15

$ Billions

$12

$11.1

$12.0

$12.4

2004

2005

$9
$6
$3
$2003

2006

Year

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,
U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

Absent the top five fabrication firms, the remaining companies spent $11.1 billion, 23 percent of
total fabrication company R&D expenditures, between 2003 and 2006. R&D outlays by this
segment of fabricators increased from $2.6 billion to $3.3 billion over the four-year period (see
Figure XIII-4).

138

Figure XIII-4: Fabrication R&D Spending Excluding Top 5 Companies
$4
$3.3

$ Billions

$2.6

2003

2004

2005

$2006

Year

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,
U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

While smaller than fabrication investment, fabless R&D outlays increased steadily over the
period, representing 29 percent of overall R&D expenditures. Spending rose from $3.8 billion in
2003 to $5.8 billion in 2006, an increase of more than 50 percent (see Figure XIII-5).64

Based on 92 IC fabless company responses in 2006, 78 design company responses in 2003.

139

Figure XIII-5: Fabless Companies’ R&D Spending
$8

$5.8

$ Billions

$6
$4.8
$4

$3.8

$4.1

$2003

2004

2005

2006

Year
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,
U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

R&D EXPENDITURES BY COMPANY SIZE
An examination of R&D spending based on company size reveals differences in expenditure
levels within as well as across fabless and fabrication sectors. To perform this analysis, IC
companies were categorized as small-, medium-, and large-sized based on average net corporate
sales from 2003-2006.

In terms of expenditures, the 10 large-size fabrication firms surveyed (net sales over $1 billion)
accounted for the largest percentage of R&D spending (see Figure XIII-6).65 They allocated
$43.8 billion to R&D between 2003 and 2006. In 2006, their R&D expenditures reached $12.5
billion, 89 percent of all fabrication R&D spending.

Number of fabrication respondents for 2006 data: Large (10); Medium (18); Small (12).

140

$ Billions

Figure XIII-6: Fabrication R&D Spending
- By Company Size
$13
$12
$11
$10
$9
$8
$7
$6
$5
$4
$3
$2
$1
$0

$12.5
$11.0

$10.6
$9.7

$1.2

2003

$1.4

$1.2

$1.2
$0.1

$0.1

$0.1
2004

$0.1
2005

2006

Year
Small

Medium

Large

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,
U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

Eighteen medium-size fabrication companies (net sales between $100 million and $1 billion)
accounted for the second-largest percentage of R&D spending by fabricators. They allocated a
total of $5 billion between 2003 and 2006. In 2006, their R&D expenditures reached $1.4
billion, 10 percent of all fabrication R&D spending.

The twelve small-size IC fabrication firms (net sales below $100 million) accounted for the
smallest percentage of R&D spending. They allocated $254 million to R&D between 2003 and
2006. In 2006, their R&D expenditures totaled $77 million, one percent of all fabrication R&D
spending.

As a percent of net sales, R&D investment reported by the small-size fabrication companies is
noticeably higher than that for medium- and large-size companies (see Figure XIII-7). In 2003,
small-size fabrication companies spent 57 percent of net sales on R&D, compared to 21 percent
by medium-size and 17 percent by large-size companies. By 2006, fabrication R&D spending by
small-size companies diminished to 34 percent of net sales compared to an 18 percent decrease
by medium-size fabrication companies and a 17 percent decrease by large-size companies.

141

Figure XIII-7: Fabrication R&D Spending as a
Percent of Net Sales - By Company Size
Percent of Net Sales

100%

75%
57%
44%

50%

25%

39%

21%

18%

17%

16%

15%

34%

Large
Medium
Small

18%
17%

0%
2003

2004

2005

2006

Year

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,
U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

R&D expenditures for fabless firms followed similar patterns to those of fabrication firms. In
terms of expenditures, the 10 large-size fabless firms (net sales over $350 million) accounted for
the largest percentage of R&D spending. They allocated a total of $14.2 billion between 2003
and 2006 (see Figure XIII-8). In 2006, their spending reached $4.5 billion, 79 percent of total
fabless R&D spending.

142

Figure XIII-8: Fabless R&D Spending
- By Company Size
$6
$ Billions

$4.5
$3.7

$3.1

$2.8

$3
$2

$0.7

$0.7
$0.2

$0.2

$0.7
$0.3

$0.3

$2003

2004

2005

2006

Year
Large

Medium

Small

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,
U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

Medium-size fabless companies (net sales between $25 million and $350 million) accounted for
the second-largest percentage of R&D spending. They allocated $2.9 billion to R&D between
2003 and 2006. In 2006, their R&D expenditures reached $733 million, 12.7 percent of all
design R&D spending.

Small-size fabless firms (net sales below $25 million) accounted for the smallest percentage of
industry R&D spending. They allocated $1 billion to R&D over the 2003-2006 period. In 2006,
their R&D expenditures reached $335 million, 5.8 percent of all design R&D spending.

R&D spending patterns for fabless companies are reversed when examined as a percent of net
sales (see Figure XIII-9). Small-size fabless companies have a notably higher ratio of R&D
spending as a percent of net sales, starting at a high of 193 percent in 2003. That figure receded
in the following three years, but still stood at 92 percent in 2006. Twenty-four survey
respondents reported R&D spending that exceeded net sales. These companies posted just under
$32 million in net sales in 2006, yet allocated over $182 million to R&D - 570 percent of net
sales.

143

Figure XIII-9: Fabless R&D Spending as a
Percent of Net Sales - By Company Size
200%
Percent of Net Sales

175%

193%
187%

150%

167%

125%
100%
92%

75%
50%

39%

34%

28%

25%

18%

Large
Medium
Small

25%
0%

20%

2003

17%

2004

2005

2006

Year

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,
U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

R&D spending as a percent of net sales decreased over the survey period for both medium-size
and large-size fabless companies. Average company R&D investment by medium-size fabless
companies as a percent of net sales declined from 39 percent in 2003 to 25 percent in 2006.
Large-size fabless companies also experienced a decline, although to a lesser extent, as R&D
spending as a percent of net sales fell from 20 percent in 2003 to 18 percent in 2006.

R&D EXPENDITURES BY FUNCTION
Survey participants provided a detailed breakout of R&D spending for the four-year period by
the following categories: basic research, applied research, process development, and product
development.66

Fabrication and fabless companies allocated almost half of their R&D investments from 2003 to
2006 to product development (see figure XIII-10). For the four-year period, R&D spending
totaled $68 billion, $30 billion of which was dedicated to product development.

For definitions of these terms, see Appendix C.

144

Figure XIII-10: Total R&D Spending by Function
$12
$10

$ Billions

$10

$6
$4
$2

$3.9

$3.5
$1.7

$4.1

$3.9

$3.7
$2.7 $2.3

$2.0

$4.3
$3.1 $2.8

$2003

2004

2005

2006

Year
Basic Research

Applied Research

Process Development

Product Development

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,
U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

For 2006, overall fabrication and fabless company R&D expenditures by category were:
•
•
•
•

Basic research – $3 billion (15 percent);
Applied research – $2.8 billion (14 percent);
Process development – $4.3 billion (22 percent);
Product development – $9.7 billion (49 percent).67

In 2006, fabrication companies dedicated $6.6 billion - 49 percent of total R&D expenditures - to
product development (see Figure XIII-11). Over the four-year period, product development
funding rose 77 percent. The 2006 figures for the other functions were: process development,
$3.9 billion; basic research, $3 billion; and applied research, $615 million.

Percentages are based on total fabrication and fabless company R&D expenditures.

145

Figure XIII-11: Fabrication R&D Spending by Function

$ Billions

$7
$6

$6
$5
$4

$3.8

$4.0

$3.5

$3.1

$3.2
$2.7

$3
$2
$1

$3.9

$0.6

$0.5

$0.6

$3.0

$0.6

$2003

2004

2005

2006

Year
Basic Research

Applied Research

Process Development

Product Development

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,
U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

For the top five fabrication companies, expenditures on the various functions were fairly evenly
distributed: product development, $3.9 billion (36 percent); process development, $3.4 billion
(32 percent); and basic research, $3 billion (27 percent) (see Figure XIII-12). The exception to
this was applied research, which received $514 million (almost five percent) of fabricator R&D
funding. Over the period, however, the focus of spending shifted from basic research to product
development. In 2003, the top five fabricators allocated 45 percent of expenditures to basic
research and 19 percent to product development. These five companies changed tack in 2006,
allotting 27 percent to basic research and 32 percent to product development.

146

Figure XIII-12: R&D Spending by Function
– Top 5 Companies
$5
$4

$4.0

$3.8

$ Billions

$3.4

$3.2

$4
$2.9

$2.7

$3.0

$2.6

$3
$2

$2
$1
$1

$0.4

$0.5

$2003

2004

2005

2006

Year
Basic Research

Applied Research

Process Development

Product Development

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,
U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

The focus of spending shifts when the top five fabrication companies are excluded from the
break-out of R&D expenditures by function (see Figure XIII-13). Of the $3.3 billion spent by
the remaining fabrication companies on R&D in 2006, $2.7 billion, or 79 percent, was spent on
product development. These fabrication companies spent $67 million, or 2 percent of their total
R&D expenditures, on basic research. This is a sharp contrast to the 21 percent of R&D funds
allocated to basic research when R&D priorities of the top five fabrication companies are
considered.

147

Figure XIII-13: R&D Spending by Function
– Excluding the Top 5 Companies
$3.0

$2.7

$2.5

$ Billions

$2.2

$2.1

$2.0
$1.5
$1.0
$0.5
$0.3

$0.5
$0.1 $0.1

$0.3

$0.3
$0.1 $0.1

$0.1 $0.1

$2003

2004

2005

2006

Year
Basic Research

Applied Research

Process Development

Product Development

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,
U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

In contrast to fabrication companies, fabless companies dedicated a larger portion of funds to
applied research. In 2006, fabless companies spent $2.2 billion, or 38 percent of their total R&D
expenditures on applied research, as compared to the eight percent spent by fabrication
companies (see Figure XIII-14).

148

Figure XIII-14: Fabless R&D Spending by Function
$3.5

$3.2

$ Billions

$3.0
$2.4

$2.5

$2.2

$2.1

$2.2

$2.0

$1.8
$1.4

$1.5

$1.2

$1.0
$0.5

$0.5

$0.1

$0.5

$0.4

$0.4
$0.1

$2003

2004

2005

2006

Year
Basic Research

Applied Research

Process Development

Product Development

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,
U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

Much like their fabrication counterparts, however, fabless companies also invested aggressively
in product development. In 2006, fabless companies allocated $3.1 billion (55 percent) to this
function – a nearly 50 percent increase from 2003. Process development and basic research
received lower levels of funding in 2006: $376 million and $58 million, respectively.

SOURCES OF R&D FUNDING
IC fabrication and design companies reported sources of R&D funding derived from five
separate categories for the 2003-2006 period: parent company/internal sources, U.S. private
entity, foreign investors, federal government, and state and local government. Ninety-eight
percent of R&D funds are attributable to parent companies/internal sources.

The sources of R&D funding in 2006 for all companies break down as follows:
•
•
•
•
•

Parent company ($17.6 billion, 95 percent)
U.S. private entity ($425 million, 2.3 percent)
Foreign investors ($358 million, 1.9 percent)
Federal government ($63 million, 0.36 percent)
Local government ($78 million, 0.44 percent)

149

Internal R&D funding at fabrication companies rose 25 percent from $10 billion in 2003 to $12.4
billion in 2006 (see Figure XII-15). Ten large-size companies obtained nearly $11 billion (88
percent) of this funding from internal funding. In comparison, medium-size fabrication
companies secured only $1.5 billion (12 percent) of R&D funds from internal sources, while
small-size fabrication companies attributed just $28.3 million (or less than one percent) to
internal funding.

Figure XIII-15: Fabrication R&D Internal Funding
$12

$ Billions

$10

$10.9
$9.6

$9.3

$8.6

$8
$6
$4
$2

$1.3

$0.1

$0
2003

$1.5

$1.3

2004

$0.1

2005

2006

Year
Large

Medium

Small

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,
U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

Fabless companies also showed growth in internal R&D funding, reporting a 61 percent gain
from $3.2 billion in 2003 to $5.2 billion in 2006 (see Figure XIII-16). As with the large-size IC
fabrication companies, most of the internal R&D funding of fabless companies can be attributed
to 10 large-size companies, which accounted for $4.3 billion, or 83 percent of funding, in 2006.

150

$ Billions

Figure XIII-16: Fabless R&D Internal Funding
$5
$5
$4
$4
$3
$3
$2
$2
$1
$1
$0

$4.3
$3.5
$2.8

$2.5

$0.6

2003

$0.7

$0.6

2004

$0.2

$0.1

2005

2006

Year
Large

Medium

Small

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,
U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

Internal funding of R&D was sharply lower for the medium-size fabless companies at roughly
$669 million in 2006 (13 percent). The small-size fabless companies reported internal R&D
funding of $232 million in 2006 (4 percent).

Small-size fabless companies stand out relative to medium- and large-size counterparts in the
proportion of U.S. private entity funding relative to other sources (see Figure XIII-17). In 2006,
U.S. private entity funding for small-size fabless companies totaled $199.2 million, 43 percent of
their total R&D funding. In comparison, medium-size fabless companies reported just $21.6
million in U.S. private entity R&D funding, three percent of their R&D funding. Large-size
companies received no funds from U.S. private entities.

151

Figure XIII-17: Sources of R&D Funds – Small Fabless Firms
$250

$232

$227

$199

$ Millions

$200

$185
$155

$150

$143

$111

$100
$50
$16

$23

$24

$13 $6

$10

$2003

2004

2005

2006

Year
Parent Company (Internal)
Foreign Investors

U.S. Private Entity
Federal Government

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,
U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

R&D EMPLOYMENT
R&D-related employment for fabrication and fabless firms over the 2003-2006 period mirrored
the growth in R&D expenditures (see Figure XIII-18). Survey participants indicated total R&D
employment rose 14 percent, from just over 83,000 in 2003 to 95,000 in 2006.68

Figures based on responses from 107 companies – 73 designers and 34 fabricators.

152

Figure XIII-18: R&D Employment
80,000
70,000

67,807

63,452

60,248

67,403

# of Staff

60,000
50,000
40,000
30,000

23,241

23,649

27,657

25,379

20,000
10,000
0

2003

2004

2005

2006

Year
Fabrication Companies

Fabless Companies

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,
U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

Fabrication companies are the largest R&D employers in the industry, accounting for over 70
percent of total R&D employment in 2006. Overall, R&D employment for IC fabrication
companies grew 12 percent during the 2003-2006 period, from approximately 60,000 to more
than 67,000 (see Figure XIII-18).

A substantial portion of R&D employment in 2006 - nearly 51,000, or 75 percent - was
concentrated in the top five IC fabrication companies. The remaining large-size companies
employ another 10 percent of R&D personnel, medium-size companies 14 percent, and smallsize companies accounted for only one percent (see Figure XIII-19).

153

Figure XIII-19: Fabrication R&D Employment
– By Company Size
60,000
57,430

50,000

# of Staff

49,920

56,994

52,637

40,000

Large
Medium
Small

30,000
20,000
9,766

10,199

9,722

9,736

562

616

655

673

2003

2004

2005

2006

10,000
0

Year
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,
U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

As with fabrication companies, R&D employment for fabless companies also grew from 2003 to
2006. Overall, R&D employment for this industry segment rose 19 percent from approximately
23,000 to more than 27,000 (see Figure XIII-18).

The vast majority of fabless R&D staff is employed by large-size companies. In 2006, these
companies employed 79 percent of R&D staff (see Figure XIII-20). Medium- and small-size
fabless companies employed 15 percent and six percent, respectively. Small-size fabless
companies experienced the most growth, expanding their employment by approximately 83
percent during the 2003-2006 period.

