EN    EN EN 
 
EN    EN   COMMISSION OF THE E UROPEAN COMMUNITIES 
 
Brussels, 3.12.2008 
SEC(2008) 2968 
  
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 
Report on the public consultation on the 
 
on the simplification of 8 old approach metrology Directives 
  
{COM(2008)801 final} 
 
{SEC(2008)2909} 
 
{SEC(2008)2910} 
 
EN 2   EN TABLE OF CONTENTS 
1. Introduction................................................................................................................ .. 2 
2. Contributions to the public consultation ...................................................................... 3 
3. Available options ......................................................................................................... 4 4. Technological Progress ................................................................................................ 4 5. Impact assessment........................................................................................................ 5 6. Economies of scale....................................................................................................... 6 7. Small and medium sized enterprises............................................................................ 6 8. Effects on consumers and employees .......................................................................... 6 9. Environmental effects .................................................................................................. 7 10. Government needs........................................................................................................ 8 11. Options, alternatives and their impacts ........................................................................ 8 12. Views expressed per sector .......................................................................................... 9 12.1. Cold Water Meters for Non-Clean  Water (Directive 75/33/EEC)............................... 9 
12.2. Alcohol Meters (Directive 75/765/EEC) ..................................................................... 9 12.3. Alcohol Tables (Directive 75/766/EEC)...................................................................... 9 12.4. Medium and Above-Medium Accuracy  Weights (Directive 71/317/EEC and 
74/148/EEC)................................................................................................................. 9 
12.5. Tyre Pressure Gauges for Motor Vehicles (Directive 86/217/EEC).......................... 10 12.6. Standard Mass of Grain (Directive 74/347/EEC) ...................................................... 10 12.7. Calibration of Ship Tanks  (Directive 71/349/EEC)................................................... 10 
13. Conclusion................................................................................................................. . 10 
14. Further work............................................................................................................... 10 
1. I
NTRODUCTION  
The 8 metrology directives which would be subject  of repeal or, in the case of good reasons, 
be subject of reregulation c oncern the following sectors:   
- Cold Water Meters for Non-Clean Water (Directive 75/33/EEC)  - Alcohol Meters and Al cohol Tables (Directive 75/765/EEC and 75/766/EEC)  
- Medium and Above-Medium Accuracy We ights (Directive 71/317/EEC and 74/148/EEC) 
- Tyre Pressure Gauges for Motor Vehicles (Directive 86/217/EEC)  - Standard Mass of Grain (Directive 74/347/EEC)  
- Calibration of Ship Ta nks (Directive 71/349/EEC) 
 
EN 3   EN Starting on 21 May 2008 a public consultation was held until  15 July 2008. The Commission 
services have published a key issues documen t for the public consultation. Concerns have 
been expressed that currently these technical rules are not easily adap table to technological 
progress and therefore risk hi ndering innovation. Next to rep eal, it gives as an option to 
include one or more of thes e sectors in the Measuring In struments Directive (Directive 
2004/22/EC). The public consultation document highl ighted 10 issues, the reactions to which 
will subsequently be discussed in this document. Stakeholders were also invited to bring up any other issues that th ey consider relevant.  
Information on the public consultation has been disseminated via the Your Voice in Europe 
site which is public and well known among prof essional organisations. Also there was an 
Enterprise e-mail alert that was distributed at the start of the consu ltation to 28.000 recipients 
as well as an e-mail alert to all those who had expressed their interest on this issue to the 
Commission services in the past. 
The key issues document and this report on th e public consultation a nd all reactions are 
available on the Europa website:  
http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/p repack/ms_inst/mi_directives.htm
 
This report will firstly examine the reactions that have been received. Secondly it will present 
the conclusions to be drawn with due regard to the Commission’s priority for simplification 
and better regulation. 
This document has been prepared by the Commi ssion services for consultation purposes. It 
does not in any way prejudge, or constitute th e announcement of, any position on the part of 
the Commission concerning the issues covered.  
2.  CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE PUBLIC CONSULTATION  
Contributions were received from  14 stakeholders, none of whom  requested to be treated as 
confidential.  
Contributions were received from the following types of respondents: 
Public: 1 member of the public reacted, from the UK  Enterprises: 2 enterprises r eacted, both niche producers opera ting on the European Market. 
Industry Federations: 2 industry federations reacted, one Eu rope-wide federation, 1 national 
from the UK. 
Non-governmental organisation: 1 non-governmental  organisation from Austria reacted, but it 
reflected the view of the Austrian authority 
International Organisations: 1 internationa l treaty organisation reacted, namely OIML 
(Organisation Intern ationale pour la Métrologie Légale) of  which all Member States are party. 
Authorities: 7 Authorities reacte d: 3 national authorities and 4 local authorities from the UK. 
In the following chapters, details of answer s on the 10 questions posed by the Commission 
services will be discussed, as well as other issues brought up. 
 
