The Association Connecting Electronics Industries (IPC) plans to continue its lobbying efforts to ensure RoHS revisions are based on good science and not politics. The association views the RoHS revisions – proposed on December 3 – as political in nature and not based on good science. “Substance restrictions in a variety of areas are being driven by growing political pressures rather than solid scientific evidence,” says Fern Abrams, director of government relations and environmental policy at IPC.
In a letter posted on its website, IPC notes that the RoHS proposed revision “did not ban any additional substances, but it did call for the monitoring of four substances.” IPC has conducted lobbying efforts on the revision draft over the past two years and is especially pleased that the Commission has not proposed to add Tetrabromobisphenol (TBBPA) as an additional substance to be monitored or restricted under RoHS. “This is the first step in a lengthy legislative procedure that would see the proposals change before adoption,” says Abrams. “Amendments could be inserted during the next stages in the legislative process before the directive is finalized. IPC continues to be cautious and will be diligent to ensure that any proposed changes continue to be based on science.”
For industrial control applications, or even a simple assembly line, that machine can go almost 24/7 without a break. But what happens when the task is a little more complex? That’s where the “smart” machine would come in. The smart machine is one that has some simple (or complex in some cases) processing capability to be able to adapt to changing conditions. Such machines are suited for a host of applications, including automotive, aerospace, defense, medical, computers and electronics, telecommunications, consumer goods, and so on. This discussion will examine what’s possible with smart machines, and what tradeoffs need to be made to implement such a solution.