anti-circumvention · web viewthe key distinction between smart and hidden software / hardware is...

Stakeholder Consultation Questionnaire

© April 2019

Contact information for this Stakeholder Consultation

Contact: Mr. Christian Praher & Mr. Thomas BognerEmail: [email protected] [email protected]: +43 1 586 15 24 – 195 +43 1 586 15 24 – 160

Austrian Energy AgencyMariahilfer Strasse 136 | 1150 Vienna, Austriawww.energyagency.at

Project coordinator: Further information:Ms. Kathrin [email protected]

Öko-Institut e.V.P.O. Box 17 71 | D-79017 Freiburg | Germanywww.oeko.de

www.anti-circumvention.euhttps://twitter.com/anticircumventhttps://www.linkedin.com/company/anticss

https://www.linkedin.com/company/anticss

https://twitter.com/anticircumvent

http://www.anti-circumvention.eu/

http://www.oeko.de/

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.energyagency.at/

Stakeholder consultation

2

PART A: Contact information & information handling

Please include your contact information below.

Institution

Name

Position / area of responsibility

Professional interest in topic ‘circumvention’

Phone number

E-Mail

Information handling Your feedback will be treated anonymously. Your input on the draft definition of circumvention (PART C) will only be referenced aggregated within the relevant stakeholder sector (Policy, Industry, and Consumer) and for internal discussion of the ANTICSS consortium only.We would like to highlight that the further assessment of the collected suspect behaviour cases (especially those that you consider circumvention cases) shall be led by the Austrian Energy Agency (AEA), involving the project partners Öko-Institut, ECOS, ENEA, SEVEn, ADENE, University of Bonn and FFII-LCOE, constituting the relevant work package team.Your response may include sensitive data in PART B, in particular in the sub-sections:

B1.2: Information on critical product type or sub-category resp. market segment B1.3: Information on specific product and / or supplier

This data in those sub-sections will be handled confidentially and will not be shared within the consortium (or sub-groups of the consortium such as work package teams) without your explicit consent.We therefore ask you to classify confidential information in section B1.2 and B1.3 item-wise either as

[CONF1] – access to this item is restricted to AEA (the recipient of this questionnaire) and OEKO (project coordinator) only, or

[CONF2] – access to this item is restricted to the relevant work package team as mentioned above), or

[CONF3] – access to this item is restricted to the ANTICSS consortium.If you need a signed non-disclosure agreement (NDA) as a prerequisite for providing information in advance, we will be open to sign it according to your specific requirements.

ANTICSS regularly publishes newsletters and will develop capacity building material and host expert workshops. I am interested in getting further information and I agree that my email address indicated above will be used for information purposes concerning ANTICSS materials and events.

☐ Yes ☐ ☐No

Read more about the ANTICSS project’s privacy policy here: https://www.anti-circumvention.eu/storage/app/media/ANTICSS_Privacy-statement.pdf(You may have to copy the link in your browser’s URL field.)

https://www.anti-circumvention.eu/storage/app/media/ANTICSS_Privacy-statement.pdf


3

PART B: Collection of suspect behaviour case(s) (potential circumvention)The central aim of this consultation is to collect further hints or cases that you consider as suspect behaviour or even of circumvention (CV), in order to determine if circumvention is actually occurring and if there is a concentration such cases in certain product categories, product groups and / or types.

Based on the analysis of the collected information, ANTICSS will help focusing the scope of the further detailed investigation and laboratory testing on the suspected circumvention cases to those product categories which are significantly risked to be prone to circumvention.

!

Please report any hints of suspect behaviour or cases that you consider also potentially circumvention of a product category, product group, product type and model you know about and send us information described below in the questionnaire!If available, responses to more than one concrete case are appreciated. For this case, please copy the section below (Part B1 – B4) and provide input required as follows for each case.

!

---------------------------- copy from here for further cases (if applicable) ----------------------------

B1: Product category, product group, product type and model for case 1

B1.1: Information on product group level for case 1

Product category Please indicate which product group is involved (tick the relevant box).