154

25,000

Figure XIII-20: Fabless R&D Employment
– By Company Size
21,753

20,000
19,985

# of Staff

18,335

18,439

Large
Medium
Small

15,000

10,000

5,000

3,906

4,003

1,000

1,207

2003

2004

3,864
1,530

4,078

1,826

2005

2006

Year
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,
U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

TOP COUNTRIES FOR R&D EXPENDITURES
In addition to conducting R&D in the United States, fabrication and fabless companies rely on
research organizations in other countries to perform this work. OTE asked companies to identify
the top five countries, based on total expenditures, where they fund R&D projects. Thirty
countries were identified for 2006.

The United States was cited as the prime location for IC fabrication and fabless R&D spending.
Some $15.7 billion in R&D activities in 2006 were conducted in the U.S., roughly 84 percent of
total R&D expenditures (see Figure XIII-21). This domestic investment expanded by more than
$3 billion during the 2003-2006 period, maintaining an average annual growth rate of nine
percent.

155

Figure XIII-21: Total R&D Expenditures
$18

$15.7

$ Billions

$15

$14.1

$13.1

$12.0

$12
$9
$6
$3

$1.8

$3.1

$2.4

$2.1

$2003

2004

2005

2006

Year
U.S.

Non-U.S.

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,
U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

Non-U.S. countries were recipients of a little more than $3 billion, or 19 percent of total R&D
investment. While significantly lower than domestic expenditures, non-U.S. R&D investment
grew at an average annual rate of nearly 19 percent over the 2003-2006 period.

In 2006, non-U.S. expenditures were concentrated in five countries: Israel ($728 million); India
($464 million); Germany ($386 million); France ($270 million); and Malaysia ($190 million).69
Among the five, investment into India exhibited the most growth, as companies increased
expenditures there annually at an average rate of approximately 47 percent (see Figure XIII-22).

Others: Australia, Hong Kong, Thailand, United Kingdom, Italy, Switzerland, Finland, Netherlands, Sweden,
Czech Republic, Denmark, Romania, Norway, Russia, Turkey, Latvia, Poland, Spain, and Egypt.

156

Figure XIII-22: Top Countries for Non-U.S. R&D
Investment - 2006
Others
18%

Israel
24%

Ireland
5%
Japan
5%
India
15%

Canada
5%
Malaysia
6%
France
9%

Germany
13%

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,
U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

Fabrication companies disclosed making R&D investments of $2.19 billion in 2006 in numerous
countries, 70 percent of all non-U.S. R&D spending by fabrication and fabless companies. The
five leading countries receiving R&D investments from U.S. fabrication companies were Israel,
India, France, Germany, and Malaysia.

Fabless companies reported $880 million in R&D investments in 2006, 30 percent of all nonU.S. R&D investments. The five primary recipient countries were Germany, Canada, India,
Israel, and the United Kingdom.

When segmented by region, the majority of R&D investment is directed to North America, given
the large sums of R&D funds spent in the United States (see Figure XIII-23). Total R&D
funding for the region in 2006 nearly exceeded $15 billion, or 85 percent of total R&D
expenditure. 70

North America: United States and Canada; East Asia: India, Malaysia, Japan, China, Singapore, Korea, Taiwan,
Australia, Hong Kong, and Thailand; Europe: Germany, France, United Kingdom, Ireland, Italy, Belgium,
Switzerland, Finland, Netherlands, Sweden, Czech Republic, Denmark, Romania, Norway, Russia, Turkey, Latvia,
and Spain; Middle East: Israel and Egypt.

157

Figure XIII-23: R&D Expenditure by
Region – 2006

Europe: $891 Million (5%)
North America:
$15.8 Billion
(85%)

Middle East:
$729 Million
(4%)
East Asia:
$1.1 Billion
(6%)

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,
U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

Fabrication and fabless companies reported that East Asia, led by India and Malaysia, received
the second largest amount at $1.1 billion, or almost six percent of total R&D spending in 2006.
Although investment in all regions grew during the 2003-2006 period, companies increasingly
directed R&D funds toward East Asia, resulting in the highest average annual growth rate of 26
percent. In terms of 2006 R&D investment, East Asia was followed by Europe with $891
million, or five percent of total expenditures, and the Middle East with $729 million, or four
percent.

158

XIV. CAPITAL EXPENDITURES
Investment levels of integrated circuit (IC) fabrication and fabless companies in equipment,
modernization, and new facilities provide insights with respect to their competitiveness, economic
health, and long-term performance. Information on fabrication and fabless company capital
expenditures in the United States and in non-U.S. locations was collected and analyzed by OTE for
2003-2006.

Total capital spending by fabrication and fabless companies operating in the United States rose
from $8.3 billion in 2003 to $14.7 billion in 2006 – a 76 percent increase. The vast majority of
these capital outlays, 71 percent, supported business activity occurring in the United States. 71 In
2006, IC fabrication and fabless companies made $10.4 billion in capital expenditures in the United
States and another $4.3 billion in non-U.S. locations (see Figure XIV-1).

Figure XIV-1: Total Capital Expenditures
$12
$10.4

$ Billions

$10
$8.0

$8
$6
$4

$7.2
$5.5
$3.7
$2.8

$4.3

$2.9

$2
$2003

2004

2005

2006

Year
U.S.

Non-U.S.

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,
U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

This figure is from 2006 and is based on 132 company responses.

159

CAPITAL EXPENDITURES BY FABRICATION COMPANIES
Capital spending by fabrication companies increased steadily for the 2003-2006 period, rising 75
percent from $7.5 billion to just over $13 billion. Outlays by fabricators in 2006 constituted 89
percent of all capital expenditures by fabrication and fabless companies.

Fabricators’ capital spending also expanded as a percent of net sales during the 2003-2006 period,
climbing from 12 percent in 2003 to 16 percent in 2006. Roughly 70 percent ($9.2 billion) of this
spending in 2006 went to improve capabilities in U.S. facilities. The balance, $3.9 billion, was used
in capital investment in non-U.S. locations (see Figure XIV-2).72

Figure XIV-2: Fabrication Companies’
Capital Expenditures
$12

$ Billions

$10

$9.2

$6.7

$6.3

$6
$4

$4.8
$2.7

$3.4

$2.8

$3.9

$2
$2003

2004

2005

2006

Year
U.S.

Non-U.S.

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,
U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

Most of the capital spending reported by survey participants is attributable to large-size fabricators
(see Figure XIV-3). These companies expended $12.3 billion of the $13 billion of total capital
expenditures reported. The outlays of the top five large-size fabricators accounted for 87 percent of
capital expenditures in 2006 ($11.3 billion), 69 percent of which ($7.8 billion) went to enhancing
capabilities in the United States.

This figure is based on 37 IC fabrication company responses.

160

Figure XIV-3: Fabrication Companies’
Capital Expenditures
$14
$12.3

$12
$9.4

$ Billions

$10
$8.2

$6.9

$6
$4
$2

$0.6

$0.8
$0.01

2003

$0.04

2004

$0.7

$0.02

2005

$0.7

$0.05

2006

Year
Large

Medium

Small

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,
U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

Capital expenditures for medium-size fabricators were uneven over the 2003-period. Their outlays
peaked at $808 million in 2004 after rising from $594 million a year earlier.73 Investment declined
to $684 million in 2005 before rebounding to $723 million in 2006. Capital outlays in 2006 by
medium-size companies represented just 5.5 percent of total capital investment by fabrication
companies. Seventy-two percent of medium-size companies’ 2006 capital expenditures, more than
$517 million, went to enhancing domestic capability.

Capital investment by small-size fabrication companies advanced significantly in the 2003-2006
period, climbing from $10.3 million to $47 million. This spending represented less than one
percent of total capital investment by fabrication companies. All of this investment went to improve
company capabilities in the United States.

Capital expenditures by large-size companies as a percent of net sales were less than that for
medium- and small-size companies. In 2006, large-size companies allocated 10 percent of net sales
to capital expenditures compared to 17 percent for medium-size companies, and 21 percent for
small-size companies (see Figure XIV-4).
73

Medium-size companies totaled 18.

161

Figure XIV-4: Fabrication Companies’ Capital
Expenditures - By Company Size
40%

30%
Percent of Net Sales

30%

21%
20%

12%

13%

10%

11%

17%

Large
Medium
Small

10%

2003

2004

2005

2006

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,
U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

ALLOCATION OF CAPITAL EXPENDITURES BY FABRICATION COMPANIES
OTE survey participants were asked to specify capital investments for expansion of existing
production lines, new products, cost reduction, and health and safety. In 2006, fabrication
companies allocated 64 percent of capital expenditures to the expansion and improvement of
existing production lines. Overall investment in this function was just over $4 billion in 2003, a
figure that more than doubled to nearly $8.4 billion in 2006 (see Figure XIV-5).

162

$ Billions

Figure XIV-5: Fabrication Companies’
Allocation of Capital Expenditures
$9
$8
$7
$6
$5
$4
$3
$2
$1
$-

$8.4

$5.9
$4.7
$4.1

$0.9
$0.3
$0.04

2003

$2.6

$2.4

$2.2
$1.7

$2.2

$1.6

$1.5

$0.4
$0.04

$0.5
$0.05

$0.4
$0.03

2004

2005

2006

Cost Reduction

Health and Safety

Year
Expansion

New Products

Other

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,
U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

Spending on other functions by fabrication companies was more diffuse in 2006:
•
•
•
•

New Products - $2.6 billion (19.6 percent)
Other - $1.6 billion (12 percent)
Cost Reduction - $506 million (4 percent)
Health and Safety - $52 million (0.4 percent)

Of the $12.3 billion spent in 2006 on capital expenditures by large-size fabrication companies, $8
billion was used to expand production capabilities (see Figure XIV-6). Sixty-four percent of the $8
billion ($5.15 billion) went to enhancing capability in the United States, while the remaining $2.85
billion was allocated to non-U.S. locations.

163

Figure XIV-6: Fabrication Companies’ Capital
Expenditures - by Category and Size (2006)
$9

$8.0
$8
$7

$ Billions

$6
$5
$4
$3

$2.5

$2
$1

$1.5
$0.34

$0.03

$0.08 $0.01

$0.14

$0.3 $0.17

$0.05

Expansion

New Products

Other

Cost Reduction Health & Safety

Categories
Large

Medium

Small

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,
U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

Expansion of production capability was also a priority for medium-size fabricators, who spent $723
million on capital expenditures in 2006. That year, the companies devoted $336 million, or 46
percent of total capital expenditures, to this task. Two-thirds of these funds ($228.7 million) were
allocated to enhancing production capability in the United States and the remaining third ($107.3
million) went toward non-U.S. capability.

Small-size companies also focused largely on the expansion of production capability. Of the $47
million these companies spent on capital expenditures in 2006, 64 percent ($32.6 million) was spent
on production expansion, all of it for activity taking place within the United States.

New product development was the second largest area of capital expenditure for large-size
companies. Of the $12.3 billion spent by these companies in 2006, 20 percent ($2.48 billion) went
to bolster new product development. Ninety-six percent of these funds were allocated to U.S.
operations.

Medium-size companies differed in their remaining priorities in 2006. They allocated 11 percent of
total capital expenditures ($77.5 million) to new product development, of which $76 million (96

164

percent) went to U.S. operations. In the case of small-size fabricators, new product development
was the second investment priority. These companies dedicated 28 percent of total 2006 capital
expenditures ($13 million) to product development.

Cost reduction is a constant challenge for all IC fabricators in a world where continuing
improvement is necessary for remaining competitive. Large-size companies allocated just three
percent of capital expenditures ($339 million) for cost reduction activities in 2006, and 87 percent
of those funds went to activities in the United States. In sharp contrast, medium-size companies
expended $166 million for this activity in 2006, 23 percent of their total capital spending. Smallsize fabricators spent $1 million on cost reduction activities in 2006, just two percent of their total
capital expenditures.

Twelve percent of all fabrication company capital expenditures in 2006 ($1.6 billion) went toward
other programs in 2006, including activities such as general administration or building maintenance.
Fifty-one percent of this spending was for activity in the United States, with the balance going to
non-U.S. locations. Of the $1.6 billion, 91 percent of these expenditures were made by large-size
companies, while medium-size fabricators accounted for nearly nine percent.

NON-U.S. CAPITAL EXPENDITURES BY FABRICATION COMPANIES
Fabricators allocated a growing amount of their capital investment to non-U.S. locations, raising
spending from $2.67 billion in 2003 to $3.92 billion in 2006. However, as a percent of total capital
expenditures, the offshore portion of capital spending dropped from 36 percent in 2003 to 30
percent in 2006.

A breakout shows Asia was the prime destination for non-U.S. capital investment, garnering 14
percent of the $3.4 billion (see Figure XIV-7).74 Capital spending there reached $1.8 billion in
2006, an increase of 213 percent from 2003’s investment level of $576 million. The countries
attracting the most investment in 2006 were Singapore ($493 million), Malaysia ($348 million), the

Figures based on responses to Question 10b of survey questionnaire, which asked respondents to identify the top five
destinations of capital expenditures. There could be additional capital expenditures that are not captured by this data.

165

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

Figure XIV-7: Non-U.S. Capital Investment by
Fabrication Companies – 2003, 2006
Japan
9%

France
8%

Singapore
14%

Ireland
16%

Italy
7%

Malaysia
10%

Singapore
5%

Philippines
5%

Philippines
8%
Israel
19%
Japan
7%

Others
11%

Ireland
55%

China
6%
Others
9%

2003

India
5%

France
6%

2006

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,
U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

Europe attracted $923 million of capital investment from IC fabricators in the United States in
2006, seven percent of non-U.S. capital investment. Capital spending in Europe by surveyed IC
companies was cyclical over the reporting period, starting at $1.5 billion in 2003 and falling to $961
million in 2004 before rising to $1.69 billion in 2005. Ireland garnered the most in capital funds in
2006 at $528 million, followed by France ($208 million), Italy ($70.2 million), Germany ($54.7
million), and Belgium ($24 million).

Out of the 21 countries identified by surveyed IC fabrication companies as recipients of their capital
spending, Israel attracted $628 million, or 19 percent of total non-U.S. fabrication capital
expenditures in 2006. In North America, fabrication investment in Canada jumped from $7 million
in 2003 to $19 million in 2006, an increase of 171 percent.

For the four-year period, capital expenditures increased for all geographic areas except Europe,
which experienced a 45 percent decline, from roughly $1.7 billion in 2003 to $923 million in 2006

166

(see Figure XIV-8). Fabricators increased the amount of capital expenditures in Asia from eight
percent in 2003 to 14 percent in 2006, raising investment in the region by over $1.2 billion during
the period. However, North America, specifically the United States, remained the prime recipient
of fabrication capital spending, capturing 74 percent of capital expenditures in 2006. In fact,
fabricators nearly doubled capital investments in North America during the four-year stretch, raising
spending from $5 billion in 2003 to $9.8 billion in 2006.

Figure XIV-8: Capital Investment by Fabrication
Companies by Region – 2003, 2006

Asia
7.9%

North
America
69%

North
America
74%

Europe
22.9%
Middle
East
0.2%

2003

Asia
14%

Middle
East
5%

Europe
7%

2006

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,
U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

CAPITAL EXPENDITURES BY FABLESS COMPANIES
The capital investment requirements of fabless companies are significantly less than those of IC
fabrication companies. Data collected from 75 fabless companies for the 2003-2006 period shows
capital spending as a percent of net sales averaged 5.5 percent. In contrast, IC fabrication
companies’ capital expenditures averaged 13.5 percent of net sales over the same period (see Figure
XIV-9).

167

Figure XIV-9: Capital Expenditures as a
Percent of Net Sales
18%

16.0%

Percent of Net Sales

16%
14%

13.0%

12.7%

12.3%

12%
10%
8%

6.5%
5.5%

5.2%

5.1%

6%
4%
2%
0%

2003

2004

2005

2006

Year
Fabrication Companies

Fabless Companies

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,
U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

Although fabless company spending as a percent of net sales showed little change over four years,
rising from five percent to 5.5 percent, actual expenditures increased dramatically from $817
million in 2003 to $1.57 billion in 2006. Figure XIV-10 shows this growth broken out by small-,
medium- and large-size fabless firms.

