Issue link: https://iconnect007.uberflip.com/i/1506834
52 SMT007 MAGAZINE I SEPTEMBER 2023 the past 20-plus years. For defense, that means ITAR waivers and such, so that we continue globally sourcing substrates, package assem- bly, printed circuit boards, and final systems. Option 2: If the objective is to domestically manufacture active components—this is a cer- tain class of components such as CPUs, GPUs, neural processing units for AI memory—then the equation gets a little bit longer; we need to invest in semiconductors plus substrates, and component assembly and test. However, if the objective of the CHIPS Act is to domestically build mission critical sys- tems, defense, HPC, medical, or whatever, the equation gets even longer. We'll need to invest in semiconductors, substrates, component assembly, ultra HDI printed circuit boards, printed circuit board assembly, and final sys- tem assembly. e objectives that we choose will set the overall strategy and investment decisions to be made. Unfortunately, this is still largely unclear. Now, you may disagree, but that is what we hear from our members, as well as direct feed- back at an industry level. I've drawn a line here between option one and option two. is is the proverbial "line in the sand." What we see from all the work we've been doing is that most of the focus is being poured into the first option. It's extremely important, as we outline our argument, that if we're going to build an ecosystem, we need to think beyond just semi- conductors. After your meeting, what seemed to be the response from IAC? IPC recommendations were highly regarded by the committee. It was rated one of the top contributions and was widely distributed among all IAC workgroups. Two key recommenda- tions from IPC were carried forward to the June 6 IAC recommendation listing including: • e need to establish domestic substrate capability, minimum viable R&D and production capabilities • e need to grow/advance capacity and capability for domestic package assembly and test facilities What is the key takeaway from your discussion of possible objectives? e key takeaway is that aer two years of working closely with several U.S.-based coali- tions, consortiums, and policy makers, it appears that implementation of the CHIPS Act will likely be focused on protecting and advancing U.S. semiconductor dominance (Figure 2). Observations made to date indicate that domestic semiconductor advancements will indeed be made by component makers, but those same companies are very likely to con- tinue to globally source substrates, component packaging/assembly/test (IDM, OSAT), PCB fabrication, and EMS system assembly. Many market-leading OEM component makers are Matt Kelly