下载文档原格式
終檢十七、終檢17.1 前言PCB製作至此，將進行最後的品質檢驗，檢驗內容可分以下幾個項目：A. 電性測試B. 尺寸C. 外觀D. 信賴性A項之電測，己在十六章介紹，本章將針對後三項LIST一般檢驗的項目，另外也列出國際間慣用的相關PCB製造的規範，供大家參考。
17.2.1尺寸的檢查項目(Dimension)1.外形尺寸Outline Dimension2.各尺寸與板邊Hole to Edge3.板厚Board Thickness4.孔徑Holes Diameter5.線寬Line width/space6.孔環大小Annular Ring7.板彎翹Bow and Twist8.各鍍層厚度Plating Thickness17.1.2外觀檢查項目(Surface Inspection)一、基材(Base Material)1.白點Measling2.白斑Crazing3.局部分層或起泡Blistering4.分層Delamination5.織紋顯露Weave Exposure6.玻璃維纖突出Fiber Exposure7.白邊Haloing二、表面1.導體針孔Pin hole2.孔破V oid3.孔塞Hole Plug4.露銅Copper Exposure5.異物Foreign particle6.S/M 沾PAD S/M on Pad7.多孔/少孔Extra/Missing Hole8.金手指缺點Gold Finger Defect9.線邊粗糙Roughness10.S/M刮傷S/M Scratch11.S/M剝離S/M Peeling12.文字缺點Legend(Markings)17-1終檢17.2.3信賴性(Reliability)1.焊錫性Solderability2.線路抗撕強度Peel strength3.切片Micro Section4.S/M附著力S/M Adhesion5.Gold附著力Gold Adhesion6.熱衝擊Thermal Shock7.離子汙染度Ionic Contamination8.濕氣與絕緣Moisture and Insulation Resistance9.阻抗Impedance上述項目僅列舉重點，仍須視客戶的規格要求以及廠內之管制項目來逐項進行全檢或抽檢。
电子信息产品污染控制标准工作组“环保使用期限研究”项目组第一次工作会议会议纪要为满足《电子信息产品污染控制管理办法》中规定的电子信息产品应标识环保使用期限的要求，指导企业制定电子信息产品的“环保使用期限”，电子信息产品污染控制标准工作组成立了“环保使用期限研究项目组”（以下简称“项目组”），组织起草了《电子信息产品环保使用期限通则（草稿）》（以下简称《通则（草稿）》）。
2006 年9 月12 日，该项目组在北京召开了第一次工作会，对《通则（草稿）》进行了讨论。
此次会议之前，工作组研究决定，将以技术性指导文件的形式，依照行业标准的制定程序，向部科技司申请环保使用期限的项目立项。
参加此次会议的有电子信息产品污染控制标准工作组常务副组长、信息产业部经济运行司黄建忠处长，工作组联络员、信息产业部经济运行司高振杰处长、工作组秘书长、电子四所邢卫兵高工，项目组组长、电子四所韩硕祥，项目组副组长、联想（北京）公司陶宏芝博士，项目组副组长、诺基亚（中国）公司陈敏，项目组联络员、电子四所杨檬，来自50 余个项目组成员单位的代表及秘书处的同志。
会议由黄建忠处长主持。
此次会议的议题是针对《通则（草案）》中各条款的内容及可操作性进行讨论。
许多成员单位代表会前进行了充分的准备，大家根据各自的实践经验，参考相关国内、外标准或资料，对标准草案提出了许多具体建议。
会上大家讨论的焦点主要集中在以下几个方面：本指导性技术文件中是否应加入安全使用期限的概念确定环保使用期限时是否应考虑耗损期、可靠度等因素环保使用期限的范围设置环保使用期限的确定方法、依据及企业应用这些方法的顺序等问题经过一天的激烈讨论，会议决议如下：起草组尽快根据此次会议上各单位对该草案的意见进行汇总、整理并修改，形成《电子信息产品环保使用期限通则（征求意见稿）》（以下简称《通则（征求意见稿）》），与此次会议的会议纪要一并发送项目组成员单位；9 月25 日17：00 前各单位将对《通则（征求意见稿）》的意见反馈到起草人杨檬处，同时抄送秘书处；起草组争取10 月1 日前根据意见反馈再次进行修改并提交项目组讨论。
供货商及生产商用户指南Release版 4.2，2014年1月目录1 绪言 (1)1.1 新REACH物质声明要求 (1)1.2 行业领先的解决方案 (2)1.3 使用BOMcheck降低供应商的成本的OEM厂商 (3)2 BOMcheck中的供应商帐户、生产商帐户和超级用户帐户 (5)2.1 为授权人设置供应商帐户 (6)2.1.1 供应商DUNS号 (7)2.1.2 为同一供应商指定多位授权人 (8)2.2 设置生产商帐户 (8)2.3 设置超级用户帐户 (9)3 供应商帐户的功能和特征 (10)3.1 创建件号清单声明 (10)3.1.1 100%全物质声明 (12)3.1.2 含5%保密物质的全物质申明 (12)3.2 创建制表符分隔文件格式的零件清单 (13)3.2.1 为监管合规申明创建零件列表 (14)3.2.2 为全物质申明创建零件列表 (15)3.3 完成零件清单合规声明 (15)3.3.1 随着越来越多的物质被列入REACH、RoHS指令等法规中，如何更新合规声明 (16)3.4 完成零件清单全物料声明 (18)3.4.1 设定全物质申明的保密性 (22)3.4.2 完成含5%保密物质的全物质申明 (22)3.4.3 NXP半导体的全物料声明示例 (24)3.4.4 如何更新全物料声明 (26)3.5 上传IPC 1752A XML合规声明数据文件 (27)3.6 创建包装合规声明 (28)3.7 创建运输过程中产品及包装排放的合规声明 (30)3.8 创建制造过程中使用的物质的合规声明 (31)3.9 供应商如何检查自己在BOMcheck中的符合性数据 (32)3.10 供应商如何以邮件形式发送其制造业客户清单给所有客户 (33)3.11 在BOMcheck中更新供应商的制造业客户清单 (34)3.12 映射供应商件号清单到客户件号清单 (35)3.13 以映射号重写件号，反之亦然 (37)3.14 BOMcheck上零件列表的申明状态，以及为何无法删除批准的申明 (38)3.14.1 Pending未决 (39)3.14.2 Approved已批准 (39)3.14.3 Planned已计划 (39)3.14.4 Out-of-Date过期 (40)4 生产商帐户的功能和特征 (41)4.1 通知生产商供应商加入BOMcheck的时间 (41)4.2 供应商添加或改变声明时，监视列表通知生产商 (41)4.3 检查物料清单零件清单符合性数据 (42)4.4 分析物料清单零件清单全物料声明数据 (44)4.5 请求供应商做漏件号声明 (47)4.6 把数据下载到生产商IT系统 (47)4.6.1 生产商API密钥 (47)4.6.2 必须在POST请求中指定的请求参数 (48)4.7 查看配件 (48)5 超级用户帐户的功能和特征 (50)5.1 创建配件号 (51)5.2 设置配件、次级配件、再次级配件等的保密性 (54)5.3 创建带有漏件号的配件 (55)5.4 提供配件的测量重量 (57)5.5 映射供应商件号清单到客户件号清单 (58)5.6 创建盒装产品编号 (59)5.7 创建销售包装零件合规声明 (61)5.8 创建包含销售包装件号的盒装产品编号 (62)附件1：合规标记报告的颜色代码 (67)附件2：不同类型零件号的颜色代码 (69)附录 3：术语表 (70)1绪言1.1 新REACH物质声明要求REACH法规生效之前，许多OEM厂商依靠要求他们的供应商签署一份声明，藉此促使他们遵守其在受限物质清单的中提出的全部要求。