Figure XIV-10: Fabless Companies’ Capital
Expenditures – By Company Size
$1.4

$1.3

$1.2

$ Billions

$1.0
$0.8

$0.9
$0.7

$0.6
$0.4
$0.2

$0.07 $0.05

$0.08 $0.09

$0.10 $0.12

$0.09 $0.13

2003

2004

2005

2006

Year
Large

Medium

Small

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,
U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

168

Large-size fabless companies accounted for the majority of reported capital expenditures.
Collectively, these companies allocated $1.34 billion in 2006 to capital spending, representing 86
percent of design-related capital expenditures.

Capital outlays by medium- and small-size fabless companies were substantially lower than those of
large-size companies. In 2006, medium-size fabless companies reported capital expenditures of
$94.6 million, an average of three percent of net sales (see Figure XIV-11). For the four-year
reporting period, capital spending was low, averaging 3.5 percent.

Small-size companies in 2006 reported capital expenditures of $129.7 million, 27 percent of net
sales. Capital expenditure figures for small-size companies declined from a peak of 62 percent in
2003 to 55 percent in 2005, dropping further to 27 percent in 2006.

Figure XIV-11: Fabless Companies’ Capital Expenditures
as a Percent of Net Sales – By Company Size
70%

62%

61%

60%
Percent of Net Sales

55%
50%
40%

27%
30%

Large
Medium
Small

20%
10%
0%

5%
3%
2003

5%
4%
2004

6%
4%
2005

5%
3%
2006

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,
U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

ALLOCATION OF CAPITAL EXPENDITURES BY FABLESS COMPANIES
Fabless companies reported capital spending practices for the expansion of existing product lines,
new products, cost reduction, health and safety needs, and other activities.

169

The expansion of existing design production capability was a top priority for fabless companies,
which increased spending for this purpose from $324 million in 2003 to $627 million in 2006 (see
Figure XIV-12). Virtually all of this investment, 96 percent, was made by large-size companies for
their U.S. operations. At the same time, capital spending in non-U.S. locations by fabless firms
increased significantly, climbing from $4.2 million to $221 million.

Figure XIV-12: Fabless Companies’
Allocation of Capital Expenditures
$800
$698

$700

$627

$ Millions

$600

$400
$300

$531

$525

$500

$413

$398

$367

$324
$246
$218

$264

$220

$200
$100

$29

$24
$0.10

2003

$43
$0.03

$20

2004

2005

2006

Year
Expansion

New Products

Other

Cost Reduction

Health and Safety

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,
U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

Of nearly equal importance to fabless firms is capital investment for new product development,
which increased 116 percent between 2003 and 2006. In 2006, fabless companies allocated $531
million for new product development. Of the total, $475 million was expended in the United States.
Capital investment in non-U.S. locations for new product development increased steadily over the
four-year period, rising from $30 million in 2003 to $56 million in 2006. Seventy-four percent of
the investment for new product development was attributable to large-size companies (see Figure
XIV-13).

170

Figure XIV-13: Fabless Companies’ Capital
Expenditures - by Category and Size (2006)
$700

$601
$600

$ Millions

$500

$392

$400

$336

$300
$200

$109
$100

$14

$29

$12

$26 $6

$15

$26

Expansion

New Products

Other

Cost
Reduction

Health &
Safety

Categories
Large

Medium

Small

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,
U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

Expenditures for cost reduction accounted for $43 million, just three percent of overall fabless
company capital expenditures in 2006. Spending on cost reduction, while small in overall numbers,
rose 49 percent in the 2003-2006 time span. Medium-size companies accounted for 61 percent of
all fabless company allocations for cost reduction. Large-size companies accounted for 34 percent
of fabless company spending used on cost reduction, while small-size companies allocated five
percent for this purpose.

Fabless companies provided significant funds to capital investment in other programs, which
included funding for items such as information technology or laboratories. This spending totaled
$367 million in 2006, or about 23 percent of capital expenditures by fabless companies. To this
end, large-size companies spent $336 million, medium-size companies allocated $26 million for this
activity, while small-size companies spent slightly under $6 million. Capital expenditures for health
and safety were almost non-existent.

171

NON-U.S. CAPITAL EXPENDITURES BY FABLESS COMPANIES
Fabless firms identified 23 countries as recipients of capital investment funding. OTE survey
responses highlight a large increase in non-U.S. capital expenditures by fabless companies. These
expenditures rose from $98 million in 2003 to $417 million in 2006, 326 percent during the 20032006 period and by 90 percent between 2005 and 2006 (see Figure XIV-14).

Figure XIV-14: Fabless Companies’ Capital
Expenditures
$1.4

$1.3

$1.2

$ Billions

$1.2
$1.0
$0.8

$0.9
$0.7

$0.6
$0.4

$0.4
$0.2

$0.1

$0.2

$2003

2004

2005

2006

Year
U.S.

Non-U.S.

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,
U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

Capital expenditures by fabless companies in 2006 were distributed in several regions:
•
•
•

Asia - $310.8 million
Middle East - $69.6 million
Europe - $25.9 million

Not only does Asia dominate in attracting capital investment funds from U.S. IC fabless companies,
spending there more than doubled from $76.5 million in 2003 to $310.8 million in 2006. Countries
seeing some of the highest capital spending in 2006 for fabless activity include: Japan ($123
million); Thailand ($96 million); India ($31 million); China ($26 million); Singapore ($16 million);
Malaysia ($11 million); Korea ($4 million); and Taiwan ($3 million) (see Figure XIV-15).

172

Figure XIV-15: Non-U.S. Capital Investment by
Fabless Companies – 2003, 2006
Thailand
15%

Thailand
23%

Canada
10%
UK
8%

Israel
17%

Others Japan
29%
13%
India
7%

Others
18%

Singapore
54%

2003

China
6%

2006

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,
U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

The ascendance of Japan as a destination for capital expenditures from U.S. fabless companies is
apparent. Spending there increased from $1.2 million in 2003 to $123 million in 2006. Fabless
company capital spending in Thailand also surged, climbing from $15 million in 2003 to $96
million to 2006. At the same time, survey participants reported decreased capital spending in
Singapore, where inflows dropped from $53 million in 2003 to $16 million in 2006.

In the Middle East, Israel is benefiting from rising capital expenditures. Spending there by fabless
companies soared from $2.1 million in 2003 to $69.6 million in 2006, a jump of over 3,000 percent.
Most of this increase occurred in 2006, when capital spending rose to $66.9 million from $2.7
million in 2005.

Europe also received significant capital spending from fabless companies, with survey participants
reporting $26 million in expenditures for 2006. Capital expenditures by fabless companies in
Europe rose in the 2003-2006 period, increasing 169 percent from $9.6 million. Nearly all of this
2006 capital spending, 71 percent, occurred in two countries: the United Kingdom at $11.9 million
and Germany at $6.6 million. The remainder was distributed in small sums across 10 other
European countries.

173

Figure XIV-16: Capital Investment by Fabless
Companies by Region – 2003, 2006

Asia
9.7%
Europe
1.2%
North
America
88.8%

North
America
87%

Asia
6%

Middle
East
0.3%

Europe
2%
Middle
East
5%

2003

2006

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,
U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

174

APPENDIX A: SURVEY AUTHORITY
BIS/OTE performed this assessment and data collection under authority delegated to the U.S.
Department of Commerce under Section 705 of the Defense Production Act of 1950, as amended
(50 U.S.C. App. Sec. 2155) (DPA) and related Executive Order 12656. These authorities enable
BIS/OTE to conduct mandatory surveys, study defense-related industries and technologies, and
monitor economic and trade issues affecting the U.S. defense industrial base. OTE has performed
assessments on a broad range of U.S. industrial and technology sectors including imaging and
sensors, space systems, cartridge and propellant actuated devices, munitions power sources and the
U.S. Air Force C-17 aircraft.75 Almost all OTE assessments are conducted with the participation of
the Armed Services, Congress and/or industry associations.

See the U.S. DOC/BIS/OTE web site for a full listing of published reports:
http://www.bis.doc.gov/defenseindustrialbaseprograms/.

175

APPENDIX B: GLOSSARY
Amorphous Silicon: A semiconductor material that has no definite or regular crystal structure and is used
to make the thin-film transistors (TFTs).
Antimonides: A class of compound semiconductor materials that have higher peak carrier velocities than
silicon, gallium arsenide and indium phosphate materials. These materials are attractive for producing high
speed transistors and can be used in low-voltage systems.
Applied Research: Systematic study to gain knowledge or understanding necessary to determine the
means by which a recognized and specific need may be met. This activity includes work leading to the
production of useful materials, devices and systems or methods, including design development and
improvement of prototypes and new processes.
Application Specific Integrated Circuit (ASIC): A circuit designed to suit a customer’s particular
requirement, as opposed to memory devices or microprocessors, which are general-purpose
semiconductors.
Back-End: The series of process steps at the back-end of integrated circuit manufacturing from contact
through completion of the wafer, prior to electrical test.
Basic Research: Systematic, scientific study directed toward greater knowledge or understanding of the
fundamental aspects of phenomena and of observable facts.
Bulk Silicon: The silicon semiconductor material predominantly employed in the production of integrated
circuit products manufactured around the world.
Capital Expenditures: Investments made by a company in buildings, equipment, property, and systems
where the expense is depreciated. This does not include expenditures for consumable materials, other
operating expenses and salaries associated with normal business operations.
Circuit: The connection of multiple electrical elements to accomplish a desired function.
Coprocessor: Specialized circuitry in a microprocessor that off loads specified tasks and processes them
more rapidly than in possible in basic microprocessor circuitry.
Custom ASIC: These ASICs differ from standard cell ASICs in that designers have total control of the
attributes of each transistor forming a logic gate, enabling them to tune the integrated circuit device for
optimum operation, performance superior to that attained in other types of devices.
Development: The design, development, simulation, or experimental testing of prototype or experimental
hardware or systems, to validate technological feasibility or concept of operation, to reduce technological
risk, or to provide test systems prior to production approval.
Design: Activity required to implement a product concept in support of the manufacture of the Integrated
Circuit product at a fabrication facility.
Die: A single integrated circuit (or chip) cut from the wafer on which it was manufactured.
Digital: The expression of information in binary code as ones and zeros.
Digital Design: Design methods employed to create integrated circuit products such as microprocessors
and memory devices. Digital IC design has three major segments: electronic system level (ESL), register
transfer level (RTL), and physical design.

176

Digital Signal Processing: Digital circuits designed to address a broad class of problems in signal reception
and analysis that have traditionally been solved using analog components. DSP is used to enhance,
analyze, filter, modulate or otherwise manipulate standard analog functions such as images, sounds, radar
pulses, and other such signals by analyzing and transforming wave-forms (e.g., transmitting data over phone
lines via modem).
Display Electronics: Integrated circuit products employed in digital displays used for entertainment and
information systems.
Dynamic Random Access Memory (DRAM): A type of memory component. These active memory cells
are "Dynamic" and lose their ability to retain information when power to the system is lost. Information stored
in the memory cells is accessed randomly. Memory is a key component of most electronic products.
EPROM: An erasable programmable read-only memory chip that allows stored information to be erased by
exposure to ultraviolet light.
EEPROM: Electronically-erasable programmable read-only memory.
EPGA: See One-Time Electronically Programmable Gate Arrays.
Extra Permanent Memory (XPM): Non-volatile, one-time programmable memory.
Fabless: A semiconductor company with no company-owned and operated IC fabrication capability in the
United States, only product design capability.
Fabrication: The process of manufacturing an integrated circuit.
Fabrication Facility: A manufacturing plant or production facility that processes semiconductor wafers to
produce integrated circuit products, or discrete electronic components such as transistors and diodes.
Field Programmable Gate Array (FPGA): A semi-custom integrated circuit chip, a gate array, containing
cells with rows of transistors and resistors that are not connected. The appropriate interconnections are
made to meet specific requirements of the customer using software to form a custom-designed working
device. This device can be programmed in the field, outside of a factory setting.
Flash Memory: Non-volatile solid state memory. It is related to electrically erasable programmable readonly memory (EEPROM) devices.
Front-End: Integrated circuit wafer processing steps, including thermal processes, implantation, chemical
vapor deposition (CVD), photolithography, etching, physical vapor deposition (PVD), polishing, process
diagnostics and control (metrology), and cleaning.
Foundry: A wafer production and processing plant. Usually used to denote a facility that is available on a
contract basis for companies that do not have wafer fabrication capability of their own, or that wish to
supplement their own capabilities.
Gallium Arsenide: A compound semiconductor material used for making optoelectronic devices and highfrequency ICs. This material has higher electron mobility than silicon, thus having the capability of producing
higher-speed devices.
Gallium Nitride: A compound semiconductor material used in the manufacture of integrated circuit
products. Properties include higher operating temperatures and higher voltages than gallium arsenide.
Gate Array: Semi-custom chip IC devices containing cells with rows of transistors and resistors that are not
connected. The appropriate interconnections are made to meet specific requirements of the customer using
software to form a custom-designed working device.

177

Indium Phosphate: A compound semiconductor material used in the manufacture of integrated circuit
products. The material provides faster performance in integrated circuit devices.
Insulator: Material that does not allow an electrical charge to pass through it.
Integrated Circuit (IC): A miniaturized electronic device containing multiple solid-state circuits that work in
conjunction to form a complete device with defined functions, and that has been manufactured on the
surface of a thin substrate of semiconductor material. In these devices many active or passive elements are
fabricated and connected together on a continuous substrate, as opposed to discrete devices, such as
transistors, resistors, capacitors and diodes that exist individually.
Line Width: The width of a metal interconnect in an integrated circuit.
Lithography: The transfer of a pattern or image from one medium to another, such as to a wafer.
Magneto-Resistive Electro Mechanical Memory (MRAM): A memory device that stores data using
magnet charges and at higher density rates than conventional memory. It could replace other types of
memory devices such as dynamic random access memory and flash memory.
Mask: A patterned plate or template used to expose selected areas of a wafer layer to light in the process of
fabricating an integrated circuit.
Mask Programmable Gate Arrays (MPGA): Generic masks are used to create an array of generic base
cells laid out in rows. Logic circuits are created by connecting transistors with wires within cells and
connecting cells with wires. This architecture can reduce development time for IC products, but device
performance is less efficient than what can be achieved in custom ASICs.
Memory: The working space used by the computer to hold the program that is currently running, along with
the data it needs to run programs and process data. The main memory is built from random access memory
(RAM) chips. The amount of memory available determines the size of programs that can be run, and whether
more than one program can run at a time. Main memory is temporary and is lost when the computer is
turned off. It is distinguished from more permanent internal read only memory (ROM) which contains the
computer's essential programs, and data storage memory devices such as hard drives and compact disks.
Micro Electro-Mechanical Systems Memory (MEMS): A micro electro-mechanical system for the writing of
data and reading of stored magnetic data. It has the potential in enable higher data storage because it uses
mechanical positioning to define a data storage cell rather than microlithography processes.
Microlithography: A process in semiconductor fabrication that transfers a pattern from a photomask to the
surface of a substrate. Microlithography involves a combination of substrate preparation, photoresist
application, soft-baking, exposure, developing, hard-baking and etching.
Microprocessor: The main processing unit of a computer or information processing device. The device is
capable of carrying out instructions, performing calculations, and interacting with the components used to
operate a computer. The microprocessor handles the fetch, decode, and execute steps.
Mixed Signal Technologies: Integrated circuit devices that combine analog and digital circuitry.
MMIC Technologies: Monolithic microwave integrated circuits (a.k.a. micro monolithic integrated circuits)
are often used as amplifiers and filters. The devices operate at microwave frequencies and can employ both
analog and digital circuitry.
Nanometer (nm): One billionth of a meter; one millionth of a millimeter (10-9 meter).
Neutron Hardened: Integrated circuit products incorporating design features and/or physical characteristics
that can withstand the damaging effects of high-speed neutrons, gamma rays, and electromagnetic pulses
that accompany a nuclear weapons detonation.

