Interim Evaluation of the Measuring Instruments Directive

Framework Service Contract for the Procurement of Studies

and other Supporting Services on Commission Impact

Assessments and Evaluations

Lot VI - Interim, final and ex-post evaluations of policies,

programmes and other activities

Interim Evaluation of the Measuring

Instruments Directive

Final report

July 2010

P O Box 159

Sevenoaks

Kent TN14 5WT

United Kingdom

www.cses.co.uk

Ref. Ares(2014)2787902 - 26/08/2014

Interim Evaluation of the Measuring Instruments Directive – Final report

Contents

Table of Contents

SECTION PAGE

Executive summary

1. Introduction 1

1.1 Objectives of the evaluation 1

1.2 Overall approach 1

1.3 Objectives of first findings report 3

1.4 Structure of the report 4

2. Methodology 6

2.1 Description of fieldwork 6

2.2 Interview programme 6

2.3 Market data collection 8

3. Market data analysis 10

3.1. Utility meters - general 10

3.2 MI-001 Water meters 10

3.3 MI-002 Gas meters 11

3.4 MI-003 Electricity meters 11

3.5 MI-004 Heat meters 12

3.6 MI-005 Measuring systems for liquids other then water 12

3.7 MI-006 Automatic weighing instruments 13

3.8 MI-007 Taximeters 14

3.9 MI-008 Material measures 14

3.10 MI-009 Dimensional measuring instruments 16

3.11 MI-010 Exhaust gas analysers 16

3.12 Summary table of market data 17

4. Analysis by sector 20

4.1 MI-001 Water meters 20

4.2 MI-002 Gas meters 21

4.3 MI-003 Electricity meters 21

4.4 MI-004 Heat meters 22

4.5 MI-005 Measuring systems for liquids other then water 23

4.6 MI-006 Automatic weighing instruments 25


Contents

4.7 MI-007 Taximeters 26

4.8 MI-008 Material measures 26

4.9 MI-009 Dimensional measuring instruments 27

4.10 MI-010 Exhaust gas analysers 27

5. Survey analysis 29

5.1 Analysis of notified bodies surveys 29

5.2 Analysis of SMEs survey 35

6. Main findings of the evaluation 41

6.1 Effectiveness of the MID 41

6.2 Impacts 46

6.3 Application and implementation 47

6.4 Strengths and weaknesses 51

7. Conclusions and Recommendations 53

7.1 Overall conclusions 53

7.2 Recommendations 54

APPENDIXES PAGE

A Interview programme 56

B List of references and sources 62

C Statistical correspondence tables 63

D Notified bodies survey questionnaire 65

E Measuring Instruments Analysis Tables 68

F Use of optionality by Member States 100


Abbreviations

List of abbreviations used in the text

AQUA- European Association of water and heat meters manufacturers

AWI – Automatic Weighing Instruments

CAs – Competent Authorities

CECIP - European Committee of Weighing Instruments Manufacturers

CECOD - European Committee of Manufacturers of Petrol Measuring Systems

CEN – European Standardization Committee

CENELEC – European Committee for Electro-technical Standardization

CEO -European Hand Tools Association

EGEA – European Garage Equipment Association

EN – European Norms

ESMIG - European Smart Metering Industry Group

EURELECTRIC/UNIPEDE, Union of the Electricity Industry

FACOGAZ, Association of European Gas Meters Manufacturers

FEVE – European Container Glass Association

MIs – Measuring Instruments

MID – Measuring Instruments Directive 2004/22/EC

MOT – Ministry of Transport. Used to refer to test stations that carry out vehicle tests for road safety

and environmental standards

NAWI – Non-Automatic Weighing Instruments

NB – Notified Bodies

NLF- New Legislative Framework

OIML – International Legal Metrology Organisation

PRODCOM – Products of the European Community – EUROSTAT Database

POS – Points Sale

SSD – Self Service Devices

WELMEC –European Legal Metrology Cooperation

wgMI – European Commission working group on Measuring Instruments


Executive summary

i

This summary contains the main conclusions and the recommendations of the study ‘Interim Evaluation

of the Measuring Instruments Directive’. The study was conducted by the Centre for Strategy &

Evaluation Services (CSES) LLP during the period November 2009 – July 2010 for the European

Commission Directorate General Enterprise and Industry.

I. Introduction

The Directive 2004/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on

measuring instruments (MID) has been operational since October 2006. It ensures the free movement of

measuring instruments in the internal market and applies to the following instruments defined in the

Annexes to the Directive:

• water meters (MI-001);

• gas meters and volume conversion devices; (MI-002)

• active electrical energy meters; (MI-003)

• heat meters; (MI-004)

• measuring systems for continuous and dynamic measurement of quantities of liquids other then

water; (MI-005)

• automatic weighing instruments; (MI-006)

• taximeters; (MI-007)

• material measures; (MI-008)

• dimensional measuring instruments; (MI-009)

• exhaust gas analysers (MI-010).

Under Article 25 of the Measuring Instruments Directive the Commission was invited to report, before

30 April 2011, on the implementation of this Directive on the basis of reports provided by the Member

States, and, where appropriate, to submit a proposal for amendments.

As part of the response of the Commission, an evaluation study was commissioned aiming to compile,

assess and present information on the implementation and functioning of the Directive in terms of its

impacts and application, in order to define the potential for improvement.

The objectives of the evaluation, as set out in the terms of reference, are to:

• Provide a quantified table of approximate figures for each of the 10 sectors and subsectors of the

measuring instruments (MIs) listed.

• Assess, to this point, the effectiveness of the Directive, and more specifically:

o the extent that the Directive contributed to an efficiently operating internal market for the

goods in question

o the extent that the Directive influences technological innovation and to what extent it has

contributed to the development of innovation


Executive summary

ii

o the extent that the Directive achieved its aims with regard to the protection of consumers

and users

o the extent that a two tier market concerning consumer protection and competition has

developed, and to assess if there is difference where Member States have not opted to

require Legal metrological control (optionality)

o the participation of non-government stakeholders in the measuring instruments committee

and their impression as well that of others as regards their participation

o the overall strengths and weaknesses of the Directive

• Assess the impacts of the Directive on markets and European companies in terms of costs or

administrative burdens and of tangible benefits

• Assess the implementation of the Directive in the Member States and identify the barriers to

effective application of the Directive and the ways that such barriers could be overcome

• Identify measures that could be taken to improve the utility of the Directive and the expected role

of the adaptation of the new approach (omnibus) to its implementation

It should be noted that this evaluation did not examine issues related to specific proposals by

stakeholders and the inclusion of additional categories of instruments in the MID. This is an exercise that

falls under the scope of a separate study commissioned by the European Commission.

In order to carry out this assignment, CSES used a combination of research tools including a review of

relevant documents and publications, collection and analysis of market and other data from a range of

public and private sources and 91 interviews with the main stakeholders related to the Directive

(Member States’ competent authorities, industry associations and companies active in sectors covered

by the MID, standardization bodies, SMEs and consumer representatives and legal metrology experts). It

also organised a survey of the notified bodies that conduct the tests for the provision of conformity to

the requirements of the Directive and used the data of the SME panel survey that was organised by the

Commission services.

II. Market of legal metrology instruments covered by the MID

Based on the information and data collected it is estimated that the MID applies to 345 million units of

MIs that are sold annually in the European market with a total sales value of €3.25 billion. Around 300

million units concern the small value category MI-008 instruments (material measures including

measures of length and capacity serving measures). In terms of value, close to 50% of the total market in

terms of sales concerns utility meters (water meters, gas meters, electricity meters and heat meters)

while automatic weighing instruments represent around 17% and material measures 14.3% (see Table

1).


Executive summary

iii

Table 1 – Total size of market covered by the MID

Market size – number

of items sold annually

(000s)

Market size- value

of items sold

annually

(million €s)

Share in total

MIs market

Employees

occupied in

sector

(1000s)

MI-001: Water Meters 18,000 450 13.8% 25

MI-002: Gas Meters &

Conversion Devices 6,900 410 12.6% 30

MI-003: Active Electricity

Energy Meters 14,000 610 18.8% 32

MI-004: Heat Meters 800 290 8.9% 18

MI-005: Measuring Systems

for Liquids other than Water 31.2 240 7.4% 14-16

MI-006: Automatic Weighing

Instr. 21 550 16.9% 25

MI-007: Taximeters 50 25-40 1% 1

MI-008: Material Measures1 300,000 440-490 14.3% 34

MI-009:Dimensional

Measuring Instr. 300-400 70-80 2.3% 7

MI-010: Exhaust Gas

Analysers 25-35 130 4.0% 17.5

Total 345,000 3,250 100% 190

The data collected indicates that there are 900 active manufacturers in one or more of the 10 MI

sectors. Some sectors, mainly the utility meters, are dominated by a few large multinational companies.

In others, such as the automatic weighing instruments or exhaust gas analysers, there are a larger

number of small and medium size enterprises. The total number of employees is estimated at 190,000.

The above number does not include SMEs that operate mainly as distributors, importers of instruments

or provide repair services.

Finally, data collected on the level of trade of MIs suggest that 20-25% of MIs in the EU27 are imported

while 25-30% of the MIs produced in the EU27 are exported to third countries. There is important

variation among the different categories of MIs. Trade levels in both directions are particularly high

(over 50% of total) for the less technology intensive categories of material measures (MI-008) and

dimensional measuring instruments (MI-009) but also for electricity meters (65%). At the same time, the

share of production exported is particularly high in the case of more advanced technology instruments

such as Automatic Weighing Instruments (up to 42% for the sub-category of automatic gravimetric filling

instruments) and in the Gas Meters category (44%) where EU firms are the world leaders.

1 Data refer to all material measures of length in the market. Not only MID certified.


Executive summary

iv

III. Overall findings of the evaluation

Effectiveness of the Directive

The conclusions of the analysis is that, up to this point, the MID has rather successfully provided the

basis for the development of a more efficiently operating internal market through the use of a single

certificate. The contribution of the MID in this respect is recognised by the great majority of

stakeholders (competent authorities, notified bodies, firms) and the current situation is seen as a

significant improvement in relation to the pre-MID period that had been dominated by multiple national

legislations with important differences that posed important trade barriers.

Having said that, the initial period of the implementation of the Directive has been characterised by

problems in a few sectors covered by the MID, that have limited its effectiveness. These include:

• Barriers posed by some national and local authorities by setting additional requirements or, in some

cases, regulations concerning functionality, marking or the use of instruments. In the majority of the

cases, they are issues which are not governed by the MID and concern the use of MIs after they are

placed in the market. In relation to legal metrology instruments, Member States give, in general,

greater priority to consumer protection and other requirements concerning the use of instruments

than any possible obstacles to the smooth operation of the single market. As a result, in a number of

occasions their introduction imposes requirements that limit the benefits of a single MID certificate.

• Controls and requirements applied by a few national authorities that reflect practices of old national

regulations that indicate a possible problem of understanding – or possibly accepting - what the

implementation of a new approach Directive entails.

• Limited information on the applicability and requirements of the MID for a number of

manufacturers and, more often, importers of measuring instruments. However, the evidence

collected does not indicate that the problem is particularly acute.

• Sector specific problems that have a negative impact on the market for fuel dispensers and other

liquid dispensing systems. They concern the limitations in combining new and old components for

upgrading existing instruments or systems (mix and match problem). The industry reports a negative

impact on the operation of the market in some Member States and a limited uptake of MID-certified

instruments as a result. Furthermore, small size producers of self-service devices or components

appear to be in an unfavourable position against large firms that develop and sell complete systems.

Issues related to the use of modules and sub-assemblies are also reported in the case of automatic

weighing instruments and for utility meters although there is no evidence of significant negative

impacts on the operation of the market.

With the exception of the sub-assembly issue, most of the problems mentioned could be considered as

symptoms of an initial “teething period” and it should be expected that the number of problems will

reduce as experience builds up.

Parameters and barriers that have an impact on the effective implementation of the Directive

The quality of market surveillance appears to be one of the important concerns of industry and it is an

area where most authorities recognise that their effort has so far been rather limited. Up to now most

authorities concentrate on checking whether the CE+M mark is properly affixed and that the necessary


Executive summary

v

paperwork is conducted. According to a few reported cases even such typical tests are not always

properly performed.

The absence of proper surveillance appears to be the main reason for almost all, still limited, occasions

of unfair competition reported. The authorities in most Member States refer to limited resources

available as the underlying reason for the ineffective control of the market. Still, there is no evidence of

a particularly problematic situation either in terms of consumer protection or in terms of the gradual

development of a single market.

A second parameter is the operation of the notified bodies in the assessment of conformity and the

overall certification procedures. Some notified bodies tend to use WELMEC guidance documents as if

they represent regulations and, in a few occasions, they present obstacles to companies that follow

alternative approaches. At the same time notified bodies are also reported as rather inconsistent in their

operation with important variations in the capacity to carry the necessary tests, especially those in the

new Member States. Given their key role in the conformity assessment procedure and their contact with

manufacturers, such problems can create confusion in the application of the Directive.

On the positive side, the use of normative documents developed based of OIML recommendations have

contributed on the implementation Directive and their use is considered appropriate by almost all

stakeholders. Most of these documents were used even before the MID and they help to keep Europe in

line with the rest of the world. They reduce the risk of creating technical barriers and help international

trade. Problematic areas do exist though and the level of harmonization with European standards –

where they exist – is still not complete for some categories of instruments.

Despite the problems related to the use of its guidance documents by the notified bodies, WELMEC2 has

a positive contribution towards the effective implementation of the Directive. The guidance

documents issued cover the full range of activities and address all different stakeholders involved. The

working groups of WELMEC provide the appropriate forum for the identification of any issue and

problem related to the implementation of the MID and for the formulation of the relevant proposals for

consideration based on the broadest possible consensus.

Role of the Directive in promoting or inhibiting technological innovation

The empirical evidence indicates that in most categories of instruments the MID has not affected

technological innovation to any material extent. In general the MID appears to be technologically

neutral allowing for a level playing field. The economic incentives for easier access to a broader market

was the only benefit stated and only in a few occasions.

A few areas where rather minor problems in relation to technological innovation are still present:

• A common problem seems to be the restrictive use by the notified bodies of WELMEC guidelines

and the constraints that almost all stakeholders see in accepting alternative approaches to conform

2 WELMEC –European Legal Metrology Cooperation is the organisation of national authorities in legal

metrology at which meetings some stakeholders participate.


Executive summary

vi

to the essential requirements of the Directive. They are seen as posing more stringent and limiting

requirements to the firms that chose not to follow the guidelines, beyond what companies and

some trade associations consider justified.

• The essential requirements for some categories of MIs are seen as restrictive or prescriptive.

Industry and some of the competent authorities refer to limitations in terms of the classes and types

of instruments allowed (e.g. exhaust gas analysers only for cars – MI-010) and concerning the

opportunities for market trials in the case of fuel dispensers (MI-005).

• An issue specific to the utility sector concerns the use of smart meters where the dominant view is

that the current provisions of the Directive do not provide an optimal solution in view of the

technological and market developments in place. However, the smart meters regulation has

implications than go further than purely metrological issues. As a result, further experience and

analysis is necessary.

Evidence of the development of two tier market and unfair competition – role of optionality

The optionality clause of the MID has been used by a number of countries (See Appendix F) although,

still, for 90% of the total3 category of MIs a national legislation in accordance to the MID is in place.

According to the most recent reports, 17 countries have opted out from the Directive for one or more

instruments. The main reasons for selecting to opt out concern either the absence of specific categories

of legal metrology instruments from the market or the consideration that the administrative burdens

imposed would be much higher than the additional level of consumer protection provided.

While a number of stakeholders have expressed their disagreement with the principle, the evidence is

that, until now, there have been no problems in terms of unfair competition or a two-tier market. The

only area where optionality was linked with unfair competition concerned taximeters but, again, the

evidence was limited.

Two tier markets – wherever present - do not seem to be a result of the use of the optionality principle.

Two tier markets are present for some categories of instruments that are also used for non-legal

metrology purposes (e.g. weighing instruments, material measures, dimensional measuring), for

example as parts of the production process of companies or in households. Such non-legal metrology

instruments may be identical to instruments covered by the MID, but their placement in the market is,

according to article 2 of the MID, not controlled by national regulation as far as metrological issues are

concerned. Accordingly, parallel markets shall be expected to continue in the future irrespective of the

MID and the use or not of optionality without posing any problems to the operation of the MIs market.

Contribution to the protection of consumers and users – role of optionality and other factors

The evidence available indicates that the Directive has, in most cases, not led to significant changes to

the level of consumer protection provided and there is no evidence that optionality has jeopardized

consumer protection. On the contrary, in a few countries – mainly new Member States - the

implementation of the Directive has helped to increase the standards applicable to some MIs.

3 857 of the total of 972 reflecting 27 Member States multiplied by 36 categories or subcategories of MIs.


Executive summary

vii

Consumer protection problems, where applicable, are primarily connected with the poor market

surveillance in some countries or MI sectors that allows the entry and circulation of non-certified

products in the single market.

Effective representation in the Measuring instruments decision making procedures

The general picture is that the MID decision-making procedures are open for input, comment and

contribution to all interested stakeholders. There is no evidence that interested parties have been

excluded or that they did not have the opportunity to raise issues properly. Among the sectors that are

not directly represented (mainly concerning categories MI-007 to MI-010) the interviewed companies

did not consider this as problematic although there is still scope for greater level of representation.

As far as representation of SMEs and consumers are concerned, the MID appears to be low priority for

their representatives and no concerns or issues were raised.

Impacts in terms of costs or administrative burdens and tangible benefits

The implementation of the Directive has provided opportunities for cost cuttings based on the use of a

single certificate. In some cases, the establishment of quality systems have also brought financial

benefits on a medium to long-term horizon.

But at the same time, there is evidence that the introduction of the MID has led to increases in the fees

charged by notified bodies due to more thorough tests and that it has in general extended the length of

the certification procedures. In contrast, the envisaged competition among notified bodies has not

developed yet. Based on the information provided, the fees charged by notified bodies for a single

certificate have increased in some countries by up to 30%.

Brought together, the introduction of the MID seems to have led to some cost savings in relation to the

previous situation. These savings appear rather moderate and tend to be unevenly distributed,

favouring firms with higher level of exports and with presence in multiple markets. Firms that are only

active in the respective domestic markets may experience higher administrative costs depending on the

type of instrument and the conformity assessment procedures followed.

Impact on SMEs

The analysis indicates that small and medium size firms are, in general, neither advantaged nor

disadvantaged as a result of the implementation of the MID. In two sectors (MI-005 and MI-006) the

industry representatives argue that the absence of a modular approach (certification of components or

sub-assemblies) may operate against SMEs that focus on the development of only parts/components

that cannot be certified. However, the SME survey did not provide strong evidence of widespread

problem. Only one out of 286 respondents made such reference.

More generally, the results of the survey do not indicate that SMEs experience barriers to entry in the

market for MIs. Nor was there any evidence that the introduced conformity assessment procedures are

particularly burdensome.


Executive summary

viii

Expected role of the adaptation of the new approach (New Legislative Framework - NLF) to the

implementation of the MID

The adaptation of the new approach (New Legislative Framework) is expected to bring changes in the

implementation of the Directive.

On the positive side, the NLF is expected to improve the level of market surveillance based on the

requirement for the development of a surveillance plan by member states. Furthermore, the new

information exchange obligations posed by the NLF should help address the inconsistencies among the

140 notified bodies described earlier. However, it remains unclear how the NLF provisions will be

implemented given that many competent authorities refer to limited resources as the main underlying

issue.

On the possibly more negative side, changes in the language requirements as a result of the NLF may

create additional costs to manufacturers. The NLF creates a possibility – although not a requirement -

that Member States’ authorities may require full documentation in their own language. Such a

requirement may pose additional costs to companies and - probably in only few extreme cases - may

lead firms that trade only a small number of instruments in a Member State to exit the specific market.

Main strengths and weaknesses of the Directive

Based on the analysis, the evaluation identified the following strengths and weaknesses in the

implementation of the MID up to now.

Strengths

• The introduction of the MID has successfully provided the basis for the development of a more

efficiently operating internal market through the use of single certificate that allows the placement

of MIs in the market.

• Overall, the MID has proven a technologically neutral directive and has not created obstacles to

technological innovation. There are some issues related to the use of software in some categories of

instruments and of smart meters in utilities, but these are well documented through WELMEC

working groups and efforts to identify the appropriate solution – through guidance documents,

standards or amendments are examined.

• The optionality principle appears to be a strong point of the Directive. There is, at least up to now,

no evidence that its use by Member States has led to unfair competition or to a two-tier market in

the area legal metrology instruments. At the same time, the flexibility provided to Member States

appears to be an important factor in achieving agreement in key areas.

• The level of representation of the most affected stakeholders appears appropriate and, while

industry does not have voting rights, WELMEC working groups and the MID working group are

sufficiently open and provide the opportunity for the issues to be properly raised and argued.

• The involvement of WELMEC and the various working groups represent also an important asset for

the successful implementation of the Directive. It provides a forum for identifying and discussing the

various technical issues and other problems. The guidance documents issued are considered by the


Executive summary

ix

majority of stakeholders as useful tools for the interpretation of the essential requirements and the

conformity assessment procedures by manufacturers and notified bodies.

Weaknesses

• The low level of market surveillance is one of the key weaknesses of the implementation of the MID

to this point and it appears to be the main reason for the development of two tier markets and

unfair competition in some sectors and some Member states.

• The inconsistency of notified bodies in the interpretation of essential requirements and WELMEC

guidance documents also represents a weak point of the implementation of the Directive. As it

appears, the capacity of the 140 notified bodies varies and they tend to follow different approaches.

This leads to great variation in the experience – in terms of time and cost - of manufacturers during

the certification process. The issuing of WELMEC guidance documents only in the English language is

proposed by some bodies as contributing, to a certain extent, to these inconsistencies.