IPCC工作管理原则附件A关于IPCC报告编写、评审、接受、通过、批准和出版的程序在第十五次全会上（1999年4月15-18日，圣何塞）通过并在第二十次全会（2003年2月19-21日）、第二十一次全会（2003年11月3和6-7日，巴黎）、第二十九次全会（2008年8月31日至9月4日，日内瓦）、第三十三次全会（2011年5月10-13日，阿布扎比）、第三十四次全会（2011年11月18-19日，坎帕拉）第三十五次全会（2012年6月6-9日，日内瓦）和第三十七次届会（2013年10月14-18日，巴统）上修订目录1. 引言2. 定义3. IPCC材料4. 评估报告、综合报告、特别报告和关于方法的报告4.1召开编写报告大纲的规划会议4.2编写IPCC报告的一般程序4.3工作组和国家温室气体清单专题组编写的报告4.3.1 汇编有关潜在的主要作者协调人、主要作者、撰写作者、编审和政府联络员名单4.3.2 主要作者的遴选4.3.3 报告草案的编写4.3.4 评审4.3.4.1 第一轮评审（专家评审）4.3.4.2 第二轮评审（政府和专家评审）4.3.5 最终报告草案的编写4.4决策者摘要的编写、批准与接受以及方法报告的综述章节的通过程序4.5 报告的接受4.6 经IPCC批准的和/或通过的报告4.6.1 综合报告4.7 评估报告、综合报告、特别报告和方法报告中可能出现的差错的处理过程5. 技术文件6. IPCC的辅助材料7. 研讨会和专家会议7.1 IPCC研讨会和专家会议7.2 联合发起的研讨会和专家会议附录1：IPCC报告的主要作者、主要作者协调人、撰写作者、专家评审人员、编审以及政府联络员的任务和责任附录2：关于在IPCC报告中使用文献的程序附录3：IPCC关于处置IPCC评估报告、综合报告、特别报告和方法报告中可能出现差错的规程1. 引言这个修订后的《IPCC工作管理原则》的附件包括IPCC报告以及与方法有关的其它材料的编写、评审、接受、通过、批准和出版程序。
欢迎词IPC全球办公机构全球总部3000 Lakeside Drive, Suite 105 N Bannockburn, IL 60015-1249 U.S.A. 总机：+1 847-615-7100 传真：+1 847-615-7105 客服电话：+1 847-597-2862 客服传真：+1 847-615-7114 邮箱：orderipc@ IPC多媒体培训办公室Ranchos De Taos, New Mexico 电话：+1 505-758-7937 邮箱：service@IPC亚太区总部-青岛青岛市崂山区科苑纬一路国际创新园B座5层B3-1 邮编：266101电话：+86 400-6218-610；+86-21-22210000 传真：+86 532-80990700 邮箱：BDAChina@上海·北京·苏州·成都·深圳·台湾IPC在印度的班加罗尔、泰国的曼谷、美国的亚特兰大 和华盛顿、瑞典的斯德哥尔摩、俄罗斯的莫斯科、比利时 的布鲁塞尔等地常设有办事机构。
更多信息，请登陆： 。
我们的使命IPC—国际电子工业联接协会是一家全球性非盈利电子行业协会，我们致力于提升会员企业的竞争优势并帮助他们取得商业上的成功。
为了实现这些目标，IPC将致力于更先进的管理方式、更先进的技术、制定业内相关的标准、推动环境保护事业以及与之相关的政府关系。
IPC倡导所有的会员企业积极地参与这些事务，并与国内以及国际上所有相关的协会通力合作。
IPC总裁 & CEO，John Mitchell2016年2月出版关于该目录手册编排 — 该目录手册中的文件按照主标题和副标题分类编排。
文件格式 — IPC文件有电子档和硬拷贝两种格式。
提供该目录手册中的每个描述都包括一系列格式代码，表示该文件具有哪些格式。
格式代码 — H – 硬拷贝；C – CD-ROM；D – 下载；K – 套装； S – 公司许可版；G – 全球网络许可版。
RoHS指令的IPC1750系列标准随着欧盟《关于在电气电子设备中限制使用某些有害物质指令》(RoHS指令)正式开始，电子产品供应链中许多公司需要表明自己的产品符合欧盟RoHS指令，不含有镉、汞、铅、六价铬和PBB、PBDE六种有害物质，及其它禁用的有害物质。
现在美国IPC已制定发布或正在制定有关电子产品材料与零部件成份的申报规范，有IPC-1750系列标准。
IPC 制定IPC-1750系列标准的目的是为适应执行RoHS指令，电子产品制造供应链中材料与零部件供方向客户说明，其所提供物品，包括散装材料、层压构件、元件、印制板、组装件等含有什么物质，是否含有RoHS或其它法规规定的限禁物质等。
IPC标准对这些申报过程规定了管理程序，统一申报表单格式，简化申报过程，以提高工作效率和减少成本。
这套IPC-1750系列标准由IPC组织申报过程管理分委会、数据产生与传递委员会起草，有电子产品供应链中50多位代表参加，包括IBM、 HP、Motolora、Intel及美国标准技术协会和日本JPCA，并得到国际电子制造组织(iNEMI)的认可。
IPC-1750系列标准包括下列八项:IPC- 1751 申报过程管理通用要求 (2006年2月发布)IPC- 1752 材料申报管理分要求 (2006年2月发布)IPC- 1752-1 材料申报格式– 1至4级 (2006年2月发布)IPC- 1752-2 材料申报格式– 1， 2， 5与6级 (2006年2月发布)IPC- 1752-3 材料申报格式用户指南 (2006年2月发布)IPC- 1753 层压构件申报管理分要求 (还在制定之中)IPC- 1754 印制板申报管理分要求 (还在制定之中)IPC- 1755 电子组装件申报管理分要求 (还在制定之中)以上IPC已发布的IPC-1750系列标准，可从IPC网站上下载。
IPC- 1751是申报过程管理通用要求，规定了电子产品制造供应链中供方应向客户进行有关申报的规则，申报物品包括散装材料、层压构件、元件、印制板、组装件等相关信息，标准目的是在供方与客户之间建立了一种沟通信息的统一方法。
Full Material Declarations: Removing Barriers to Environmental Data ReportingRoger L. FranzTE ConnectivityMiddletown, PA USAAbstractSince the European Directives, RoHS (Restriction of Hazardous Substances) and REACH (Registration, Evaluation, Authorization and Restriction of Chemicals), entered into force in 2006-7, the number of regulated substances continues to grow. REACH adds new substances roughly twice a year, and more substances will be added to RoHS in 2019. While these open-ended regulations represent an ongoing burden for supply chain reporting, some ability to remain ahead of new substance restrictions can be achieved through full material declarations (FMD) specifically the IPC-1752A Class D Standard (the “Standard”), which was developed by the IPC - Association Connecting Electronic Industries. What is important to the supply chain is access to user-friendly, easily accessible or free, fully supported tools that allow suppliers to create and modify XML (Extensible Markup Language) files as specified in the Standard. Some tools will provide enhancements that validate required data entry and provide real-time interactive messages to facilitate the resolution of errors. In addition, validation and auto-population of substance CAS (Chemical Abstract Service) numbers, and Class D weight rollup validation ensure greater success in the acceptance of the declarations in customer systems that automate data