178

Non-Affiliated Company: For the purposes of this assessment, a company that is not owned or operated
by a survey respondent.
Nonvolatile Memory: A storage device whose contents are preserved when its power is off. Storage using
magnetic disks or tape is normally non-volatile. Some semiconductor memories (ROM, EPROM, Flash
memory) are non-volatile while other semiconductor memories (static RAM and especially dynamic RAM) are
normally volatile but can be made into non-volatile storage by permanently connecting a (rechargeable)
battery.
One-Time Electronically Programmable Gate Arrays (EPGA): A semi-custom integrated circuit chip, a
gate array, containing cells with rows of transistors and resistors that are not connected. The appropriate
interconnections are made to meet specific requirements of the customer using software to form a customdesigned working device. This device can be programmed only one time.
Organic Technologies: Classes of conducting polymers with semiconductor properties and processes that
can be used to manufacture transistors and integrated circuit devices, including displays.
Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM): A manufacturer who places his brand on a product and sells it.
The manufacturer may or may not have designed or manufactured the product himself.
Phase Change Memory: Non-volatile memory that uses the crystalline and amorphous switching states of
chalcogenide glass.
Photomask: A transparent blank covered with a pattern that is transferred to the surface of a substrate
through photographic methods.
Polymer Memory: An emerging technology based on plastic materials with semiconducting properties.
Process Development: The creation of wafer production processes used in manufacturing integrated
circuit products for a specified technology node.
Product Development: Conceptualization and development of an integrated circuit product prior to the
production of IC product for customers.
RAM (Random Access Memory): Memory available on a computer for storing data and programs currently
being processed. It is automatically erased when the power is turned off. Information in the RAM that needs
to be stored for future use must be saved onto a disk or a tape.
Radiation Hardened: Integrated circuit products incorporating design features and/or physical
characteristics that demonstrate a capability to resist radiation-induced damage from industrial sources,
electromagnetic pulses, weapons systems; and/or charged particles in space that can damage circuitry and
render a device inoperable.
Radiation Resistant: Integrated circuit products that are able to resist damage from given doses of
radiation, including single-event effects resistant, radiation tolerant, radiation hardened, and neutron
hardened devices.
Radiation Tolerant: Integrated circuit products incorporating design features and/or physical characteristics
with limited capability to resist radiation induced damage from industrial sources, electromagnetic pulses,
industrial sources, weapons systems, and charged particles in space that can damage circuitry and render a
device inoperable.
Register Transfer Level (RTL) Design: An integrated circuit design step that converts an electronic system
level (ESL) design into a description that drives the function of digital circuits and interconnections in an
integrated circuit.

179

Research and Development: Basic and applied research in the engineering sciences, as well as design
and development of prototype products and processes.
Semiconductor Materials: Elemental materials such as silicon and germanium (or compounds like gallium
arsenide) that possess levels of electrical conductivity that are less than a conductor but greater than an
insulator.
Semiconductor Industry Association (SIA): SIA is the leading trade association representing the
integrated circuit industry. SIA represents U.S. IC product manufacturers on trade, technology,
environmental protection and worker safety and health issues.
Silicon: The most common element in nature and the material used to create most transistors and
integrated circuit products.
Silicon Carbide: A compound semiconductor material used in the manufacture of integrated circuit
products. Properties include an ability to handle high voltages and higher temperatures.
Silicon Germanium: A semiconductor alloy material used in the manufacture of integrated circuit products.
Properties include lower power consumption than bulk silicon, reduced resistance, and higher processing
speeds.
Silicon-on-Insulator: A silicon wafer with a thin layer of oxide (SiO2) buried in it. SOI substrates provide
superior isolation between adjacent devices in an integrated circuit as compared to devices built into bulk
wafers.
Silicon-on-Sapphire: Similar to silicon-on-insulator except that sapphire is used as an insulator in place of
silicon dioxide. Properties include radiation resistance.
Single-Event Effects Resistant: Resistant to effects caused by a single energetic particle striking an
Integrated Circuit (IC) device. Performance of the IC device is not compromised to a point where it is
inoperable or not reliable for executing a mission as a result of latch-up, burnout, or gate rupture.
Standard Cell ASIC: Devices that employ pre-designed logic cells laid out in rows to implement the design
for a logic circuit. This approach allows for lower integrated circuit device development costs. These
products often are larger and can not match the performance of custom ASICs.
Static Random Access Memory (SRAM): An integrated circuit similar to a DRAM that requires no constant
refreshing or recharging. It retains stored information as long as power is applied to the computer, hastening
information-retrieval process time. In contrast to ROM, SRAM is volatile and will lose data when the power is
switched off. SRAM is typically faster than DRAM but usually costs more per bit because each bit requires
several transistors. It is used to support speed-critical systems in computers.
Technology Node: Generally accepted manufacturing benchmarks used by fabricators for making
integrated circuit products using a given generation of manufacturing technology. Sometimes referred to as a
“process node” or “process technology,” it represents the smallest circuit feature size that can be drawn on a
chip with a microlithography tool. Circuit feature dimensions dictate how much circuit can be placed in a
given area on a microchip. As technology nodes step down to smaller dimensions, circuit density can be
increased, allowing for the manufacture of more complex devices.
Transistor: A type of switch that contains no moving parts and uses electricity to turn itself on and off. The
device controls current flow and serves as the basic element of a computer chip. It consists of three
terminals: a source, a gate, and a drain. Applying a voltage to the gate controls current flow between the
source and the drain.
Trusted Access Program/Trusted Supplier Program: A program implemented by the National Security
Agency and the Defense Microelectronics Activity (DMEA) to qualify Integrated Circuit design and

180

manufacturing companies as “trusted” suppliers of Application Specific Integrated Circuit (ASIC) products
required for national security applications.
United States: The term “United States” includes the fifty states, Puerto Rico, the District of Columbia, the
island of Guam, Trust Territories, and the Virgin Islands.
Wafer: A thin, flat piece of semiconductor crystal (typically silicon) used in the manufacture of
microprocessors and integrated circuits. Circuit components are created on the surface of the wafer through
a series of manufacturing techniques that include layering and etching.
Wafer Starts Per Week: The number of semiconductor wafers that can be processed by an Integrated
Circuit on production line(s) in a 7-day period.
XPM: See Extra Permanent Memory.
Zero Capacitor Random Access Memory (ZRAM): Embedded floating body memory cell technology uses
a structure based on a single transistor, an approach that allows storage density five times that of static
random access memory (SRAM) devices.

181

APPENDIX C: LIST OF SUPPLIERS ACCREDITED BY THE DEFENSE
MICROELECTRONICS AGENCY (DMEA)76
Supplier
Aeroflex Colorado Springs
BAE Systems Information and
Electronic Systems
Integration, Inc.
BAE Systems Microwave
Electronics Center Nashua
Endicott Interconnect
Technologies, Inc
Honeywell Aerospace
Plymouth
Honeywell Federal
Manufacturing &
Technologies, LLC/Kansas
City Plant
HRL Laboratories
IBM Systems Technology
Group
Intersil Corporation
National Semiconductor
Corporation
National Semiconductor
Corporation
Northrop Grumman Electronic
Systems
Northrop Grumman Space
Technology
Pantronix Corporation
Raytheon RF Components
Rockwell Collins, Inc.
Sandia National Laboratories
Microsystems Science,
Technology, & Components
Sarnoff Corporation
Teledyne Microelectronic
Technologies
TriQuint Semiconductor Texas

Scope of Accreditation

Accredited

Expires

Aggregation; Design; Packaging/Assembly;
Test
Design; Packaging/Assembly; Foundry
Services; Test

12/4/2007

12/4/2009

11/5/2008

12/13/2009

Foundry Services

4/7/2008

4/7/2010

Packaging/Assembly

9/25/2008

9/25/2010

Design; Packaging/Assembly; Foundry
Services; Test
Aggregation; Design; Packaging/Assembly;
Test

10/22/2008

3/13/2010

6/10/2008

6/10/2010

Foundry Services
Mask Data Parsing; Mask Manufacturing;
Foundry Services
Foundry Services
Foundry Services

4/18/2008
12/13/2007

4/18/2010
12/13/2009

7/31/2008
12/13/2007

7/31/2010
12/13/2009

Aggregation

4/14/2008

4/14/2010

Foundry Services

2/25/2008

2/25/2010

Foundry Services

12/13/2007

12/13/2009

Packaging/Assembly
Foundry Services
Design; Packaging/Assembly; Test
Design

12/2/2008
8/28/2008
1/15/2009
1/7/2009

12/2/1210
2/28/2010
10/20/2010
1/7/2011

Foundry Services
Packaging/Assembly; Test

10/20/2008
1/22/2008

10/20/2010
1/22/2010

Foundry Services

12/2/2008

12/2/2010

For more information on accredited suppliers, please visit http://www.dmea.osd.mil/trustedic.html

182

APPENDIX D: ASSESSMENT COVERAGE – SURVEY INSTRUMENT
The OTE survey instrument was structured to provide a facility-by-facility breakout for all IC
fabrication and design operations across the United States. A number of large-size IC companies
filled out multiple OTE surveys to fulfill this facility-level reporting requirement. In preparing the
final report, OTE staff aggregated the final data submissions to protect business proprietary
information. The depth and breath of the OTE IC database can be best explained by reviewing the
specific sections of the survey instrument.

The OTE survey requested information pertaining to: (1) conventional integrated circuit products,
which account for the majority of U.S. capabilities, and (2) radiation resistant products, including
single-event effects resistant, radiation tolerant, radiation hardened, and neutron hardened products
for commercial, industrial and military applications.

The OTE survey document consists of nine sections containing questions on a broad range of
parameters to measure capability for IC product fabrication and design. A summary of the focus of
each section follows:

Conventional IC Products - Survey Sections 2a-2e
To assess capabilities, IC fabrication and design companies were asked to describe their abilities in
terms of the dimensions, materials, device types, and processing capability by wafer size.
Technology node capability (nanometers) spanned 15 categories ranging from 10,000 – 6,000
nanometers down to less than 32 nanometers. These categories were grouped in four technology
node ranges: 10,000 nm – 1,000 nm; 1,000 nm – 250 nm; 250 nm – 65 nm; and less than 65 nm.
Wafer processing data covered five wafer sizes: 2- or 3-inch, 4-inch, 6-inch, 8-inch, and 12-inch.

Information was collected on companies’ capability to design and fabricate conventional IC
products using 10 material types:77

For more information on these material types, see Appendix C.

183

Materials Types Included in the Survey
Standard Silicon Materials
Bulk Silicon
Silicon on Insulator
Silicon Germanium
Non-Standard Materials
Gallium Nitride
Gallium Arsenide
Indium Phosphate
Silicon Sapphire
Antimonides
Silicon Carbide
Amorphous Silicon
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Evaluation,
U.S. Integrated Circuit Design and Fabrication Capability Survey, November 2008.

Survey participants also described their ability to design and/or fabricate 14 types of conventional
IC devices:78

Device Types Included in the Survey

Field Programmable Gate Arrays
(FPGAs)

Digital Signal Processors

One-Time Electronically
Programmable Gate Arrays (EPGAs)

Nonvolatile Memory

Mask Programmable Gate Arrays
(MPGAs)

Static Random Access Memory
(SRAM)

Structured Application Specific
Integrated Circuits (ASICs)

Dynamic Random Access Memory
(DRAM)

Standard Cell ASICs

Microprocessors/Co-processors

Custom ASICs

Micromonolithic Integrated Circuits
(MMIC)

Mixed Signal ASICs

Display Electronics

For more information on these device types, see Appendix C.

184

Organizations were asked to further describe their nonvolatile memory device fabrication and/or
design capability.

These 10 nonvolatile memory device types included:

Types of Nonvolatile Memory Included in the Survey
Erasable Programmable Read-only
Memory (EPROM)

Electrically Erasable Programmable
Read-only Memory (EEPROM)

Flash Memory

Polymer Memory

Ferro-electric Random Access Memory One-time Programmable Memory
(FeRAM)
(XPM)
Magneto-resistive Random Access
Memory (MRAM)

Phase Change Memory

Zero Capacitor Random Access
Memory (ZRAM)

Micro Electro-mechanical Systems
Memory (MEMS)

Radiation Resistant IC Products - Survey Sections 3a-3c
Respondents were asked to provide information on their ability to design and/or fabricate four types
of radiation resistant IC products: single-event effects resistant, radiation tolerant, radiation
hardened and neutron hardened. The data collected from these specific categories was further
segmented by technology node, material type, wafer size, and device type - the same categories
used in the survey section on conventional capability.

Manufacturing Utilization - Survey Sections 4a-4c
This section focused on manufacturing capability in the context of production, facility utilization,
facility availability, and projections for continued operation in the future. Capability was reported
by wafer starts per week, circuit technology node, wafer size and material type. These questions
covered both conventional and radiation-resistant IC products.

National Security/Trusted Foundry Access Program - Survey Sections 5a-5k
Companies and organizations were asked to state their interest and capability in
designing/supplying products for current and future national security end-uses, including how much
capacity they were willing to devote to national security business. Design and fabrication
companies were also asked if they were certified or had interest in becoming certified for the
Department of Defense Trusted Foundry Access Program.
185

Performance and Outsourcing of Production Functions by Fabrication Firms - Survey
Sections 6a-6l
The survey requested companies and organizations to identify their current capability to perform
seven manufacturing steps: mask making, wafer manufacturing (front and back ends), wafer sorting,
circuit testing, packaging, and final testing. Survey participants specified those manufacturing steps
that they outsource to domestic service providers and facilities at non-U.S. locations. Companies
were also asked to identify the manufacturing functions they would continue to carry-out in the
United States through 2011 and the functions they expect to outsource to domestic and non-U.S.
locations in the future.

Performance and Outsourcing of Production Functions by Fabless Firms - Survey Sections
7a-7j
In the area of IC design, survey participants were asked to describe their current capability to carry
out seven design steps: digital, analog, RTL (register transfer level) design, synthesis, physical
layout, functional verification, and test vector generation. Companies were also asked to specify
those design steps that they outsource to domestic service providers and to facilities at non-U.S.
locations. Companies were asked to identify the design functions they would continue to carry out
in the United States through 2011 and the functions they expect to outsource to non-U.S. locations
in the future.

Financials - Survey Sections 8a-8f
Fabrication companies and fabless companies provided data for years 2003-2007 on their net sales.
OTE used this information to understand the financial profiles of companies participating in these
distinct segments of the industry. Both fabricators and fabless firms were examined by size in terms
of sales and their industry position as large-, medium-, or small-size companies. In addition, OTE
reviewed the financial standing of IC fabrication companies and fabless companies.

Research & Development: Expenditures, Outsourcing and Employment - Survey Sections 9a9d
Corporate research and development (R&D) expenditures were broken into four categories: basic
research, applied research, product development, and process development. Respondents were also
186

asked about the sources of their funding: parent company/internal, federal government, state and
local government, U.S. private entities, and foreign investors. R&D employment trends as well as
offshore transfers of R&D expenditures were also captured at the corporate level.

Capital Investment: Expenditures and Outsourcing - Survey Sections 10a-10b
Information on fabrication and fabless company capital expenditures was collected from survey
participants for the 2003-2007 period. Investment patterns of fabrication companies and fabless
companies were analyzed separately. In addition to overall investment levels, the data focuses on
specific aspects of capital investment, including cost reduction, replacement expansion,
improvement of production capacity, and new product development. Capital investment flows for
domestic versus international operations also are examined.