Electronic equipment

☐ PCs (Desktops and Laptops) (ENER 3)☐ Televisions (ENER 5)☐ Standby and off-mode losses, networked standby (ENER 6 + 26)☐ Battery chargers and external power supplies (ENER 7)

Heating/ Ventilation/ Air-conditioning

☐ Space heaters and combination heaters (ENER 1)☐ Water heaters and hot water storage tanks (ENER 2)☐ Room air conditioning (ENER 10)☐ Comfort fans (ENER 10)☐ Solid fuel boilers (ENER 15)☐ Local space heaters (ENER 20)☐ Solid fuel local space heaters (ENER 20)☐ Air heating and cooling products (central heating products using hot air to distribute heat) (ENER 21)☐ Air-conditioning and ventilation systems (ENTR 6)

Industrial applications

☐ Electric motors (ENER 11)☐ Fans (ENER 11)


4

☐ Water pumps (ENER 11)☐ Circulators (ENER 11)☐ Transformers (ENTR 2)

Lighting ☐ Office Lighting☐ Street lighting☐ Domestic lighting part I non-directional lamps☐ Domestic lighting part II directional lamps

White goods ☐ Domestic refrigerators and freezers (ENER 13)☐ Domestic dishwashers (ENER 14)☐ Domestic washing machines (ENER 14)☐ Domestic washer-dryer (ENER 14)☐ Household tumble driers (ENER 16)☐ Vacuum cleaners (ENER 17)☐ Domestic ovens, hobs and range hoods (ENER 22)☐ Professional refrigerated storage cabinets (ENTR 1)

Tyres ☐ Tyres (replacement and new)

B1.2: Information on critical product type or sub-category resp. market segment for case 1

Please specify if the case you are reporting is related to a specific product type (e.g.: Refrigerator with one or more fresh-food storage compartments;

Refrigerator-freezer) a certain segment of the product category (e.g.: entry-level product or high-end product, high

efficiency class or low efficiency class; appliance with low, high capacity, size or dimensions, supplier in specific geographic regions, etc.)

Note: Information provided on this level is of high relevance for the subsequent evaluation of circumvention cases within ANTICSS.Please indicate the level of access to confidential information (CONF1 – CONF3, (cf. PART A for information about the handling of confidential information by ANTICSS).[please provide your comment here]


5

B1.3: Information on specific product and / or supplier for case 1

Please provide information on a specific product and / or supplier if possible.

Note: Information provided on this level is of very high relevance for the subsequent evaluation of circumvention cases within ANTICSS.The following data may be sensitive data – therefore please indicate the level of access to confidential information (CONF1 – CONF3), (cf. PART A for information about the handling of confidential information by ANTICSS).

Brand

Type/model

GTIN/EAN

Serial number

Year of production

Originating country

B2: Source for suspect behaviour (potential CV) case 1

Please indicate the type of source, the reference and contact details for further information, if applicable.

Type of source ☐ Notification by MSA☐ Notification by other institution – please name: __________________________________☐ Literature research☐ Other: _________________________________

Reference (Multiple answers allowed)

☐ Own research / testing☐ Other research/testing☐ Public news / media, social media (Twitter, Facebook etc.)☐ Business contacts ☐ Personal contacts☐ Other: ____________________________________

Which documents or which type of information was used for your evaluation?

☐ ED Regulation☐ EL Regulation☐ Standard: ____________________________________☐ Test protocol (according to the standard)☐ Test protocol (not according to the standard)☐ Technical documentation of manufacturer☐ Energy label / Product Fiche ☐ Interview with stakeholder☐ Others: ________________________________________________

Contact details Please indicate who could potentially provide missing or further insight information.


6

Institution

Contact person

Position / area of responsibility

Email address

Phone Number

B3: Description of suspect behaviour (potential CV) case 1

!A draft definition of circumvention as well as delimitation from other effects is provided in PART C. Please have a look at the provided explanations to get familiar with the context developed by ANTICSS for the classification of suspect behaviour.

!

Please describe as detailed and precise as possible the encountered suspect behaviour or circumvention. Preferably use the following structure:1. What are the relevant requirements or provisions given in the regulation or standard?2. What behaviour has been encountered in the concrete case?3. Why is this behaviour assumed to be suspect behaviour or circumvention?

1. [please provide your comment here]



Classification of suspect behaviour Please try to classify the suspect behaviour according to the categories given below. These categories represent current ANTICSS understanding of () Circumvention, () Jeopardy effects, () Non-compliance and () Compliant to legislation. (cf. PART C if appropriate)

☐ Circumvention☐ Jeopardy effects☐ Non-Compliance☐ Compliant to legislation

Please describe in detail, why have you chosen this (these) category (ies)?[please provide your comment here]


7

Can the identified suspect behaviour be easily replicated in other product types or product groups by some or all market actors (manufacturers/suppliers)?If yes, is there evidence of replication?Please provide a qualitative assumption for replicability of this suspect behaviour

☐ high replicability ☐ medium replicability ☐ low replicability

[provide your comment here]

Please indicate the date (year, month if available) when the suspect behaviour became known to you.[please provide your comment here]

B4: Specific topics related to suspect behaviour (potential CV) case 1

Please indicate which in you view are the challenges, potentials, and characteristics that an alternative test methods (a new one or a modification of the existing ones) should have in order to make the detection of a (potential) circumvention possible specifically.Please describe existing or proposed alternative test methods you may know to detect suspect behaviour/circumvention.