• The level of information concerning the Measuring Instruments Directive is problematic and a

number of companies– manufacturers and more often importers – are still not properly informed of

the applicability and requirements of the Directive. The absence of information should however be

seen in the context of a perceived limited impact and relevance of the Directive in some sectors (e.g.

capacity serving measures, taximeters) and the low priority attached by the respective trade

associations.

• The information exchange among competent authorities and notified bodies in relation to

instruments certified or rejected is still problematic and represents an additional barrier towards

more effective market surveillance.

IV. Recommendations

Based on the results of the evaluation, it is concluded that no actions toward amending basic provisions

of the MID are necessary.

In relation to the issues raised by the European Parliament, there is no apparent need for changes in

relation to the optionality principle, as there is no evidence that it has distorted competition or

created two-tier markets of legal metrology instruments.

At a more practical level, the utility and effectiveness of the Directive can be improved if actions by the

Commission and/or the Member States in relation to the following issues take place:

• Improve the coordination and strengthen the quality of accredited notified bodies by enhancing

information and experience sharing and providing training or other relevant support in relation to

the application of conformity tests, the interpretation of the essential requirements and the use

of WELMEC guidance documents. The provision of translated versions of the various WELMEC

guidance documents could also play a positive role. If WELMEC does not have the necessary

resources, Member States should probably take this responsibility. The New Legislative Framework

is expected to provide the legal context for information and experience exchange but the

Commission and the Member States should aim to promote such activities and bring together the

notified bodies and experts from WELMEC even before the NLF regulation is applied.


Executive summary

x

• Strengthen the effectiveness of market surveillance by developing and implementing market

surveillance plans and ensuring that the necessary resources to implement these plans are

earmarked. The Commission can help in sharing results and experience among the relevant bodies

through the organisation of targeted discussion groups or forum. In this regard, it would also be

helpful if Competent Authorities prepare annual plans including their objectives and the resources

to be used and to share these plans with each other and the Commission.

• Increase the level of information exchange among competent authorities concerning instruments

certified or rejected. The existing system for accessing EC type certificates through the web pages of

13 Member States represents a useful tool in facilitating exchange of information among Member

States authorities and notified bodies. The development of a single database bringing together all

information on certification activity could provide the most effective and coherent solution. It is still

not the only possible option, provided that Member States make the information available and

adopt a consistent approach for its presentation.

• In relation to that, it is also recommended that a common certificate format for each category of MI

be developed– possibly by WELMEC – to be adopted by all notified bodies.

• The Commission and the Member States should consider proportionate measures to increase the

level of awareness of the Directive by manufacturers and importers through the implementation of

targeted information campaigns in cooperation of key stakeholders at the European and national

level.

• Given the presence of specific gaps in the representation of some of the sectors covered by the MID

(i.e. gas analysers, capacity serving measures) the Commission should repeat its invitation to other

relevant European trade associations. The European Garage Equipment Association and the

European Container Glass Federation are two such stakeholders identified during the course of the

study.

Finally, the findings of the evaluation indicate the presence of a number of issues concerning specific

categories of instruments. The most problematic area is the combination of old and new components

for liquid dispensers other than water (MI-005). The recommendation of the evaluators is that the

Commission and the Member States attempt to identify a solution to the problem rather than simply

to wait for the end of the transition period. It is quite possible that the end of the transition period will

not lead to the solution of the reported problems. It is outside the scope and the expertise of the

evaluators to propose a specific solution – including an amendment of the MID, a guidance by the

Commission or WELMEC or some other fix - given the technical character of the issue. The existing

representation bodies, including WELMEC and the working group of the Directive, appear to provide the

appropriate forum for discussing and addressing this issue and this process is already ongoing.

Interim Evaluation of the Measuring Instruments Directive – Final report Section

Introduction

1

1

This document contains the final report submitted by the Centre for Strategy & Evaluation Services (CSES)

LLP in respect to the assignment: ‘Interim Evaluation of the Measuring Instruments Directive’.

1.1 Objectives of the evaluation

The objectives of the evaluation, as set out in the terms of reference, were to:

• Provide a quantified table of approximate figures for each of the 10 sectors and subsectors of the

measuring instruments (MIs) listed with focus on establishing information on turnover, trade,

employment and number of firms active, including manufacturers, importers and distributors.

• Assess, to this point, the effectiveness of the Directive, and more specifically:

o the extent that the Directive contributed to an efficiently operating internal market for the

goods in question

o the extent that the Directive influences technological innovation and to what extent it has

contributed to the development of innovation

o the extent that the Directive achieved its aims with regard to the protection of consumers

and users

o the extent that a two tier market concerning consumer protection and competition have

developed and if there is difference in the case of Member States have not opted to require

Legal metrological control (optionality)

o the participation of non-government stakeholders in the measuring instruments committee

and their impression as well that of others as regards their participation

o the overall strengths and weaknesses of the Directive

• Assess the impacts of the Directive on markets and European companies in terms of costs or

administrative burdens and of tangible benefits.

• Assess the implementation of the Directive in the Member States and identify the barriers to

effective application of the Directive and the ways that such barriers could be overcome.

• Identify measures that could be taken to improve the utility of the Directive and the expected role

of the adaptation of the New Legislative Framework to its implementation.

1.2 Background to the evaluation – key issues raised by the European Parliament

The MID Directive was initially proposed by the Commission in 2000. It is a New Approach Directive that

is based on the adoption of essential requirements applying to a range of devices and systems with a

measuring function. It covered 10 categories of measuring instruments and intended to abolish the 17

corresponding old approach Directives. The MI covered devices and systems with a measuring function

concerning water meters (MI-001), gas meters and volume conversion devices (MI-002), active electrical

energy meters (MI-003), heat meters (MI-004), measuring systems for continuous and dynamic

measurement of quantities of liquids other then water (MI-005), automatic weighing instruments (MI-

006), taximeters (MI-007), material measures (MI-008), dimensional measuring instruments (MI-009)

and exhaust gas analysers (MI-010). The MID intended to harmonise the technical rules across the EU


Introduction

1

2

while the instrument manufacturers were given the opportunity to develop and get accreditation for

quality systems that would allow them to carry out the initial verification themselves rather than having

to use the services of Authorities. It required the Member States to adopt a common system of

Conformity Assessment.

Following a four year period of readings in European Parliament and Council and two amended

proposals by the Commission, the Council and the European Parliament adopted the Directive on

Measuring instruments (MID) in 2004 (Directive 2004/22/EC) that came into effect on the 30 October

2006. Member states were given a period of two years – until 30 April 2006 – to transpose the Directive

into national legislation.

This interim evaluation of the Measuring Instruments Directive supports the European Commission in

fulfilling the requirement set by the revision clause of the Directive proposed by the European

Parliament asking for a report in the implementation of the Directive before 30 April 2011. This revision

clause was motivated by a number of concerns of the Parliament that are addressed in the evaluation.

These concerns are described in brief below.

Key issues raised by European Parliament related to the implementation of the Directive

Use of optionality principle and impacts on single market and consumer protection

The first issue flagged by the European Parliament concerned one of the distinguishing features of the

MID, namely the presence of the ‘optionality clause’ that allows Member States to choose for which

tasks they require legal metrological control in which case only instruments conforming with the

Directive may be used. Where a Member State does not require legal metrological control, it cannot

impose any other controls and may not place barriers to any instrument to circulate freely in the

market. The concerns of the European Parliament in relation to optionality was that as some Member

States may consider that legislation is not necessary in their territory this may lead to unequal consumer

protection. Furthermore, the fact that legal metrological control is not required for all conceivably

possible uses means that there is a possibility of a dual market to develop consisting of measuring

instruments conforming to the MID and other instruments. In the opinion of Parliament, this may lead

to unfair competition between manufacturers and importers that supply to the regulated markets with

those that supply to the unregulated markets. Furthermore, the optionality clause was also considered

as possibly creating unequal treatment to consumers in the different Member States given the

application of different standards.

The evaluation study examined in depth the possible issues linked with optionality - development of

dual markets, unfair competition, consumer protection, problems related to market surveillance.

Technological innovation

A second issue related to the role of the Directive in promoting or hindering innovation and

technological change. While the new approach performance requirements are intended to provide

flexibility to manufacturers and enhance technological innovation, there were concerns raised by the

Parliament as to the extent that the rapid pace of technological change in the measuring instruments

generally, and in some particular sectors and sub-sectors, had been adequately taken into consideration

in the setting of the essential requirements.


Introduction

1

3

Representation in the Measuring instruments committee

A third issue was the role and the structure of the Measurement Instruments Committee. The main

concern was whether level of representation of industry associations and other stakeholders in the

decision making procedures was adequate. Following Article 15 of the Directive, the MIs Committee is

made up of the relevant authorities from the Member States. Other parties such as industry, non-

governmental organisations or non-Member States stakeholders do not have a formal role in the

Committee even if they have a clear stake in the Directive. However, the Committee is required to

consult with representatives of interested parties.

Application of conformity assessment procedures

A final issue raised by the Parliament concerned the application of the conformity assessment

procedures and the extent to which there has been a consistent application of the conformity

assessment procedures among Member States and whether there were deviations from the format

proposed in Council Decision 93/465/EEC. However, since then the implementation of the Omnibus

process to adapt the MID to Decision 768/2008/EC (New Legislative Framework) is expected to address

this points of criticism by creating a common framework for the marketing of goods and by

standardising procedures horizontally.

The above questions of the European Parliament are addressed in this study as part of the key

evaluation questions of utility, effectiveness and impact of the Directive.

1.3 Overall Approach

The approach adopted for the organisation of the Evaluation of the Measuring Instruments Directive

followed three stages:

Phase 1: Preparatory Tasks – Phase 1 included a set-up meeting and various preparatory tasks including

Commission interviews, a review of available documents, and review of potential external reports and

data sources, attendance at a working group meeting. It was completed with the submission of an

inception report presenting in more detail the methodology and the tools (interview programme,

interview checklists, questionnaires and data sources) that were during phase two of the study. The

Inception report was submitted on the 14th

of December 2009 and was approved by the Commission

with comments.

Phase 2: Fieldwork – Phase 2 involved the purchase of external market reports as agreed, carrying out

the interview and survey programme and an analysis of each sector based on information collected.

There was also an overall assessment of the implementation of the MID. It concluded with a first

findings report outlining initial findings and recommendations;

Phase 3: Analysis and Final Report – during the final phase, the research findings were subject to

further analysis based on the comments of the Steering Committee. A draft final report was prepared

and submitted on the 25th

of June 2010 and the key findings and recommendation of the evaluation

were presented during the working group meeting on 1 July 2010 in Brussels. The feedback and

comments received have been integrated in this final version of the report.


Introduction

1

4

The following diagram summarises the methodological approach and work plan used for the study.

1.4 Structure of the report

The report is structured as follows:

Section 1: Introduction – presents the objectives of the evaluation

Section 2: Methodology – presents the approach adopted for examining the key evaluation questions

and the methods and tools used for the collection of data and information and for analysis

Section 3: Market data analysis – presents approximate figures for each of the sectors and subsectors

of the measuring instruments.

Section 4: Analysis by sector - Presents an analysis of the information and data collected from the

interview programme and the literature review for each measuring instrument sector in relation to the

key evaluation questions.

Section 5: Survey analysis - Presents an analysis of the two surveys, of notified bodies and of SMEs

Phase 1

Preparatory Tasks

•Set-up meeting

•Participation in working

group meeting

•Analysis of key documents

•Review of available data

sources

•Development of

methodology and research

tools

•Preparation of inception

report

•Phase 1 review meeting

Phase 2

Data collection,

interviews and

analysis

Phase 3

Delivery and final

report

•Completion of analysis

and validation of results

•Preparation of final report

•Presentation to

Commission staff and MID

stakeholders

•Review of documents and

literature

•Collection of data and

preliminary analysis

•Interview programme

•Progress report

•Participation in Working group

meeting of 11 March

•Analysis of findings and

provisional conclusions

• Preparation of first finding

report

Inception report

14 December 2009

First findings report

28 May 2010

Final report

25 June


Introduction

1

5

Section 6: Overall findings of the evaluation – Provides a synthesis of the findings of the study and

addresses the key evaluation questions posed in the terms of reference.

In this section we present the conclusions of the study in relation to the key evaluation questions. The

effectiveness, impact and implementation of the Directive – especially in relation to the issues raised by

the European Parliament – are addressed based on the findings presented in the previous sections

Section 7: Overall conclusions and recommendations – Presents the overall conclusions of the analysis

in relation to the key evaluation questions and presents a set of recommendations for moving forward

The main body of the report is supported by a list of Appendixes that include:

Appendix A - Interview programme by type of stakeholders and category of MIs covered

Appendix B – List of the documents and other sources reviewed

Appendix C – Correspondence table of EUROSTAT PRODCOM database classification codes with the

measuring instruments categories

Appendix D – Notifies bodies survey questionnaire

Appendix E – Analysis of key evaluation questions by category of MIs

Appendix F - information on the use of optionality by the Member States


Methodology

2

6

In this section we present the work conducted during the second phase of the study including the

interview programme, the survey work and the analysis of the relevant literature.

2.1 Description of fieldwork

Phase 2 of the assignment involved carrying out the core tasks of the project. These tasks included

activities focusing on the different categories of measuring instruments and activities that cover the

project overall.

Table 2.1 – Main elements of fieldwork

For each category of MIs Overall

- Literature review of relevant documents

submitted by trade associations and other

stakeholders

- Data collection based on market reports,

statistical databases, trade associations and

other sources

- Interviews with WELMEC working groups’

convenors, trade associations and companies

from each MI sector

- Literature review

- Interviews with competent authorities,

WELMEC working group convenors, standard

bodies’ representatives

- Survey of MID accredited notified bodies

- SME panel survey on the implementation of

the Directive

For each category of measuring instruments, we carried out an analysis of the relevant literature and

the interview programme including trade associations (if existing), manufacturers and users. Twelve

sectors were examined separately for the 10 groups of MIs covered by the MID. Fuel dispensers (petrol

pumps) that fall under MI-005 and tapes/dip sticks under MI-008 were examined separately due to the

presence of trade associations representing these subsectors.

The literature review on each sector concerned information and documents identified in Phase 1, any

reports we received from stakeholders during the fieldwork, and any other documents from the

members of the working group of Measuring Instruments (wgMI) were made available through CIRCA.

Additional documents concerning some of the categories of MIs as a result of a web search.

Data collection and analysis was, depending on the sector, based on the combination of market reports

purchased in the beginning of Phase 2, data from EUROSTAT, information from trade association and

other industry representatives and the Member States’ legal metrology authorities.

In response to the study requirements, CSES aimed to collect figures on turnover, employment size and

number of firms for each sector of MIs analyzed at the European Union (EU27) level. However, data was

not available for all sectors and all categories. In this case, estimates were made and the underlying

assumptions and calculations presented.

2.2 Interview programme

The interview programme included telephone – mainly – and a few face to face discussions with a

number of different stakeholders including Member States competent authorities, Trade Associations of

manufacturers or importers wherever available (primarily at the European level), individual

manufacturers, importers and users (e.g. utility firms). It also included European and international

standard bodies, members of WELMEC working groups and representatives of SMEs and consumers.


Methodology

2

7

The initial target of the interview programme was 100-112 interviews including 4-5 interviews per MI

sector. The preparatory work in Phase 1 and the additional search during the fieldwork identified 127

interview targets from industry/trade associations and firms (manufacturers and/or importers) ranging

from 6 to 17 per sector (the detailed list is presented in Appendix C). All these targets were contacted by

email or telephone in an attempt to identify the appropriate contact person.

By the end of the fieldwork period 91 interviews were completed (see Table 2.1). In terms of the

interviews with competent authorities most MS were covered by at least one interview with the

exception of five that declined our invitation. All interviews with the relevant WELMEC working groups’

convenors and standard bodies (CEN and CENELEC) were also completed.

One issue was the geographical distribution of the companies in each sector. The objective of the

interview programme was to achieve a broad geographical coverage and avoid interviewing more than

one company from the same country. The target list (see Appendix A) covered companies across Europe.

However, in some sectors the interview participation rates were very low. This was particularly the case

among companies in Eastern Europe countries, possibly due to language constraints. As a result, in some

sectors there is a focus on companies from old member states.

Table 2.1 - Summary of interview program

Interviewees Total contacted Completed

Declined/no

answer

Standard bodies 5 5 0

MS competent authorities 33 284 5

WELMEC working groups and secretariat 8 8 0

SME representatives 1 1 1

Consumer associations 1 0 1

Trade associations and

manufacturers/importers/users

- M-001 water meters 15 5 10

- M-002 gas meters 9 7 3

- M-003 electricity meters 9 4 5

- M-004 heat meters 7 5 2

- M-005 other liquid non-water 17 4 13

- M-005 petrol pumps 14 7 7

- M-006 AWI 17 4 13

- M-007 taximeter 9 4 5

- M-008 tapes/dipsticks 11 3 8

- M-008 cap serving measures 6 3 3

- M-009 dimensional measure 11 4 7

- M-010 exhaust gas analyser 17 2 15

Total 190 91 99

Notified bodies survey

4 Two cases are based on written responses provided by DG Enterprise.


Methodology

2

8

Separately to the interview programme, an electronic survey of the 140 accredited notified bodies was

organised. The questionnaire (see Appendix D) was available in five languages

Thirty nine (39) responses of Notified Bodies had been received by 30 April representing, according to

our experience, a good response rate for this type of survey (28%). It provides an extensive coverage of

countries, MIs sectors and activity levels. The results of the survey are presented in Section 5.1.

SME survey

An additional source of input was the SME test panel survey organised by the Commission. The

responses of 286 SMEs were forwarded to CSES and provided additional input in relation to the key

evaluation of the impact of the Directive on SMEs. The results of the survey are presented in Section 5.2.

2.3 Market data collection

A key task of the study concerned the estimation of the market size, employment size, number of firms

and level of trade of the MIs covered by the Directive and of other instruments that could also be

included.

CSES used a number of sources to bring together data concerning the size of the market of MIs:

• Market research reports on specific categories of MIs providing data on the global and European

and national market size, market trends and main manufacturers by type of instrument. CSES

purchased the Multi Utility Meter Report Ed 7 2009 of ABS Research and the European Garage

Equipment market study of Leo Impact Consulting concerning Exhaust Gas Analysers.

• Data from trade associations and from manufacturers related to market size of instruments

manufactured or traded by the companies they represent. We asked trade associations and

manufacturers about the availability of data on the respective MIs covered. A few of them provided

exact data or estimates of the size of the market. The interviews also provided information on

average life cycle and average price of MIs. This data was used where official estimates were not

available.

• Data from legal metrology authorities (including the online database on MID certifications) and

concerning the number of national and EC type approvals, verifications and re-verifications and

inspections covering specific measuring instruments both covered and not covered by the MID5.

• European databases on production, sales and trade volumes and values. EUROSTAT maintains data

of production volumes and values (PRODCOM Annual data for period 1995-2008)6 and trade

volumes and values (External and Internal trade statistics7 for period 1995-2008) for the EU27 at an

5 For example CECOD provided data on the size of the market of industrial measuring systems and retail measuring

systems for gasoline (MI-005) that were included in Annex 4 of the proposal of WELMEC working group 10.

Similarly, the report of the Ministry of Economics of Latvia provides data on some of the MIs produced or

circulated in the national market following the requirements of the Directive. 6 Eurostat (2009), PRODCOM database,

http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/prodcom/data/tables_excel 7 Eurostat (2009), External and internal trade database,

http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/external_trade/introduction


Methodology

2

9

eight-digit product classification level that generally fits with the product sectors of the MID. During

the first phase of the study we developed a correspondence table of the different classification

codes used by the statistical databases and the 12 sectors of MIs (see Appendix D).

Priority was given to data provided by market research reports as the most reliable source of

information. Data from trade associations was also given priority when available. The remaining two

sources were used as alternatives with rather reduced reliability. Verification data was provided from

only some Member States and were not always consistent in the coverage of the different sectors.

Furthermore, in many cases verifications were based on samples and it was not always possible to

derive proper estimates. In the case of EUROSTAT data the correspondence between sectors and

product codes was not always very clear and there were many overlapping areas. Furthermore, the

derived unit costs were in some cases very different from what industry or desk research would

indicate. In all cases, there was an effort to cross-check with other sources of information. An important

complication is that in a number of categories of MIs covered by the Directive the production volumes

and values made available did not concern MIs used only for trade purposes. Particularly, under MI-008

(material measures) and MI-009 (Dimensional measuring instruments) large part of the market concerns

household uses or other non-trade-related activities outside the scope of the MID. It was not always

possible to differentiate between the two uses and most trade associations did not have relevant data.

As a result, the data presented for some categories provide estimates of the total size of the sector and

some upper limits of the MID related market.


Market data analysis

3

10

In this section, we present the results of the market data analysis. Approximate figures are provided for

the total size of the market in terms of annual turnover and number of units sold, number of

manufacturers and, wherever available, employment size. For some categories of measuring instruments

data concerning imports and exports are also provided.

3.1 Utility meters - general

Data for the market of utility meters (MI-001-MI-004) are extracted from the ABS market research

report. According to the report, the majority of companies in the sector are active in more than one of

the four categories of measuring instruments. There is a strong concentration of the four sectors with a

few large multinational manufacturers dominating most of the markets. In a few Member States

domestic suppliers dominant are important. The total utility meter industry occupies, according to the

ABS report, 30,000 to 40,000 employees. The following table summarises the position of the most

important participants in the market.

Company Employees Turnover

(million €) Water Gas Electricity Heat

Ranking (in terms of

market share in the

utility sector)

Elster (DE) 7,500 1,980 x x x 1

Itron (USA) 8,500 1,700 x x x x 2

Landis+Gyr (CH) 5,070 1,083 x x x x 3

Sensus (USA) 4,000 800 x x x x 4

Diehl (DE) 12,0008 2,000

8 x x 5

Kamstrup (DK) 650 126 x

Iskra (CZ) n.a n.a. x

Apator (PL) 1,700 90 x x

ZPA (CZ) n.a n.a x

AEM (RO) 1,400 n.a x

Maddalena (IT) n.a n.a x

Zenner (DE) n.a n.a x x

Bruno Janz (PT) n.a n.a x x

Watteau (FR) n.a n.a x

Metron (PL) n.a n.a x x

Source: ABS research report

3.2 MI-001 - Water meters

According to the ABS report, in 2008 Europe had an installed base of 157 million water meters, with

annual demand at around 18 million units at a total value of €447 million. Residential water meters

account for €290million (11.5 million units) while commercial and industry the remaining €157 million

but only 0.7 million units as they tend to be priced much higher. Europe imports around 10% of the total

demand in meters, mainly from China while European manufacturers export around the same amount

to the CIS, North America and the Middle East.

