EN    EN EN 
EN    EN  COMMISSION OF THE E UROPEAN COMMUNITIES 
Brussels, 3.12.2008 
SEC(2008) 2909 
  
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 
Accompanying the   
 
Proposal for a 
 
DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PA RLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL  
 
on the repeal of 8 metrology directives 
 
Impact Assessment Summary 
  
[COM(2008) 801 final} 
 
{SEC(2008)2910} 
 
{SEC(2008)2968} 
EN 2   EN This impact assessment concerns the repeal of  8 "Old Approach" metr ology Directives and if 
needed the extension of the scope of Directive 2004/22/EC on measuring in struments. It is an 
item in the Commission Legislative Work Program for 2008 (ENTR/015).  
It concerns 8 metrology directives  in the following 6 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 71/347/EEC)  
- Calibration of Ship Ta nks (Directive 71/349/EEC) 
All but one of these directives are of the so-called optional type . The instruments described in 
each directive must be accepted by Member Stat es and this was useful in the 1970’s when 
there were trade barriers due to differing Memb er State regulations. In  addition to applying 
the directives, Member States are allowed to keep their own national laws containing 
technical specifications.  
Under the conditions of WTO/TBT agreement of  1995 Member States that choose to regulate 
are obliged to base their laws on international standards. National laws will therefore be based 
on international standards, which often have also  been transposed into European standards. 
On top of this the ‘Cassis de Dijon’ jurispru dence by the European Cour t of Justice prohibits 
disproportionate national requirements and oblig es mutual recognition of products legally 
marketed in other Member States. In addition since 1993 the WELMEC type approval agreement has given a framework for inter-gov ernmental cooperation regarding the mutual 
recognition of conformity asse ssment specifically of non-ha rmonised measuring instruments 
based on international standards. 
In line with the Commission’s approach to  simplification (COM(2005)535) the general 
objective is to simplify the acquis of European  law by repealing obsolete legislative acts, 
which have little or no practical impact and therefore have  become irrelevant. The specific 
objective is to simplify the EU acquis in the areas covered by eight old approach metrology 
Directives while maintaining the free circulati on of measuring instrume nts in the internal 
market and not hindering technological progress.  
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 directives without any change 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.  
EN 3   EN Option 3 is to add new annexes for each inst rument 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. 
From the public consultation and an external study it appears that there are no obstacles to 
trade in the 6 sectors covered by  the 8 old approach directives. It is also apparent that the 
directives are less and less used and fully c overed by international st andards. The current 
situation (option 1) has not hampered technological advance and where there is additional national legislation it apparently  fully takes into account mutual  recognition and international 
standards. 
The options are the two possible outcomes of the simplification obj ective: repeal (option 2) or 
re-regulation (option 3). Both would achieve the objective of simplification and therefore 
other criteria are added to compare to them. It  would appear that where there are no reported 
barriers to trade and no other overriding policy n eeds, there only remain the issues of a high 
level of protection versus administrative cost s which are the distingu ishing impacts between 
options. A high level of protect ion is ensured either by national law based on international 
standards (options 1 and 2) or  by harmonisation (option 3). A lternatively, when there are no 
national laws (options 1 and 2)  or when Member States op t out of requiring harmonised 
instruments (option 3), there is no guaranteed  protection and no admi nistrative costs.  
All costs are of an equal magnitude across the op tions, i.e. the protectio n benefits of national 
law come at the cost of low to medium admi nistrative costs which are equal to those of 
harmonisation. Where there are no laws there are no protection benefits and no administrative 
costs. 
Based on the assessment of impacts there is no option that stands out. As there are no barriers 
to trade, option 3 of harmonisation does not offe r any benefit that cannot be achieved either 
by the market in an unregulated context or  by national regulation based on international 
standards taking the concept of mutual reco gnition fully into account. What is more, a 
substantial number of Member States have indi cated that they could opt out of harmonisation 
if the scope of Directive 2004/22/EC on measuri ng instruments is extended which effectively 
compromises the very aim of harmonisation.  
For reasons of simplification and subsidiarity, therefor e, option 2 of repeal without extending 
the scope of Directive 2004/22/EC on measuri ng instruments could be deemed the most 
appropriate.  
This report commits only the Commission's servi ces involved in its pr eparation and does not 
prejudge the final form of any deci sion to be taken by the Commission.  Extension of