EN 4   EN 3. AVAILABLE OPTIONS  
In the key issues document for the public co nsultation the Commission services presented 
three options. 
Option 1 : “Old approach” Directives exist in addition to national rules (current situation). 
Without any new EU action, the old Directiv es would exist until technical progress has 
completely overtaken the technological specifica tions. It is expected that the market will 
continue evolving quickly to include products more technologically advanced and no longer 
covered by the old directives. 
Option 2  is the repeal of the Old Approach dire ctives without any ch ange to Directive 
2004/22/EC on measuring instruments. National rule s can continue to exis t. Under this option 
the free movement of measuring instruments with in the Internal Market would implicitly rely 
on the Mutual Recognition Principle and horizontal legislation framing its  correct functioning. 
The existing WELMEC type approval agreement gives a framework for mutual recognition of national conformity assessment. Under WTO/TBT obligations, Member States would need to 
base their laws on international standards. A lternatively, instead of  national regulation, 
Member States could rely on the voluntary application of Eu ropean standards. For the 
updating and development of such standards the Commission could, if needed, give a mandate 
to the European Standardisation Organisations.  
Option 3
 is to add new annexes for each instrument to Directive 2004/22/EC on measuring 
instruments and the repeal of the directives. This option does not a llow any national rules, 
although Member States remain free to choose the tasks for which they want to prescribe legal 
metrological control. For these tasks they may only allow instruments conformity assessed on 
the essential requirements in the directive to  be used on their te rritory. New Approach 
harmonisation prescribes essential requirements and allows any techno logical specification 
that complies with these requirements. It should be noted that Article 2 of Directive 
2004/22/EC on measuring instruments allows Member  States to opt out from requiring the use 
on their territory of instruments complying with  the directive, but using the opt-out does not 
allow any alternative national rules and therefore means having no rules. 
4. TECHNOLOGICAL PROGRESS  
The Commission sought stakeholders’ views on the sensitivity of each sector to technological 
progress and the option most pref erred from the angle of adap ting to technological progress. 
The Scottish Whisky Association represents 98% of produce of whisky and it expressed as its 
view that any future policy should not stifle in novation where the industr y can see benefits in 
utilising alternative instruments for measurement. 
OIML indicates that technologica l progress has been quite fast notably affecting water meters, 
alcohol meters, where electronic instruments are now commonly used, tyre pressure gauges 
and standard mass of grain. It proposes reregulation (option 3) for all sectors 
The producers in the alcohol mete r industry would like to include  in the regulation (option 3) 
the instruments that they are producing which are outside the scope of the old directives: electronic alcohol meters and oscillation-type  density meters according to EN ISO 15212, but 
do not indicate barriers to trade. 
 