187

BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL - Per Section 705(d) of the Defense Production Act
DEFENSE INDUSTRIAL BASE ASSESSMENT: U.S. INTEGRATED CIRCUIT DESIGN AND MANUFACTURING CAPABILITY
OMB Control Number: 0694-0119; Expiration Date: 12/30/2007

SCOPE OF ASSESSMENT
The Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS), Office of Technology Evaluation, in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Defense, is
conducting an assessment of the U.S. design and manufacturing infrastructure available for producing Integrated Circuit products required
for meeting U.S. national security needs. The goal of this study is to provide decision makers in the Departments of Defense, Energy,
Justice, Homeland Security, and others with (1) detailed information on the health and status of Integrated Circuit design and
manufacturing capabilities remaining in the United States; and (2) the outlook for maintaining these activities in the future. The scope of
this effort encompasses Integrated Circuit design and production resources, including activities such as mask blank, mask making, and
semiconductor wafer supply.
RESPONSE TO THIS SURVEY IS REQUIRED BY LAW
A response to this survey is required by law (50 U.S.C. app. Sec. 2155). Failure to respond can result in a maximum fine of $10,000,
imprisonment of up to one year, or both. Information furnished herewith is deemed confidential and will not be published or disclosed
except in accordance with Section 705 of the Defense Production Act of 1950, as amended (50 U.S.C. App. Sec. 2155). Section 705
prohibits the publication or disclosure of this information unless the President determines that its withholding is contrary to the national
defense. Information will not be shared with any non-government entity, other than in aggregate form. The information will be protected
pursuant to the appropriate exemptions from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), should it be the subject of a FOIA
request.
Not withstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to nor shall a person be subject to a penalty for failure to
comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information
displays a currently valid OMB Control Number.
BURDEN ESTIMATE AND REQUEST FOR COMMENT
Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 9 hours per response, including the time for reviewing
instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of
information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information to BIS Information
Collection Officer, Room 6883, Bureau of Industry and Security, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, D.C. 20230, and to the Office
of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (OMB Control No. 0694-0119), Washington, D.C. 20503.

188

i
ii
iii
iv
v
vi
vii
viii
ix
x
xi
xii
xiii

BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL - Per Section 705(d) of the Defense Production Act
GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS
DEADLINE: Your office should submit its completed survey on or about November 9, 2007.
Please complete each section of the survey.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Who Must Respond To This Survey - Please Begin Survey Here
Company/Organization Information
U.S. and Foreign Facility Locations and Customer Segments
Integrated Circuit Design & Manufacturing Facilities Information
Rad Tolerant, Rad Hardened, Neutron Hardened Design & Manufacturing
Manufacturing Capabilities & Production Rates
Interest and Capability to Supply Products For National Security
Performance of Production Functions for Integrated Circuits
Performance of Design Functions for Integrated Circuits
Finance (Income Statement and Balance Sheet)
Research and Development and R&D Occupation
Capital Expenditures
Survey Certification

Estimates are welcome; however, please indicate such in the corresponding comments boxes if so reported.

1
2

Please report all financial, production, manufacturing capacity, and similar data on a Calendar Year basis.
Questions related to this questionnaire should be directed to:
Jason Bolton, Trade & Industry Analyst, (202) 482-5936 [e-mail: [email protected]]
Christopher Nelson, Trade & Industry Analyst, (202) 482-4727 [e-mail: [email protected]]
Mark Crawford, Senior Trade & Industry Analyst, (202) 482-8239 [e-mail: [email protected]]
Brad Botwin, Program Director, (202) 482-4060 [e-mail: [email protected]]
BIS/OTE Fax Number: (202) 482-5361
Before returning your completed Excel questionnaire via e-mail, be sure to complete the Certification page.
6
Mr. Brad Botwin, Program Director, Office of Technology Evaluation
U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230

Begin
1a-1b
1c-1d
2a-2e
3a-3c
4a-4c
5a-5k
6a-6l
7a-7j
8a-8f
9a-9d
10a-10b
11

4
5

BIS Room 1093,

189

1
2
3
4
5
6

BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL - Per Section 705(d) of the Defense Production Act
Table of Contents

Begin
Survey

WHO MUST RESPOND TO THIS SURVEY
Select the description that most closely reflects your organization:
An Integrated Circuit product design, product development and manufacturing organization.
A fabless Integrated Circuit product design and product development organization - only.
An Integrated Circuit manufacturing foundry - only.
Did your organization at any time in the last five years have a capability to design/manufacture IC
products?
If you selected "Yes" to any of questions 1-4 above, please continue completing this survey.
If you selected "No" for questions 1-4, please complete "Exemption From Survey" below.
EXEMPTION FROM SURVEY

If your organization's operations during the last five years did not involve Integrated Circuit product design and/or manufacturing,
you may be exempt from completing this survey. Please call one of the contacts listed in General Instructions above to verify
your status. Then complete steps 7-8 below:
Briefly explain the products and/or services provided by your organization in the space below:
7

8
Previous
Page

Please complete and print out the "Certification" page. Return a signed copy of the "Certification" only after confirming
your exemption by speaking with one of our staff. Please transmit the "Certification" to our offices via mail, express
courier, e-mail, or FAX (202) 482-5361, no later than November 9, 2007.
Table of Contents

Begin
Survey

190

BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL - Per Section 705(d) of the Defense Production Act
Table of Contents
Company/Organization Information

Previous Page
Section 1

U.S. Executive Office Location
Street Address
Country
Mailing Code

1.a Company/Organization Name

City

Phone Number

Website Address

State

FAX Number

D&B Universal Numbering System (DUNS) Number

SIC (3Digit)
Code(s)*

CAGE Code

NAICS
(4-Digit)
Code(s)*

*Primary number(s) that identify the
type of product(s) or service(s)
provided from this facility. To
determine the appropriate codes, see
the SIC and NAICS code listings at the
following website:
(http://www.census.gov/epcd/www/
naics.html)

Point of Contact Regarding this Survey

Name(s)

Phone

Location

E-mail Address

191

Instructions -- Survey Completion and Submission Method
OTE already has collected information on the locations of your company’s design and/manufacturing facilities. OTE now needs detailed information about
the capabilities of each of those U.S.-based facilities. A company may provide this information in one or two ways:
Option #1) Instruct each of your design and/or manufacturing facilities to complete the requested information regarding their technical and production
capabilities (Survey Sections 2-4) and have them report that information directly to OTE. If your company chooses this approach, individual facilities
should not and may not report Interest and Capability to Supply (Section 5), Performance of Production Functions (Section 6), Performance of
Design Functions (Section 7), Financial information (Section 8), Research and Development and R&D Occupational information (Section 9), and
Capital Expenditures (Section 10). Survey Sections 5 - 11 must be completed and submitted as a single consolidated corporate/organization response.
[This approach may speed completion of the survey for companies operating multiple facilities.]
Option #2) Instruct each of your design and/or manufacturing facilities to report the requested information regarding their technical and
production capabilities (Survey Sections 2-4) to a designated corporate coordinator. The corporate coordinator can submit in a consolidated
filing the technical and production capabilities for each of its facilities along with the requested financial information (Section 8), research
and development and R&D occupational information (Section 9), and Capital Expenditures (Section 10).
Note: OTE is sending copies of this survey to every company's U.S. corporate office and to facilities engaged in integrated circuit design
and/or manufacturing work in the United States. Be sure to coordinate with your corporate point of contact and your facilities.

Please specify in the box whether your company will use Option #1 or Option #2 :
My company/organization is headquartered in:
The parent of my company/organization is headquartered in:
Parent Company/Organization Name

Address

City

State

Country

My company/organization is (public/private):
My parent company/organization is (public/private):

1.b One or more foreign governments have invested, directly or indirectly in my company/organization - and collectively control five
percent or more of stockholder voting shares in my company.
If you answered "Yes," please explain (in the space below) the nature of the investment and identify the foreign government(s).

192

BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL - Per Section 705(d) of the Defense Production Act
Table of Contents
Corporate Level Response Only
2003

2004

2005

2006

2011*

1.c Please state the number of Integrated Circuit fabrication facilities that your

*Project the
Number of
Facilities that your
company
anticipates
operating in the
United States in
2011.

company operated* in the United States for the following years:
Please state the number of Integrated Circuit fabrication facilities that your
company operated outside of the United States for the following years:

Total

1.d Instruction: Please specify the industry sectors that your company/facility serves through the provision of design and/or
manufacturing services for Integrated Circuit products located in the United States:
Aviation systems/Avionics
Automotive

(Select "Yes" or "No")
Telecommunications
Military and Space

Consumer electronics
Electronic Data Processing

Other National Security systems
Other [specify in comments]

Comments:

Industrial

Table of Contents

193

BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL - Per Section 705(d) of the Defense Production Act
Table of Contents
DEFINITIONS OF TERMS USED IN SURVEY

APPLIED RESEARCH – Systematic study to gain knowledge or understanding necessary to determine the means by which a recognized and specific
need may be met. This activity includes work leading to the production of useful materials, devices and systems or methods, including design
development and improvement of prototypes and new processes.
BASIC RESEARCH – Systematic, scientific study directed toward greater knowledge or understanding of the fundamental aspects of phenomena and of
observable facts.
CAPITAL EXPENDITURES – Investments made by a company in buildings, equipment, property, and systems where the expense is depreciated. This
does not include expenditures for consumable materials, other operating expenses and salaries associated with normal business operations.
DEVELOPMENT – The design, development, simulation, or experimental testing of prototype or experimental hardware or systems, to validate
technological feasibility or concept of operation, to reduce technological risk, or to provide test systems prior to production approval.
DESIGN – Design activity required to implement a product concept in support of the manufacture of the Integrated Circuit product at a fabrication facility.
INTEGRATED CIRCUIT – Analog or digital devices that incorporate transistors, diodes, capacitors, resistors, and other circuit elements that are
integrated on a single substrate (chip), typically silicon.
MANUFACTURING – The production of a working Integrated Circuit product in a fabrication facility.
NEUTRON HARDENED – Integrated Circuit products incorporating design features and/or physical characteristics that can withstand the damaging
effects of high-speed neutrons, gamma rays, and electromagnetic pulses that accompany a nuclear weapons detonation. Most CMOS[1] technologies
are inherently neutron hardened without any specific effort on the part of an ICs designer/manufacturer. For “minority carrier” IC devices that are affected
by neutron-induced displacement damage, a level of 1X1014 n/cm2 (1MeV equivalent fluence) is the accepted standard.[2]
ORGANIZATION — A company, firm, laboratory, or other entity that owns or controls one or more U.S. establishment capable of designing and/or
manufacturing Integrated Circuit products. A company may be an individual proprietorship, partnership, joint venture, or corporation (including any
subsidiary corporation in which more than 50 percent of the outstanding voting stock is owned by a business trust, cooperative, trustee(s) in bankruptcy,
or receiver(s) under decree of any court owning or controlling one or more establishment.
PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT – Conceptualization and development of an Integrated Circuit product prior to the production of IC product for customers.
Continued on Next Page
RADIATION HARDENED – Integrated Circuit products incorporating design features and/or physical characteristics that demonstrate a capability to
resist radiation-induced damage from industrial sources, electromagnetic pulses, weapons systems; and/or charged particles in space that can damage
circuitry and render a device inoperable. Some IC devices may be considered radiation hardened when their total dose failure level exceeds >300
krad.[3] A total dose failure level of 500krad is the standard cited in International Traffic in Arms (ITAR) regulations.[4]

194

DEFINITIONS OF TERMS USED IN SURVEY -- Continued
RADIATION TOLERANT – Integrated Circuit products incorporating design features and/or physical characteristics with limited capability to resist
radiation induced damage from industrial sources, electromagnetic pulses, industrial sources, weapons systems, and charged particles in space that can
damage circuitry and render a device inoperable. Radiation tolerant would cover parts having a total dose failure level >100 krad but less than 300 krad.
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT – Basic and applied research in the engineering sciences, as well as design and development of prototype products
and processes.
SEMICONDUCTOR – Elemental materials such as silicon and germanium (or compounds like gallium arsenide) that possess levels of electrical
conductivity that are less than a conductor but greater than an insulator. The properties of these materials and similar ones can be manipulated to affect
conductivity through temperature and/or the use of dopants.
SINGLE-EVENT EFFECTS RESISTANT – Single-event effects caused by a single energetic particle striking an Integrated Circuit (IC) device.
Performance of the IC device is not compromised to a point where it is inoperable or not reliable for executing a mission as a result of latch-up, burnout,
or gate rupture.
TRUSTED ACCESS PROGRAM – A program implemented by the National Security Agency and the Defense Microelectronics Activity (DMEA) to qualify
Integrated Circuit design and manufacturing companies as “trusted” suppliers of application specific Integrated Circuit (ASIC) products required for
national security applications.
WAFER STARTS PER WEEK – The number of semiconductor wafers that can be processed by an Integrated Circuit on production line(s) in a 7-day
period.
UNITED STATES – The term “United States” includes the fifty states, Puerto Rico, the District of Columbia, the island of Guam, Trust Territories, and the
Virgin Islands.

[1] Complimentary metal oxide semiconductor (CMOS) is a class of semiconductor used in digital logic circuits employed in
microcontrollers, microprocessors, memory, and other devices. The technology also is used in analog circuits in sensors, transceivers,
data converters and other systems.
[2] Sandia National Laboratories. A minority carrier device is a device in which current is conducted by charge carriers of sign (positive or
negative) opposite to the dopant polarity of the underlying semiconductor material. In other words, current carried by electrons (negative)
in a p-type semiconductor, or by holes in an n-type semiconductor. In semiconductors, minority charge carriers are less abundant than
majority charge carriers. Minority carrier devices: Bipolar junction transistors, charge-coupled devices (CCDs), solar cells.
[3] Sandia National Laboratories.
[4] ITAR Part 121 – The United States Munitions List (See www.pmddtc.state.gov/consolidated_itar.htm. [Microelectronic circuits are
considered radiation hardened when they exceed all five of these standards: (1) Total dose of 5x105 Rads (Si); (2) Dose rate upset of
5x108 Rads (Si) per second; (3) Neutron dose of 1x1014 N/cm2; (4) Single-Event upset of 1x10minus;7 or less error/bit/day; and (5) SingleEvent latch-up free and having a dose rate latch-up of 5x108 Rads (Si) per second or greater.]
Previous Page

Table of Contents

195

Previous Page
Section 2

BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL - Per Section 705(d) of the Defense Production Act
Table of Contents
Integrated Circuit Design & Manufacturing General Information - U.S.-Based

2.a Instruction: Please list the Integrated Circuit product Design and Manufacturing market types and capabilities of your company/organization in
the United States in calendar year 2006. Check the appropriate boxes that describe the (1) function(s) carried out; and (2) product classes.
Include design and manufacturing facilities used to produce Radiation Tolerant, Radiation Hardened, Neutron Hardened, and Single-Event Effects
resistant Integrated Circuit products.

Design and Manufacturing Facility Market Types and Capabilities
(Check all that apply -- A blank response is counted as "No capability")
Facility Type?

Military

Industrial

Neutron Hardened

Commercial

Military

Industrial

Radiation Hardened

Commercial

Military

Industrial

Radiation Tolerant

Commercial

Military

Industrial

Commercial

Single-Event Effects
Resistant

Military

Industrial

Product Classes

Conventional
Integrated Circuit
Products

Commercial

Product
Capabilities

Yes or No?