8 Data for Diehl concern all sectors the company is active and not only utility meters.



3

11

AQUA, the trade association of water and heat meters has 12 members, all of which are manufacturers

of significant size. The main suppliers of water meters in Europe are Elster, Itron and Sensus that

together occupy around 20,000 employees and control around 55% of the total share of the market. A

second tier of water measures manufacturing companies includes Diehl and Zenner followed by a

number of smaller companies that are mainly present in their respective national markets. These

include Bruno Janz (PT), Watteau (FR), Poworgaz and Metron (Poland) and Maddalena (IT).

3.3 MI-002 - Gas Meters and volume conversion devices

According to the ABS report, Europe has an installed gas meter customer base of around 112 million gas

meters. Annual demand for gas meters is expected to rise from EUR 357 million (6.9 million units) in

2008 to EUR 411 million (7.6 million units) in 2012. Europe is a net exporter of gas meters; in 2007, it

exported over 4.6 million units while only importing less than 450,000 units, mainly from China.

The gas meter market is the most concentrated of the utility meter markets. Two companies, Itron and

Elster are by far the largest producers in Europe representing more than 70% of the market in Germany

(Elster has a 45% share of the market, and Itron 35%) but even up to 94% in Poland. Together they

occupy over 16,000 employees9. Other large size multinational manufacturers (Landis+Gyr and Sensus)

are also present on the European market but they have far smaller market shares, even from domestic

manufacturers like Apator (PL). Romania and Switzerland stand out as two of the only countries where

the two companies do not have a dominant share thanks to AEM Timisoara in Romania and GWF in

Switzerland. In total, there are around 17 companies in Europe that, put together, occupy around 30,000

employees.

3.4 MI-003 - Electricity Meters

There were approximately 302 million electricity meters in Europe in 2008. Annual demand is 14 million

units (€610 million). The level of production of electricity meters exceeds the total demand by around 4

million units, but the region still imports over 7.5 million units, mainly from European manufacturer’s

production facilities in China. Between 2008 and 2012, European demand is expected to grow by 15.8%

in units and 25.8% in value.

The dichotomy between volume and value increase is due to the decisions by a number of governments

to invest in advanced metering systems. As a result, demand for electromechanical and basic electronic

meters should fall from 52% of the total market in 2008 to 14% in 2012, while demand for AMI

(Advanced Measuring Infrastructure) Meters should grow from 20% to 79% over the same period.

The largest manufacturers in Europe are Landis+Gyr (30% of the market in value) and Itron (17%) and

are the dominant participants in most Member States’ markets. Elster has a share of 1.6%. Other

notable participants include the Egyptian El Sewedy through its purchase of Iskra in 2006, and other

national or regional companies such as Apator (Poland), ZPA (45% of the Czech market) and AEM

Timisoara (85% of the Romanian market). Finally, a number of manufacturers provide meters in one

country exclusively, such as ENEL for Italy or Sagem in France. In total, there are around 25

manufacturers in Europe that occupy approximately 32,000 employees.

9 This number refers to the total number of employees and not only to the sector.



3

12

3.5 MI-004 - Heat meters

The installed base of heat meters in Europe in 2008 stood at around 10 million units, with annual

demand at around 800,000 units (value of €290 million). Europe produces most of its demand in heat

meters and exports are relatively few, as there is no large market outside Europe requiring meters of the

quality and technology built in Europe. The market for heat meters is relatively diverse in the EU.

Germany, Poland, Sweden, Denmark and Finland represent over 70% of the European market. During

the last few years the European market for heaters has been rather saturated but experts consider that

a switch from evaporator meters to more technologically advanced ones, especially those with remote

reading capabilities, will boost future demand.

The European market is dominated by Kamstrup (around 47% of the 10 million installed meters), a

company specialising in this category and with around 650 employees. Other companies with important

presence in the sector are the large-scale manufacturers Diehl (22% of the sector), Landis+Gyr (12%) and

Itron (6 %). In total it is estimated around 10 companies are active in the sector in Europe occupying

approximately 18,000 employees10

.

3.6 MI-005 - Measuring systems for liquids other then water

MI-005a – Fuel dispensers

According to the European Committee of Manufacturers of Petrol Measuring Systems (CECOD) there are

currently around 120,000 petrol stations in the EU27 with approximately 300,000 petrol dispensers

installed. CECOD suggests that petrol dispensers have an annual life cycle of 12 years and, based on this

assumption, estimates that the size of the European market on an annual base is around 25,000 systems

with a total value of around €200million based on a unit price of around €8,000. CECOD did not provide

data on imports/exports. Based on PRODCOM data concerning petrol pumps11

the level of imports from

outside Europe does not exceed 3% of the total market size.

In terms of the manufacturing base, CECOD has a total of 21 members of which 10 are producers of fuel

dispensers for petrol stations. Overall no more than 20 companies are active in this sector. There are a

few large size participants including Gilbarco, Tokheim and Dresser Wayne with a presence across

Europe that represent more than 60% of the market. Most other manufacturers are present in only a

few Member States. It is estimated that the main companies in the sector employ around 10,000

employees without referring to importers or local distributors. Furthermore, based on PRODCOM data

on fuel pumps12

around 16% of the production of Europe is exported outside EU while imports represent

no more than 3% of the market.

10 This number refers to the total number of employees of the companies and not only those in the sector. The

actual number is likely to be lower due to the smaller number of units sold in Europe compared to other utility

meters. 11

One dispenser may have more than one pump. 12

Number of dispenser and pumps do not coincide as depending on the arrangement one dispenser may have

more than one pumps for different fuels.



3

13

MI-005b – Other liquid dispensing systems

According to CECOD there are around 35,000 existing installed measuring systems on tanker trucks.13

With an average life cycle for instruments of around 10-12 years, it is estimated that around 3,200 new

MIs enter the market on an annual basis with a total value of around €20million, giving a price per unit

of €6000. Concerning MIs in fixed installations14

CECOD refers to a total installed base of 25,000

instruments across the EU and an annual market of around 3,000 new MIs entering the EU market. Their

reported market value is close to €52.5 million.

However, as in the case of fuel dispensers, the data from national verification from a few countries

indicate that CECOD data may underestimate the total size of the market.

CECOD could not provide data concerning the number of manufacturers and employees occupied in the

sector. Almost all manufacturers belong to the SME category with less than 250 employees, most with

less than 100. There are also a number of very small local companies across Europe that assemble

components that do not have MID certified instruments that are mainly used for non trade purposes.

The estimated number of employees occupied in the sector is around 4,000-6,000.

3.7 MI-006 – Automatic Weighing Instruments

The data provided by the European Committee of Weighing Instruments Manufacturers (CECIP) for the

eight countries15

that are represented by the association indicate a total value of production of AWI in

2008 close to 23,000 units. Around 17,000 were used for legal metrology purposes falling under the

MID. The value of these instruments in 2008 was around €440 million. That represent 15% of the total

production of automatic and non-automatic weighing instruments. According to CECIP, its members

represent 75-80% of the total production in Europe so it can be estimated that the total number of AWI

is around 28,000 and the MID related approximately 21,000 with a total value of €550million, giving a

price per unit of €2750. Based on an average life cycle of approximately 10 years the installed base

should be close to 210,000 instruments.

Concerning the share of different categories of AWI, the data provided by CECIP indicate that

catchweighers represent 42% of the total production (8,750), filling instruments 36% (8,000),

discontinuous and continuous totalisers 19% (4,000) and rail weighbridges 4%(900). The above numbers

are close to that of PRODCOM database which also includes instruments not used for legal metrology.

They indicate a total annual market size of around 15,000 catchweighers and checkweighers, 14,000

filling instruments, 7,000 continuous and discontinuous totalisers and, based on the 4% estimate of

CECIP, 1500 weighbridges.

Concerning the size of the sector, CECIP data suggest the presence of 700 companies active in the

production of automatic and non-automatic weighing instruments. Among those, approximately 100

companies are present in the market with their own original products such as balances and scales for

different applications and in many market segments among which 30-50 produce AWI. In total, the

weighing industry employs around 50.000 people 50% of which are employed by SMEs. CECIP reports

13 System on (un)loading ships, rail, road tankers and systems for refueling aircraft.

14 Systems for cryogenic liquids, milk, liquid and liquefied gases.

15 CZ,UK,DE,FR,NL,PL,SK,IT



3

14

also the presence of 4000 - 5000 very small or micro companies (1-3 employees) that are service

providers, but also occasionally assemble scales in limited editions. Based on the 15% of the AWI sector

we can estimate that the sector occupies 7,500-10,000 employees in Europe.

3.8 MI-007- Taximeters

Concrete data based on market analysis is not available for the taximeter market in Europe. The figures

provided are estimates based on data concerning the number of verifications from the certifying

authorities in some countries and additional information provided by manufacturers.

The data from verifications in some countries (DE, FI, NL, LV, and SLO) and the discussions with

manufacturers indicate an average of one taxi per 1000 inhabitants across Europe (range between 500

in FI to 2300 in NL). Assuming one taximeter per taxi and a total European population of 500 million we

estimate a stock of around 500,000 taximeters in the market. The estimated life cycle of taximeters is

approximately 10 years indicating 50,000 taximeters sold annually in Europe. According to the

information collected, the price of taximeter varies between €200 and €400 in Central and Eastern

Europe countries and close to €800 in Nordic countries. Thus, the value of the taximeter market should

be around €25-40 million.

Member States provided some information on number of companies in the sector based on the number

of MID certificates, and we also carried out interviews. The results indicate the presence of a small

number of manufacturers (still almost all classified as SMEs) in multiple countries – either directly or

through local distributors (and exports outside Europe). The main manufacturers identified in multiple

countries include Digitax (IT), Hale Electronics (AU), Interfacom (ES), Kienzle Argo (DE), ATA (FR).

Together they do not employ more than 500 employees in this area, excluding the various local

distributers. These companies do not specialise in taximeters but may also cover a wide range of

electronic systems related to the transportation and logistics sectors. In addition, in a number of EU

countries there are very small size companies (<25 employees) that – with few exceptions - focus

exclusively on the respective domestic or local markets. In the case of the UK, according to one

interview source, there up to 35 such enterprise of 1-2 employees, with almost none of them selling

MID certified taximeters. More commonly, there are one or two local companies (specialised or not)

whose taximeters compete with those of the domestic manufacturers16

. In total, there are around 50-60

companies in Europe employing less than 1000 employees in total. However, one should also add the

distributors, installers and service providers in each country but it was difficult to obtain any meaningful

estimate.

3.9 MI-008 – Material measures

Material measures of length

Data for the material measures of length have been very limited. PRODCOM and number of national

verifications from a small number of countries were the only sources available. Measuring rods and

tapes coincide with two codes of PRODCOM database (Measuring rods and tapes and divided scales-

Product code 28293975 and Hand held instruments for measuring length-Product code 28293979).

16 We identified such companies in Czech Republic, Finland, Sweden, Greece, Poland, Latvia.



3

15

According to the PRODCOM data17

the total number of units sold in Europe in 2008 was close to 130

million with an estimated value of €290million, giving a price per unit of €2.50. On the basis of a 10 year

life cycle the total installed base is estimated at around 1.3billion units. However, only a small share of

this total volume is used for trade purposes but the Hand Tools Association stated that they do not have

figures on the number of tools subject to metrological control and the interviews did not provide any

further guidance.

In terms of companies, the hand tools association has a total of 22 members under the subgroup

measuring instruments – most of which produce measuring tapes and rods. In addition, the review of

certificates database indicates 15 more companies with at least one MID certificate. Altogether, these

companies occupy in total close to 14,000 employees. Information on SMEs present in the domestic

markets is not available.

Capacity serving measures

Data from European Glass Containers Association (FEVE) indicate that the total volume (in tonnes) of the

production of glass-made containers sold in 2008 was 22.4million tonnes18

of which 1.4million tonnes

concerned tableware (glasses, jars but also bowls etc.). As a very rough estimate this represents 3.5

billion glasses19

. However only a small proportion of these glasses and jars are sold for trading purposes

and are MID-certified. FEVE did not have precise data on the share of production directed towards

containers for trade purposes (thus falling under the MID) in 2008. Inputs from its members suggest that

the share of capacity serving measures that are CE-marked does not exceed 5% of the total production.

This indicates a total volume of 150-200 million capacity serving measures sold across Europe. Although

an installed base may not be a meaningful concept in the case of capacity serving measures, based on an

average lifecycle of 0.7 years the installed base is 250 million units.

In terms of active companies, the overall tableware glass sub-sector (including most of the companies’

manufacturing capacity serving measures) is widely distributed across the EU. One study20

of the sector

indicated that there are 50-60 large installations spread out across the EU along with around 200 small

and medium size firms occupying 20,000 employees. France, Germany, Italy and Austria account for 60%

of EU production with the remainder coming from 16-18 other Member States (EC (2008)). Production

in the new Member States takes mainly in Poland and the Czech Republic, which each produce 5-5½% of

EU output while Slovakia accounts for 3% of EU output. An important part of the domestic market is also

served by imports from China (either Chinese companies or European companies with facilities in China)

and Turkey21

.

17 The total size of the market for each code is calculated based on the following formula:

Market size for EU27 = Total value(volume) of products sold in EU27 (PRODCOM Data) – Value(volume) of Exports

(TRADE Data) + Value(volume) of Imports (TRADE Data) 18

Data include Turkey. 19

Based on glass weight of 0.4kg according to FEVE. 20

http://www.allbusiness.com/nonmetallic-mineral/glass-glass-manufacturing/545690-1.html 21

According to PRODCOM imports to EU27 represent around 24% of the total value of drinking glasses sold.

However the correspondence with the data presence is not very clear. Exports from EU represent around 45% of

the number of glasses produced.



3

16

We need to note that the above data does not cover the capacity serving measures made from plastic

(mainly polycarbonate and polypropylene) which can be significantly cheaper (5-10 times) and are

increasingly used in bars and pubs. We did not find any data on this specific segment of the market to

allow for proper estimates.

3.10 MI-009 – Dimensional measuring instruments

Data concerning dimensional measuring instruments is very limited. Only two countries provided data

on the number of verifications and re-verifications and such data appear to be rather inconsistent. The

only other source is the PRODCOM database which covers electronic instruments, appliances and

machines for measuring or checking geometrical quantities (Product code 26516650) and Optical

instruments, appliances and machines for measuring or checking (Product code 26516630). The data for

2008 indicate a total volume sold in Europe at a level of 6million units for a value of €1.4billion. With an

estimated 10 year life cycle the installed base should be around 60million units. However, it is unclear

what share of the market represents instruments used for trade purposes. By extrapolating from the

German data (700,000 instruments) one can estimate that the installed base of MID related dimensional

measuring instruments is no more than 3-4 million units (5% of the total).

The only source for the number of active companies is the certificates database indicating the presence

of 20 companies occupying 7000 employers22

. Small size firms with no MID certified products are not

included in these estimates. Distributors and importers are not included in these figures.

3.11 MI-010 – Exhaust gas analysers

According to the Gas analysers report23

there were 17,050 units sold in 11 EU members in 2008 that

include Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Benelux, the three Scandinavian countries (DK, SE, NO) and the

UK. For the EU27 we can estimate around 22,000 units sold around the EU (based on 0.5 cars/capita in

EU15 and 0.3 cars/capita for new Member States)24

. Their life cycle is 8 to 10 years which indicates an

installed base of 250,000 units. Based on the same source the size of the total EU27 market is estimated

at around €90million. The above numbers are more or less in agreement with that derived from the

limited data on verification of gas analysers that indicate an average of 1000 analysers per car in Europe

(250million cars) that corresponds to an installed base of 250,000 analysers.

Based on the gas analysers report the production volume of the EU7 in 2008 was around 28,000 units

which indicates that 40% is directed towards exports. Production in Germany, Italy and the UK represent

88% of the total volume.

In terms of manufacturers, the European Garage Equipment Association refers to a total of 650

companies in the sector as a whole, occupying around 40,000 employees. The market report refers to 60

companies present in the EU27 (including companies from other European countries) occupying around

17,500 employees25

. Based on another market report26

the European diagnostic equipment market is

22 Based on the information collected from the companies websites.

23 European Garage Equipment market study 2008 – Leo-Impact Consulting GMBH

24 http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=STAT/06/125

25 This is the number of the employees of the companies that may be present in other sub-sectors of the garage

equipment industry.



3

17

dominated by 8-10 suppliers that include Robert Bosch-Automotive Aftermarket (DE), Gutmann

Messtechnik (DE), Texa Spa (IT), SPX-Technotest (US), AVL DiTEST (AT), Omitec (UK) and Snap-on (USA),

Brain Bee (IT). The combined market shares of these suppliers accounts for around 60% of the overall

European sales.

3.12 Summary of market data

Table 3.1 below summarizes the data estimates for each of the measuring instruments sectors and

subsectors examined. In total, we estimate that the MID applies to around 345 million units of MIs sold

annually in the European market with a total value of €3.25 billion. The greatest share in terms of value

concerns electricity meters (18.8%) and automatic weighing instruments (16.9%). In total, the utility

meters represent 50% of the total value of the MID instruments. On the other side, taximeters represent

less than 1% in terms of total market size.

In terms of the size of the sectors, around 900 companies are involved in the production of the 10

different categories of legal metrology instruments based on the information collected although this

number does not include distributors or importers. In terms of employees, the data available indicate a

total of 175,000-205,000 occupied in companies that manufacture MIs27

. This number does not include

distributors or importers of instruments but it may also include some double counting in the case of

utility meter companies that are active in more than one sectors.

Finally, the available data on share of imports and exports indicate a variation in terms of the

dependence from non-EU markets. In the case of the lowest technology sectors of MI-008 and MI-009,

reach up to 50% of the market, while in the case electricity meters sector close to 65%. In many cases

these are European companies with an established manufacturing base outside the EU. In most other

categories, the level of imports does not exceed 20% of the total market. We should note that data for

some categories of MIs are based solely on the PRODCOM database and should be treated with caution.

26 http://www.researchandmarkets.com/reports/603619/strategic_analysis_of_the_european_diagnostic

27 In the utilities sectors, most of the large scale companies are active in more than one categories. By adding the

numbers for each category there is a possible double counting.

Inte

rim

Ev

alu

ati

on

of

the

Me

asu

rin

g I

nst

rum

en

ts D

ire

ctiv

e –

Fin

al

rep

ort

Se

ctio

n

Ma

rke

t d

ata

an

aly

sis

3

18

T

ab

le 3

.1 –

Su

mm

ary

ta

ble

wit

h E

U2

7 m

ark

et

da

ta f

or

me

asu

rin

g i

nst

rum

en

ts2

8

Inst

all

ed

ba

se

–n

o.

of

un

its

(00

0s)

Ma

rke

t si

ze –

nu

mb

er

of

ite

ms

(00

0s)

Ma

rke

t si

ze-

va

lue

(m

illi

on

€s)

Sh

are

in

tota

l M

Is

ma

rke

t

Imp

ort

s (%

of

ma

rke

t

va

lue

)

Ex

po

rts

(% o

f

va

lue

of

pro

du

ctio

n)

No

. o

f fi

rms

in E

uro

pe

Em

plo

ye

es

occ

up

ied

MI-

00

1:

Wa

ter

Me

ters

1

57

,00

0

18

,00

0

45

0

13

.8%

1

3%

1

4%

2

0-3

0

25

,00

0

MI-

00

2:

Ga

s M

ete

rs &

Co

nv

ers

ion

De

vic

es

11

2,0

00

6

,90

0

41

0

12

.6%

7

%

44

%

15

-20

3

0,0

00

MI-

00

3:

Act

ive

Ele

ctri

city

En

erg

y

Me

ters

30

2,0

00

1

4,0

00

6

10

1

8.8

%

60

%

65

%

25

3

2,0

00

MI-

00

4:

He

at

Me

ters

1

0,0

00

8

00

2

90

8

.9%

2

0%

3

2%

1

0

18

,00

0

MI-

00

5:

Me

asu

rin

g

Sy

ste

ms

for

Liq

uid

s

oth

er

tha

n W

ate

r

36

0

31

.2

24

0

7.4

%

Fu

el

dis

pe

nse

rs

30

0

25

2

00

6

.2%

3

%2

9

16

%2

9

20

1

0,0

00

Me

asu

rin

g s

yst

em

s o

n

tan

k t

ruck

s 3

5

3.2

2

0

0.6

%

n.d

n

.d.

30

-40

4

,00

0-6

,00

0

Me

asu

rin

g s

yst

em

s o

n

fixe

d i

nst

all

ati

on

s 2

5

3.0

2

0

0.6

%

MI-

00

6:

Au

tom

ati

c

We

igh

ing

In

str.

2

10

2

1

55

0

16

.9%

3

50

2

5,0

00

Au

tom

ati

c

catc

hw

eig

he

rs a

nd

che

ckw

eig

he

rs

15

0

9

3.5

%3

2

19

%3

2

Au

tom

ati

c g

rav

ime

tric

fill

ing

in

stru

me

nts

1

40

8

1

6%

32

42

%3

2

Dis

con

tin

uo

us

an

d

70

4

n

.d.

n.d

.

28 D

ata

fo

r M

I-0

01

, M

I-0

02

, M

I-0

03

an

d M

I-0

04

in

clu

de

als

o N

orw

ay

, S

wit

zerl

an

d a

nd

Tu

rke

y.

2

9 B

ase

d o

n E

uro

sta

t P

RO

DC

OM

da

ta f

or

pe

tro

l p

um

ps.