EN 5   EN The view from Austria is that there has been le ss technological progress  in these sectors than 
in the sectors already covered by the Meas uring Instruments Directive. Czech Republic 
considers that alcohol and ma ss of grain metering is medi um sensitive to technological 
progress, whilst the other sectors have on lo w sensitivity. Both Austria and CZ Republic 
favour reregulation (option 3). Romania considers that technological prog ress requires change 
in water meters, tyre pressure gauges, mass of grain and calibration of ship tanks, but 
considers national regulation best suited (option 2). 
The UK local authority (Norfolk) indicates that costs of higher quality weights have become 
lower and this could be considered a form of  technological progress. It favours re-regulation 
(option 3) 
A UK citizen favours essential requirements that are more open to technological progress than 
detailed technical specifications. 
There are mixed views on the rele vance of technological progress on these sectors. The wide 
view could be that nearly all are concerned, while a more limited view would be that only 
alcohol and mass of grain are concerne d. Most favour reregulation under option 3. 
5. IMPACT ASSESSMENT  
The question asked was what are the current ec onomic impacts of the sectors and how would 
they change in respect of the options? 
A producer of alcohol meters states that around 30,000 oscillat ion density type meters are 
currently in use. 
OIML suggests expanding the scope of MID to  include network clean water meters and 
meters for irrigation both of which it deems im portant for the environment.  It considers 
alcohol tables important because alcohol content is the basis for excise taxes. Tyre pressure 
gauges are manufactured abroad and Eastern Eur ope and wrong tyre pressure is deemed to be 
the cause of 6% of deaths in road accident s costing an estimated € 310 million in 2005. Too 
low pressure of tyres could waste an €200-30 0 annually on petrol consumption per car and 
add an extra 1.3 tons of greenhouse gasses. Ship tanks may also prevent greenhouse gasses (but it does not say in which way). 
A UK authority (Norfolk) indicates  that calibrating all weights at an acceptable accuracy level 
(class E1) would cost £100,000. It also finds that  most tyre pressure gauges are imported and 
are not correctly calibrated, whic h has a detrimental impact on road safety and fuel economy, 
having a major impact on global warming.  C zech Republic has low national production in all 
sectors excepting mass of grain and consider s effects on exports an d employment to be 
‘negligible’. 
It would seem that if there are impacts none of these would seem to be particularly subject to 
change depending on the option chosen.   
 
EN 6   EN 6. ECONOMIES OF SCALE  
The question posed was: are ther e currently economies of scal e and what are the expected 
effects of the various options on economies of scale? 
A producer of alcohol meters i ndicates that option 3 allows th e production and distribution of 
standardised instruments in all Member States  and therefore leads to  reduction of costs for 
both producers and consumers. 
Austria has expressed the view that in the cas e of measuring instruments requiring calibration, 
it is easier to market them having a comm on framework and harmonised requirements, an 
argument in favour of reregulation (option 3). Czech Republic defines economies of scale as 
meaning that a firm can benefit from selling th e same product in diffe rent markets without 
requiring additional operations such as complyi ng with different regulations and repeating 
conformity assessment. It concludes that such economies of scale are equally small under both options 2 and 3. Romania indicates that if national regulations are based on the same 
international standards (optio n 2), manufacturers need not pay for re peated conformity 
assessment.  
A UK authority (Trading Standards East Midl ands) recognizes that  many manufacturers and 
suppliers of weighing equipment and weights are pan-European businesses and its view is that 
re-regulation (option 3) offers an oppor tunity for consistency and efficiency. 
Whilst most relate option 3 to in creased economies of scale, ther e could be equally large scale 
effects under option 2, if na tional rules are based on in ternational standards. 
7. SMALL AND MEDIUM SIZED ENTERPRISES  
The Commission asked about the cu rrent situation of small and medium sized enterprises and 
what is to be expected under the various options , also as regards the possibility to develop 
market niches and administrative burdens? 
A producer of alcohol meters indicates that me asuring instruments are traditionally produced 
by small to medium-sized companies whic h would largely benefit from option 3. 
Austria has expressed the view that it is better for small a nd medium sized firms to produce 
and market instruments for the entire Europ ean market to harmonised specifications, an 
argument in favour of reregulation (option 3). Czech Republic indicates that currently production is by small manufacturers to national specifications and that option 2 will not lead 
to any change, whilst harmonisation (option 3)  will not have significant economic impacts. 
Whilst harmonisation may be favourable to small a nd medium sized enterprises, there is also 
doubt as to whether the impact will be significant. 
8. EFFECTS ON CONSUMERS AND EMPLOYEES  
The question to stakeholders was what are the effects of the various options on needs of 
consumers and employees? 
 