Comments:

Table of Contents

196

BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL - Per Section 705(d) of the Defense Production Act
Table of Contents
Integrated Circuit Design & Manufacturing - Continued

Previous Page
Section 2

2.b Instruction: For the market types and capabilities identified in Question 2.a, please specify your design and manufacturing capabilities that reside
in the United States:

Capability to Design and/or Manufacture - by Technology Node, Wafer Size & Material Type

10,000 - 6,000

Carbon Based
Technologies

Organic
Technologies

MEMS*
Technologies

Amorphous
Silicon

Antimonides

Indium
Phosphate

Gallium
Arsenide

Silicon
Carbide

Gallium
Nitride

Silicon on
Sapphire

Silicon
Germanium

Silicon on
Insulator

-- by
Wafer
Size

Bulk Silicon

(Select all that apply -- A blank response is counted as "No Capability")

Minimum
Technology
Node Capability
[nanometers]

2- or 3inch
4-inch
6-inch
8-inch

6,000 - 3,000

12-inch
2- or 3inch
4-inch
6-inch
8-inch

3,000 - 1,500

12-inch
2- or 3inch
4-inch
6-inch
8-inch

1500 1,000

12-inch
2- or 3inch
4-inch
6-inch

197

8-inch

1,000 - 800

12-inch
2- or 3inch
4-inch
6-inch
8-inch
12-inch

800 - 500

2- or 3inch
4-inch
6-inch
8-inch
12-inch

500 - 350

2- or 3inch
4-inch
6-inch
8-inch
12-inch

350 - 250

2- or 3inch
4-inch
6-inch
8-inch
12-inch

180 - 130

2- or 3inch
4-inch
6-inch
8-inch
12-inch

198

130 - 90

2- or 3inch
4-inch
6-inch
8-inch
12-inch

90 - 65

2- or 3inch
4-inch
6-inch
8-inch
12-inch

65 - 45

2- or 3inch
4-inch
6-inch
8-inch
12-inch

45** - 32

2- or 3inch
4-inch
6-inch
8-inch

32** or less

12-inch
2- or 3inch
4-inch
6-inch
8-inch
12-inch
Note: 10,000 nanometers equals 10 micrometers. *Micro Electro-Mechanical Systems (MEMS) **Respond to this specification if your company expects to develop a capability to
work at this Technology Node by 2011.

199

200

Section 2

Integrated Circuit Design & Manufacturing - Continued

2.c Instruction: Please specify your company's/facility's design and manufacturing capabilities by material type with regard to the production of Integrated
Circuit products in the United States:

Capability to Design and/or Manufacture - by Device & Material Type

Carbon Based
Technologies

Organic
Technologies

MEMS
Technologies

Amorphous Silicon

Antimonides

Indium Phosphate

Gallium Arsenide

Silicon Carbide

Gallium Nitride

Silicon on Sapphire

Silicon Germanium

Silicon on Insulator

Bulk Silicon

DEVICE TYPES

Material Type

(Select all that apply -- A blank response is counted as "No capability")

Field Programmable Gate Arrays
One-time, Electrically
Programmable Gate Arrays
Mask Programmable Gate Arrays
Structured ASICs [a.k.a. Structured
Arrays; Platform ASICs]
Standard Cell ASICs [a.k.a. cellbased ASICs]
Custom ASICs
Mixed Signal Technologies
Digital Signal Processors
Nonvolatile Memory
SRAM
DRAM
Microprocessors/Coprocessors
IR*-Focal Plane Arrays
Anti-Tamper Technology
MMIC** Technologies
Display Electronics
*IR=Infrared

**MMIC= Monolithic Microwave Integrated Circuit

201

Section 2

Integrated Circuit Design & Manufacturing - Continued

2.d Instruction: Please specify your company's/facility's design capabilities with regard to the production of specific types of Nonvolatile Memory
products located in the United States:
Note: Do not complete this page if your company/facility does not design Nonvolatile Memory products. Proceed to

Section 3

Capability to Design Nonvolatile Memory - by Device, Density, Read-Write Speed
Read Time
[Nano Seconds (ns)]

Memory Density

>1 Gbit

256-1024 Mbit

64-128 Mbit

16-32 Mbit

1-8 Mbit

Select all that apply - A blank
response is counted as "No
capability"

<1 Mbit

Memory Device
Type

Write/Erase

Select all that apply -- A Blank response is counted as
"No capability"

<10ns

10-20ns

20-50ns

50-150ns

>150ns

[Please provide
specifications]
Size

Time

Specify
data size:
Word,
page,
black, etc.

(Write in
Spec.)

Erasable Programmable
Read-Only Memory
(EPROM)
Electrically Erasable
Programmable Read-Only
Memory (EEPROM)
Flash
Ferro Electric (FeRAM)
Magnetoresistive (MRAM),
(RRAM)
MEMS-base (nanotube,
NRAM)
Phase Change Memory
(PCM, a.k.a. PRAM)
Polymer
Super Permanent Memory
(XPM)
Zero Capacitor (ZRAM)
Other
(Specify)
Other
(Specify)

202

Section 2

BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL - Per Section 705(d) of the Defense Production Act
Integrated Circuit Design & Manufacturing - Non-Volatile Memory Devices - Continued

2.e Instruction: Please specify your company's/facility's manufacturing capabilities with regard to the production of specific types of Nonvolatile
Memory products in the United States:

Note: Do not complete this page if your company/facility does not manufacture Nonvolatile Memory products.

Proceed to Section 3

Capability to Manufacture Nonvolatile Memory - by Device, Density, Read-Write Speed
Read Time
[Nano Seconds (ns)]

Write/Erase

Select all that apply -- A Blank response is counted as "No capability"

[Please provide
specifications]

Memory Density

>1 Gbit

256-1024 Mbit

64-128 Mbit

16-32 Mbit

1-8 Mbit

Memory Device Type

<1 Mbit

Select all that apply - A blank
response is counted as "No
capability"

<10ns

10-20ns

20-50ns

50-150ns

>150ns

Size

Time

Specify data
size: Word,
page, black,
etc.

(Write in
Spec.)

Erasable Programmable ReadOnly Memory (EPROM)
Electrically Erasable
Programmable Read-Only
Memory (EEPROM)
Flash
Ferro Electric (FeRAM)
Magnetoresistive (MRAM),
(RRAM)
MEMS-base (nanotube, NRAM)
Phase Change Memory (PCM,
a.k.a. PRAM)
Polymer
Super Permanent Memory (XPM)
Zero Capacitor (ZRAM)
Other (Specify)
Other (Specify)

Table of Contents

203

BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL - Per Section 705(d) of the Defense Production Act
Table of
Contents
Section 3
Rad Tolerant, Rad Hardened, Neutron Hardened Design & Manufacturing
3.a With regard to radiation-tolerant, radiation-hardened and neutron-hardened Integrated Circuits, my
company/facility:
Previous Page

Select all that apply. (A blank response is counted as "No" capability and/or "No" interest.)
Currently has capabilities and is now
Designing
Manufacturing*
providing in the following areas:
Radiation Tolerant
Radiation Tolerant

Is NOT now engaged in this activity, but
has previous experience in the following
areas:

If called upon by the U.S. Government,
would be interested in:

Radiation Hardened

Neutron Hardened
Single-Event Effects
Resistant

Designing

Manufacturing*

Radiation Tolerant

Radiation Hardened

Neutron Hardened
Single-Event Effects
Resistant

Designing
Radiation Tolerant
Radiation Hardened
Neutron Hardened
Single-Event Effects
Resistant

Manufacturing*
Radiation Tolerant
Radiation Hardened
Neutron Hardened
Single-Event Effects
Resistant

*Company/facility possesses manufacturing process technology to achieve radiation tolerance, hardening, or neutron hardening.

Table of
Contents

204

BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL - Per Section 705(d) of the Defense Production Act
Previous Page
Table of Contents
Next Page
Section 3
Rad Tolerant, Rad Hardened, Neutron Hardened IC Design & Manufacturing
3.b Instruction: Please identify your company's/facility's capabilities to design and/or manufacture custom Integrated Circuit products that are
radiation-tolerant, radiation-hardened, neutron hardened, and/or Single-Event effects resistant at locations in the United States.
Capability to Design and/or Manufacture - by Technology Node, Wafer Size & Material Type
(Select all that apply - A blank response is counted as "No capability")
Radiation Tolerant
Radiation Hardened
Neutron Hardened
Single-Event Effects Resistant

10,000- 6,000

2- or 3-inch
4-inch
6-inch
8-inch
12-inch
2- or 3-inch
4-inch
6-inch
8-inch
12-inch

Carbon Based
Technologies

Organic Technologies

MEMS Technologies

Amorphous Silicon

Antimonides

Indium Phosphate

Gallium Arsenide

Silicon Carbide

Gallium Nitride

Silicon on Sapphire

Silicon Germanium

Silicon on Insulator

-- by Wafer
Size

6,000 - 3,000

Minimum Technology Node
Capability
[nanometers]

Bulk Silicon

(Select all that apply - A blank response is counted as "No capability")

205

3,000- 1,500

2- or 3-inch
4-inch
6-inch
8-inch
12-inch

1,500 - 1,000

2- or 3-inch
4-inch
6-inch
8-inch
12-inch

1,000- 800

2- or 3-inch
4-inch
6-inch
8-inch
12-inch

800 - 500

2- or 3-inch
4-inch
6-inch
8-inch
12-inch

500- 350

2- or 3-inch
4-inch
6-inch
8-inch
12-inch

350 - 250

2- or 3-inch
4-inch
6-inch
8-inch
12-inch

250- 180

2- or 3-inch
4-inch
6-inch
8-inch

206

180 - 130

2- or 3-inch
4-inch
6-inch
8-inch
12-inch

130- 90

2- or 3-inch
4-inch
6-inch
8-inch
12-inch

90 - 65

2- or 3-inch
4-inch
6-inch
8-inch
12-inch

65- 45

2- or 3-inch
4-inch
6-inch
8-inch
12-inch

45 – 32**

2- or 3-inch
4-inch
6-inch
8-inch
12-inch

32** or less

12-inch

2- or 3-inch
4-inch
6-inch
8-inch
12-inch

Note: 10,000 nanometers equals 10 micrometers *Respond to this specification if your company expects to develop a capability to work at this Technology Node by 2011.

BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL - Per Section 705(d) of the Defense Production Act

207

BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL - Per Section 705(d) of the Defense Production Act
Section 3
Rad Tolerant, Rad Hardened IC Design & Manufacturing - Devices & Materials
3.c Instruction: Please specify your company's/organization's design and manufacturing capabilities by device type with regard to the
production of custom radiation-tolerant, radiation-hardened, and neutron hardened Integrated Circuit products located in the United States:
Capability to Design and/or Manufacture - by Device & Material Type
Amorphous Silicon

Antimonides

Indium Phosphate

Gallium Arsenide

Silicon Carbide

Gallium Nitride

Silicon on Sapphire

Silicon Germanium

Silicon on Insulator

Bulk Silicon

Single-Event Effects
Resistant

Neutron Hardened

Radiation Hardened

Type of Device

Radiation Tolerant

(Select all that apply -- A blank response is counted as "No capability")

Field Programmable Gate Arrays
One-time, Electrically
Programmable Gate Arrays
Mask Programmable Gate Arrays
Structured ASICs [a.k.a. Structured
Arrays; Platform ASICs]
Standard Cell ASICs [a.k.a. cellbased ASICs]
Custom ASICs
Mixed Signal ASICs
Digital Signal Processors
Nonvolatile Memory
SRAM Memory
DRAM Memory
Processors
IR Focal Plane Arrays
Anti-Tamper Technology
MMIC Technologies

208

Display Electronics

BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL - Per Section 705(d) of the Defense Production Act
Manufacturing Capabilities & Production Rates
4.a Instructions: Specify the maximum Wafer Start capacity per week of your organization/facility in 2007 in the United
States by circuit technology node, wafer size, and material type.
Section 4

Note: Assumes 7-day a week operations.

Wafer Starts Per Week by Circuit Technology Node, Wafer Size & Material Type

10,000* - 6,000

Carbon-Based
Technologies

Organic Technologies

MEMS Technologies

Amorphous Silicon

Antimonides

Indium Phosphate

Gallium Arsenide

Silicon Carbide

Gallium Nitride

Silicon on Sapphire

Silicon Germanium

-- by
Wafer
Size

Silicon on Insulator

Technology
Node
Capability
[nanometers]

Bulk Silicon

(State your wafer-start-per-week capacity -- A blank response is counted as "No capability")

2- or 3inch
4-inch
6-inch
8-inch

6,000 - 3,000

12-inch
2- or 3inch
4-inch
6-inch
8-inch

3,000 - 1,500

12-inch
2- or 3inch
4-inch
6-inch
8-inch
12-inch

209

1,500* - 1,000

2- or 3inch
4-inch
6-inch
8-inch

1,000 - 800

12-inch
2- or 3inch
4-inch
6-inch
8-inch
12-inch

800 - 500

2- or 3inch
4-inch
6-inch
8-inch
12-inch

500* - 350

2- or 3inch
4-inch
6-inch
8-inch
12-inch

350 - 250

2- or 3inch
4-inch
6-inch
8-inch

250 180

12-inch
2- or 3inch
4-inch

210

6-inch
8-inch
12-inch

130 - 90

2- or 3inch
4-inch
6-inch
8-inch
12-inch

90 - 65

2- or 3inch
4-inch
6-inch
8-inch
12-inch

65 - 45

2- or 3inch
4-inch
6-inch
8-inch
12-inch

45** - 32

2- or 3inch
4-inch
6-inch
8-inch

32** or less

12-inch
2- or 3inch
4-inch
6-inch
8-inch

211

12-inch
Note: 10,000 nanometers equals 10 micrometers *Respond to this specification if your company expects to develop a capability to work at this
Technology Node by 2011.

212

Previous Page
Section 4

BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL - Per Section 705(d) of the Defense Production Act
Table of
Contents
U.S.-Based Manufacturing Facility Utilization & Availability

4.b Please (1) state the average manufacturing capacity utilization rates at your U.S. -based fabrication facility for the years 2003-2006. Then, (2)
state the maximum number of wafer starts possible per week at your manufacturing facility; (3) state the actual average wafer starts per week at
your facility; and (4) indicate whether this facility will be operating through 2011.

Average Manufacturing Capacity Utilization Rates

2003%

2004%

2005%

2006%

2007
Maximum
number
of Wafer
Starts Per
Week*

2007 Average Actual
Wafer Starts Per
Week**

Will this Facility Operate
Through 2011?

*Normalized to 8-inch wafer equivalents. **Assumes 7-days-a-week operations.

Table of Contents

213

Previous Page
Section 4

BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL - Per Section 705(d) of the Defense Production Act
Table of Contents

Mask Blank Supply Practices, Inventory, & Outlook - 2006 -- Continued

4.c Instruction: Complete this page only if your company/organization has captive, in-house IC mask-making capability located in the United States
that supports IC manufacturing activities, or that could be used to support IC manufacturing.

Binary Mask Blanks
What percent of your
Company's/Organization's binary
mask requirements are fulfilled by
mask production performed:

InHouse

Phase-Shift Mask Blanks
by External Mask
Makers

What percent of your
Company's/Organization's phase-shift
mask requirements are fulfilled by
mask production performed:

InHouse

Average Number of Binary Mask Blanks in
Inventory

Average Number of Phase-Shift Mask Blanks in
Inventory

% of Binary Mask Blank Inventory Used Monthly

% of Phase-Shift Blank Inventory Used Monthly

Shelf Life - Binary Mask Blanks (Weeks)

Shelf Life - Phase-Shift Mask Blanks (Weeks)

Cycle time for delivery of mask blanks from day of
order. (Weeks)

Cycle time for delivery of mask blanks from day of
order (Weeks)

Percent of Company/Organization Integrated Circuit
Manufacturing activity utilizing Binary Mask Blanks

Percent of Company/Organization Integrated Circuit
Manufacturing activity utilizing Phase-Shift Mask
Blanks

Percent of Company's/Organization's
Manufacturing Business that will require Binary
Mask Blanks in 2011* (Projected)

Percent of Company's/Organization's
Manufacturing Business that will require PhaseShift Blanks in 2011* (Projected)

Number of Suppliers Your Company/Organization
Uses

% of Total

Supplier Names

Country

City

% of Total

Supplier Names

Country

by External Mask
Makers

City

214

Previous Page
Section 4

BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL - Per Section 705(d) of the Defense Production Act
Table of Contents

Mask Blank Supply Practices, Inventory, & Outlook - 2006 -- Continued

Binary Mask Blanks

Phase-Shift Mask Blanks

Does your company purchase its
mask blanks directly from:

Binary Mask
Blank
Manufacturer

Binary Mask Blank
Distributor

Does your company purchase its
mask blanks directly from:

Phase-Shift
Mask Blank
Manufacturer

Phase-Shift Mask
Blank Distributor

Does your company/organization
currently have problems obtaining:

Adequate
numbers of
binary mask
blanks

Timely delivery of
binary mask blanks

Does your company/organization
currently have problems obtaining:

Adequate
numbers of
phase-shift
mask blanks

Timely delivery of
phase-shift mask
blanks

Is your company/organization at a competitive
disadvantage due to limited supply of binary mask
blanks?