On

e f

ue

l d

isp

en

ser

typ

ica

lly

ha

s m

ore

th

an

on

e p

um

p.

Inte

rim

Ev

alu

ati

on

of

the

Me

asu

rin

g I

nst

rum

en

ts D

ire

ctiv

e –

Fin

al

rep

ort

Se

ctio

n

Ma

rke

t d

ata

an

aly

sis

3

19

Inst

all

ed

ba

se

–n

o.

of

un

its

(00

0s)

Ma

rke

t si

ze –

nu

mb

er

of

ite

ms

(00

0s)

Ma

rke

t si

ze-

va

lue

(m

illi

on

€s)

Sh

are

in

tota

l M

Is

ma

rke

t

Imp

ort

s (%

of

ma

rke

t

va

lue

)

Ex

po

rts

(% o

f

va

lue

of

pro

du

ctio

n)

No

. o

f fi

rms

in E

uro

pe

Em

plo

ye

es

occ

up

ied

dis

con

tin

uo

us

to

tali

sers

Ra

il-w

eig

hb

rid

ge

s 1

5

0.9

MI-

00

7:

Ta

xim

ete

rs

50

0

50

2

5-4

0

1.0

%

n.d

. n

.d.

50

-60

1

,00

0

MI-

00

8:

Ma

teri

al

Me

asu

res

3

05

,00

0

44

0-4

90

1

4.3

%

3

4,0

00

Ma

teri

al

me

asu

res

of

len

gth

30

1,3

00

,00

03

0

13

0,0

00

30

29

03

1

8.9

%3

1

50

%3

2

29

%3

2

40

33

14

,00

03

1

Ca

pa

city

se

rvin

g

me

asu

res3

4

25

0,0

00

1

75

,00

0

15

0-2

00

5

.4%

35

25

%3

4

45

%3

4

25

0

20

,00

0

MI-

00

9:D

ime

nsi

on

al

Me

asu

rin

g I

nst

r.

3,0

00

-4,0

00

3

00

-40

0

70

-80

2

.3%

5

5%

34

65

%3

4

20

-30

35

7,0

00

MI-

01

0:

Ex

ha

ust

Ga

s

An

aly

sers

2

50

-35

0

25

-35

1

30

4

.0%

n

.d.

n.d

. 5

0-6

0

17

,50

0

To

tal

3

45

,00

0

3,2

15

-3,2

90

1

00

%

22

-27

%

25

-30

%

88

0-9

40

1

75

,00

0-

20

5,0

00

30 D

ata

re

fer

to a

ll m

ate

ria

l m

ea

sure

s o

f le

ng

th i

n t

he

ma

rke

t. N

ot

on

ly M

ID c

ert

ifie

d.

3

1 G

ive

n t

ha

t th

ese

fig

ure

s in

clu

de

als

o n

on

MID

ce

rtif

ied

in

stru

me

nts

th

is n

um

be

r sh

ou

ld b

e s

ma

lle

r.

32 C

on

cern

s o

nly

me

asu

rin

g r

od

s a

nd

ta

pe

s.

33 D

oe

s n

ot

incl

ud

e v

ery

sm

all

fir

ms

wh

ich

, u

sua

lly

, d

o n

ot

pro

du

ce M

ID p

rod

uct

s.

34 D

ata

re

pre

sen

t u

pp

er

est

ima

tes

35 I

ncl

ud

es

on

ly c

om

pa

nie

s th

at

ho

ld M

ID c

ert

ific

ate

s.


Analysis by sector

4

20

In this section we present the findings of the analysis for each of the categories of measuring instruments

based on the data collected focusing on overall experience and specific problematic areas. Direct

reference to the empirical evidence and the information collected from the different sources is made

where applicable. A detailed analysis with the findings for each category of measuring instruments

concerning all evaluation questions – including examples or relevant data were available - is presented in

a tabular format in Appendix E.

4.1 MI-001 – Water meters

The findings of the fieldwork suggest that the sector has benefited from the use of a single certification

towards the development of a more coherent single market.

With the exception of two countries for residential use and four for industrial, optionality has not been

used in the case of water meters. In the countries used, the authorities referred to either absence from

the market (concerning industrial meters) or no perceived policy need. The findings of the study indicate

that there are no issues or problems linked to optionality. More generally, in relation to the level of

consumer protection, the industry (represented by AQUA) proposes that the actual users of meters - the

water distribution companies - have a vested interest in using reliable water meters. These companies

have the mechanisms to test the quality of the meters and as a result, consumer protection should not

be considered an issue.

With regards to the impact of the MID in innovation, the industry does not see the Directive as

hampering innovation as a result of essential requirements. In most respects the provisions of the MID

are similar to those under the older Directive 75/33/EEC. The only issue mentioned concerns the current

levels of operating conditions defined in the Directive that is considered inappropriate36

. A more serious

issue concerns the coverage of smart meters by the MID. According to some industry representatives

and competent authorities, they are the most important category of meters. While nearly half of

competent authorities suggest that smart meters should be covered by more rules in the MID there is

no consensus. A number of forums and consultations are still ongoing that are expected to provide

proposals in relation to the future of smart meters.

The industry does not consider that the MID has created additional administrative burden. The MID

did not radically change the previous regime but adapted and harmonised pre-existing rules and

procedures.

Another important aspect of the MID in the case of MI-001 is the increased participation of the industry

– represented by AQUA - in WELMEC’s working groups. It has increased the opportunity to raise issues

and participate and provide input in relation to all critical issues that concern the application of the MID.

Finally, given the dominance of few large firms in the sector, there is no significant impact of the MID

on SMEs. The absence of important problems from those SMEs active in the sector – manufacturers,

importers and distributors – is also supported by the results of the SME survey that indicated no

problems concerning either the conformity procedures or any significant barriers to trade.

36 For the moment a ratio of 10 between the defined permanent flowrate and the minimum flowrate allowed. The

industry considers that a ratio of at least 40 is appropriate.


Analysis by sector

4

21

4.2 MI-002 - Gas Meters

The findings of the study suggest that MID has been well received and represents an improvement on

the previous regime. The main strength of the Directive has been the improvement of free trade and

the development of a truly common market. Particularly positive, as stated by both industry and

governments, is the opportunity for manufacturers to participate in public procurement contracts

throughout Europe without the need for national certification, increasing competition and, possibly,

lowering prices.

Regarding technological improvements, the MID is generally seen as technologically neutral and does

not hamper technological innovation. There are suggestions that the introduction of the Directive has

increased standards in some countries to the benefit of consumers. However, there are fears expressed

new developments in gas metering field may require rule development in the MID to cover the display

of energy or monetary values and the use smart meters. Such equipment, that will fit to existing

instruments are expected to increase in future in response to energy efficiency regulations. However,

while many Member States support the eventual inclusion of smart meters in the MID, until there is

more technological stability the industry proposes that no change should take place at this moment.

A number of other issues were also identified. One issue is the lack of a common definition for ‘light’

and ‘heavy’ industry which can lead to problems in deciding which types of meters fall under the

Directive and could even cause a trade barrier. As reported, the threshold in Germany is over 9,000

times that of the Netherlands. Another issue is the level of market surveillance that is still seen as too

limited despite recent improvement. However, there was no evidence provided of unfair competition or

of consumer protection issues, but of course the market (both in terms of manufacturers and users) is

highly concentrated. Finally, the quality of notified bodies varies. Firms reported a problem with

different interpretations they give of WELMEC guidance documents.

Finally, both trade associations have been actively involved and made a positive assessment to the

working group meetings of MID and of WELMEC.

4.3 MI-003 - Electricity Meters

The findings of the study suggest an overall positive experience from the implementation of the MID for

electricity meters. Overall the introduction of the MID is considered a positive development by the

electricity meter industry. MID has helped simplify the relevant legal framework and makes a positive

assessment of the use of a single certificate for accessing the EU market.

Having said that, there are a few issues or problems that hamper the completion of the single market.

Some functionalities of electricity meters are limited by national regulation and require national

certification. This results in a situation where old and new regimes run in parallel. Furthermore, as in the

case of gas meters, the freedom provided by the MID to Member States in determining the different

classes of meters (residential, commercial / light industrial) is also seen as creating obstacles in the

smooth operation of the market.

The industry was also critical of the fact that some harmonised EU standards used in the MID are in

conflict with some of the standards of the International Electrotechnical Commission, as they create


Analysis by sector

4

22

confusion and complications for firms37

. It was suggested to us their view of that WELMEC guidance

documents is not always clear and supportive.

In relation to the impact of the MID on technological innovation, the main issue raised concerned the

need for the eventual development of rules for smart meters in the Directive. The fieldwork has shown

that some manufacturers consider that WELMEC’s guidance documents are unclear although this is not

the view of the industry as a whole.

Optionality is not an issue for the sector as only one country (Malta) has elected not to regulate the

market of electricity meters.

Interviews with the industry also indicate that the MID has not led to an overall decrease of the

administrative burden as a result of the presence of national regulation for some functionalities. Most

suggested that any decrease in the administrative burden achieved in relation to light industrial and

commercial meters has been cancelled out by the increase in procedures for residential meters.

In contrast to the other utility meter manufacturers, the association representing manufacturers of

electricity meters – Eurelectric – were rather negative concerning their representation and role in the

decision making procedures. Despite their participation in most of the relevant working groups, they

consider that the absence of voting rights for industry limits their opportunity to influence decisions.

4.4 MI-004 – Heat Meters

The findings of the study suggest that the heat meter sector recognise a positive contribution of the

MID in the simplification of the market. In that respect, some manufacturers suggested that the

introduction of the MID might help the development of heat metering in the countries where it is

currently not present.

Concerning optionality, five countries have opted out from the MID and for residential heat meters and

six for commercial and light industrial meters. The countries that opted out of the MID for heat meters

did so because of the lack of heat meters in their national markets. Although initially industry considered

that this was a risk for the creation of a truly harmonised market, there has been no evidence so far of a

two-tier market developing as a result of optionality.

In relation to the representation in the MID processes, the industry representatives were particularly

positive about the presence and contribution of WELMEC working groups that operate as a forum for

the exchange of experience and points of views. The documents drafted by WELMEC are also seen as

crucial to the success of the MID helping towards the harmonisation of views within the framework of

the Directive.

Furthermore, in contrast to other sectors, the view of the industry is that WELMEC guidance documents

play a positive role in the definition of a common interpretation of the MID and have also helped in the

37 According to the report on the MID provided by Eurelectric “the definition of ‘Rated Operating conditions’ is not

as satisfactory as that in IEC standards and ‘Critical change value’ is an arcane metrology concept also not well

defined’.


Analysis by sector

4

23

development of a common interpretation by Notified Bodies which, in turn, has contributed to a

decrease of the administrative burden to manufacturers.

A more problematic aspect – consistent with other sectors- is the rather poor level of market

surveillance. However, it is not seen as a critical problem as manufacturers usually sell their meters to

trusted customers. Still, the introduction of the NLF is expected to have a positive contribution although

the extent to which this will improve the situation remains unclear.

4.5 MI-005 Measuring systems for liquids other then water

MI-005a – Fuel dispensers

The findings of the fieldwork suggest that while the sector has benefited from the use of a single

certification that helped towards the development of a single market, a number of issues and obstacles

pose rather important problems to manufacturers and to CAs. Manufacturers indicate a relatively

problematic overall experience from the implementation of the Directive up to this point.

The first important issue in relation to the efficient operation of the single market concerns the

additional requirements that are posed by some authorities and inspection bodies of Member States in

relation to additional requirements and checks concerning CE+M marking or the use of the necessary

seals. According to the industry representatives (CECOD) such requirements concern the use of MIs but

also affect their entry and circulation in the market. We must note though that such claims are disputed

by the relevant authorities because only limited evidence has been provided.

The second issue is linked directly to the provisions of the Directive and what the industry considers a

problem with the MID. The problem is the issue of combining “old” non-MID certified points of sales38

with new MID-certified fuel dispensers in petrol stations (and the reverse). It is seen as a major

limitation for the development of the market in a number of countries. CECOD and the National Petrol

Stations Association reported that over 80% of the UK market is still operating on the basis of non-MID

certified dispensers39

. It is proposed that the current arrangement is particularly an issue for small firms

that produce only part of the whole system. There are diverging views as to whether this is only a

transition period problem - suggested by many CAs and the Commission- or if it will continue beyond

2016 as indicated by industry. Furthermore, the proposed introduction of a sub-assembly approach for

points of sale and self-service devices or the issuing of a guidance document have already been

submitted. They are under review and analysis in the relevant working groups of WELMEC. However,

there is no consensus on the appropriate solution to this point.

In relation to the impact of the Directive on technological innovation, there are questions raised

concerning the appropriateness of using the OIML standards. The supporting WELMEC documents are

seen as rather prescriptive but no strong negative or positive impact could be identified. In that respect,

it is claimed that the strict adherence to WELMEC guidelines by a number of notified bodies contributes

to the creation of obstacles and limitations. Another reported problem concerns the limitations of real

market tests of new systems since there is no testing period allowed by the Directive.

38 A Point of Sale (POS) system is a system for managing the sales of goods. The term refers to the software and

hardware associated with check-out stands, and all of the bundled features which are included. 39

See also a description of the mix and match issue in the table concerning MI-005a in Annex E and in section 6.1.


Analysis by sector

4

24

The 10-year transition period is considered by industry as prolonging the problematic situation

concerning the combination of new and old equipment and has led to a delay in the introduction of new

MID-certified equipment. On the positive side it has helped companies that were not adequately

prepared.

The administrative costs linked to the implementation of the Directive appear to be at rather similar

levels as in the past, although this can vary among notified bodies and types of certification procedures.

Companies present in multiple markets (which are most of the main players in the EU market) suggest

that they still benefit from the reduction of certificates.

The level of market surveillance was also highlighted as rather poor in most countries – limited to the

CE+M marking and document tests – and completely absent in a smaller number of them. Still, there

was no evidence of problems of unfair competition provided.

Finally, the industry is actively represented in the relevant procedures and discussion in the relevant

working groups of the MID and of WELMEC and the views expressed are given proper consideration.

However, from the industry side it is proposed that the importance of WELMEC in the implementation

of the Directive - through the issuing of guidance documents and the formulation of proposals for

solving various issues – makes their observer status inadequate.

MI-005b – Other liquid dispensing systems

As in the case of fuel dispensers, there is a rather mixed view regarding the experience of the

implementation of the Directive so far. It balances the clear benefits from the use of a single

certification for accessing a wider market with a number of problems/issues that manufacturers face

that include:

- The national regulations concerning the use of instruments – thus not covered by the MID - which

in some cases create market barriers

- the limitations concerning the combination of new and old equipment for the revamping of

dispensers in fixed installations

- the requirements concerning the certification of modified equipment with additional MID

certificates for, what are considered by industry, minor modification to MIs. They increase the total

administrative costs for each product even if costs for issuing each certificate by notified bodies has

not changed drastically

- the limitations posed to manufacturers of separate equipment/components – mainly SMEs – that

cannot be MID-certified that, as suggested, benefit large size firms of complete systems. However,

this change is not as radical given the 10-year transition period and the fact that a full system

approach was already introduced in the national legislation of most Member States even before the

MID.

The optionality principle has been used by a number of countries (5) for specific sub-categories of

dispensers. The main reasons are the absence of such instruments in the country or the view of

governments and stakeholders that the introduction of regulation would pose additional administrative

costs without bringing benefits to consumer protection beyond those applicable by general consumer

protection legislation. The findings of the study did not identify evidence of a two-tier market of legal


Analysis by sector

4

25

metrology instruments, of unfair competition or of any consumer protection issues as a result of

optionality.

Unfair competition was reported but it is primarily seen as a result of the reported limited market

surveillance in a few Member States, particularly among the new Member States and the south.

Finally, as in the case of petrol dispensers, the representation of industry stakeholders in the MIs

committee is adequate. However, the observer role in WELMEC is not considered appropriate by

industry.

4.6 MI-006 – Automatic Weighing Instruments

The key finding of the analysis of the implementation of the MID in relation to the Automatic Weighing

instruments is that the adoption of the international standards and single certificate represent a very

important contribution of the Directive. It has facilitated the operation of the single market and led to

important cost savings in terms of overall certification costs to firms. However the practical experience

concerning the implementation of the MID, including the operation of the notified bodies, the market

surveillance and some of the administrative work required are problematic and, as a result, limit the

effectiveness of the Directive.

In relation to technological innovation the dominant view of industry is that the MID provides ample

space for technological innovation based on the generic essential requirements following OIML

recommendations. However, the use by notified bodies of WELMEC guidance documents “as if they

were law” – i.e. representing the only way of conforming to requirements – is seen as delaying the

process and restricts the willingness of some companies to develop innovative solutions.

Optionality has been used by a small number of countries (IE, MT, CY, SE, UK, CH) and primarily

concerned rail weighbridges due to the absence of these categories of instruments in the domestic

market. CECIP referred to one country where optionality was used to favour domestic production but no

specific example was provided. Overall, while individual cases cannot be excluded, companies did not

identify important problems in terms of unfair competition or consumer protection due to the use of

optionality.

Some, rather limited, issues of consumer protection are seen as a result of the limited and

problematic market surveillance which, as suggested by the industry, only focuses on administrative

issues (CE+M marking and supporting documents). The use of golden prototypes40

was cited by some

manufacturers although CECIP did not provide information on the relevant country or the extent of the

problem.

Concerning administrative costs, the evidence suggests a small increase in the costs of a single

certification but this is clearly outweighed by the savings of the use of single certificate. These savings

are clearly greater for larger firms with presence in multiple markets.

Finally, in terms of representation in the relevant MID procedures, the sector is adequately and actively

represented through CECIP in the relevant working groups although there are reservations concerning

40 Use of prototypes that comply with essential requirements in order to acquire the MID certificate but

subsequent production of sub-standard products.


Analysis by sector

4

26

the capacity to follow all working groups and to monitor all working documents and the extent that their

inputs are taken into account.

4.7 MI-007 – Taximeters

The overall experience from the implementation of the MID in relation to taximeters indicates that the

Directive has not yet led to the creation of an efficiently operating single market. However, at the

same time, it has not created any problems and obstacles in relation to the circulation of products in

the market or the development of new products and innovation.

Non-MID related national legislation concerning tariffs structures and the use of taximeters remain the

most important applicable regulations that represent, according to manufacturers, the main obstacles

towards the development of an effective single market. Still, such a problem should not be overstated

since the few multinational companies in the sector are present in a large number of EU countries.

The costs and the time required for certification by notified bodies appear to have increased since the

introduction of the MID although, for those firms with presence in multiple countries, they are

outweighed by the relative costs reductions from the use of a single certificate. Rather more

problematic for firms is the inconsistent approach of notified bodies in interpreting essential

requirements.

In the case of taximeters the optionality principle is used only in one country (CH). Although one

company complained about unfair competition, the evidence suggests that, as in most other sectors, it

is the problematic market surveillance in some Member States (particularly in the UK). It allows non

MID-certified taximeters to compete unfairly in specific local market against MID-certified ones based

on a lower price.

Most probably due to the absence of a relevant European association the taximeters sector is not

represented in the MID working group or WELMEC although companies did not appear to consider this

as a particularly problematic issue.

4.8 MI-008 – Material measures

The analysis of both sub-sectors falling under MI-008 (Material measures of length and Capacity serving

measures) indicates that the impacts of the Directive have been limited and that for most firms the

implementation of the Directive has been “business as usual”. Still, the representatives of length

measuring instruments claimed that the introduction of a single certificate has helped reduce trade

barriers across countries.

In relation to technological innovation, the sector is predominantly low tech and industry

representatives did not see MID playing any particular role, positive or negative. However, for the

more high tech length measuring instruments that incorporate software components (e.g. based on

radar and x-rays), the requirement for recertification for what industry considers minor changes in the

software is seen as creating additional costs but also a possible disincentive for introducing new

products.

As far as optionality is concerned, five Member States have chosen to opt out and did not introduce

legislation. The basis for the decisions was that regulation would impose burden on firms and the

enforcing authorities without offering corresponding consumer protection benefits. However, the


Analysis by sector

4

27

presence of two tier markets with non CE+M marked instrument in these sectors is not a result of

optionality but the fact that large number of these instruments are not used for legal metrology

purposes (e.g. drinking glasses not used for measurement or length measuring rods or tapes used in

households).

The findings of the analysis indicate that in general the administrative costs linked to the certification

process have not changed significantly. For those companies with focus on the domestic market there

are probably some increases in costs on the basis of some additional MID documentation and the new

machines bought for CE-marking. Given the low unit value, these costs are seen as relatively high.

However, the use of a single certificate brought overall cost savings for firms engaged in a large number

of markets.

4.9 MI-009 – Dimensional measuring instruments

As with MI-008, the findings indicate that the overall changes to the market as a result of the Directive

have been rather limited. However, the use of a single certificate has helped reduce trade barriers

across Member States.

As in the case of MI-008 industry representatives did not see MID playing any particular role in terms

of technological innovation since the sector is rather low-tech. For the more high tech instruments that

include software the requirements for recertification for minor changes is seen as delaying the

innovation process.

As far as optionality is concerned, nine Member States have chosen to opt out and have not introduced

legislation in relation to MI-009. The basis for the decisions was that regulation would impose burden to

firms and the administration to enforce without offering consumer protection benefits. Companies did

not provide evidence of unfair competition and presence of a two tier market. The presence of non

CE+M marked instruments in these sectors is, as in other sectors, not a result of optionality but the fact

that larger number of these instruments are not used for legal metrology purposes (e.g. drinking

glasses or length measuring rods or tapes used in households).

The information collected also indicates that administrative costs linked to the certification process

have not changed significantly. For those companies with a focus on their domestic market the overall

costs and benefits were limited while for those engaged in a large number of markets the use of a single

certificate does indeed bring some cost savings.


Analysis by sector

4

28

4.10 MI-010 - Exhaust gas analysers41

The evidence and interviews from the sector suggest that the MID had contributed towards the

development of a single market based on the use of a single certificate. The EU certificate has also

helped raised the quality of the products in the market. However, there are strong indications that MID

certified instruments remain a minority in a number of EU countries42

. Certified inspection centres

(MOTs), the main users of MID-certified gas analysers still use older non-MID certified instruments.