Considerations:MSAs have the burden to proof that the product is actually “designed to be able to detect of being tested”. The verification of this capability would probably require the definition of specific inspection procedures/test methods to highlight the specific behaviour of a model In addition, the manufacturer could argue that the specific behaviour shown by the product in testing conditions is also similarly applied in real life use (but with some limitations).[please provide your comment here]

Please describe the quantitative effects due to the suspect behaviour (potential circumvention) in terms of energy consumption or the alteration of any other functional parameter (e.g. difference between the values measured or estimated when the suspect behaviour is/is not applied)[please provide your comment here]


8

If and how is this suspect behaviour (potential CV) perceived by consumers in the product group?[please provide your comment here]

-------------------------------- copy till here for further cases -----------------------------------

! If you can provide more than one suspect behaviour (potential CV) case, please copy B1 to B4 here. !


9

PART C: Feedback on the definition of “Circumvention” and other effectsThe ANTICSS project team has compiled draft definitions of circumvention as well as delimitation from other effects (“Jeopardy effects” and issues of conventional “non-compliance”). These definitions are based on an initial collection from literature research of cases being suspect of circumvention, a survey amongst ANTICSS project partners and the assessment for possible loopholes of EU Ecodesign and Energy labelling legislation and harmonised standards.

Circumvention

ANTICSS draft definition of “Circumvention”

Circumvention is the act of designing a product or prescribing test instructions, leading to an alteration of the behaviour or the properties of the product specifically in the test situation in order to reach more favourable results for any of the parameters specified in the relevant delegated or implemented act, or included in any of the documentations provided for the product.

The act of circumvention is relevant only under test conditions and can be executed e.g.,

a) by automatic detection of the test situation and alteration of the product performance and/or resource consumption during test, or

b) by pre-set or manual alteration of the product, affecting performance and/or resource consumption during test.

Please provide your views on this definition

Pros / Strengths

Cons / Shortcomings

Comments(Possibly missing elements, etc.)

Explanatory Note:

The following categories of suspect behaviour are considered as “circumvention” by the ANTICSS consortium.

Categories Description

Hidden software / hardware

Any hidden control device, software, component or part that identifies test procedure and deliberately changes resource consumption or performance parameters ONLY under testing conditions.

A hidden software or hardware may interact in this way (examples):

a) detecting one special characteristic, which is only present under test conditions, and subsequently altering resource consumption or performance of the product under test


10

b) altering resource consumption or performance of an appliance as soon as the factory setting is adjusted for the first time (as default setting to be maintained in test situations only);

Manual alteration of the product (modified test samples)

Product used for testing is a modified version that is not representative for products from the production line to get a better test result –either by direct modification or adding specific accessories for testing only as requested by the manufacturer beyond specific requests by standard or legislation.

Using an accessory only for testing purposes, but not in real life; e.g. dishwashers: bowl support to be used only in testing

A product used for test purposes is modified for testing; e.g. boilers: modifications applied only for CE testing but not to the whole product line

Pre-treatment of test-samples requested by manufacturer beyond request by legislation or standard

Manufacturer gives information (not requested by legislation nor standard) exclusively for test labs on how to handle the unit under test (UUT) before or during the test procedure, which may result in more beneficial test results and lack of comparability between products; as a trigger for hidden software or hardware

Specific operation mode (cycle/setting/configuration) only for testing for legislation compliance requested by manufacturere.g. tumble dryer: pre-treatment (run of specific programs before commencing tests according to the standard)

Jeopardy effects

ANTICSS draft definition of “Jeopardy effects”

Jeopardy effects encompass all design aspects of products or test instructions, or interpretation of test results which do not follow the goal of the EU ecodesign and/ or energy labelling legislation of providing reliable information about the resource consumption and/ or performance of a product.

These effects could serve as gateways or indicators for circumvention.

Please provide your views on this definition

Pros / Strengths

Cons / Shortcomings


Explanatory Note:

The following categories of suspicious behaviour are considered as “Jeopardy effects” by the ANTICSS consortium.



11

Smart software / hardware

Any control device, software, component or part that identifies specific process parameters during test procedure AS WELL AS in real life usage and changes resource consumption or performance parameters.