gathering and reporting.A good tool should support importing existing IPC-1752A files for editing; this capability reduces the effort to update older declarations and greatly benefits suppliers of a family of products with similar composition. One of the problems with FMDs is the use of “wildcard” non-CAS numbers based on a declarable substance list (DSL). While the substances in different company’s lists tend to have some overlap, no two DSL’s are the same. We provide an understanding of the commonality and differences between representative DSLs, and the ability to configure how much of a non-DSL substance percent is allowed. Case studies are discussed to show how supplier compliance data, can be automatically loaded into the customer’s enterprise compliance system. Finally, we briefly discuss future enhancements and other developments like Once an Article, Always an Article (O5A) that will continue to require IPC standards and supporting tools to evolve.IntroductionFull material declaration of product content in electronics and other industries continues to be a challenge for both suppliers and customers alike. For suppliers, managing substance-level data for all the materials in products is not usually a part of normal business operations, but rather, is an added burden and therefore cost to doing business. Customers, from mid-supply chain enterprises to OEM’s, must have processes and systems to request, manage, and utilize the data to ensure compliance with worldwide substance regulations. These issues call out for easy to use software solution to aid reporting.The IPC-1752A Materials Declaration Management Standard (/1752) which is aligned with IPC-1751A Generic Requirements for Declaration Process Management (/1751) is widely used for environmental reporting today. The standard specifies an XML (Extensible Markup Language) schema for mandatory and required data, including support for Class D FMD’s for homogenous materials and substances required by the RoHS Directive (the full citation for the current “RoHS Recast” legislation is “Directive 2011/65/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2011 on the restriction of the use of certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment.”)In this paper, we focus on requirements for tools that enable rapid and accurate reporting of Class D FMD’s that can be used by suppliers primarily in the base of the supply chain, e.g. raw materials and smaller components. We also provide examples of how this data can be used by the supplier’s immediate customer to build more complex FMD data for product-level assemblies.Why Take the Road to FMD?One of the advantages of the FMD approach is that it is the only way a company can stay ahead of the ongoing addition of regulated substances. RoHS has been relatively static in this regard -- with only changes being to allowable Exemptions and additional documentation requirements. Otherwise, the basic 6 restricted substance have stayed the same from its initial entry into force through its “Recast”in 2011. The next addition of four additional substances, per the European Commissions Delegated Directive 2015/863/EU, will enter into force July 22, 2019. However, customers across the supply chain are already asking for data and compliance conclusions for these substances. This pre-enactment customer driven activity clearly demonstrates just how valuable FMD’s can be since suppliers with FMD data can already satisfy their customer’s requests about the presence of newly (and yet-to-be) restricted substances.Since RoHS exemptions have set expiration dates, it is also prudent to know what exempted substance is present, besides just knowing