EN 7   EN A UK citizen suggests that displays on tyre pres sure gauges should be simplified so that non-
trained users can more easily use them. Harmon isation would allow use by tourists without 
problems. Nor should supplementary indications  be allowed (currently the domain of 
Directive 80/181/EEC on units of measurement) . Also there should be proper information for 
tourists in the UK. 
Scotch whisky producers indicate th at alcohol meters and tables are extensively used in the 
production process, notably glass alcohol meters currently covered by the directive. The more 
complex meters are used for Re gulation 2870/2000 on spirit drinks. 
A producer of alcohol meters indicates that harmonisation (option 3) would reduce costs and 
improve quality of the measured products. Employees will benefit from better working conditions due to automation, elimination of  routine burden and less exposure to air 
contaminated with alcohol vapour by applying oscillation type densit y meters (option 3). 
OIML indicates that current prot ection is poor (option 1) and th at repeal of the directives 
(option 2) could end protection of consumers and citizens, while option 3 would harmonise 
protection at a high level.  
Austria favours that consumers rely on common requirements (option 3) over country specific 
requirements that would result under option 2.  Czech Republic fears an unacceptably low 
level of consumer protection in case of lack of national specifications (o ption 2) which is not 
the case under option 3.  
If there could be reason to justify common c onsumer and employee protection, it is however 
very much a question how effective reregulatio n (option 3) could be given the existing EU 
regulation (such as Regulation 2870/2000 on spirit drinks) and that  the Measuring Instruments 
Directive recognises subsidiarity and allows Member States to opt-out. 
9. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS  
The question to stakeholders was what are th e environmental effects of the uses and how 
could they be influenced by the various options?  
Scotch whisky producers indicate that the alco hol meters currently covered by the directive 
are inexpensive and do not requi re batteries or power and can be disposed of as ordinary 
controlled waste. 
A producer of alcohol meters says that his technology (oscillation density meters) requires 
much less samples volumes than the OIML re commendation and current  directive and that 
therefore transportation, stor age and disposal requirements for samples are substantially 
reduced. 
OIML suggests expanding the scope of MID to  include network clean water meters and 
meters for irrigation both of which it deems important for the envi ronment.  Wrong tyre 
pressure is deemed to be the cause of 6% of deaths in road accidents costing an estimated € 
310 million in 2005. Too low pressure of tyre s could waste an €200-300 annually on petrol 
consumption per car and add an extra 1.3 tons  of greenhouse gasses. Ship tanks may also 
prevent greenhouse gasses (but it does not say in which way). 
 
EN 8   EN The Czech Republic does not distinguish  environmental effects under any option. 
It would seem that if environmental protection would justify regulatory intervention, there is 
no option which stands out as being the most favourable. 
10. GOVERNMENT NEEDS  
The question was: what are the needs of governme nt and what are the effects of the options, 
notably also as regards market surveillance? 
Romania has the view that legislation where n eeded can be done at the national level rather 
than at the Community level a nd it will not require investment in new conformity assessment 
procedures involving notifie d bodies (option 2).   
Czech Republic points to the current differences  between national legislations and considers 
that option 2 worsens the legislative bac kground and gives a higher burden for market 
surveillance than option 3. 
According to Austria it is easier to ha ve the same requirements all over the EU. 
Harmonisation eliminates administrative tests on the equivalence of the level of protection and other procedures necessary within opti on 2. Option 3 in its view simplifies access to 
certified measuring instruments, which would enter the market initially calibrated, as well as 
subsequent recalibration and market surveillance or the modification of measuring devices in 
use. 
Authorities in the UK have va rying views and woul d generally want to repeal current 
directives except for weights and tyre pre ssure gauges, but also for water meters. 
OIML indicates that repeal of the directives  (option 2) may set trade barriers despite 
provisions of the EU or of TB T, whilst option 3 would harmonise  protection at a high level. 
It would seem that the motivations for Option 3 would seem not to take into account that the 
Measuring Instruments Directive allows an opt -out in line with subsidiarity. If mutual 
recognition is based on the a ssumption that national rules would reflect international 
standards, it is unclear why this  should lead to a bur den of “additional admi nistrative tests on 
the equivalence of the level of protection”. 
11. OPTIONS , ALTERNATIVES AND THEIR IMPACTS  
Stakeholders were requested to provide comments on whether all issues and alternatives 
concerning the Directives concerned by the s implification have been  highlighted and to 
indicate the overall costs and benefits that they expect to have as a resu lt of any of alternative 
option? 
OIML points out that the Measuring Instrument s directive (Dir 2004/22 /EC) by means of its 
articles 10 and 16 complies with Article 2.4 of the Technical Barriers to Trade Agreement 
(World Trade Organisation) as it allows refere nce to be made to “normative documents” of 
OIML, which is an International standard-s etting organisation in the sense of the TBT 
agreement. 
 
