By Ken Schramko, Director, Government Relations

Key Summary

• IPC expanded its EU advocacy through direct meetings with MEPs, Commission officials, and Member States.
• Discussions focused on industrial policy, workforce skills, R&D incentives, IP protection, and conflict minerals rules.
• EU leaders emphasized innovation, advanced manufacturing, and IP enforcement as strategic priorities.
• IPC is shaping updates to conflict minerals reporting to align with upcoming EU regulations.
• These efforts support members’ needs as policy, compliance, and supply chain expectations evolve in Europe.

IPC’s advocacy efforts in Europe have grown significantly over the past few years. At this stage, we are not only raising awareness for the needs of the electronics industry but also advancing the interests of our members through face-to-face meetings with Members of the European Parliament (MEPs), high-level officials in the European Commission, and representatives of key EU Member States. During my recent visit to Brussels at the end of January, I met with a number of these stakeholders and decision-makers to address top IPC priorities, such as the EU industrial policy, R&D tax incentives and conflict minerals rules. In meetings with MEPs, European Commission officials and Member State representatives, IPC called for an ambitious, long-term EU industrial policy. IPC welcomes the Communication on a renewed EU industrial policy strategy published last September by the European Commission, which touches upon the need for substantial investments in advanced manufacturing, a skilled and talented workforce, and research and innovation. The Communication constitutes a good first step; however, IPC is advocating for a longer-term vision to provide our industry with better understanding and predictability. At the core of such a vision should be education and training, which are crucial to close the skills gap in the advanced manufacturing sector. Many of our members have experienced difficulties recruiting a skilled workforce in the EU, and the challenge for our industry is to remain attractive. Vocational training and lifelong learning are keys to re-skilling workers to qualify for available jobs. IPC is also promoting an ambitious EU industrial policy that protects intellectual property and prevents counterfeit products in the supply chain. In this context, we are encouraged by the European Commission’s recent commitment to stronger enforcement of intellectual property rights. The IP package, published at the end of November, includes a number of positive initiatives, such as the call for effective and predictable civil redress against IP infringements, which would benefit SMEs by facilitating their access to justice. Also important to a strong industrial policy are favorable R&D tax incentives to promote investment in innovation, which is crucial for the electronics industry to remain competitive in a fast-paced environment. IPC has taken the opportunity in our meetings with EU decision-makers to promote our position paper on the current EU corporate tax base proposals (CCTB and CCCTB). As the electronics industry is one of the most dynamic in the EU, ranking among the highest in terms of industrial R&D investment as well as filing the highest number of patents, it is highly dependent on innovation. Rounding off the week of meetings in Brussels, IPC had a very informative meeting with the European Commission on conflict minerals. The new rules under the EU Conflict Minerals Regulation will apply as of 1 January 2021, making due diligence for EU importers of 3TG minerals and metals mandatory when annual import volumes exceed a certain threshold. In contrast to U.S. rules under the “Dodd-Frank” law, this regulation’s scope is global. IPC is currently reviewing its cross-industry Conflict Minerals Data Exchange Standard (IPC-1755) for appropriate revisions to support voluntary reporting under the EU Conflict Minerals Regulation. IPC remains in close collaboration with the European Commission on this effort. Altogether, IPC remains committed to advancing our members’ interests in the EU. We are continuously looking for your input in our advocacy work, and we are currently developing a position paper on EU industrial policy to be launched in time for the EU Industry Day on 22-23 February. Our efforts in Europe throughout the year are also paving the way for our third annual IMPACT Europe event, taking place in Brussels this fall. This will be a unique opportunity to engage with European policy makers and discuss EU policies affecting your business. Stay tuned for more details. As IPC continues to promote the needs of our members in the EU, we have a couple of questions for you:  Which topics would you like to see addressed at IMPACT Europe 2018?  What are your business’ main challenges and needs for an ambitious EU industrial policy (e.g. in relation to market trends, positioning in the market, competitors and employment)?  Where do you see relevant value chains that matter to your business as well as cross-border cooperation crucial?  If you represent an SME, where do you see the need for support from the EU to grow your business?  If you represent a global company, how do you see the EU’s industrial policy on a global scale (i.e. as compared to the U.S., China and other regions)? I welcome and encourage your feedback on these questions to help IPC prepare the upcoming position paper on EU industrial policy and for IMPACT 2018. Please send your feedback to me at KenSchramko@ipc.org.

By John Perry, Director of Printed Board Standards & Technology

Key Summary

• Medical device PCBs often exceed the reliability needs covered by traditional IPC Class 3 requirements
• Operating environments vary widely, making standard Class 3 criteria insufficient for many medical applications
• Large production volumes in medical devices challenge traditional IPC sampling approaches
• IPC is developing dedicated medical device addendums (IPC-6012DM and IPC-6013DM) to address these gaps
• A presentation at MD&M West highlights qualification issues, reliability needs, and planned medical-specific standards
• IPC is engaging OEMs, PCB designers, and quality teams to shape higher-reliability PCB requirements