you are Compliant with Exemption but not exactly why. Since exemptions are substance-specific, this level of information is very useful as a warning that a noncompliance could develop when a product that was once acceptable to ship is no longer compliant because the exemption has expired! FMD data provides the ability to look ahead in time for exemptions that are set to expire, allowing the company to take early action through product redesign or finding alternate suppliers.REACH (Registration, Evaluation, Authorization and Restriction of Chemicals), promulgated by a separate agency, ECHA, (European Chemicals Agency), is much more dynamic and adds new Substances of Very High Concern (SVHC) to the Candidate list roughly twice a year ever since 2008. Figure 1 shows the number of substances added to REACH since its beginning in Oct., 2008 through the last date as of this writing. Shorter gray bars count the substances added each date, with the larger black bars indicating the cumulative total of substances.Figure 1 – Number of REACH SVHCs from 2008-PresentNote that there is some double counting in the Figure 1 data, since a few of the substances were listed a second time due to different toxicological reasons. Also, note that the count is based on just the primary list of SVHC posted by ECHA in its main table (https://echa.europa.eu/candidate-list-table) but the actual individual substance count by CAS number is even greater if one consults the ECHA supporting documentation. Further, it is noted that Amendment 3 of IPC-1752A, which is not fully published as of the time of this writing, will contain a non-exhaustive list of substances and their CAS numbers as a convenient reference to this ever-growing list of substances.Useful information about the Standard and its implementation and advantages may be found on the IPC web page “Data Exchange Standards” (/ContentPage.aspx?pageid=Materials-Declaration). Additional advantages of FMD have been published, for example, by companies offering such services, companies nee ding FMD’s from their suppliers, industry conferences, and articles in electronics journals (1, 2).The story continues and the message remains clear: companies need a way to stay ahead of the growing list of new substances they are required to manage. FMD’s are the best way to do so.Requirements Part One – The Schema is the RoadbedIn the next sections, we list and explain the value of functional requirements that a good, basic FMD reporting tool should have. At the most basic level, the tool by its nature will be software, and to be used for reporting up the supply chain the XML declaration file must conform to the IPC Standard itself. In recent years, the chairs and participants in the IPC 2-18b Materials Declaration Task Group have graciously offered their time and expertise to help review, on a blind submission basis, XML files including Class D FMD’s. Using software tools that are available for checking conformance to the schema as specified in the Standard, as well as a review by IPC 2-18b participants, those software solution providers that have beenverified in this review process and found to conform to the schema in their test files are listed by IPC (also at /ContentPage.aspx?pageid=Materials-Declaration.)As the relatively recent history of the IPC review process shows in Table 1, a handful of solution providers have supported and continue to support Class D FMD’s, as well as the other reporting classes A and C (not shown). It may be concluded that there are enough competent software solution providers to offer a choice, yet not be overwhelming for companies just embarking on the journey to generate FMD’s. Specific company names can be found on the IPC web site as cited above.Some of the basic requirements for conformance to the standard schema include the following:•All mandatory data elements (tags) are present, which must be completed when entering data into the tool, if not already present from some prior data entry or load. These elements include data like supplier and customer ID’s and part numbers, and homogenous materials in the product broken down by substances and their weights.