EN 9   EN Respondents presented no alternatives to the three options in the key issues document. 
12. VIEWS EXPRESSED PER SECTOR  
12.1. Cold Water Meters for Non-Clea n Water (Directive 75/33/EEC)  
The EU water manufacturing i ndustry does not require harmoni sed legislation for non-clean 
water meters and indicates that voluntary  standardisation can cover any needs. 
OIML indicates that network cl ean-water meters should be incl uded as well as meters for 
irrigation, both having an environmental relevance. 
12.2. Alcohol Meters (Directive 75/765/EEC) 
Two manufacturers of alcohol me ters would wish to include their respective technologically 
advanced instruments in the scope of the direct ive but they do not indi cate any trade barriers. 
Scotch whisky producers indicate that harmoni sation should incorporate and not inhibit 
technological innovation but they do not indicate any trade barriers. 
OIML points to the importance of correctly measuring alc oholic percentage for product 
labelling and taxation.  
12.3. Alcohol Tables (Directive 75/766/EEC) 
OIML points out that the alcohol tables are already availabl e in international standards. The 
current EU directive on alcohol tables doe s not require conformity assessment as a 
prerequisite for free circulati on of products, so it should be maintained although not via the 
Measuring Instruments directive. 
The Czech Republic wants to extend the scope of the tables to below zero °C. 
12.4. Medium and Above-Medium Accuracy Weights (Directiv e 71/317/EEC and 
74/148/EEC) 
The UK local authority (Norfolk) indicates that costs of higher quality weights have become 
lower and this could be considered a form of  technological progress. It favours re-regulation 
(option 3). It also indicates that calibrating all weights at an acceptable accuracy level (class 
E1) would cost £100,000. 
Another UK authority (Trading Standards East Midlands) recognizes that many 
manufacturers and suppliers of weighing equipm ent and weights are pan-European businesses 
and its view is that re-regulation (option 3) offers an opportunity for consistency and 
efficiency. 
The Czech Republic wants to limit the scope to  the lowest accuracy weights: F2 and lower 
classes, i.e. the weights that are actually used in consumer transactions on local markets and 
shops. 
 
EN 10   EN 12.5. Tyre Pressure Gauges for Motor Ve hicles (Directive 86/217/EEC) 
OIML indicates road safety and energy efficien cy as additional reasons to harmonise tyre 
pressure gauges. Tyre pressure gauges are manufactured abroad and Eastern Europe and 
wrong tyre pressure is deemed to  be the cause of 6% of deaths  in road accidents costing an 
estimated € 310 million in 2005. Too low pressure tyres could waste an €200-300 annually on 
petrol consumption per car and add an  extra 1.3 tons of greenhouse gasses. 
A UK authority (Norfolk) has experience that i ndicates that most tyre pressure gauges are 
imported and are not correctly calibrated, which has a detrimental impact on road safety and 
fuel economy, having a major impact on global warming.  
A UK citizen suggests that displays on tyre pres sure gauges should be simplified so that non-
trained users can more easily use them. Harmon isation would allow use by tourists without 
problems. Nor should supplementary indications  be allowed (currently the domain of 
Directive 80/181/EEC on units of measurement) . Also there should be proper information for 
tourists in the UK.  
12.6. Standard Mass of Grain (Directive 74/347/EEC) 
The Czech Republic, referring to Regulation 82 4/2000 on intervention for cereals, wants to 
include the 1L and 1/4L measures in the scope. 
12.7. Calibration of Ship Tanks (Directive 71/349/EEC) 
OIML indicates that calibrating ship tanks may also prevent greenhouse gasses (but it does 
not indicate in which way). 
The Czech Republic indicates that  the directive would need to include definitions of inland 
water vessels and coasters. 
13. CONCLUSION  
From the public consultation it has not emerged th at there are barriers to trade that would 
require harmonisation under Article 95 of the Tr eaty. Nor was any other consideration of an 
overriding policy need requiri ng harmonisation indicated. 
14. FURTHER WORK  
The Commission services have proceded to pr epare an impact assessment concerning the 
three options for the simplification of 8 old approach Directives. 
The Commission services publish this report in line with the Commission policy on better 
regulation in order to summarise the results of the recent consultation process and their 
findings.  The publication of this report is without  prejudice to any subsequent proposal to be 
adopted by the College.