The key distinction between smart and hidden software / hardware is that a hidden software or hardware saves energy or other resources ONLY during the test procedure but not during intended use, whereas the smart software or hardware saves energy or other resources during both, test procedure and intended use. The smart software / hardware may be described or declared in the instruction manual or any other document.

E.g. refrigerators: switch to holiday mode without door opening during test. The “holiday mode” changes the operating characteristics of a product, if user interaction is missing for a defined period (during test procedure and in real life).

Ambiguities in legislation / standard

Definitions or boundaries in legislation or standard are not precise or are too broad and leave room for interpretation.

E.g. washing machines: ambiguity about indicating 60°C and 40°C standard cotton programmes for machines with more than one drum

E.g. motors: ambiguity about the removal of externally accessible sealing elements in standard

Loophole in legislation / standard

Weak elements in legislation or standard are used by manufacturers resulting in declaration of more efficient products or products of better performance.

E.g. Washing machines with more than one drum are not considered in legislation and this fact is used by manufacturer to declare a more efficient product.

E.g. refrigerator-freezers: test procedure is not addressing specific characteristics (differences in defrost intervals).

Other weaknesses (in standards)

Weakness in the test standard which is not an ambiguity or loophole.

The weakness that user interaction with a product is not considered in test procedure is exploited to detect test conditions and alter operating characteristics;

E.g. refrigerators: Door openings happening as typical user interaction in real life are not considered in test procedure.

Compliant to legislation

During the assessment of the possible circumvention cases and the classification of the suspect behaviour categories, test situations have been identified which are compliant to legislation (also inherently by following the standard) but do not sufficiently reflect the performance or use of resources as perceived by consumers in daily life.


Missing representativeness

The product performance according to ecodesign or energy labelling is not representative of the performance which may be perceived by consumer in daily life

E.g. dishwashers: The testing according to the standard is done in a mode (ECO mode) which only is used in approx. 15% of dish washing cycles in daily life;


12

E.g. refrigerators: The door remains closed under test conditions according to the standard. This leads to lower energy consumption during the test in comparison to real life conditions.

Requests by legislation / standard

Specific cycle/setting/configuration for testing requested by legislation or standard.Legislation requests to use a specific programme or setting to perform resource consumption or performance tests

E.g. dishwasher: standard requests to follow manufacturer’s instructions or E.g. washing machines: 60 °C and 40 °C cotton standard programmes to

test compliance with eco-design requirements requested by legislation

Decoupling of resources and performance

Decoupled measurement of resource consumption and functional performances Resource consumption and performance are measured in separately tested cycles, this might lead to more favourable results for any of the parameters specified in the relevant delegated or implemented act, or included in any of the documentations provided for the product.

E.g.: dishwasher –different test procedures had to be followed for energy consumption and for performance testing (already solved in revised standard).

Allowed deviation Deviations in testing condition(s), allowed in standard or regulation clauses E.g. ovens: highest temperature may be lower than indicated in the

standard if the product is not able to fulfil test requirements (defined maximum temperature)

E.g. motors: optional removal of external seals

Please provide your views on the proposed cluster


Non-compliance

The following suspect behaviour categories are considered as known examples of “non-compliance” (being not in the scope of ANTICSS).


Ignorance of legislation / standard

Clear definitions / requirements / procedures in legislation or standard are not applied.

Provision given by the instruction manual of the manufacturer to perform standard tests contradicts requirements specified by the standard.

E.g. tumble dryers: specific preparation before commencing tests requested by manufacturer contradicts requirements

Wrong reference to legislation

Deception or just ignorance of legislation / standards leads to wrong reference to legislative requirements (e.g. wrong specification of programmes)

E.g.: wine cooler treated as category 10 refrigerators in resource consumption / performance testing. Even though a product clearly belongs to a certain category, it is treated as a product of another category.


13

Deliberate misrepresentation

False references or calculations are used to ‘show’ compliance. Products are declared for other use.

E.g. lighting: lamp considered being a special purpose lamp; compliance testing might lead to more favourable results for any of the parameters specified in the relevant delegated or implemented act, or included in any of the documentations provided for the product.

Deliberate exclusion from scope

Product specifically designed to be excluded from legislationOne specific programme or function of a product is missing so that it is out of scope of legislation;

E.g. washing machines: double drum washing machines with no cotton standard programme available for one of the drums; thus this appliance is no washing machine per definition and thus is not covered by ED 1015/2010 and EL 1061/2010 Household washing machines.

Please provide your views on the proposed cluster


End of questionnaire.

Thank you very much for your cooperation!

anti-circumvention · web viewthe key distinction between smart and hidden software / hardware is...

Documents