•Ability to enter the most useful optional data elements as desired, or as requested by the customer. For example, substance weight is mandatory, but concentration is optional.•Ability to incorporate a legal statement, either with a standard boilerplate or by entering a custom statement.•Tags identifying the data as Class D (FMD) based on substance reporting at the homogeneous material level; class C substance category reporting at the product level; or Class A Query/Reply format (true/false compliance statements).•Further details including a complete list of Mandatory and Optional data may be found in the IPC-1752A standard. Requirements Part Two – Lanes of Chemical DataSince FMD is all about the chemical data, and suppliers in the electronics industry may not have extensive chemical expertise, this set of functionality is critical to generating Class D XMLs as correct and error-free as possible. Clearly, to even begin generating FMDs requires having the product’s chemical composition data, and unfortunately there is no magic to manage this complexity other than a materials and substances database or spreadsheets to manage the list of ingredients to be reported. Some of the major CAD systems are offering functionality to select raw materials from a database coupled to the CAD system, which is logical since the designer is specifying the materials in the first place. More about how to develop basic “what’s in the product” documentation may be a good topic for another report, since by some accounts this is still the greatest obstacle to begin any FMD.Next, we briefly highlight important functional requirements for any tool used to generate FMDs from materials and substance data.Ability to select substances from a list by CAS number prevents errors, since CAS number is a key for many receiving systems and is the Authority tag specified in the IPC standard. A CAS number lookup list should be provided in the tool, which has the advantage of speeding up data entry and selecting matches quickly from valid selections provided by the tool. The tool may also validate the format of the CAS number format itself, which must be 10 digits separated into 3 groups by hyphens, with the last digit being a check digit. These rules are published by CAS (https:///content/chemical-substances/checkdig). This type of validation may be useful to allow newer, valid CAS numbers that are not in the lookup table to still be entered. The problem of “wildcard” or declarable/reportable substance lists will be covered in the next section, since it remains a problem in the industry.A lookup of substance names can also expedite entering substances data, again by ensuring that a valid substance name is used and a valid CAS number goes along with it. The advantage is that a substance name may be more easily recognized and used by a human than a CAS number. This approach to validation has the disadvantage that compounds and even pure elements may have many different synonyms, in which case the direct CAS number lookup would be more useful.The input screen for materials and substances data may look something like Figure 2. This kind of table is the heart of a FMD, where each Material