 It has been well known that for many years IPC has provided a trio of performance classifications in its suite of standards and specifications for the design, fabrication, assembly and acceptance of printed boards and printed board assemblies. Intended to reflect differences in producibility, complexity, functional performance requirements and verification through inspection and testing, IPC has given end users (OEMs) the authority to specify which IPC performance class the printed boards and assemblies must adhere to for their product. This model isn’t without its limitations, however. A printed board fabricated in accordance with Class 3 (high performance/harsh environment electronic products) requirements from IPC-6012D, Qualification and Performance Specification for Rigid Printed Boards (or the corresponding IPC-6013D for flexible and rigid-flexible printed boards) can be subjected to very different operating environments. A Class 3 printed board intended for usage in a space exploration vehicle on a one-way trip to Jupiter is going to experience a very different set of thermal cycles compared to a printed board utilized in an automotive under-the-hood application. The same can be said for exposure to vibration for a printed board utilized in an oil-drilling operation compared with that of a marine application. Understanding this, IPC has already published a set of addendums to some of its most widely used standards for specific industry segments, including space and military avionics and automotive, where exceptions have been made to the baseline IPC Class 3 requirement in the parent standard or specification. Never has a case for this approach, however, been more evident than with respect to printed boards utilized in medical device applications. Will the “traditional” IPC Class 3 performance class be sufficient for printed boards used in applications where interruptions to service may result in the loss of life or permanent bodily harm to a patient or equipment operator? If an exception to an IPC Class 3 performance attribute were developed for medical device product, would that exception need to be further sub-divided between “standard” sized printed boards utilized in diagnostic or patient monitoring equipment (e.g. electrocardiograph or blood analyzer) and “micro-PCBs” utilized in implantable devices (e.g. neurostimulator or gastric stimulator)? Sampling frequencies of production printed boards or test coupons within an overall production “lot” for IPC Class 3 product have traditionally been based on the needs of defense products in ground, airborne or space applications where production lots are relatively small. These traditional IPC sampling frequencies for production lot acceptance, however, fall apart when dealing with production runs in the thousands or tens of thousands of printed boards, as in the case of medical device product. Recognizing all of this, key members of a new IPC task group will be giving a presentation at the Medical Design and Manufacturing (MD&M) West Expo in Anaheim, Calif. on Tuesday, February 6, 2018, titled “Do you Really Know if Your Medical Device PCBs Comply with Required Qualification Standards?” Located in the Tech Theater on the show floor of the Anaheim Convention Center and scheduled for 10:30 AM local time, the presentation will address: • Medical and Biological Innovations Across the Decades • Present Day Medical Device Electronics • Density Trends in Array Packaging for Medical Device Electronics • The Cost of Quality of Electronic Failures to Major Medical Device Manufacturers • Existing Standards for Medical Device Electronics and the Gap in Conformance Assessment for Printed Boards • Intended Scope for IPC-6012 and IPC-6013 Medical Device Addendums If you are attending or plan to attend the MD&M West event, IPC encourages those of you involved in printed board manufacturing and procurement to attend this session and learn how we are pulling together OEMs, PCB design engineers and quality engineers and managers at the PCB fabrication level to help put together the new IPC-6012DM and IPC-6013DM Medical Device Addendums to our printed board qualification and performance specifications for rigid, flexible and rigid-flexible printed boards. Please note that while members of this IPC task group are presenting at MD&M West, IPC is neither sponsoring nor directly involved with this event, and therefore IPC membership has no bearing on registration costs for this event under UBM Management. For additional information on the IPC-6012DM and IPC-6013DM Medical Device Addendum efforts, please contact me, at JohnPerry@ipc.org or +1-847-597-2818.

By Chris Jorgensen, director, technology transfer The IPC E-Textiles Materials Subcommittee is collecting comments on the first sections of IPC-4931, Requirements for Electronic Textiles (E-Textiles), Conductive Fibers and Conductive Yarns. This standard will establish the classification system, qualification and quality conformance requirements and electrical/electronic performance requirements for electronically integrated textiles (e-textiles). It also covers similar requirements and performance variables for conductive fibers and conductive yarns, that are essential components of e-textiles. E-textiles included in this standard: • Woven textiles • Knitted textiles • Nonwoven textiles • Laminated textiles • Braided textiles • Embroidered textiles • Printed textiles The subcommittee specifically seeks comments on the first sections of the standard. These sections are important because they lay out the specific types of textiles and their components that the standard will cover. Additionally, the group wants industry input on the key performance characteristics the standard should include for these materials as well as the industry test methods that should be used to test for these characteristics. The subcommittee is collecting comments through Friday, February 16, and commenting is open to anyone. You do not need to be a member of IPC or to pay any fees to review and comment. E-mail me, at ChrisJorgensen@ipc.org to request the documents for comment and an IPC comment form. Subcommittee Meeting to Discuss Comments You are invited to attend the IPC D-72 E-Textiles Materials Subcommittee meeting, which will take place Thursday, March 1 during IPC APEX EXPO in San Diego. The specific start and end times for the meeting have not been set yet, but plan on a full-day session. There is no cost to attend the meeting if you register ahead of time. Visit http://www.ipcapexexpo.org for more information. New Subcommittee Forming to Develop Guideline for E-Textiles Connectors Several companies in the e-textiles industry have approached IPC with interest in developing a guideline on e-textiles connections. This is a very new activity, but based on interest, IPC should be forming a subcommittee to break ground on this new document in early 2018. If you have interest in this topic and would like to join the subcommittee roster, e-mail me at ChrisJorgensen@ipc.org. Mark Your Calendar for IPC E-Textiles 2018 Mark your calendar for September 13, 2018. IPC E-Textiles 2018 will bring together the e-textiles supply chain for a full day of technical presentations, hands-on product demonstrations and networking. Don’t miss this opportunity to learn from and interact with innovators from the e-textiles community. Plan to arrive a day early for standards meetings on September 12. For more information on IPC E-Textiles 2018, or if you have interest in speaking or showcasing your products, e-mail me at ChrisJorgensen@ipc.org.