The industry reports that the market is also limited by the fact that the MID covers only 4-gas analysers

for cars that consume petrol and not analyzers for smaller number of gases emitted for motorbikes or

those that consume diesel. These are still nationally controlled. As a result, manufacturers of most

analysers are still required to apply for national certificates for the same equipment and thus lose

important part of the benefits derived by the MID.

In relation to the impact on technological innovation, the MID itself does not appear to have any

positive or negative effect. The interviews indicate that the adoption of the OIML guidelines in the

definition of the essential requirements brought only limited technical changes.

In terms of administrative costs, the information collected indicates a small increase in the costs for

obtaining a single certificate but, according to EGEA, the use of a single certificate has reduced red tape

and benefited a sector dominated by small firms.

Finally, in terms of stakeholders representation, the relevant trade association – European Garage

Equipment Association - has not been involved in the working group of the MID or the relevant WELMEC

meetings.

41 The analysis of this category of MIs is based on limited input. EGEA – the main representing association – was

not available during the period of the fieldwork but stated that it intends to send comments after the completion

of the study. 42

The representative of UK Garage Equipment Association made reference to only 6 MID conforming gas analysers

approved so far in the UK. Data from other countries were not available.


Survey analysis

5

29

This section contains an analysis of two surveys carried out during the study. These are a survey of

notified bodies conducted by CSES during Phase 2 of the study and the SME pilot survey that was

organised by the European Commission. In this section we present the analysis of the findings. The

surveys complement the data in the previous section provided by the interviews and documents.

5.1 Notified bodies survey

The notified bodies (NBs) survey was conducted during the period March-April 2010. It targeted the 140

notified bodies that have been designated by competent authorities in the Member States to assess and

certify conformity in accordance to the MID Directive for one or more categories of measuring

instruments and conformity assessment procedures (modules A-H1). The list of NBs was extracted from

NANO Database43

. They were contacted electronically and invited to participate in an online survey that

was available in five languages (EN,DE,IT,FR,ES). The invitation to the notified bodies was followed by

two reminders and the survey was closed on 30 April.

By the close of the survey, CSES had received 39 responses that represented a response rate of 27.8%,

which is a relatively high rate for such a survey. The NBs that participated in the survey covered 12

countries. According to the data provided and the information collected from WELMEC database, the

response represents 47% of the total number of EC type certificates (including updates) issued during

the period 2006-2009. The four most active notified bodies in Germany, Netherlands, France and the UK

participated in the survey44

.

Finally, the survey covered all categories of measuring instruments falling under the Directive and all

MID modules. MI-005 (petrol dispensers and other systems for liquids other than water) were the most

widely covered. In terms of modules, module F (third party product verification) was the most common

followed by modules B (EC type examination), D (self-verification of production process and G (Approval

and verification of one off instruments). Modules C and C145

are covered by only one NB are not

applicable in any of the categories of measuring instruments according to the MID.

Table 5.1 – Measuring instruments and modules covered by the Notified bodies that participated in

the survey

Measuring instruments covered by surveyed NBs

By MI sector covered Number

MI-001: Water Meters 22

MI-002: Gas Meters & Conversion Devices 22

MI-003: Active Electricity Energy Meters 22

MI-004: Heat Meters 22

MI-005: Measuring Systems for Liquids other than water 31

MI-006: Automatic Weighing Instruments 30

43 Available from

http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/newapproach/nando/index.cfm?fuseaction=Directive.notifiedbody&dir_id=12564

1&type_dir=NO%20CPD&pro_id=99999&prc_id=99999&ann_id=99999&prc_anx=99999 44

Participants did not have to state the name of the NB but were asked to indicate if they wanted to be contacted

and to provide the necessary contact details. 45

Module C: Declaration of conformity to type on the basis of internal production control. Module C1 : Declaration

of conformity to type on the basis of internal production control plus product testing by notified body.


Survey analysis

5

30

Measuring instruments covered by surveyed NBs

By MI sector covered Number

MI-007: Taximeters 18

MI-008: Material Measures 28

MI-009:Dimensional Measuring Instruments 19

MI-010: Exhaust Gas Analysers 13

By Module covered Number

A1 - Internal production control plus product testing by a notified body 15

B- Type examination 17

C - Conformity to type based on internal production control 1

C1 - Conformity to type based on internal production control plus product testing by a notified body 1

D - Conformity to type based on quality assurance of the production process 15

D1 - Quality assurance of the production process 12

E - Conformity to type based on quality assurance of final product inspection and testing 12

E1 - Quality assurance of final product inspection and testing 10

F - Conformity to type based on product verification 30

F1 - Product verification 23

G - Unit verification 17

H - Full quality assurance 8

H1 - Full quality assurance plus design examination 11

Clarity of supporting documents and procedures

The focus of the NBs survey was the assessment of the extent to which the MID related standards (EN

standards, OIML related documents and the relevant guidance documents issued by WELMEC) were

clear and helpful. It focused on the clarity of guidance for the testing of the conformity of the MIs but

also the guidance on the conformity assessment procedures. The questions intended to assess whether

the claims by industry and conformity assessment bodies concerning the consistency of the notified

bodies were shared by the notified bodies themselves. Although it was not possible to ask notified

bodies to compare their work with other NBs, the stated level of clarity of the various documents

provides a relevant indication.

Overall, the notified bodies’ responses suggest that the existing MID documents are appropriate and

helpful. The majority of NBs (over 56%) found that EN standards and OIML documents were very clear

or clear while some 30% provided a neutral response. Only one stated that the standards are unclear. In

the case of the guidance documents on the OIML documents and the essential requirements, the

responses were rather less positive although again the number of NBs that expressed a negative view

was small. Around 45% of NBs had a positive view of the guidance while only 10% considered that the

guidance on the OIML is unclear and 16% stated the same concerning the guidance on the essential

requirements.


Survey analysis

5

31

Table 5.2 - In relation to the testing of conformity of measuring instruments, how clear do you find the

different MID documents available? (Notified bodies responses)

EN standards OIML normative

documents

Guidance on OIML

normative documents

Guidance on essential

requirements

Very clear 1 3.2% - 0.0% 1 3.4% 2 6.7%

Clear 17 54.8% 18 56.3% 13 44.8% 11 36.7%

Neutral 9 29.0% 11 34.4% 9 31.0% 11 36.7%

Unclear 1 3.2% - 0.0% 2 6.9% 5 16.7%

Very unclear 0.0% - 0.0% 1 3.4% - 0.0%

Don’t exist 2 6.5% 2 6.3% 1 3.4% - 0.0%

No opinion 1 3.2% 1 3.1% 2 6.9% 1 3.3%

Total 31 100% 32 100% 29 100% 30 100%

No answer 8 7 10 9

Total surveyed 39 39 39 39

Source: CSES survey

The results are replicated more or less in the same way for all categories of instruments. When cross

tabulating the responses for each of the 10 sub-sectors we did not find any statistically significant

differences from the overall picture.

Small differences were more apparent when comparing notified bodies from old and new Member

States but again the responses do not reveal fundamental differences (see table 5.3).

Table 5.3 – Comparison of responses of notified bodies in new and old Member States concerning the

perceived clarity of MID documents available? (% of notified bodies responding out of 29 from old

Member States and 8 new Member States46

)

EN standards

OIML normative

documents

Guidance on OIML

normative

documents

Guidance on

essential

requirements Total

old MS new MS old MS new MS old MS new MS old MS new MS

Very clear -

clear 56.6 71.4 56.5 62.5 54.5 0.0 43.5 50.0 58.0

Neutral 30.4 28.6 39.1 25.0 27.3 50.0 34.8 50.0 29.0

Unclear -

very unclear 4.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.6 0.0 21.7 0.0 3.2

No opinion

-not exist 8.8 0.0 4.3 12.5 4.5 16.7 0.0 0.0 9.7

Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Source: CSES survey

The second relevant question concerned the application of the conformity assessment procedures and

the role of the relevant documents (standards and WELMEC guidance). As it is shown in figure 5.1, the

majority of the notified bodies (over 50%) considered that both the standards and the WELMEC

documents were quite clear. Still around one third of NBs were rather sceptical of the contribution of

EN-standards and over 40% of the WELMEC guidance documents.

46 Two notified bodies did not state country of operation.


Survey analysis

5

32

Figure 5.1 - In relation to the application of the different conformity assessment procedures, how

clear do you find the different MID documents (standards, guidance on conformity assessment

procedures)? (% of notified bodies responding)

Source: CSES survey

The following text box presents the comments made by notified bodies. They include points referring to

the need to have the OIML documents available in different languages to more specific and technical

issues related to specific modules that are seen as inappropriate, unclear or missing.

Text box 5.1 – Comments of NBs on the clarity and usefulness of the documents of the MID (category

of MIs covered by NB)

Some harmonised standards are declared as giving full presumption of conformity although it was not the case.

The annexes are not enough clear and accurate. (MI-001-MI-010)

Our designation requires us to use standard forms that I have found unusable and inappropriate for certain

verifications. (MI-005, MI-006, MI-008)

There is no harmonized documentation for module B for MI-005 and this has resulted in one notified body

rejecting EC Type Examination Certificates from another. We still feel that Member States are more interested in

keeping status quo and interpreting OIML R117-1 as the legal basis rather than the Directive itself. (MI-005)

One problem is from our opinion concerns issuing the certificate for module H1. There is no pattern in any guide

how such a certificate should look like. (MI-003)

3.0%

0.0%

54.5%52.9%

24.2%

32.4%

6.1%

8.8%

12.1%

5.9%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

EN standards Guidance on conformity assessment procedures

Very clear clear neutral unclear very unclear not exist no opinion


Survey analysis

5

33

Normative documents are not available in German language. There are no clear requirements for gas meters

measuring volume under reference conditions and there are different interpretations from NAWI to MID (MI-

006). (MI-001-MI-010)

In some cases the modules are not sufficiently defined and produce different interpretations among different

Member States.(MI-001- MI-010)

It would be useful to have WELMEC guides translated into Italian in order to avoid conflicting advice.(MI-006, MI-

008)

The module F concerning the application of statistical procedure described is inaccurate. There is currently no

approved standard for the statistical method of module F. (MI-001-MI-004)

The drafting of the EC-type examination certificates with respect to scope and requirements for the tests varies

widely. There are also problems with the language versions of the examination certificates (MI-001- MI-010)

There is not clarity in respect to the following question: Is a conformity assessment necessary when rebuilding an

MID certified instrument? Furthermore, normative documents as well as harmonized standards should also be

translated into German. (MI-005 – MI-010)

Technological innovation

Based on their direct involvement with the implementation of the Directive, NBs are also well positioned

to assess the extent to which the Directive and the essential requirements support or create obstacles

to innovation to manufacturers.

The responses of 39 notified bodies indicate that the majority of notified bodies (56%) considered that

the Directive is not an obstacle to innovation. Furthermore, there were no significant deviations

depending on the category of instruments with the possible exception of gas analysers were close to a

half of the 13 respondents were rather negative. The comparison among notified bodies operating in

new and old members’ states did not indicate differences in views although a high proportion of NBs –

almost 50% - from new Member States did not provide a response, possibly due to their limited

experience.


Survey analysis

5

34

Figure 5.2 - Based on your experience so far, do you think that the essential requirements of the MID

allow technological innovation by manufacturers? (Notified bodies – 39 responses in total)

Source: Notified bodies survey

In order to acquire more information on possible specific obstacles we asked notified bodies to

elaborate further on their position. Among the responses provided (see text box) there is a variety of

responses including those that consider a particularly positive and promoting role, to more balanced

approach considering a rather technology neutral approach and those that consider that there are

specific obstacles as a result of the requirements. Specific issues raised concern smart meters and the

software issues that notified bodies consider as rather problematic. There was also reference to x-ray

checkweighers that are not covered by MI-006 of automatic weighing instruments as an example of

technologically advanced MIs that should also be included. The comments provided in Text box 5.2

illustrate the points raised by some notified bodies but are not necessarily representative.

Text box 5.2 – Comments of notified bodies on the role of the MID in technological innovation

To make products based on the requirements MID requires manufacturers to innovate technologically. (MI-006,

MI-008)

The MID allows enough flexibility for the manufacturer to develop specific solutions and innovations. (MI-001-MI-

004)

MID provides a framework and only very few restrictions. (MI-005)

The essential requirements are sufficiently independent from specific technologies to allow innovation. We have

22

1112 12

11

18 18

11

16

11

7

10

76

7 7

98

6

8

6 67

4 43

4 4 4

1

4

2

0

5

10

15

20

25

Total MI001 MI002 MI003 MI004 MI005 MI006 MI007 MI008 MI009 MI010

YES NO no answer


Survey analysis

5

35

never experienced a problem until now. (MI-001- MI-010)

The essential requirements are sufficient and allow manufacturers to develop the electronics of the meters. (MI-

001-MI-006)

In general the essential requirements of the MID allow technological innovation by manufacturers. As an

exception the case of smart meters should be pointed. Lack of definitions and requirements hinders the

development of such instruments.(MI-001-MI-008)

In general yes with the exception of specific cases such as remote management in smart meters.(MI-001-MI-010)

No, because of the complexities of the requirements that are not particularly helped by the guidance/normative

documents. We also do not think software issues have been well addressed. (MI-005, MI-006, MI-008)

The responses of the notified bodies seem to be in line with the views of most competent authorities

and manufacturers. The experience from the implementation of the Directive so far tends to be positive

and the existing tools supporting the NBs and manufacturers in the implementation of the Directive

(standards, guidance documents) are assessed positively although in specific categories of instruments

there are possible problematic areas. In relation to the question of technological innovation, there is no

evidence that the Directive poses important obstacles to innovation with the exception with the already

documented issue of smart meters. Having said that, the survey suggests that there is still scope for

clarifications of the relevant documents. The results also corroborate the suggestion by a number of

manufacturers and competent authorities that there are problems of consistency in the interpretation

by the notified bodies of the essential requirements and the conformity assessment procedures.

5.2 SME survey

The SMEs survey analysed in this section was carried out by the Commission services using an on line

survey tool with a panel of SME companies. The survey was opened on 30 September 2009 and closed

on 5 December 2009 and attracted 286 responses.

Characteristics of the respondents

The respondents of the survey were primarily small enterprises of less than 50 employees (over 80%)

with over 50% being micro enterprises of less than 10 employees. In terms of sales, the majority (63%)

stated total turnover of less than €10million although 34% did not provide any data.

Table 5.4 - What is your annual turnover

Distribution of respondents by turnover (€s) Distribution of respondents by number of

employees

Options № % Options № %

<100,000 32 11.9 <5 74 25.9

100,000-1,000,000 97 33.9 5 to 9 95 33.2

1,000,000-10,000,000 50 17.5 10 to 49 62 21.7

>10,000,000 10 2.5 50 to 249 10 3.5

No answer 98 34.3 Over 250 45 15.7

Total 286 100 Total 286 100

The participants in the survey were primarily manufacturers (27%) or users of MIs (44.8%). Installers,

distributors and importers were also well represented in the survey.

Table 5.5 -Type of activity in relation to measuring instruments


Survey analysis

5

36

Number of companies that stated as: № %

User 127 44.4%

Manufacturer 77 26.9%

Installer 48 16.8%

Distributor 47 16.4%

Importer 37 12.9%

Other 17 4.5%

Manufacturer and other (importer, distributor, installer) 32 11.2%

In terms of the country of origin, the sample provided a wide coverage of EU countries (see Table 5.6)

but there is a notable absence of users from the Netherlands or the United Kingdom. The countries with

the largest number of respondents were Italy, Poland and Hungary.

Table 5.6 - In which country are your headquarters located?

Country № % Country № %

Austria 6 2.1 Luxembourg 4 1.4

Czech Republic 23 8.0 Poland 30 10.5

Estonia 2 0.7 Portugal 11 3.8

Finland 1 0.3 Romania 10 3.5

France 23 8.0 Slovakia 5 1.7

Germany 24 8.4 Slovenia 9 3.1

Hungary 27 9.4 Spain 20 7.0

Italy 35 12.2 Other/not stated 42 14.7

Lithuania 14 4.9 Total 286 100.0

In terms of the types of measuring instruments covered, all sectors of MIs were represented in the

sample. Taximeters, capacity serving measures and exhaust gas analysers were represented by less than

6% of SMEs while, in contrast, SMEs related to utility meters, weighing instruments, length measure and

dimensional measuring instrument were represented by over 15%.

Table 5.7 - Instruments covered (more than one answer possible)

Category of MI № %

MI-001 Water meter 66 23.1

MI-002 Gas meter 45 15.7

Electricity meter 65 22.7

Heat meter 43 15.0

Petrol pump 27 9.4

Other non-water liquid measuring instrument 33 11.5

Automatic weighing instrument 58 20.3

Taximeter 12 4.2

Length measure (tape, dipstick) 53 18.5

Capacity serving measure 14 4.9

Dimensional measuring instrument 56 19.6

Exhaust gas analyser 17 5.9

Non-automatic weighing instrument 58 20.3

Furthermore, for the great majority of the companies in the sample (around 78%), the measuring

instrument they traded had a CE+M marking.


Survey analysis

5

37

Figure 5.3 - Is the measuring instrument you refer to marked with the CE+M marking? (% out of total

286 survey participants)

Finally, the sample included companies operating in all 27 EU Member States. France, Germany and

Spain were the most common markets, mentioned by more than 1/5th

of the respondents. Around 19%

stated a market presence in more than five EU countries while, in contrast, 23% were present in only

one – usually their domestic - market. In terms of exports outside EU, around 40% stated that they sold

their products outside the internal market (against 42% that said no), primarily in other countries of

South and Eastern Europe (56%) but also around 35% to non-EU Mediterranean countries , Africa, Asia

and North America.

Experience from the implementation of the Directive

Manufacturers/importers

Turning to the experience from the implementation of the Directive, manufacturers and/or importers of

MIs were asked to indicate which conformity procedures they use and whether they thought that the

conformity assessment procedures are adequate for their needs. While all modules were stated by the

80 SMEs that responded, modules B and D are the most commonly used (44% and 52% respectively)

while modules A, G, F, and H were less often stated.

More importantly, over 80% of the 118 manufacturers and importers were positive or very positive

concerning the adequacy of the modules and no SMEs stated they were inadequate for their needs.

22.4%

77.6%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

No Yes


Survey analysis

5

38

Figure 5.4 - Do you consider conformity assessment to be adequate for your needs? (Percentage

responding out of 58 responses – 60 manufacturers/importers did not answer)

When asked for specific comments and suggestions for improving the conformity regulations SMEs

referred to the need to relax the conformity assessment procedures for the inexpensive MIs. They made

suggested the need to extent the use of the modular approach. In addition there were request for

availability of information – including WELMEC documents – in other languages besides English.

A second issue examined was the extent to which manufacturers and importers experienced barriers to

trade with regards to marketing and/or putting into use CE+M marked MIs on the internal EU market.

The answers indicate that the great majority of SMEs do not experience any such barriers.

41.4%39.7%

12.1%

0.0%

6.9%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

Yes,

completely

Yes, mostly Not always Never Do not know


Survey analysis

5

39

Figure 5.5 – Are you experiencing barriers to trade with regards to marketing and putting into use

CE+M marked MIs (% of SMEs – manufacturers/importers stating – total 118 responses)

When asked to state specific problems in relation to barriers to trade, a small number of companies

referred to barriers posed by national authorities that do not allow them to enter other markets. The

complaints concerned mainly – but not exclusively - new Member States but there was no specific

category of MI identified.

Users

The survey also asked SMEs users of MIs to assess whether the current legal metrology regime provides

sufficient protection. The majority of the responses were positive (60%) with only a small share (20%)

suggesting problems in terms of consumer protection.

Table 5.8 – Does the current legal metrology regime provide sufficient protection (users of MIs)

Answers No %

Yes 75 60.0

No 24 19.7

No answer 26 21.3

Total 125 100

Finally, all SMEs were asked whether they were aware of unmarked products competing with CE and M

marked instruments. The answers suggest that there is indeed a significant presence of MI instruments

circulating without CE+M marking as close to 60% of the total respondents made such reference. While

16.1%

83.9%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

Yes No


Survey analysis

5

40

20% did not consider that the products created unfair competition an important 40% thought otherwise.

The differences between the responses of users and manufacturers were rather small although a

greater share of users thought that the non-CE+M marked products were competing unfairly. Other

cross-tabulations (based on size of firms or category of instrument) did not indicate differences from the

general picture.

Table 5.9 - Are you aware of unmarked products competing with CE+M marked instruments? (Number

and percentage of manufacturers, users and total number of SMEs responding)

Awareness Manufacturers/importers Users Total SMEs

№ % № % № %

No 41 36.9% 35 41.2% 97 41.6%

Yes, but fair competition 27 24.3% 13 15.3% 45 19.3%

Yes, unfair competition 43 38.7% 37 43.5% 91 39.1%

No response 7 40 53

Total 118 124 243

The findings of the survey suggest that most SMEs do not face different problems compared to those

reported by large companies during the interviews. Barriers to trade due to protection from national

authorities (real or perceived) and costs for conformity assessment that are higher than expected are

reported but only from a small number of SMEs. There are also no categories of MIs identified with

particular issues or problems. From the user’s side, the survey suggests that consumer protection is

adequate. The only issue raised by the SME survey concerns unfair competition by non CE+M marked

products. While this point should not be considered as an SME specific problem, it seems to be more

prominent in comparison to the evidence provided during the interviews with trade associations and,

mainly larger, companies.

Interim Evaluation of the Measuring Instruments Directive – Draft final report Section

Main findings of the evaluation

6

41

In this section we present the findings of the study in relation to the key evaluation questions. The

effectiveness, impacts and implementation of the Directive are addressed on the basis of the findings

presented in the previous sections.