is composed of its constituent Substances, all with reported weights in the product. Optionally, data like attachment files and concentration ranges may be accommodated. If Exemptions apply at the Material level, they may also be selected.Figure 2. Example of Material and Substance Input Screen (3)Direct entry into a reporting tool is likely to be of interest to suppliers making raw materials or simple components, rather than OEM’s. But this data becomes the basis of creating FMD’s for more complex products. S uppliers of the following kinds of items might be in the best position to take advantage of the kinds of tools being discussed here.o Solder and solder flux (separately or in paste or wire)o Bulk material like sheets, or parts made of a homogenous materialo Metal alloys, or parts made from themo Wireo Mold compound; molded partso Underfillo Conformal coatingo Plating, painted or dipped coating, or other types of coatingo Adhesives, lubricants or sealantsFMD’s for these items can allow the next tier customer to use it for reporting at the next assembly level. Companies on the more complex end of the supply chain may need to use larger enterprise systems to collect this data and run final reports, so the more basic FMD generating tools may be of less interest to them. Figure 3 shows how the data cascade works. As originally envisioned with the first release of IPC-1752 in 2006, the data cascade is still deserving of more widespread understanding and more thorough implementation today. We realize the complexity of electronic products, since even small personal use devices may contain hundreds to thousands of components, the key point here is that having good tools at the very beginning stage can be useful as the data builds in complexity up to reports for more complex products.Figure 3. Cascade of FMD DataRequirements Part Three – The Wildcard DetourBy necessity, companies and standards organizations themselves have used Reportable or Declarable Substances Lists (DSL) for years. One of the early lists was the Joint Industry Guide (JIG) which went through several updates. Amendment 3 to IPC-1752A includes the following statement: The IEC 62474 database of restricted and declarable substances replaced the Joint Industry Guide (JIG) in January 2014.Meanwhile, most companies have created their own DSLs so that they will receive:o Data on those substances currently with regulatory restrictionso Data on industry-specific substanceso Data on other substances the company’s customers expect to know abouto Substances that are not yet under any regulatory restrictions, but could be at some future date.This latter case is exactly the REACH situation shown at the beginning of this paper. While there are some ways to get advanced information about the next substances to be added to REACH, these are not usually foolproof. Therefore, companies tend to cast a rather wide net to ensure future substanc es are being included in their suppliers’ declarations.The IEC62474 database (http://std.iec.ch/iec62474) as of this writing was most recently revised on Sept. 3, 2017, and contains 137 Declarable substances and 482 Reference substances. Many companies have nonetheless found it necessary, for the reasons listed above, to develop more comprehensive lists of their own. Without mentioning specific company DLS’s here, a general review of some of the many that are used in the electronics industry shows two basic trends: o Substances listed in common as a core set of substances, including those in common with the IEC62474 listo Substances that are less frequently found and not part of a common core listSince homogeneous material reporting is at the