Is your company/organization at a competitive
disadvantage due to limited supply of phase shift
mask blanks?

Is your company/organization concerned about
future availability and timely supply of mask blanks?

Does your mask blank supplier operate a Just-InTime manufacturing process?

Does your company maintain a month or more
supply of mask blanks?

Is there a need to establish a capability to fabricate phase shift mask blanks in the United States?

Table of Contents

215

BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL - Per Section 705(d) of the Defense Production Act
Previous Page

Table of Contents

ATTENTION: If this is an individual facility response to the survey [not a corporate response], please proceed to
Section 11, the CERTIFICATION Page. Facility managers should not complete Sections 5-10.
If this is a corporate-level response, please proceed to fill out Sections 5 - 10 and the Certification Page (Section
11).

Select the appropriate link below:
Individual Facility Response

Corporate-Level Response

216

BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL - Per Section 705(d) of the Defense Production Act
Table of Contents
Previous Page
Next Page
Instruction: Questions in Section 5 are to be completed by corporate offices. Facility managers should
not complete these sections.
Section 5

5.a

Interest and Capability to Supply Products for National Security
Design Services

What percent of your company's/organization's U.S.-based Integrated Circuit design
capacity* was utilized to help produce national security-related products in 2007?

What percent of your company's/organization's U.S.-based Integrated Circuit design
capacity would you be willing to make available for, or otherwise commit to future national
security-related work assuming fair cost and profit?

What percent of your company's/organization's foreign-based design capacity was utilized
to perform U.S. national security-related work in 2007?

5.b

Manufacturing Services

What percent of your company's/organization's U.S.-based manufacturing capacity* was
utilized to help produce national security-related products in 2007?

What percent of your company's/organization's U.S.-based manufacturing capacity would
you be willing to make available for, or otherwise commit to future national security-related
work assuming fair cost and profit?

What percent of your company's/organization's foreign-based manufacturing capacity was
utilized to perform U.S. national security-related work in 2007?

Comments:

* Capability to perform design work

Table of Contents

217

BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL - Per Section 705(d) of the Defense Production Act
Previous Page
Table of Contents
Next Page
Section 5

Interest in Certification in the Trusted Access Program - Continued

5.c Does your company/organization have in place today an ability to design
custom Integrated Circuit products in a trusted environment located in the United
States that conforms to Department of Defense standards for the conduct of such
work?
5.d Does you company/organization have in place today an ability to manufacture
custom Integrated Circuit products in a trusted environment located in the United
States that conforms to Department of Defense standards for the conduct of such
work?

5.e Has your company/organization been certified by DOD's Trusted Access Program
Office at the National Security Agency, or by the Defense Microelectronics Activity
(DMEA) as a 'trusted' supplier of Integrated Circuit products?

5.f Is your company/organization seeking, or planning to seek, certification by DOD's
Trusted Access Program Office at the National Security Agency, or by the Defense
Microelectronics Activity as a 'trusted' supplier of Integrated Circuit products?

5.g If your company/organization is not seeking or not planning to seek certification, please explain
why in the space provided below.

Explanation:

218

BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL - Per Section 705(d) of the Defense Production Act
Previous Page

Table of Contents

Section 5
Interest in Certification in the Trusted Access Program - Continued
5.h Instruction: If you answered "Yes" to Question 5.e or 5.f, please identify the manufacturing
and/or design facilities for which (1) certification has been awarded, or (2) the facilities for which
certification is being sought or may be sought.

State

Table of
Contents

Planning to Seek
Certification

City

Seeking
Certification

Facility Name(s)

Awarded
Certification

If you answered "No" to Questions 5.e or 5.f, please proceed to the next survey page (5.i).

219

Previous Page
Section 5

BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL - Per Section 705(d) of the Defense Production Act
Table of Contents

Outlook on Future Capability to Supply IC Products for U.S. National Security
Types of Devices

5.i Instruction: Please identify
those Integrated Circuit product
areas where your
company's/organization's design
capabilities in the United States
are most likely to diminish or cease
over the next five years:

(Select all that apply)

Field
Programmable
Gate Arrays

Structures
ASICs [a.k.a.
Structured
Arrays]

Mixed
Signal
ASICs

SRAM
Memory

Standard Cell
ASICs [a.k.a.
cell-based
ASICs]

Digital
Signal
Processors

Processors

Mask
Programmable
Gate Arrays

Custom ASICs

Nonvolatile
Memory

MMIC
Technologies

IR-Focal
Plane Arrays

Anti-Tamper
Technology

DRAM
Memory

Display
Electronics

One-time,
Electrically
Programmable
Gate Arrays

Types of Devices

5.j Instruction: Please identify
those Integrated Circuit product
areas where your
company's/organization's
manufacturing capabilities in the
United States are most likely to
diminish or cease over the next five
years:

(Select all that apply)

Field
Programmable
Gate Arrays

Structures
ASICs [a.k.a.
Structured
Arrays]

Mixed
Signal
ASICs

SRAM
Memory

One-time,
Electrically
Programmable
Gate Arrays

Standard Cell
ASICs [a.k.a.
cell-based
ASICs]

Digital
Signal
Processors

Processors

Mask
Programmable
Gate Arrays

Custom ASICs

Nonvolatile
Memory

MMIC
Technologies

IR-Focal
Plane Arrays

Anti-Tamper
Technology

DRAM
Memory

Display
Electronics

5.k Instruction: Please describe, if applicable, the primary factors contributing to any projected decline in your
company's/organization's manufacturing capability in the United States:

Table of Contents

220

Other (Specify Here)

Final Test & Inspection

Packaging

Circuit Test

Wafer Sorting

(Back End)

(Select all that apply)

Wafer Manufacturing

……… Section 7.

(Front End)

If your company does not operate Integrated Circuit manufacturing facilities in the United States, please proceed to…

Wafer Manufacturing

Answer the questions on this page ONLY if your
company/organization operates fabrication facilities in the
United States to produce Integrated Circuit products.

Mask Making

BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL - Per Section 705(d) of the Defense Production Act
Table of Contents
Previous Page
Section 6
Performance of Production Functions for the Manufacture of Integrated Circuits
Instruction: Questions in Section 6 are to be completed
by corporate offices. Facility managers should not
complete these sections.

6.a My company/organization in 2007 was capable of performing
the following Integrated Circuit manufacturing steps at facilities in
the United States that it owns and operates:

6.b My company/organization in 2007 was not capable of
performing the following Integrated Circuit manufacturing steps at
its own facilities in the United States. However, we employed other
U.S.-based vendors to complete the following tasks at their
facilities in the United States:

6.c My company/organization anticipates for the 2008-2011 period
that it will retain capability to perform the following Integrated
Circuit Manufacturing Steps at facilities in the United States that it
owns and operates:

6.d My company/organization for the 2008-2011 period does not
anticipate being capable of performing the following Integrated
Circuit manufacturing steps at its own facilities in the United States
- but will secure other U.S.-based vendors to complete these
Manufacturing Steps at their facilities in the United States.

Table of Contents

221

BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL - Per Section 705(d) of the Defense Production Act
Table of Contents

Other (Specify Here)

Final Test & Inspection

Packaging

Circuit Test

(Back End)
Wafer Manufacturing

Wafer Sorting

(Front End)

(Select all that apply)

Wafer Manufacturing

If your company does not operate Integrated
Circuit manufacturing facilities in the United States,
please proceed to Section 7.

Mask Making

Section 6
Performance of Production Functions for the Manufacture of Integrated Circuits - Continued
Instruction: Answer the questions on this page
ONLY if your company/organization operates
fabrication facilities in the United States to
produce Integrated Circuit products.

6.e Between 2007 and 2011, my company/organization
expects that its use of outsourcing for the following
Manufacturing Steps will:

6.f Between 2007 and 2011, my
company's/organization's capabilities to perform the
following Manufacturing Steps at facilities in the United
States will:

6.g My company/organization outsources the following
Integrated Circuit Manufacturing Steps to facilities
located outside of the United States that it owns and
operates.

6.h My company outsources the following Integrated
Circuit Manufacturing Steps to facilities located outside
of the United States that are owned and/or operated by
non-affiliated foreign companies.

6.i My company/organization outsources outside of the
United States one or more of the seven Integrated
Circuit Manufacturing Steps cited at the top of this page
for products built with the following minimum Technology
Nodes:

10,0006,000
6,0003,000
3,0001,500

1,5001,000
1,000800
800500

Technology Node [Nanometers]
500180350
130
350130-90
250
25090-65
180

65-45
45-32
32 or
less

222

BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL - Per Section 705(d) of the Defense Production Act
Section 6

Performance of Production Functions for the Manufacture of Integrated Circuits - Continued

6.j The primary reasons why my
company/organization
outsources outside of the United
States one or more of the
following Manufacturing Steps
cited at the top of this page are:

(Please provide Yes/No
response to all that apply.)

No U.S.
capability

No U.S. contractor found

Insufficient U.S. workforce

Foreign
government
subsidies - Direct

Foreign government subsidies Indirect

Lack of tax/financial incentives to produce
in the United States

Lower costs

To assure better market access

Competitive pricing pressures

Maximize profit

To better serve offshore markets

Other
(Please
Specify)

6.k In the space provided, please identify the countries
to which your company/organization outsources one or
more of the Manufacturing Steps identified above:

INSTRUCTION: If your company outsources any of the production steps listed above to locations outside of the United States, then your company must
complete the Next Page of Section 6.
Previous Page
Table of Contents
Next Page

223

BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL - Per Section 705(d) of the Defense Production Act
Previous Page
Table of Contents
Section 6
Performance of Production Steps for the Manufacture of Integrated Circuits - Continued
6.I INSTRUCTION: Please specify the characteristics of the IC products for which your company outsources Fabrication Steps.
If your company does not operate Integrated Circuit manufacturing facilities in the United
States, please proceed to

Section 7.

Outsourced Production - by Device Type, Material, & Circuit Technology Node
(Select all that apply -- A blank response is counted as "No capability")

32 or less

45 - 32

65 -45

90 - 65

130 - 90

180 - 130

250 - 180

350 - 250

500 - 350

800 - 500

1,000 - 800

1,500 - 1,000

3,000 - 1,500

6,000 - 3,000

10,000 - 6,000

Carbon Based
Technologies

Circuit Technology Node [nanometers]
Amorphous Silicon

Antimonides

Indium Phosphide

Gallium Arsenide

Silicon Carbide

Gallium Nitride

Silicon on Sapphire

Silicon Germanium

Silicon on Insulator

Semiconductor Material Types

Bulk Silicon

Single-Event Effects
Resistant

Neutron Hardened

Radiation Hardened

Device Type

Radiation Tolerant

Capability

Field Programmable
Gate Arrays
One-time, Electrically
Programmable Gate
Arrays

Mask Programmable
Gate Arrays
Structured ASICs
[a.k.a. Structured
arrays; Platform
ASICs]
Standard Cell ASICs
[a.k.a. cell-based
ASICs]

Custom ASICs
Mixed Signal ASICs
Digital Signal
Processors
Nonvolatile Memory

Table of Contents

224

BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL - Per Section 705(d) of the Defense Production Act
Table of Contents
Performance of Production Steps for the Manufacture of Integrated Circuits – 6L Continued
6.I INSTRUCTION: Please specify the characteristics of the IC products for which your company outsources Fabrication Steps.
Previous Page
Section 6

If your company does not operate Integrated Circuit manufacturing facilities in the United
States, please proceed to

Section 7.

Outsourced Production - by Device Type, Material, & Circuit Technology Node
(Select all that apply -- A blank response is counted as "No capability")

32 or less

45 - 32

65 -45

90 - 65

130 - 90

180 - 130

250 - 180

350 - 250

500 - 350

800 - 500

1,000 - 800

1,500 - 1,000

3,000 - 1,500

6,000 - 3,000

10,000 - 6,000

Carbon Based
Technologies

Circuit Technology Node [nanometers]
Amorphous Silicon

Antimonides

Indium Phosphide

Gallium Arsenide

Silicon Carbide

Gallium Nitride

Silicon on Sapphire

Silicon Germanium

Silicon on Insulator

Semiconductor Material Types

Bulk Silicon

Single-Event Effects
Resistant

Neutron Hardened

Radiation Hardened

Device Type

Radiation Tolerant

Capability

SRAM Memory
DRAM Memory
Processors
IR Focal Plane
Arrays
Anti-Tamper
Technology
MMIC Technologies
Display Electronics

Table of Contents

225

Other (Specify Here)

Test Vector Generation*****

Functional Verification****

Physical Layout***

Synthesis**

RTL Design*

Analog

Answer the questions on this page ONLY if your
company/organization operates Design
Facilities in the United States to produce
Integrated Circuit products.
If your company/organization does not operate
Integrated Circuit Design Facilities in the United
States, please proceed to
Section 8.
(Select all that apply)

Digital

BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL - Per Section 705(d) of the Defense Production Act
Section 7
Performance of Design Steps for Integrated Circuits
Instruction: Questions in Section 7 are to be
completed by corporate offices. Facility
managers should not complete these
sections.

7.a My company/organization is capable of
performing the following Integrated Circuit Design
Steps at facilities in the United States that it owns
and operates.

7.b My company/organization is not capable of
performing the following Integrated Circuit Design
Steps at its own facilities in the United States.
However, we employ other U.S.-based vendors to
complete the following tasks at their facilities in the
United States.
7.c My company/organization anticipates for the
2008-2011 period that it will retain capability to
perform the following Integrated Circuit Design Steps
at facilities in the United States that it owns and
operates.
7.d My company/organization for the 2008-2011
period does not anticipate being capable of
performing all of the following Integrated Circuit
Design Steps at its own facilities in the United States
- but we will secure other U.S.-based vendors to
complete these Design Steps at their facilities in the
United States.
*Register Transfer Level (RTL) = Starting point for design;
**Synthesis = Automated way of creating a gate level representation;
***Physical layout = generation of Integrated Circuits in graphic data system (GDSII) format (by hand for custom/analog/mixed signal, automated for standard cell);
****Functional Verification = Timing and correctness checks between physical and logical;
*****Test vector generation = Input to test.

Table of Contents

226

Other (Specify Here)

Test Vector Generation*****

Functional Verification****

Synthesis**

(Select all that apply)

Physical Layout***

Section 8.

RTL Design*

United States, please proceed to

Analog

Digital

Section 7
Performance of Design Steps for Integrated Circuits - Continued
Instruction: Answer the questions on this page
ONLY if your company/organization operates
Design Facilities in the United States to
produce Integrated Circuit products.
If your company/organization does not operate
Integrated Circuit Design Facilities in the

Other (Specify Here)

BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL - Per Section 705(d) of the Defense Production Act
Table of Contents

7.e Between 2007 and 2011, my company expects
that its use of outsourcing for the following Design
Steps will:

7.f Between 2007 and 2011, my company's
capabilities to perform the following Design Steps
facilities in the United States will:

7.g My company outsources the following
Integrated Circuit Design Steps to facilities located
outside of the United States that it owns and
operates:

7.h My company outsources the following
Integrated Circuit Design Steps to facilities located
outside of the United States that are owned and/or
operated by non-affiliated foreign companies:

7.i In the space provided, please identify the countries to which your
company outsources the one or more of the Design Steps identified
above:

INSTRUCTION: If your company outsources any of the Design Steps listed above to locations outside of the United States,
then your company must complete Question 10 of this survey section.
*Register Transfer Level (RTL) = Starting point for design;
**Synthesis = Automated way of creating a gate level representation;
***Physical layout = generation of Integrated Circuits in graphic data system (GDSII) format (by hand for custom/analog/mixed signal, automated for
standard cell);
****Functional Verification = Timing and correctness checks between physical and logical;
*****Test vector generation = Input to test.