6.1 Effectiveness of the Directive

Contribution to an efficiently operating internal market

The experience from almost all MI sectors and from the great majority of competent authorities

suggests that MID has quite successfully provided the basis for the development of a more efficiently

operating single internal market with the use of a single certificate for the placement of products in the

European market. The majority of competent authorities refer to a clear contribution of the MID based

on their own experience or, in fewer cases, the feedback they have received from industry. From the

industry side, in most MIs’ sectors clear benefits from the use of a single MID-certificate are recognised

and, in a small number of cases, it has been indicated as the main driving force for the expansion of

firms to other markets inside the EU. In the case of utility meters (MI-001-MI-004), they supported

more competitive public procurement procedures with potential direct benefits in terms of quality and

price to the utilities and the final consumer.

Having said that, specific problems and obstacles have been documented which are more or less directly

linked with the implementation of the MID. They are either crosscutting issues or more sector-specific.

They include:

• The barriers posed by some national and local authorities by setting additional requirements or, in

some cases, regulations concerning functionality, marking or the use of instruments (e.g.

additional/different seals for fuel dispensers in IT and ES or a different tariff structure for taximeters

in the UK). In the majority of cases, these issues concern the use of MIs and they are not governed

by the MID. According to manufacturers of fuel dispensers and taximeters, there are restrictions

that create barriers to entry by increasing costs and by obstructing the operation of the single

market. However, the respective competent authorities questioned on this topic denied wrongdoing

or appeared unaware of such issues. Use-related requirements are, rightly or not, seen as a prime

responsibility of Member States or local/regional authorities. Consumer protection or other

concerns are considered of greater priority than possible obstacles to the smooth operation of the

single market in relation to legal metrology instruments.

• There are a few cases where national authorities (eg Italy and Spain for fuel dispensers and France

for taximeters) are reluctant to accept MID certificates from other countries without conducting

their own additional controls. Whilst such checks may concern in-use requirements, a number of

interviewees from industry and competent authorities indicate that there may be a problem of

understanding – or accepting - what the implementation of a new approach Directive entails.

• There appears to be limited information on the applicability and the requirements of the MID from

an important number of manufacturers and, even more so, importers of measuring instruments.

Cases of products brought to market without the necessary CE+M marking as a result of limited

awareness of the requirement were reported by few competent authorities (e.g. SE, IR, MT).

Industry associations also recognise this as a problem, particularly for small firms with limited


Main findings of the evaluation 6

42

capacity and resources to follow the various regulations. Still, while it is an issue that merits

attention, the existing evidence does not suggest that it is a particularly acute problem.

• A well-documented issue with impact on the market for fuel dispensers and other liquid dispensing

systems concerns the so called “mix and match” issue and the capacity to combine new and old

components for these categories of instruments. As already described in Section 4.5 existing petrol

stations with “old” non-MID certified petrol dispensers and points of sale (POS)47

may not be

connected with new MID certified equipment to form a new system unless the whole system is re-

certified under MID. Furthermore, existing fixed installations approved according to the old national

legislation can be placed on the market and put into use during the transition period, but they

cannot be altered. A system approved under old national legislation cannot be upgraded with an

MID certified component without first seeking MID approval for the complete system. For users this

means that they may not install new components of a system without first asking the manufacturer

of the fuel dispenser to upgrade the system. Otherwise, they are required to buy complete systems.

Furthermore, petrol stations’ owners that want to revamp part of a system are forced either to

repair old non-MID dispensers or points of sale stations or to buy complete new systems. Among the

30 countries, only the UK and the Netherlands’ authorities enforced this requirement48

while the

remaining have selected either not to require any certification for the points of sale in continuation

to the pre-MID practice or to allow the mixing and matching.

According to the data provided by industry the market implications of this appear to be significant in

some countries. At least in the UK there is reported unwillingness of owners of petrol stations to

install new MID certified dispensers. As a result old non-MID certified dispensers cover over 80% of

the local market. Furthermore, small size producers of self-service devices or components are in an

unfavourable position against large firms that develop and sell complete systems. In relation to the

overall size of the market, the problem remains limited due to various legal arrangements49

that

most national governments have adopted during the transition period. Furthermore, by the end of

the transition period a great share of MIs and points of sale will have completed their life cycle50

.

Still, it is the opinion of most stakeholders involved (authorities and industry) that the current

arrangement is not satisfactory. The proposed solution to the problem based on the definition of

self-service devices and components as sub-assemblies is supported by a large number of

stakeholders, but it is not unanimously accepted by all Member States.

It can be claimed that, with the exception of the sub-assembly issue, most of the problems raised can be

seen as symptoms of an initial “teething period” and indeed this is a view shared by a number of

competent authorities (e.g. DE, NL, and PT). Over time, as experience builds up and information is

further disseminated, obstructing practices based on the old regime should be expected to diminish.

Information exchange and targeted campaigns at the national level could help in this direction.

47 A Point of Sale (POS) system is a system for managing the sales of goods. The term refers to the software and

hardware associated with check-out stands, and all of the bundled features which are included. 48

In both countries arrangements have still been made by national authorities allowing the combination of old and

new components based on presence in the system of at least one MID certified dispenser or POS. 49

Allowing the mixing of old and new or not having any regulation. 50

This is a point that is still disputed by CECOD, arguing that since non-MID certified are still sold in some markets

they will still be in operation long after the end of the transition period in 2016.



43

Furthermore, it is clear that the issue of use-related requirements in MIs posed by Member States and

the limitations to the development of a single market cannot just be solved in the context of the MID

but is a wider issue.

Role of the Directive in promoting or inhibiting technological innovation

The existing empirical evidence and the results of the notified bodies’ survey indicate that in most

categories of instruments the MID has not affected technological innovation to any material extent. It

appears to be technologically neutral allowing for a level playing field. For most categories of MIs, the

industry did not consider that the Directive posed particular obstacles to technological innovation even

if, at the same time, it did also not consider that it had any supportive role. The economic incentive of

easier access to a broader market was the only benefit explicitly stated but only in a few occasions. The

notified bodies survey also seems to support a neutral, if not positive, role of the Directive.

Still, there a few areas where the implementation of the MID appears to create potential or real

barriers:

• In a few categories of MIs (e.g. MI-005) the essential requirements of the Directive are seen as

either restrictive or rather prescriptive. Industry and some competent authorities refer to limitations

in terms of the classes and types of instruments allowed (e.g. exhaust gas analysers only for cars)

and the capacity for the conduct of market trials in the case of fuel dispensers.

• A more important problem seems to be the restrictive use by notified bodies of WELMEC guidelines

and the constraints that they pose in accepting alternative approaches to conform to the essential

requirements of the Directive. While WELMEC guidelines are not requirements, both industry and

competent authorities report that many notified bodies tend to use WELMEC guidance documents

as if they were. As a result, they require extra testing or more time in the case that the proposed

approaches deviate from WELMEC guidelines. A few cases of unwarranted rejections – from the

point of view of the manufacturers - were also reported. The feedback of the notified bodies does

not suggest particular problems in the interpretation of the relevant documents that could be the

source of such an approach. A risk averse approach and the limited experience of some of them

appear to be the most probable cause.

• A specific issue related to the utility sector concerns the use of smart meters. The dominant view is

that the current provisions of the Directive do not provide an optimal solution especially in view of

the technological and market developments that are already taking place. Most technologically

advanced Measuring Instruments usually include a software system and a system allowing for

remote reading (tele-metering) as well as more complex displays showing additional information

such as different tariff periods and related costs. The MID provisions do not provide rules either on

the software, display or on the remote sensor component of the meter. The Energy Performance of

Buildings Directive and Energy Efficiency Directive require Member States to develop national plans

to install smart meters. Stakeholders suggested problems in the development of a functioning single

market for smart meters due to a continuing need for national certifications of the software or the

tele-metering component, possibly in breach of the MID51

.

51 The industry did not provide specific examples illustrating this more clearly.



44

There is no agreement as to what constitutes the most appropriate way forward. The adoption of a

sub-assembly approach is favoured by a large number of stakeholders - but it is not universally

accepted – while reliance on WELMEC documents is not considered as a sound basis for a coherent

approach by itself. Furthermore, smart meters are not only an MID issue. There are currently no

standards for the inter-operability of the meters in smart gridding systems, allowing for a more

complex management of energy sharing. It is therefore clear that smart meters regulation has far

further implications than a purely metrological one. Further experience and analysis appears to be

necessary at this stage.

Evidence of the development of two tier market and unfair competition – role of optionality

The optionality clause of the MID has been used by a number of countries for a number of instruments

(See Appendix F). In total, according to the most recent reports 15 EU and two EEA countries have opted

out from the Directive for one or more instruments although still around 90% is covered52

. Optionality

has been used mainly by the UK (19 of the total of 36 sub-categories of MIs), Sweden (18), Ireland (12),

Netherlands (11) and Cyprus (10). Poland (7) and Norway (9) have also used it in a number of occasions.

Material measures (MI-008), dimensional measuring instruments (MI-009) and heat meters (MI-004) are

the instruments for which optionality has been mainly applied. The main underlying reasons tend to be

the absence of specific instruments in the market or the consideration by a number of authorities that

regulation may pose additional and unnecessary legislative burdens without providing any additional

consumer protection.

A number of stakeholders have still expressed their disagreement with the concept of optionality in

principle but they would still not make reference to problems as a result of its use. Unfair competition

was only rarely mentioned and it was not, in most cases, linked with the absence of regulation in the

specific sector or country. The only area where optionality is possibly linked with unfair competition

concerns taximeters. Industry reported that in the two countries that opted out of the MID (Norway and

Switzerland), cheaper non-MID certified taximeters tend to be the norm and compete unfairly.

However, Member States’ authorities did not consider that the overall costs of regulation justified the

introduction of regulation.

Furthermore, two tier markets – wherever present – are not linked with optionality. Two tier markets

are present for instruments that may also be used for non-legal metrology purposes (weighing

instruments, material measures, dimensional measuring) from companies in their production process or

for domestic purposes. Such non-legal metrology instruments may be identical to instruments covered

by the MID, but their placement in the market is, according to article 2 of the MID, not controlled by

national regulation as far as metrological issues are concerned. Accordingly, these parallel markets will

continue in the future irrespective of any possible changes to the MID, including any changes to the

optionality clause. A few manufacturers mentioned that in some cases competitors claim that their

products are not used for legal metrology purposes in order to avoid complying with the Directive.

However, this is again mainly an issue of ineffective market surveillance and is should not been linked

with the use of optionality.

52 857 of the total of 972 (27 Member States multiplied by 36 categories or subcategories of instruments).



45

Contribution to the protection of consumers and users – role of optionality and other factors

The evidence indicates that the Directive has not led to significant changes to the level of consumer

protection and has not jeopardized consumer protection. The modifications to the essential

requirements in comparison to the pre-existing regime were rather small and, in many cases, they were

already integrated in the OIML standards or European standards that the industry had already adopted.

Still, for some countries, especially in the new Member States, competent authorities considered that

the implementation of the Directive did help increase the standards applicable to some MIs. The

benefits to consumers are expected to materialise only gradually as more MID-certified instruments

enter the market.

In relation to the role of optionality, some industry representatives and competent authorities did not

consider it fitting with EU-wide consumer protection but there was no evidence provided of any

problems to consumer protection in the countries used.

Specific issues are raised by some stakeholders (CAs and industry) concerning a few categories of MIs

and relevant provisions of the MID. They included the absence of legal certainty concerning the existing

requirements in Annex I for the display of legally important results, the need to cover additional classes

for some categories of utility meters that used by consumers or the requirements on clock and multiple

registers in utility meters. Such concerns have already been documented in the context of WELMEC and

alternative solutions are examined.

The more important problems concerning consumer protection are linked with what is broadly

considered as problematic and ineffective market surveillance (examined further below) in some

countries or sectors that allows the entry and circulation of non-certified products. Specific examples

provided concerned taximeters in the UK and fuel dispensers and weighing instruments in Greece, some

new Member States, mainly Bulgaria and Romania and, less so, Italy. The interviews with competent

authorities in at least one of the countries confirmed the existence of the problems reported.

Effective representation in the Measuring instruments decision making procedures

The general picture is that the MID decision-making procedures are open for input, comment and

contribution by all interested stakeholders. There is no evidence that interested parties have been

excluded or that they did not have the opportunity to raise issues properly.

Among the manufacturers of the ten categories of instruments, six (MI-001-MI-006) are almost

constantly represented in the working group meetings with frequent participation of the MI-008

(material measures of length and dimensional measuring instruments) by the European Hand Tools

Association. Representative of stakeholders in the remaining categories have not participated in the

meetings either because they do not exist (Taximeters), they have no information on the applicability of

the Directive (FEVE concerning capacity serving measures) or they do not wish to (EGEA for exhaust gas

analyzers).

Among the actively involved almost all representatives considered that their participation and input in

the working group meetings of the MID is open and satisfactory, despite not having voting rights. Among

the sectors that are not directly involved (mainly MI-007-MI-010) the companies did not consider this as

problematic. The main reason for not being present was their own rather limited interest.



46

Rather less satisfactory appeared to be for some Trade Associations (i.e. MI-005 and MI-006) the

participation in WELMEC working groups and in the writing of the guidance documents. They are seen as

rather key for the implementation of the Directive and industry representatives proposed that the

current level of involvement and the observer status they enjoy is inadequate. However, this was not a

view shared by utility meters representatives while, according to WELMEC direction, industry experience

and expertise always represents a very important input to the process.

As far as representation of consumers is concerned, the discussion with the main representatives

(ANEC/BEUC and NORMAPME) at the European level indicated that the monitoring of the MID has low

priority list given their limited resources. Concerning SMEs, the representatives consider that the SMEs

active in the sector are a very small share of the 11 million European SMEs and that their interests are

better represented by the respective sectoral associations.

6.2 Impacts

Impacts in terms of costs or administrative burdens and tangible benefits

It is generally accepted by almost all interviewees that the implementation of the Directive has provided

opportunities for cost cuttings as a result of the use of a single certificate for entering the EU market. In

some cases, the establishment of quality systems have also brought financial benefits on a medium to

long-term horizon.

Nevertheless, the introduction of the Directive has in general led to increases in the fees charged by

most notified bodies due to more thorough tests and it has in general extended the length of the

certification procedure creating additional red tape. In addition, national requirements come on top of

the MID which has not led to any simplification. Furthermore, additional costs arise in the case of the

necessary revisions or updates of certificates even for what companies consider as minor changes in the

MIs.

Competition among notified bodies has not been developed so far and, according to most discussions, it

has not yet led to any significant reduction of fees. Based on the information provided the fees charged

by notified bodies for a single certificate have increased in some countries (e.g. 20% in DE, 10-15% in NL)

while in others remained more or less the same (e.g. SL, AU). However, as suggested by some notified

bodies, while the tests required are more demanding competition has helped keep prices down.

Brought together, the extent to which these benefits of a single certificate outweigh the increased

administration costs related to the certification process vary. Firms with greater presence in

international markets have, as expected, seen greater benefits while some of the firms with presence in

a single or few markets suggested that in some cases they experienced a small increase in the total

costs.

Concerning the costs to authorities, most have seen a substantial decrease of their workload in terms of

dealing with applications for national certification that are no longer necessary. This reduction is

significant in the countries with small or no manufacturers where most MIs are imported (e.g. small

ones like CY. MT, LU, AU, IE, SL) and certification has already been taken elsewhere. In other countries

with greater manufacturing base (e.g. DE, ES, NL but also PT), there has been no change of the total

workload. According to most competent authorities, the reduction in the workload has not led to a



47

greater focus towards market surveillance activities as the focus of surveillance remains on the use of

MIs that are controlled by national legislation and not the MID.

Overall, the introduction of the MID seems to have created some cost savings in relation to the previous

situation. However, these savings appear rather moderate and tend to be unevenly distributed

favouring firms with higher level of exports and presence in multiple markets. Firms that are only active

in the respective national markets may experience higher administrative costs depending on the type of

instrument and the conformity assessment procedures used.

Impact on SMEs

The evidence provided concerning the impact on SMEs indicates that, overall, small firms are not

particularly affected – positively or negatively- as a result of the MID. Only in two sectors (MI-005 and

MI-006)) the industry representatives argue that the absence of a modular approach (certification of

components or sub-assemblies) may operate against SMEs that focus on the development of only

parts/components which cannot be certified. The industry also suggests that the Directive favours

producers that sell the complete integrated systems that can be MID certified but the evidence provided

so far supporting such conclusions has been rather scarce. However, the SME survey did not provide

evidence of widespread problem as only one out of 286 respondents made reference to such a problem.

Furthermore, the SMEs survey does not indicate that SMEs experience barriers to market entry (less

than 15% of responding SMEs stated so). It did not provide evidence that the conformity assessment

procedures are particularly burdensome (85% of SMEs responding stated that the procedures are

adequate).

Finally, SMEs that focus on their domestic market only have experienced increased administrative costs

without the respective benefits of the use of a single certificate. There has been an increase in charges

and the time needed for the majority of certification procedures.

6.3 Application and implementation

Parameters and barriers that affect the effective implementation of the Directive

A number of parameters have been identified that appear to have an impact on the implementation of

the Directive. Some of them have already been raised in the paragraphs above.

From a negative side, poor quality of market surveillance is an important concern to industry and is an

area where most authorities would recognise that their effort until recently has been insufficient. Only

in few countries have there been tests of the conformity of products placed in the market, usually on

the basis of annual surveillance programmes focusing on specific categories of MIs. Most authorities

concentrate on checking whether the CE+M mark is properly affixed and that the necessary paperwork

is conducted. In some countries even these typical tests are not properly conducted on a periodic basis.

The absence of proper surveillance appears to be the main reason for almost all occasions of unfair

competition reported during our fieldwork. In the case of taximeters (MI-007), even the requirement for

CE+M marking is not properly monitored, arguably favouring local producers whose product does not

fulfil the essential requirements. Similar reports of low levels of surveillance are made in respect of the

authorities in Greece, Bulgaria, Romania and Italy in a wide range of sectors. From their side, the

authorities in most countries mention their limited resources as the underlying reason for the ineffective



48

control of the market. However there is no evidence of a particularly problematic issue either in terms

of consumer protection or in terms of the gradual development of a single market.

A second rather problematic area concerns the operation of notified bodies in the assessment of

conformity and the overall certification procedure. On one hand, important parts of the industry and

national authorities claim that notified bodies tend to use WELMEC guidance documents as if they

represent regulations which provide the only possible path for establishing conformity. Industry

representatives referred to occasions when alternative approaches were rejected or considered

unfavourably. This is seen as having a negative role in the development of technological innovation

although there are only a few specific examples provided. On the other hand, notified bodies appear

inconsistent in their operation with important variations in their capacity to carry the necessary tests,

especially those in the new Member States. They are also inconsistent in terms of the content of

certificates issued and the use of evaluation certificates53

.

The notified bodies’ survey suggests that the guidelines and other MID documents are in most respects

clear and cannot be the main source of inconsistencies and variation. However, according to WELMEC

wg11, the MID itself seems to be unclear about which functions of a MI need to be assessed by a

notified body. Also, a few notified bodies referred to unclear elements in the provisions related to some

of the Modules. Furthermore, the provision of WELMEC documents in English only contributes,

according to some NBs, to inconsistencies in their interpretation.

Finally, most industry representatives indicated that the costs and time involved in the certification

process have increased, representing the main cost parameter in the administrative costs of the

Directive. While there have also been cases of reduction of costs and, or time, the majority suggested

that a 15-30% increase in charges is typical. Clearly, the expected benefits from competition among

notified bodies have not yet materialised.

A third problem concerns the unclear definition of what level of modification of a MI constitutes a

repair and what constitutes a new instrument requiring a new certificate. Manufacturers and some

notified bodies state that the regulation is unclear. As a result, there is a tendency to reapply for

certification for even minor changes. This procedure can increase the administrative costs of the

Directive. Examples are changes to software in a taximeter, and cases in the material and dimensional

measurement instruments categories. This issue arises despite the presence of a number of WELMEC

guidance documents that address it in detail and for each category of instrument.

On the positive side, the use of normative documents developed on the basis of OIML

recommendations to provide presumption of conformity appears to have a positive contribution to the

Directive. Only in one sector (MI-005) was there questioning on the appropriateness of the use of

normative documents primarily due to the limited role of industry in their development of international

standards by OIML which is a Treaty Organisation between governments. In all other areas, their use

53 Evaluation certificates concerning components of MIs (the so-called modular approach) are outside of the

Directive (so cannot be issued with NB numbers) and are issued by some labs to show that a specific part is

compatible with the MID requirement and WELMEC has issued relevant guides (which are not referred to from the

Commission website). However some countries (e.g. DE) and the notified bodies do not accept their use on the

grounds that they are not described in the Directive. Companies suggest that this creates additional complications

when moving from one NB to another.



49

was welcomed because they were already used by manufacturers prior to the MID but also because

they help keep Europe in line with the rest of the world. Such integration helps international trade and

avoids the development of trade barriers. Still, problematic areas do exist and the level of harmonization

does not seem to be complete. The essential requirements are not fully compatible with the OIML

recommendations and this means that there are differences between the normative documents and the

relevant European Standards for utility meters (e.g. MI-002). According to OIML, WELMEC contribution

through the issuing of correspondence tables is positive and is an ongoing process.

More generally, despite problems related to the use of its guidance documents by notified bodies,

WELMEC has a positive contribution towards a more effective implementation of the Directive. The

guidance documents issued by WELMEC - currently close to 6054

- cover the full range of activities and

address the different stakeholders. They serve for the application of conformity assessment procedures

by manufacturers and notified bodies and provide guidance for the various tests. A few industry

stakeholders consider that the number of guidance documents issued has been excessive making them

difficult to follow and possibly confusing. This clearly reflects the broad range of instruments and

conformity assessment procedures to be covered and it should reduce in the coming years.

Furthermore, WELMEC working groups bring together in a coordinated structure experts representing

competent authorities, notified bodies and industry stakeholders. During the four years of the

implementation of the MID, they have supported the identification of issues and problems – technical or

not - related to the implementation of the MID. It has led to a number of proposals based on the

broadest possible consensus.