substance level, with authority being the CAS number, this presents a data handling/segregation dilemma.In a good reporting tool, then, some accommodation must be made for accepting these “wildcard” substances which inherently have no CAS number. We have seen a commonly but not universally accepted limit of 10% per homogenous material can be checked in the tool to ensure this limit is not exceeded. A good tool should also allow for a choice of a customer-specific wildcard substance name, which is not subject to checking from a CAS number list or a CAS format validation routine. Based on our review, if proper warnings are provided, this appears to be the best way at present to handle such data.Requirements Part Four – Fewer Barriers, More Open RoadSo far, we have presented desirable features to help generate FMD’s. The real power, though, is only realized through ability to revise, reuse, and build on data once it has been initially entered into a tool.First of these capabilities is ability to quickly edit the substances in a material. For companies making a family of items with related composition, changing just a few entries, or modifying the percentages of them, can be done in seconds and saved under a different product name and XML file, with version tracking as desired in the file name. This should be allowed during an existing session, or combined with the next feature.Once a complete XML FMD is generated, productivity is enhanced if that file can be easily imported again at a later date and edited as required. This portability and flexibility of data allows a supplier further down the supply chain to utilize a growing library of common materials and their formulations, and to quickly create new ones without having to repeat some or even most of the data entry. In most cases, the company’s own information, like company ID, contact and authorizer, will be repeated over many declarations. If contact and authorizer are the same person, they could be copied directly with a choice in the tool.While we are focusing here on the Class D FMD, ability to generate Class A or Class D declarations at the same time may be useful. These should be selected, or de-selected as desired, or as required by the customer. Class A query/response answers should be straightforward, as should selection of exemptions from a list. Similarly, the substance data in the Class D data section should be quickly erased to enter fresh data while retaining the rest of the information already entered.Interactive helps should provide guidance to first time and infrequent users. Checks along the way improve speed and accuracy without having to consult a user’s manual, which incidentally should also be easily accessible for those who wish to read the instructions first. Finally, the tool should prevent hang-ups and errors. Support services should be provided, and a process to investigate and resolve bugs, or perceived bugs, should be easy to submit and provide timely responses.At the end of data entry there should be a final validation of the XML, included mandatory information has been entered and the weights of substances add up to each homogenous material being reported. These checks help ensure that the XML will successfully load to the customer’s system.Conclusions - To the SuperhighwayAccording to some observers, FMD still has too many barriers to really catch on. We disagree. Supply chain reporting has to begin somewhere, by providing data to middle supply chain companies, and so forth up to chain to the OEM. FMD is the only reporting approach that helps to minimize the ongoing burden of keeping up with the ever-growing lists of regulated substances and