Table of Contents

227

BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL - Per Section 705(d) of the Defense Production Act
Table of Contents
Performance of Design Functions for Integrated Circuits - Continued

Previous Page
Section 7

7.j INSTRUCTION: Your company indicated on the previous survey page that it outsources one or more of the following Integrated Circuit Design Steps to locations
outside of the United States. Please Specify the characteristics of the IC products for which your company outsources Design Steps.

Outsourced Design Steps - by Device Type, Material, & Circuit Technology Node

32 or less

45 - 32

65 - 45

90 - 65

130 - 90

180 - 130

250 - 180

350 - 250

500 - 350

800 - 500

1,000 - 800

1,500 - 1,000

3,000 - 1,500

6,000 - 3,000

10,000 - 6,000

Carbon Based
Technologies

Amorphous Silicon

Antimonides

Indium Phosphide

Gallium Arsenide

Silicon Carbide

Gallium Nitride

Silicon on Sapphire

Silicon on Insulator

Bulk Silicon

Single-Event Effects
Resistant

Neutron Hardened

Radiation Hardened

Radiation Tolerant

Device Type

Silicon Germanium

(Select all that apply -- A blank response is counted as "No capability")
Semiconductor Material Types
Circuit Technology Node [nanometers]

Capability

Field Programmable
Gate Arrays
One-time, Electrically
Programmable Gate
Arrays
Mask Programmable
Gate Arrays

Structured ASICs
[a.k.a. Structured
arrays; Platform
ASICs]
Standard Cell ASICs
[a.k.a. cell-based
ASICs]

Custom ASICs
Mixed Signal ASICs
Digital Signal
Processors
Nonvolatile Memory
SRAM Memory
DRAM Memory

228

BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL - Per Section 705(d) of the Defense Production Act
Table of Contents
Performance of Design Functions for Integrated Circuits – 7j Continued

Previous Page
Section 7

Outsourced Design Steps - by Device Type, Material, & Circuit Technology Node
(Select all that apply -- A blank response is counted as "No capability")

32 or less

45 - 32

65 - 45

90 - 65

130 - 90

180 - 130

250 - 180

350 - 250

500 - 350

800 - 500

1,000 - 800

1,500 - 1,000

3,000 - 1,500

6,000 - 3,000

10,000 - 6,000

Carbon Based
Technologies

Circuit Technology Node [nanometers]
Amorphous Silicon

Antimonides

Indium Phosphide

Gallium Arsenide

Silicon Carbide

Gallium Nitride

Silicon on Sapphire

Silicon Germanium

Silicon on Insulator

Semiconductor Material Types

Bulk Silicon

Single-Event Effects
Resistant

Neutron Hardened

Radiation Hardened

Device Type

Radiation Tolerant

Capability

Processors
IR Focal Plane
Arrays
Anti-Tamper
Technology
MMIC
Technologies
Display Electronics

Table of Contents

229

BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL - Per Section 705(d) of the Defense Production Act
Previous Page
Table of Contents
Instruction: Questions in Section 8 are to be completed by corporate offices. Facility managers should not complete these sections.*
Section 8

FINANCIALS - Income Statement for Integrated Circuit Business Unit

8.a Instructions: Businesses and organizations that are part of a larger company with non-related business operations should provide an income statement only for their Integrated
Circuit Business Unit.
My company/organization
operates on a:

(in Thousands of Dollars, i.e., $12 = $12,000.00)
2004
2005
2006

2003

2007 (est)

Net Sales (and other revenue)
Cost of goods sold
Gross Profit

Selling, general and administration
expenses
Depreciation
Total Operating Expenses

Operating Income
Interest Expense
Other non-operating expenses
Interest Income
Other non-operating income
Total Non-Operating Expenses

Income before income taxes
Provision for income taxes
Net Income

Comments:
*Non-profit laboratories or non-profit RDT&E organizations need not complete Section 8.

230

Section 8

FINANCIALS - Income Statement for Integrated Circuit Business Unit - Cont.

8.b Instructions: Companies/organizations whose sole focus is the design and/or production of Integrated Circuit products should provide an income statement for Corporate-wide
activities.*
My company/organization
operates on a:

(in Thousands of Dollars, i.e., $12 = $12,000.00)
2004
2005
2006

2003

2007 (est)

Net Sales (and other revenue)
Cost of goods sold
Gross Profit

Selling, general and administration
expenses
Depreciation
Total Operating Expenses

Operating Income
Interest Expense
Other non-operating expenses
Interest Income
Other non-operating income
Total Non-Operating Expenses

Income before income taxes
Provision for income taxes
Net Income

Comments:
*Non-profit laboratories or non-profit RDT&E organizations need not complete Section 8.

Table of Contents

231

BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL - Per Section 705(d) of the Defense Production Act
Previous Page
Table of
Contents
Section 8
FINANCIALS - Balance Sheet for Integrated Circuit Business Unit

8.c Instructions: Businesses and organizations that are part of a larger company with non-related business operations, should
provide balance sheet data only for their Integrated Circuit Business Unit.

2007
2003
2004
2005
2006
(est.)
(in Thousands of Dollars, i.e., $12 =
$12,000.00)

Current Assets
Cash
Marketable securities
Accounts receivable, net
Inventories
Prepaid Expenses
Other current
assets (please
specify)
Total Current Assets

$
-

(in Thousands of Dollars, i.e., $12 =
$12,000.00)

Non-Current Assets

$
-

Property, facility and equipment*
Instruction:
Break out capital
expenditures [Do
not double
count PP&E in
'Total NonCurrent Assets.']

$
-

Property & Land
Plant/Buildings
Machines &
Equipment

Less accumulated depreciation
Net fixed assets

$
-

$
$
-

Investments
Intangibles (patents, trademarks,
goodwill)
Other noncurrent assets
(please specify)
Total non-current assets
Total assets

Liabilities and Owners'
Equity

232

(in Thousands of Dollars, i.e., $12 =
$12,000.00)

Current Liabilities
Accounts payable
Estimated tax liability (e.g. income
taxes payable)
Accrued expenses
Long-term debt (Current portion)
due in one year
Other current
liabilities
(please specify)

$
-

Total current liabilities

$
-

(in Thousands of Dollars, i.e., $12 =
$12,000.00)

Non-Current Liabilities
Long-term debt (less current
portion)
Deferred income taxes
Other long-term
liabilities
(please specify)
Total non-current liabilities
Total liabilities

$
$
-

(in Thousands of Dollars, i.e., $12 =
$12,000.00)

Owners' Equity
Common stock
Additional paid-in capital
Total paid-in capital
Retained earnings
Less treasury stock (stock
repurchase)
Total owners' equity

Total Liabilities and Owners' Equity**

$
-

Comments:
*PP&E should be reported at original acquisition cost. **Attention: Please report any significant one-time events on the next
page of this survey instrument .
Note: Non-profit laboratories or non-profit RDT&E organizations need not complete Section 8.
Previous Page

Table of Contents

233

BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL - Per Section 705(d) of the Defense Production Act
Previous Page
Table of Contents
Section 8

FINANCIALS - Balance Sheet for Integrated Circuit Business Unit - Continued

8.d
Year

Reporting of Significant One-Time Events
Instruction: Please provide an explanation of any significant one-time events that
would skew assessments of the economic performance of your company/organization.

2003
2004
2005
2006
2007 (est.)
Previous Page

Table of Contents

234

BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL - Per Section 705(d) of the Defense Production Act
Previous Page
Table of
Contents
Section 8
FINANCIALS - Balance Sheet for Corporate Parent Operations

8.e Instructions: Businesses and organizations that are part of a larger company with non-related business operations, should
provide balance sheet data for corporate-wide activities

2007
(est.)
2003
2004
2005
2006
(in Thousands of Dollars, i.e., $12 =
$12,000.00)

Current Assets

Cash
Marketable securities

$
$

Inventories
Prepaid Expenses
Other current
assets (please
specify)

$
$

Total Current Assets

$
-

(in Thousands of Dollars, i.e., $12 =
$12,000.00)

Non-Current Assets
Property, facility and equipment*
Instruction: Break
out
capital
expenditures [Do
not double count
PP&E in 'Total
Non-Current
Assets.']

Property & Land

Plant/Buildings

Machines &
Equipment

Less accumulated depreciation

Net fixed assets
Investments
Intangibles (patents,
goodwill)
Other
assets
(please specify)

$
-

$
$
-

trademarks,

$
$

Total non-current assets

Total assets

Liabilities and Owners'
Equity
Current Liabilities

(in Thousands of Dollars, i.e., $12 =

235

$12,000.00)
Accounts payable
Estimated tax liability (e.g. income
taxes payable)
Accrued expenses
Long-term debt (Current portion)
due in one year
Other current
liabilities (please
specify)

$
$
$
$

Total current liabilities

$
-

(in Thousands of Dollars, i.e., $12 =
$12,000.00)

Non-Current Liabilities
Long-term debt (less current
portion)
Deferred income taxes
Other long-term
liabilities (please
specify)

$
$

Total non-current liabilities

Total liabilities

$
$
-

(in Thousands of Dollars, i.e., $12 =
$12,000.00)

Owners' Equity
Common stock
Additional paid-in capital

$
-

Total paid-in capital
Retained earnings
Less treasury stock (stock
repurchase)

Total owners' equity

Total Liabilities and Owners' Equity**

Comments:
* PP&E should be reported at original acquisition cost.
**Attention: Please report any significant one-time events on the next page of this survey instrument.
Note: Non-profit laboratories or non-profit RDT&E organizations need not complete Section 8.
Previous Page

Table of Contents

236

BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL - Per Section 705(d) of the Defense Production Act
Previous Page
Table of Contents
Section 8

FINANCIALS - Balance Sheet for Corporate Parent Operations - Continued

8.f
Year

2003
2004
2005
2006
2007 (est)
Previous Page

Table of Contents

237

BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL - Per Section 705(d) of the Defense Production Act
Previous Page
Table of Contents

Next
Page
Instruction: Questions in Section 9 are to be completed by corporate offices. Facility managers
should not complete these sections.
Section 9
Integrated Circuit Product R&D - Expenditures by Function
9.a Instructions: Companies/organizations whose sole focus is the production of Integrated Circuit
products should report Corporate-wide R&D expenditure figures for the table below. Those businesses
and organizations that are part of a larger company with other non-related business operations should
report R&D expenditure figures only for their Integrated Circuit Business Unit.
R&D Expenditures Supporting Design and/or Manufacturing Operations
(Corporate or Integrated Circuit Business Unit)
Year
Category

(Thousands of Dollars, i.e., $12 = $12,000.00)
2007
(est.)
2003
2004
2005
2006

Basic Research
Applied Research and Development
Product Development
Process Development

Total R&D

$
-

238

Section 9
Integrated Circuit Product R&D - Funding Segmented by Source
9.b Instructions: Companies/organizations whose sole focus is the production of Integrated Circuit
products should report Corporate-wide R&D funding figures for the table below. Those businesses and
organizations that are part of a larger company with other non-Integrated Circuit related business
operations should report R&D funding figures only for their Integrated Circuit Business Unit.
R&D Funding Supporting Design and/or Manufacturing Operations
(Corporate or Integrated Circuit Business Unit)
(Thousands of Dollars, i.e., $12 = $12,000.00)
2007
2003
2004
2005
2006
(est.)

Category
Parent Company (Internal)
Total Federal Government
State and Local Government
U.S. Private Entity [includes industry,
universities, and all other non-government
funding]
Foreign Investors [includes private, industry,
governments, and universities]

Other (Please
Specify)

Total R&D

$
-

Comments:

Table of Contents

239

BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL - Per Section 705(d) of the Defense Production Act
Previous Page
Table of Contents
Next Page
Section 9
U.S. R&D Occupational Breakdown
9.c Instruction: Please breakNumbers of Employees - Full Time Equivalent*
out R&D employment.
Occupation

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007 Projected

U.S. Citizens or Green Card
Holders:
Development Staff (e.g.,
Engineers)
Research Staff (e.g., Scientists)
All Other Staff
Non-U.S. Citizens/Foreign
Nationals:
Development Staff (e.g.,
Engineers)
Research Staff (e.g., Scientists)
All Other Staff

Total

* Full-time equivalent refers to part-time workers, who in the aggregate, work a 35-40 hour work week.

Table of Contents

240

BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL - Per Section 705(d) of the Defense Production Act
Previous Page
Table of Contents
Next Page
Section 9
Integrated Circuit-Related R&D Expenditures 2003-2007 - Top Five Countries
9.d Instructions: For years 2003-2007, please state the five top countries (based on total dollars) in which your company
funded research and development activities.*

Ranking
1

Total R&D Expenditures Supporting Design and/or Manufacturing
(Thousands of Dollars, i.e., $12 = $12,000.00)
Top Five Countries for IC-Related R&D Investment
2003
2004
2005
2006

2007 (est.)

Country
R&D Expenditure

* Corporate or Integrated Circuit Business Unit

Table of Contents

241

BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL - Per Section 705(d) of the Defense Production Act
Previous Page
Table of Contents
Next Page
Section 10
Integrated Circuit-Related Capital Investment
10.a Instructions: For years 2003-2007, please break down (based on total dollars) your company's capital expenditures 1) by purpose and 2) by
location (U.S., Non-U.S.) using the five categories provided in the table below.
Expenditures Supporting Design and/or Manufacturing Operations (Corporate or Integrated Circuit Business Unit)
(Thousands of Dollars, i.e., $12 = $12,000.00)
Category
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007 (est.)
U.S.
Non-U.S.
U.S.
Non-U.S.
U.S.
Non-U.S.
U.S.
Non-U.S.
U.S.
Non-U.S.
Cost Reduction &
Replacement
Expansion & Improvement
of Existing Production lines
New Products
Health, Safety and/or
Pollution Control
Other (Please Specify)
Total Capital
Expenditures

Table of Contents

242

BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL - Per Section 705(d) of the Defense Production Act
Previous Page
Table of Contents
Next Page
Section 10
Integrated Circuit-Related Capital Expenditures 2003-2007 - Top Five Countries
10.b Instructions: For years 2003-2007, please state the five top countries (based on total dollars) in which your company
made capital expenditures.

Ranking
1
2
3
4
5

Total Capital Expenditures Supporting Design and/or Manufacturing
(Thousands of Dollars, i.e., $12 = $12,000.00)
Top Five Countries for IC-Related Investment
2003
2004
2005
2006

2007 (est.)

Country
Captial Expenditure
Country
Capital Expenditure
Country
Capital Expenditure
Country
Capital Expenditure
Country
Capital Expenditure

Table of Contents

243

BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL - Per Section 705(d) of the Defense Production Act

CERTIFICATION
The undersigned certifies that the information herein supplied in response to this questionnaire is
complete and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. It is a criminal offense to willfully make a false
statement or representation to any department or agency of the United States Government as to any
matter within its jurisdiction. [18 U.S.C.A. 1001 (1984 & SUPP. 1197)]

Company Name

Name of Authorizing Official

Company's Internet Address

Title of Authorizing Official

Ext.

Date

Phone Number

If Point-of-Contact is same as above, select here

Point-of-Contact Name

Title

Phone Number

Ext.

Would you like a copy of the final report?

244

File Type	application/pdf
File Title	Microsoft Word - BIS OTE IC report 051209.doc
Author	TTelesco
File Modified	2011-01-30
File Created	2010-07-23