Finally, the adoption of a 10-year transition period is considered adequate and appropriate by most

industry representatives and authorities. It allows sufficient time for adjustment. However, there is

some evidence to support the fears expressed by a few authorities that the long transition period would

lead manufacturers to rush to certify instruments based on national certificates. The analysis of the data

for the period 2003-2009 from 6 countries (including the three most active- DE, NL and FR) indicate a

clear increase in the pre- MID period up to 2006 followed by a decrease in the 2007-2009 period when

the MID was in force (see figure 5.1). The change was more evident in the case of Netherlands55

but it

was not seen in Germany. The pattern applied in almost all categories of instruments but it was

particularly evident for MI-006 (260 certificates pre-MID against 39 after MID), MI-002 (61 against 2),

MI-003 (326 against 199) and MI-004 (101 against 4). Only dimensional measuring instruments saw an

increase (38 against 44). Such a strategy was not brought up in any of the interviews with manufacturers

in the 10 sectors. However such behaviour could possibly be a result of the increased costs of

certification and the fact the some manufacturers had not been prepared before the entry of the MID

into force. Definite conclusions are premature at this stage and it is a point that needs to be monitored

further.

54 http://www.welmec.org/latest/guides.html

55 Data for 2009 are not available for the Netherlands but, unless there was a sudden increase from the year

before, the overall pattern is not very different.



50

Source: Data from national authorities

Expected role of the adaptation of the new approach (New Legal Framework - NLF) to the

implementation of the MID

It is expected that the adaptation of the new approach (New Legal Framework) will bring a number of

changes in the implementation of the Directive. On the positive side, competent authorities expect that

the NLF will bring improvements in market surveillance, which, as pointed earlier, is one of the

problems of the implementation of the Directive. Requirements for the development of a surveillance

plan by each Member State are seen by most as a means of ensuring a minimum level of market

surveillance across the EU. It remains unclear however how this will be implemented given that many

competent authorities referred to limited resources as the main underlying issue.

New information exchange obligations posed by the NLF to notified bodies, national authorities and the

Commission should have a positive role in addressing inconsistencies among the 140 notified bodies.

Although WELMEC working groups and the MID working group meetings already represent a forum for

exchange of information there is lack of information exchange between notified bodies, especially in

relation to new and rather small bodies, a number of which do not consider that they have appropriate

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

NL DE CZ AT NO SL FR

Figure 6.1 – Number of type certificates issued before (national and EEC non-MID) and after

(MID) the entry of MID into force (data from seven countries)



51

guidance. The working groups should provide an opportunity to increase exchange of information and

practices and help address the most problematic area of the Directive.

On a more negative side, changes in language requirements as a result of the NLF may create

additional costs to manufacturers. The NLF introduces the possibility – although not the requirement -

that Member State authorities may require full documentation in their own language. Such a

requirement is seen by industry as potentially posing important additional costs to companies –

particularly to SMEs. Data concerning costs of translation were limited but companies – primarily in AWI

sector - indicated that in cases where only few instruments are expected to be sold in a single country

they may decide not to enter the national market. Such an eventuality would indicate an effective

barrier to the operation of the single market, diluting the benefits of a single certificate. Still, it should

be noted that such comments came from only a small number of interviewees and the majority of

stakeholders did not consider this as particularly problematic area.

6.4 Strengths and weaknesses of the Directive

Based on the analysis presented, we can summarise the main strengths and weaknesses of the Directive

as it has been implemented so far.

Strengths

• The introduction of the MID has successfully provided the basis for the development of a more

efficiently operating single market on the basis of the use of a single certificate. While this benefit is

not equally experienced across all sectors and countries because of various obstacles – ( most of

which are not related to the implementation of the MID) the majority of companies with a presence

in more than one country indicate that the benefits outweigh the additional administrative costs.

• Overall, the MID has proven a technologically neutral directive and with few minor exceptions, has

not created obstacles to technological innovation. There are issues related to the use of software in

some categories of instruments and of smart meters in utilities, but these are well documented

through WELMEC working groups and efforts are being made to identify appropriate solutions

through guidance documents, standards or amendments.

• The optionality principle, used for around 10% of the total categories of instruments, appears to be

a strong point of the Directive. There is, at least up to now, no evidence to suggest that its use by

Member States has led to unfair competition of a two-tier market in the area legal metrology

instruments. At the same time, the flexibility provided to Member States appears to be an important

factor in achieving agreement in key areas.

• The level of representation of the most affected stakeholders appears appropriate and, while

industry does not have voting rights, WELMEC working groups and the MID working group meetings

are sufficiently open and provide the opportunity for the issues to be properly raised and argued. All

main issues raised by industry during the evaluation are well documented in WELMEC and many

appear high in the priority list to be examined for possible changes and amendments.

• The involvement of WELMEC and the creation of various working groups represent a further strong

point in the implementation of the Directive. It provides a forum for identifying and discussing

various technical issues and other problems. Guidance documents issued are considered by most



52

interviewees as useful for the interpretation of both the essential requirements and the conformity

assessment procedures by manufacturers and notified bodies.

Weaknesses

• Market surveillance is one of the key weaknesses of the implementation of the MID so far and it

appears to be the main reason for the development of two tier markets and potential unfair

competition in some sectors and in some Member States. Possibly due to the transition period but

mainly because of limited resources, authorities in the Member States have not given sufficient

priority to market surveillance.

• Inconsistencies on the part of notified bodies in the interpretation of the essential requirements and

the use of WELMEC guidance documents represent a further weakness of the implementation of the

Directive. The 140 bodies notified have varying capacity and follow diverse approaches leading to

variations in the certification process. The costs and time for the certifications process seems to vary

across sectors and Member States.

• The level of market knowledge about the MID appears also relatively limited. The interview

programme indicates that a number of companies – manufacturers and more often importers – are

not properly aware of the applicability and requirements of the Directive. While the respective

associations in the main sectors (utility meters, fuel dispensers, automatic weighing instruments)

are heavily involved and their respective members are informed, this information flow does not

apply to all sectors.. However, the absence of information should be seen in the context of a lower

level of impact and relevance of the Directive in these sectors (e.g. capacity serving measures) and

the low priority attached by the respective trade associations.

• Information exchange among competent authorities and notified bodies in relation to instruments

certified or rejected is also a rather weak point of the implementation of the Directive. According to

most stakeholders it should be improved in order to contribute to more effective market

surveillance.


Conclusions and recommendations 7

53

In this section we present the main conclusions of the interim evaluation and the respective

recommendations to improve the utility and effectiveness of the Directive.

7.1 Overall conclusions

Overall, the study has found that MID is operating effectively and it has successfully provided the basis

for the development of a single market that operates efficiently through the use of single certificate. In

that respect changes to the main provisions of the MID are not necessary.

However, a number of barriers and inefficiencies are still present. Amongst these are the poor level of

market surveillance, requirements linked to the use of measuring instruments in different countries and

the operation of the notified bodies. Some of these problems can be seen as transitional problems that

should be resolved over time. However, supportive actions, linked with the implementation of the New

Legislative Framework, should be considered and are discussed below.

The effectiveness of the Directive is also limited by a few technical issues (e.g. difference between heavy

and light industry, what constitutes a modifications that requires new certification, the definition of

hard copy) that create confusion and, while not critical, pose problems to notified bodies or increase

costs for manufacturers. These issues are already well documented through WELMEC working groups

that provide the most appropriate forum to identify solutions based either on specific amendments of

the text of the Directive or the issuing of WELMEC guidance documents.

Rather more important for the effectiveness of the Directive is the issue of the adoption of a sub-

assembly approach for fuel dispensers (MI-005) which appears to have negative effects that may

extend beyond the transition period and should, therefore, be addressed. However, it is outside the

scope of this evaluation to propose a specific solution given the technical nature of the issue. WELMEC

provides the appropriate forum for discussing and addressing the issue and this process is already

ongoing. Similarly, in the case of smart meters there is no apparent or broadly accepted solution and a

delay of any decision until further information is collected appears to be the most appropriate action.

In relation to the main issues raised by the European Parliament the analysis indicates that:

• In relation to the optionality principle, there is no evidence that its use has distorted competition

or created two-tier markets of legal metrology instruments. Parallel markets exist in some sectors

as measuring instruments may also be used for non-legal metrology (and thus fall within the scope

of the MID) purposes and their placement in the market is not controlled by national regulation as

far as metrological issues are concerned. Accordingly, parallel markets should be expected to exist

and shall continue in the future but this is not a result of the optionality principle.

• Concerning the role of the Directive in technological innovation, the evaluation did not identify

significant problems concerning the essential requirements of the Directive, which, in most

respects, are technologically neutral. Specific issues exist relating to a number of more or less

technical issues in different sectors (e.g. value of maximum permissible errors, temperature limits in

MI-006, operating conditions in water meters, coverage of smart meters). They have all been well

documented by WELMEC working groups and have been raised in the MID working groups.

Discussions on the appropriate solution on these issues are ongoing in the context of WELMEC.

• The MID decision-making procedures are open to input, commenting and contribution of all

interested stakeholders. There is no evidence that interested parties have been excluded or that



54

they did not have the opportunity to raise issues properly. However, not all categories of

instruments have been represented and during the course of the study at least two cases of

associations were identified which indicated that they had no information concerning the operation

of the working groups.

7.2 Recommendations

On the basis of the above conclusions, this evaluation suggests a number of actions that can be

implemented by the European Commission in cooperation with Member States and WELMEC with the

aim of improving the effectiveness and utility of the Directive.

• Enhance the consistency and quality of notified bodies - Notified bodies play a key role in the

implementation of the Directive. There are a few experienced NBs but many have limited resources

and experience. This is one of the reasons for the inconsistencies that affect manufacturers.

WELMEC guides play a supportive role but their interpretation by the notified bodies varies. Thus,

greater sharing of information and experience, including training on the application of conformity

tests should be introduced. There is also a need to clarify issues such as what levels of modification

require additional approval. The New Legislative Framework is expected to provide the legal context

for this type of information and experience exchange. However, the Commission should aim to

promote such activities even before the NLF regulation is actually put in force. In this direction, the

provision of translated versions of the various WELMEC documents should also be examined.

WELMEC most probably does not have the necessary resources for such a task which should be

undertaken at a Member State level.

• Strengthen market surveillance - A problematic area of the implementation of the Directive is the

level of market surveillance. Lack of market surveillance allows non CE+M marked products to be

marketed. Again, the New Legislative Framework regulations are expected to provide the basis for a

more coordinated and planned action by requiring countries to develop and implement surveillance

plans. This probably provides the context for appropriate response to most of the problems.

However, the limited resources and the low priority given to the issue by national authorities

suggest that an improvement in market surveillance may take time to materialise. The Commission’s

role should be to ensure that surveillance plans are developed and implemented by all Member

States, and to press for the necessary resources to be made available. Member States authorities

can make use of the existing guidance document on market surveillance developed by WELMEC. It

would also be helpful to formalise the sharing of results and of experience among the relevant

bodies by means of discussion groups or an online forum. In this regard, it could also be helpful if

Competent Authorities agree to prepare annual plans including their objectives and the resources

to be used, and agree to share these plans with each other and the Commission.

• Increase accessibility of information concerning EC type certificates - Market surveillance also

requires also increased information exchange among authorities and notified bodies concerning

instruments certified or rejected. The certificates database – currently provided by 13 Member

States - represents one of the tools to facilitate exchange of information. The development of a

single database could provide a more effective solution in this respect. However, an initial effort was

not supported by Member States and, in some respects, is not the only possible solution. What is

important is that all Member States publicise the EC type certificates issued and facilitate access to



55

this information. Furthermore, a more consistent approach in presenting this information through

the national databases could be agreed to enhance further the access to information.

• Promote a common certificate format - The evaluation findings suggest important variations among

notified bodies in the format of certificates issued for similar categories of instruments. The

Commission should consider, in the context of the dialogue and exchange of experience, the

promotion of a common certificate format to be used by all notified bodies for each category.

WELMEC can serve as the forum for defining a prototype format and its contents.

• Enhance information on the applicability of the MID – One of the findings of the evaluation is that

in a number of countries manufacturers and – even more so – importers are not familiar with the

Directive and its requirements. Member states are primarily responsible for further dissemination of

information through targeted national information campaigns but so far this has not been widely

applied. Renewed efforts by Member States authorities through contacts with key national

partners (sector associations) should be encouraged. In parallel, at the European level the

Commission could initiate a targeted pan-European information campaign with the cooperation of

key stakeholders (European or national industry/trade associations) and articles in the relevant

technical press.

• Invite additional stakeholders in working group meetings – The evaluation identified two industry

stakeholders (FEVE and EGEA) whose members are affected by the implementation of the Directive

that were either not informed of its presence or that had not been previously invited in the

respective working group meetings. The Commission should extent its invitations to these members

and make an additional effort to identify any other stakeholders at the EU level that may be directly

affected by the Directive.

Interim Evaluation of the Measuring Instruments Directive – Final report Appendix

Interview programme A

56

Trade associations and manufacturers/distributers/users

Organisation Type Status

M-001 water meters

AQUA, European Association of water and heat meters manufacturers Industry

Association

Completed

European Smart Metering Industry Group Industry

Association

Completed

Bruno Janz (PT) Manufacturer Completed

Kamstrup (DK) Manufacturer Completed

Sappel (FR) Manufacturer Contacted

EUREAU, European union of national associations of water suppliers and waste

water services

Industry

Association

Contacted

Apator Powogaz S.A (POL) Manufacturer Contacted

E. Wehrle GmbH (DE) Manufacturer Contacted

Elster Metering limited (DE) Manufacturer Completed

Aquametro (CH) Manufacturer Contacted

Nostrom Manufacturer Contacted

MOM (HU) Manufacturer Contacted

Baylan (TK) Manufacturer Contacted

Sensus (US) Manufacturer Contacted

IWA, International Water Association Industry

Association

Contacted

M-002 gas meters

FACOGAZ, Association of European Gas Meters Manufacturers Industry

Association

Completed

ORES Users Association Completed

Landis+Gyr (CH) Manufacturer Completed

Elster Metering limited (DE) Manufacturer Completed

Sensus (US) Manufacturer Contacted

Itron France Manufacturer /

importer

Contacted

ELGAS s.r.o. Manufacturer Contacted

M-002 active electricity meters

EURELECTRIC/UNIPEDE, Union of the Electricity Industry Industry

Association

Completed

Bruno Janz (PT) Manufacturer Completed

Elster group (DE) Manufacturer /

importer

Completed

Landis+Gyr (CH) Manufacturer Completed

CITEF, Association of European Electricity Meters Manufacturers Industry

Association

Contacted

FIEEC Manufacturer Contacted

Hager Electro GmbH & Co. KG (DE) Manufacturer Contacted

Itron France Manufacturer /

importer

Contacted

Metrima (SW) Manufacturer / Contacted



57


importer

M-004 heat meters

AQUA, European Association of water and heat meters manufacturers Trade Association Completed

Lanis+Gyr (CH) Manufacturer Completed

European Smart Metering Industry Group Industry

Association

Completed

Kamstrup (DK) Manufacturer Completed

Allmess GmbH (DE) Manufacturer Completed

EUROHEAT Industry

Association

Contacted

Sontex (UK) Manufacturer Contacted

M-005 petrol pumps

CECOD, European Committee of Manufacturers of Petrol Measuring Systems Industry

Association

Completed

Petrol Pump Manufacturing Association Industry

Association

Completed

Petrotec (PT) Manufacturer Completed

Tokheim (FR) Manufacturer Completed

Scheidt& Bachman (DE) Manufacturer Completed

Hectronics (SE) Manufacturer Completed

Petroleum Equipment Installers and Maintainance Federation (UK + Ireland) Users Completed

Gilbarco (iternational - UK) Manufacturer Completed

Dezidata (DE) Manufacturer Contacted

Hermann-Lummen (DE) Manufacturer Contacted

Sam System (DK) Manufacturer Contacted

K+S (DE) Manufacturer Contacted

Pumptronics (UK) Manufacturer Contacted

M-005 other liquid non-water

Isoil Impianti (IT) Manufacturer Completed

Flaco (DE) Manufacturer Completed

Acram (IT) Manufacturer Completed

Gea Diesel (DE) Manufacturer Contacted

Flow instruments (DE) Manufacturer Contacted

Dezidata (DE) Manufacturer Contacted

Schwarte Milfor (PL) Manufacturer Contacted

Alma (FR) Manufacturer Contacted

Bohlen Doyen (DE) Manufacturer Contacted

Alfons-haar (DE) Manufacturer Contacted

Janksy Manufacturer Contacted

Tasca Tankers (UK) Manufacturer Contacted

SATAM (FR) Manufacturer Contacted

MECI Ltd (UK) Manufacturer Contacted

ENGVA, European Natural Gas Vehicle Association Industry

Association

Contacted

Bartec (UK) Manufacturer Contacted

M-006 AWI



58


CECIP, European Committee of Weighing Instruments Manufacturers Industry

Association

Completed

Penko (NL) Manufacturer Completed

Welvaarts weighing systems(NL) Manufacturer Completed

Mettler Toledo (CH) Manufactrurer Completed

Aanderaa Data Instruments AS (NO) Manufacturer Contacted

Teltek (SE) Manufacturer Contacted

Fawag (PL) Manufacturer Contacted

Technipes (IT) Manufacturer Contacted

Mesomatic (DE) Manufacturer Contacted

Feige (DE) Manufacturer Contacted

Bizerba (DE) Manufacturer Contacted

Presia sa (FR) Manufacturer Contacted

Bilansiai (IT) Manufacturer Contacted

Weighwell (UK) Manufactrurer Contacted

MI-007 - Taximeters

Aquila electronics (UK) Manufacturer Completed

Digitax (IT) manufacturer Completed

Hale Electronics Gmbh (AT) Manufacturer Completed

Semel (FI) Manufacturer Completed

Cygnus automotive manufacturer Contacted

Structab (SE) Manufacturer Contacted

M-008 tapes

CEO (European Hand Tools Association) Industry

association

Arranged

Fischer-Darex Outillage (FR) Manufacturer Completed

Toolvizion International (NL) Manufacturer Completed

ENRAF B.V. (NL) Manufacturer Completed

Stanley works (UK) Manufacturer Contacted

STABILA Messgeräte GmbH (DE) Manufacturer Contacted

Bayerische Maßindustrie (DE) Manufacturer Contacted

Top Long industrial Co ltd. (China) Manufacturer Contacted

Lufkin Europe (NL) Manufacturer Contacted

G Borgquist & Co I/S (USA) Manufacturer Contacted

TOVARNA MERIL KOVINE d.d.(SL) Manufacturer Contacted

M-008 capacity serving measures

FEVE – European Container Glass Association Industry

association

Completed

Rona (SK) Manufacturer Contacted

TAJIMA AG (CH) Manufacturer /

importer

Contacted

Mitchell & Cooper (Multinational) Manufacturer /

importer

Completed

Invicta Plastics Ltd (UK) Manufacturer /

importer

Completed

M-009 dimensional measure



59


Fischer Instruments (UK) Manufacturer Completed

Vitronic (DE) Manufacturer Completed

Metrie (CZ) Manufacturer Completed

Kabelmat GmbH (DE) Manufacturer Completed

KFM Müller GmbH (DE) Manufacturer Contacted

FARO Techonologies (USA) Manufacturer Contacted

Stanley tools (international) Manufacturer Contacted

Mettler-Toledo Cargoscan AS (Norway) Manufacturer Contacted

Schuller GmbH (DE) Manufacturer Contacted

ALEX Italiana S.r.l. (IT) Manufacturer Contacted

Innovalia (multinational) Manufacturer Contacted

Trumeter (UK) Manufacturer Contacted

SICK (DE) Manufacturer Contacted

Accu-Sort Systems (USA) Manufacturer Contacted

Beta LaserMike Ltd (UK) Manufacturer Contacted

M-010 exhaust gas analyser

EGEA - European Garage Equipment Association Industry

Association

Written

response

Texa (IT) Manufacturer Completed

Robert Bosch (FR) Manufacturer Contacted

Crypton UK) Manufacturer Contacted

Seltec S.rL (IT) Manufacturer Contacted

Tecnotest (IT) Manufacturer Contacted

Brainbee (UK) Manufacturer Contacted

SPX Service Solutions (US) Manufacturer Contacted

DiTEST Fahrzeugdiagnose GMBH (DE) Manufacturer contacted

AVL Manufacturer contacted

Capelec (FR) Manufacturer contacted

FFB Automotive (FR) Manufacturer contacted

Test equipment (NL) Manufacturer contacted

Omitec (UK) Manufacturer contacted

Gunson (UK) Manufacturer contacted

Standard bodies

Organisation Position Status

CEN Standards department – Responsible for metrology Completed

CEN Chairman of Smart Meters Coordination Group Completed

CENELEC Chairman of Technical committee 13 responsible for European standards related

to smart meters Contacted

OIML Assistant director of the OIML secretariat Completed

Competent authorities

Country AUTHORITY Status

AU BEV Completed

BE Ministry of Economics Completed

BG State Agency for Metrology and Technical Supervision (SAMTS) Completed



60

Country AUTHORITY Status

CY Ministry of Commerce, Industry and Tourism Completed

CZ UNMZ Completed

DK DFM Completed

EE MKM Declined

FI TUKES Completed

FR Bureau de la métrologie , Ministrere de l'Industrie Completed

DE PTB Completed

GR EIM Completed

HU Mkeh Completed

IR NSAI Completed

IT Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico Written

comments

LV LNMC Completed

LT LVMT Completed

LU ILNAS Completed

MT MSA Completed

NL Minez Completed

PL GUM Declined

PT IPQ Completed

RO BRML Declined

SK Normoff Completed

SL MIRS Completed

ES CEM Completed

SE Swedac Written

comments

UK NMO Completed

UK Department for transport Completed

UK Department for transport Completed

CH Federal office of Metrology Completed

NO Norwegian Metrology Service Completed

IC Metrology Department Declined

WELMEC working groups

WG Area of responsibility status

WG2 Directive implementation Completed

WG5 Metrological supervision Completed

WG7 Software Completed

WG8 General application of MID Completed

WG10 MIs for liquids other than water Completed

WG11 Utility meters Completed

Ad-Hoc WG Information exchange Completed

WELMEC Secretariat Director of WELMEC Completed

Other

Name of association status

NORMAPME – European Office of Crafts, Trades and Small and Medium Enterprises for Completed



61

Standardization

BEUC – European Consumers Association /ANEC – European Consumer Voice in Standardization

Declined on

the grounds

of no input


References – sources used B

62

Reference documents

- Response of Member States to the Commission letter to competent authorities of 10/07/2009

(CIRCA)

- Position papers of trade associations (CECIP, CEDOC, Eurelectric, Aqua, Facogaz, Marcogaz) on MID

evaluation (CIRCA)

- WELMEC working group proposals for the revision of the MID

- WELMEC guides on MID, accessible from http://www.welmec.org/latest/guides.html

Market research documents

- Multi Utility Meter Report Ed 7 2009 – ABS Research

- European Garage Equipment market study 2008 – Leo-Impact Consulting GMBH

Internet and other sources

• Eurostat, Statistics in focus, Transport, 9/2006 Passenger transport in the European Union,

http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=STAT/06/125

• Strategic Analysis of the European Diagnostic Instrumentation Markets,

http://www.researchandmarkets.com/reports/603619/strategic_analysis_of_the_european_diagno

stic

• European Weighing Industry: http://www.cecip.eu/industry.php

• European Glass Containers Association : www.feve.org

• European Hand Tools Association : www.ceo-tools.com

• European Garage Equipment Association: http://www.egea-association.eu/objectives.html

• PRODCOM database - http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/prodcom/introduction


MID – PRODCOM correspondence

table

C

63

Type of MI (main groups and subgroups of MI)

Preliminary CN code

Preliminary PRODCOM

code

MI-001: Water Meters 902820 26516350

A. Cold Water Meters:

residential use

commercial & light industrial use

B. Warm Water Meters:

residential use


MI-002: Gas Meters & Conversion Devices

Gas Meters: 902810 26536330

residential, commerc. & light ind. use

Volume conversion devices: 33205283

residential use


MI-003: Active Electricity Energy Meters 902830 26516370

Residential

commercial & light industry use

MI-004: Heat Meters 902680 26515283

residential use

commercial & light industry use

MI-005: Measuring Systems for Liquids other

than Water

Fuel dispensers: 84131100 28131105

Liquids

Liquefied gases

Systems on (un)loading ships:

Systems on (un)loading rail:

Systems on (un)loading road tankers:

Systems for refuelling aircraft:

Systems for cryogenic liquids:

Systems for milk:

Systems for liquids: 8471800 269900Z0

Systems for liquefied gases:

MI-006: Automatic Weighing Instr. 8423

Automatic catchweighers: 8423 20 00 29242310

Automatic checkweighers: 84238110

8423 82 10 28293910

Weight labellers: n.a. n.a.