expiring exemptions.We have mentioned that the IEC 62474 database is now invoked as the reportable substance list in IPC-1752A Amendment 3. In addition, development of an IEC 62474 international standard for reporting is in process, which will also specify anXML format. Work is underway to harmonize the schema of both IPC and IEC standards via communication and common participants in both IPC and IEC standards development, but differences should still be expected. Development of the IEC reporting standard nevertheless underscores the interest and need for FMD realization in XML format.Further enhancements can also be realized in the future; to name a few:•Integration with manufacturing data for mixed, compounded or formulated materials•Availability of integrated materials selection with design tools for more complex products•True Business-to-Business methods to request data as well as provide data all in standard machine-readable formats •Enhanced error checking, validation of common-sense rules, and agreement between, for example, a Class A declaration that says RoHS Compliant = True, yet the Class D file for the same item reports a RoHS substance over the threshold percent.•Support for updated guidance from ECHA on Once an Article, Always and Article, which changes substance percent reporting from any top-level assembly to the lowest level Article exceeding the 0.1% SVHC threshold. It is becoming clear that this will require a new data attribute to flag Articles, as distinct from unshaped Materials or Complex Objects. It is our understanding that this will be considered in the development of a revised IPC-1752B Standard.In addition to the motivation of staying ahead of the growing number of regulated substances, a business processes and procedures that support FMD can also be useful. The expectation that FMDs must be provided can be a requirement for gaining new business or for qualification of an item as a prerequisite to be purchased. A company can also include FMD responsiveness in ongoing supplier evaluation performance ratings that may influence awarding future business. Once an FMD is received in well-formed XML format, loading this data to the customer’s system can be automated for maximum efficiency and reused through the FMD cascade process. We have seen it work and only need more FMDs entering the road. References1. M. Myles, “Supply Chain Data Exchange for Material Disclosure.”Journal of Surface Mount Technology, Vol. 19-1, 2006. https:///knowledge/journal detail.cfm?ARTICLE ID=1232. R. Franz, “Beyond “Lead-Free”: An Update on the IPC-1752A Standard for Materials Declaration.” Electronics Design, Jan. 8, 2015. /components/beyond-lead-free-update-ipc-1752a-standard-materials-declaration3. https:///fmdcomplete/ © 2017 Assent Compliance Inc.IntroductionA customer emails you and says,“Please provide your FMD’s for this list of parts”Your reaction?IPC Standardso IPC-1752A Materials Declaration Management Standardo IPC-1751A Generic Requirements for Declaration Process Managemento Both specify XML (Extensible Markup Language) machine-readable formato IPC-1752A Class D supports FMD with Homogenous Materials and Substances IEC 62474 also under revision for better harmonization with IPC-1752 XML format Good tools are needed to generate FMD XML at the beginning of the supply chainEnd of presentation… but not “The End.”Thank you for your attention : )AcknowledgementThe dedication, innovation and ongoing work of the IPC 2-18b Materials Declaration Task Group is gratefully appreciated –including founding members, current members, chairpersons, andfuture users of IPC-1752.[1]https:///fmdcomplete/ © 2017 Assent Compliance Inc.。