Weight/price labellers: n.a. n.a.

Automatic gravim. filling instruments: 8423 30 00 28293180

Discontinuous totalisers: 8423 89 00 28293180

Continuous totalisers: 8423 30 00 28293180

Rail-weighbridges:


MID – PRODCOM correspondence

table

C

64

Type of MI (main groups and subgroups of MI)

Preliminary CN code

Preliminary PRODCOM

code

MI-007: Taximeters 9029 10 00 26516430

MI-008: Material Measures

Material measure of length: 9017 80 10 28293975/28293979

Capacity serving measures:

7013 22/7013 28/7013 33/7013 37

3924 10 00

7013 10 00

23131220

23131240

23131260

23131280

Serving measures:

Transfer measures:

MI-009:Dimensional Measuring Instr. 9031 80 91/9031 80 34/9031 80 38 26516650/26516670

Length measuring instruments:

Area measuring instruments:

Multi-dimensional measuring instr.:

MI-010: Exhaust Gas Analysers n.a. n.a.


Notified bodies questionnaire

D

65

Survey questionnaire – MID accredited notified bodies

The Centre for Strategy and Evaluation Services carries out on behalf of DG Enterprise and Industry of

the European Commission an independent interim evaluation of the Measuring Instruments Directive

(2004/22/EC).

The evaluation is expected to:

- Assess the utility and effectiveness of the implementation of the Measuring Instruments Directive

(MID);

- Analyse the impacts of the MID on companies and users in the European Union, including trade

barriers that limit the free movement of goods and possibly create obstacles to technological

innovation;

- Assess whether measuring instruments are fit for purpose from the perspective of public interest,

public health, public safety, public order, environmental protection, consumer protection, levying of

taxes and duties and fair trading, where they are legally required by the Member States;

- Compile and assess information on the effective implementation and functioning of the Directive in

terms of its impacts and application; and

- Draw conclusions and recommendations with regard to the scope for the potential improvement of

MID.

The assignment commenced in November 2009 and is due to be completed by June 2010.

Questions

1. Is your organisation:

a. public

b. private body

c. other, please specify : .....

2. For which legal metrology instruments covered by the MID is your organisation designated for?

Please indicate main categories and/or subcategories if applicable.

MI-001: Water Meters □

MI-002: Gas Meters & Conversion Devices □

MI-003: Active Electricity Energy Meters □

MI-004: Heat Meters □

MI-005: Measuring Systems for Liquids other than Water □

MI-006: Automatic Weighing Instr. □

MI-007: Taximeters □

MI-008: Material Measures □

MI-009:Dimensional Measuring Instr. □



D

66

MI-010: Exhaust Gas Analysers □

3. Which conformity assessment procedures are you designated for? (please check all applicable)

a. A1 □

b. B □

c. C □

d. C1 □

e. D □

f. D1 □

g. E □

h. E1 □

i. F □

j. F1 □

k. G □

l. H □

m. H1 □

4. In relation to the testing of conformity of measuring instruments, how clear do you find the

different MID documents available (standards, the guidance on the normative documents and

guidance documents on the essential requirements)?

EN- Standards OIML normative

documents

MID Guidance on

OIML normative

documents

MID Guidance on

essential

requirements

Very clear □ □ □ □

Clear □ □ □ □

Rather clear □ □ □ □

Unclear □ □ □ □

Very unclear □ □ □ □

Don’t use □ □ □ □

Don’t exist □ □ □ □

No opinion □ □ □ □

5. In relation to the application of the different conformity assessment procedures, how clear do you

find the different MID documents (standards, the guidance on the normative documents and

guidance documents on the essential requirements) to be?

EN-Standards on conformity

assessment

MID Guidance on conformity

assessment procedures

Very clear □ □

Clear □ □

Rather clear □ □

Unclear □ □

Very unclear □ □

Don’t use □ □

No opinion □ □



D

67

6. Based on your experience so far, do you think that the essential requirements of the MID allow

technological innovation by manufacturers? (YES/NO, please explain- text box).

7. Please, refer to any advantages/problems you have experienced in relation to the implementation

of the Directive. (text box)

8. What has been the total number of type examinations, quality system approvals and verifications

you have performed in the last 3 years? If possible, indicate by each type of measuring instrument. If

possible, please indicate also the average cost for each category of instrument.

EC type

examinations

Quality

system

approvals

Verifications Average

cost

MI-001: Water Meters

MI-002: Gas Meters & Conversion Devices

MI-003: Active Electricity Energy Meters

MI-004: Heat Meters

MI-005: Measuring Systems for Liquids other than

Water

MI-006: Automatic Weighing Instr.

MI-007: Taximeters

MI-008: Material Measures

MI-009:Dimensional Measuring Instr.

MI-010: Exhaust Gas Analysers

9. Would you willing to be contacted by CSES for a brief further discussion on the above issues?

(YES/NO) If yes, please provide contact details.

Thank you very much for your cooperation.

Inte

rim

Ev

alu

ati

on

of

the

Me

asu

rin

g I

nst

rum

en

ts D

ire

ctiv

e –

Fin

al

rep

ort

Ap

pe

nd

ix

Me

asu

rin

g I

nst

rum

en

ts a

na

lysi

s ta

ble

s

E

68

MI-

00

1 –

Wa

ter

me

ters

56

Issu

es

F

ind

ing

s

Ev

ide

nce

/da

ta/

ex

am

ple

s

Ov

era

ll e

xpe

rie

nce

fro

m t

he

imp

lem

en

tati

on

of

the

Dir

ect

ive

Ov

era

ll,

bo

th A

QU

A a

nd

th

e i

nd

ivid

ua

l m

an

ufa

ctu

rers

su

gg

est

ed

a p

osi

tiv

e

exp

eri

en

ce f

rom

th

e i

mp

lem

en

tati

on

of

the

MID

un

til n

ow

. T

he

Dir

ect

ive

ha

s b

ee

n

bu

ilt

on

Dir

ect

ive

75

/33

/EE

C,

wh

ich

alr

ea

dy

in

clu

de

d a

nu

mb

er

of

leg

al

me

tro

log

y

asp

ect

s a

nd

, a

s a

re

sult

, si

mil

ar

typ

es

of

ap

pro

va

ls h

ad

to

be

ma

de

pri

or

to t

he

MID

. T

he

ne

w D

ire

ctiv

e d

id n

ot

bri

ng

ma

jor

cha

ng

es.

On

to

p o

f th

at,

th

e i

nd

ust

ry

con

sid

ere

d t

ha

t th

e p

art

icip

ati

on

in

th

e w

ork

ing

gro

up

of

MIs

(e

xte

nd

ed

sh

ari

ng

of

exp

eri

en

ce a

nd

re

al

“ma

na

ge

me

nt”

of

MID

) w

as

a p

osi

tiv

e i

mp

rov

em

en

t.

Th

e o

nly

ne

ga

tiv

e p

oin

t ca

me

fro

m t

he

Da

nis

h C

A w

hic

h s

ug

ge

ste

d t

ha

t M

ID i

s in

con

tra

dic

tio

n w

ith

th

e D

ire

ctiv

e o

n e

ne

rgy

en

d-u

se e

ffic

ien

cy a

nd

th

at

the

re i

s p

oo

r

qu

ali

ty o

f th

e o

f cl

ass

A m

ete

rs c

ov

ere

d b

y t

he

MID

.

An

ne

x M

I-0

01

of

the

MID

sta

tes

tha

t a

re

ad

ing

is

ne

cess

ary

in

th

e

inst

rum

en

ts.

In

ord

er

to

en

sure

co

nsu

me

r

pro

tect

ion

, a

nd

be

cau

se o

f

the

gro

win

g c

om

ple

xity

of

wa

ter

pri

cin

g,

the

Da

nis

h C

A

be

lie

ve

s th

at

info

rma

tio

n

such

as

vo

lum

e,

pri

ce,

tim

e

of

use

etc

sh

ou

ld a

lso

be

dis

pla

ye

d.

De

ve

lop

me

nt

of

an

eff

icie

nt

op

era

tin

g s

ing

le m

ark

et

On

e l

arg

e m

an

ufa

ctu

rer

an

d t

he

tra

de

ass

oci

ati

on

(A

QU

A)

acc

ep

ted

th

at

the

MID

ha

s h

elp

ed

de

ve

lop

a m

ore

eff

ect

ive

sin

gle

ma

rke

t th

an

un

de

r th

e p

rev

iou

s re

gim

e.

Th

ey

me

nti

on

ed

th

at

the

re h

av

e b

ee

n c

lea

r b

en

efi

ts f

rom

th

e n

ece

ssit

y f

or

typ

e

ap

pro

va

l in

on

ly o

ne

co

un

try

.

Te

chn

olo

gic

al

inn

ov

ati

on

-

sup

po

rtin

g/h

am

pe

rin

g

Th

e m

an

ufa

ctu

rers

an

d t

rad

e a

sso

cia

tio

n d

o n

ot

be

lie

ve

th

at

the

MID

ha

mp

ers

inn

ov

ati

on

wit

h t

he

no

tab

le e

xce

pti

on

of

the

iss

ue

of

sma

rt m

ete

rin

g (

ad

dre

ss

late

r).

Op

tio

na

lity

- Is

it

use

d i

n t

he

se

cto

r

(ho

w m

an

y M

S a

nd

wh

y)

- Is

th

ere

ev

ide

nce

of

two

-tie

r m

ark

et

- Is

th

ere

ev

ide

nce

of

un

fair

co

mp

eti

tio

n

2 c

ou

ntr

ies

use

it

for

resi

de

nti

al

– 4

fo

r li

gh

t in

du

stry

. R

ea

son

s st

ate

d w

as

the

ab

sen

ce f

rom

th

e m

ark

et

an

d l

ack

of

pu

bli

c p

oli

cy p

rob

lem

Acc

ord

ing

to

AC

QU

A,

pro

fess

ion

als

in

th

e s

ect

or

are

no

t v

ery

fa

mil

iar

wit

h t

he

op

tio

na

lity

pri

nci

ple

. A

tw

o-t

ier

ma

rke

t, o

f tr

ad

e b

arr

iers

an

d u

nfa

ir c

om

pe

titi

on

cou

ld b

e a

re

sult

bu

t A

QU

A d

oe

s n

ot

ha

ve

an

y d

ata

or

ev

ide

nce

to

su

pp

ort

th

is.

Ma

nu

fact

ure

rs p

oin

t a

lso

to

th

e f

act

th

at

ov

er

2/3

rds

of

wa

ter

me

ters

pu

rch

ase

d i

n

the

EU

are

pu

rch

ase

d b

y p

rofe

ssio

na

ls o

r d

ire

ctly

by

th

e w

ate

r d

istr

ibu

tors

. T

he

y

ha

ve

a v

est

ed

in

tere

st i

n h

av

ing

re

lia

ble

me

teri

ng

sy

ste

ms

ba

sed

on

MID

cert

ific

ati

on

.

56 B

ase

d o

n i

nte

rvie

w w

ith

a r

ep

rese

nta

tiv

e o

f th

e t

wo

tra

de

ass

oci

ati

on

s A

CQ

UA

an

d E

SM

IG,

an

d t

hre

e l

arg

e m

an

ufa

ctu

rers

Els

ter

(DE

), B

run

o J

an

z (P

T),

Ka

mst

rup

(D

K).

Inte

rim

Ev

alu

ati

on

of

the

Me

asu

rin

g I

nst

rum

en

ts D

ire

ctiv

e –

Fin

al

rep

ort

Ap

pe

nd

ix

Me

asu

rin

g I

nst

rum

en

ts a

na

lysi

s ta

ble

s

E

69

Issu

es

F

ind

ing

s

Ev

ide

nce

/da

ta/

ex

am

ple

s

Co

nsu

me

r p

rote

ctio

n d

ue

to

op

tio

na

lity

an

d a

ny

oth

er

fact

or

Th

ere

is

no

co

nce

rn a

bo

ut

con

sum

er

pro

tect

ion

iss

ue

s b

ase

d o

n o

pti

on

ali

ty.

Co

nsu

me

rs d

o n

ot

ge

ne

rall

y p

urc

ha

se t

he

me

ters

th

em

selv

es.

Th

ose

are

in

sta

lle

d

by

th

e d

istr

ibu

tors

an

d t

he

y h

av

e a

ve

ste

d i

nte

rest

in

ha

vin

g r

eli

ab

le m

ete

rin

g

syst

em

s b

ase

d o

n M

ID c

ert

ific

ati

on

.

Ho

w h

av

e a

dm

inis

tra

tiv

e a

nd

oth

er

cost

s in

cre

ase

d /

red

uce

d

for

firm

s a

nd

fo

r a

dm

inis

tra

tio

ns

Ov

era

ll,

ma

nu

fact

ure

rs b

eli

eve

th

at

the

im

ple

me

nta

tio

n o

f th

e D

ire

ctiv

e h

as

no

t

cha

ng

ed

th

e c

ost

s a

nd

ad

min

istr

ati

ve

bu

rde

ns.

Th

e D

ire

ctiv

e d

oe

s n

ot

rad

ica

lly

cha

ng

e t

he

pre

vio

us

reg

ime

, it

ad

ap

ts a

nd

ha

rmo

nis

es

it b

ase

d o

n e

xist

ing

ru

les

Ho

we

ve

r, a

cco

rdin

g t

o o

ne

CA

, th

ere

wa

s a

n e

ffo

rt b

y s

om

e c

om

pa

nie

s to

ha

ve

pro

du

cts

tha

t h

ad

alr

ea

dy

be

en

ap

pro

ve

d u

nd

er

the

old

Dir

ect

ive

ap

pro

ve

d u

nd

er

the

MID

, w

hic

h m

igh

t h

av

e i

ncr

ea

sed

co

sts

a l

ittl

e.

A C

A t

ha

t d

id n

ot

wa

nt

to b

e

dis

clo

sed

re

ferr

ed

to

an

an

ecd

ota

l e

vid

en

ce o

f m

ete

rs

ap

pro

ve

d u

nd

er

the

old

reg

ime

be

ing

su

bm

itte

d a

ga

in

for

ap

pro

va

l u

nd

er

the

MID

.

Re

pre

sen

tati

on

in

th

e

Me

asu

rin

g i

nst

rum

en

ts

com

mit

tee

Ve

ry s

ati

sfa

cto

ry,

the

wg

MI

ha

s b

ee

n o

ne

of

the

mo

st w

elc

om

e a

spe

cts

of

MID

.

Tw

o m

an

ufa

ctu

rers

an

d a

tra

de

ass

oci

ati

on

un

de

rlin

e t

he

im

po

rta

nce

of

the

wo

rkin

g g

rou

ps

to r

ed

uce

th

e t

ime

be

twe

en

th

e i

mp

lem

en

tati

on

of

the

Dir

ect

ive

an

d t

he

sm

oo

th u

nd

ers

tan

din

g a

nd

ru

nn

ing

of

the

op

era

tio

ns.

Imp

act

/iss

ue

s fo

r S

ME

s (r

efe

r to

the

ext

en

t th

at

SM

Es

ma

y f

ace

pa

rtic

ula

r p

rob

lem

s in

com

pa

riso

n t

o l

arg

e f

irm

s)

Giv

en

th

e d

om

ina

nce

of

larg

e s

ize

fir

ms

in t

he

se

cto

r th

is i

s se

en

as

a m

ino

r is

sue

, if

it a

pp

lie

s a

t a

ll.

Th

e S

ME

s su

rve

y (

incl

ud

ing

91

SM

Es

act

ivit

y i

n t

he

se

cto

r) d

id n

ot

ind

ica

te p

rob

lem

s re

late

d t

o t

he

co

nfo

rmit

y p

roce

du

res

an

d l

ess

th

an

20

% r

efe

rre

d

to t

he

pre

sen

ce o

f a

ny

ba

rrie

rs t

o t

rad

e

Pa

ram

ete

rs t

ha

t a

ffe

ct t

he

im

ple

me

nta

tio

n o

f th

e D

ire

ctiv

e

•

Ro

le o

f st

an

da

rds

an

d

gu

ida

nce

do

cum

en

ts (

incl

.

role

of

WE

LME

C)

WE

LME

C i

s se

en

as

by

all

inte

rvie

we

es

as

ext

rem

ely

use

ful

for

the

co

ord

ina

tio

n

be

twe

en

No

tifi

ed

Bo

die

s a

nd

Na

tio

na

l O

rga

nis

ati

on

s. W

ELM

EC

gu

ide

lin

es

ha

ve

be

en

use

ful

for

ha

rmo

nis

ati

on

an

d f

or

the

co

mm

on

in

terp

reta

tio

n o

f th

e M

ID.

Th

e l

ev

el

of

sta

nd

ard

s is

suin

g h

as

be

en

of

hig

he

r le

ve

l si

nce

th

e i

ntr

od

uct

ion

of

the

MID

.

•

Imp

lem

en

tati

on

by

no

tifi

ed

bo

die

s

Ma

nu

fact

ure

rs d

id n

ot

ha

ve

an

yth

ing

to

co

mm

en

t –

eit

he

r p

osi

tiv

e o

r n

eg

ati

ve

- o

n

the

im

ple

me

nta

tio

n b

y n

oti

fie

d b

od

ies.

•

Ma

rke

t su

rve

illa

nce

by

au

tho

riti

es

It i

s th

e m

ain

asp

ect

th

at

all

in

terv

iew

ee

s co

nsi

de

red

as

mis

sin

g f

rom

th

e M

ID.

Th

ey

exp

ect

th

at

som

e v

ery

lig

ht

ma

rke

t su

rve

illa

nce

wil

l b

e i

ntr

od

uce

d b

y t

he

Ne

w

Leg

isla

tiv

e F

ram

ew

ork

(N

LF).

•

Tra

nsi

tio

n p

eri

od

(st

ate

d

be

ne

fits

/iss

ue

s)

All

ma

nu

fact

ure

rs a

gre

ed

th

at

10

ye

ars

is

an

ap

pro

pri

ate

tra

nsi

tio

n p

eri

od

.

Oth

er

Acc

ord

ing

to

AC

QU

A,

the

re s

ho

uld

be

ch

an

ge

s in

th

e e

sse

nti

al

req

uir

em

en

ts r

ate

d

Inte

rim

Ev

alu

ati

on

of

the

Me

asu

rin

g I

nst

rum

en

ts D

ire

ctiv

e –

Fin

al

rep

ort

Ap

pe

nd

ix

Me

asu

rin

g I

nst

rum

en

ts a

na

lysi

s ta

ble

s

E

70

Issu

es

F

ind

ing

s

Ev

ide

nce

/da

ta/

ex

am

ple

s

op

era

tin

g c

on

dit

ion

sh

ou

ld b

e i

mp

rov

ed

. T

he

co

nce

rn i

s th

at

the

cu

rre

nt

lev

el

all

ow

ed

by

th

e M

ID i

s n

ot

stri

ng

en

t e

no

ug

h a

nd

po

ten

tia

lly

all

ow

s lo

we

r q

ua

lity

me

ters

on

th

e m

ark

et.

(C

urr

en

tly

a r

ati

o o

f 1

0 b

etw

ee

n Q

3/Q

1 i

s a

llo

we

d.

AC

QU

A

wo

uld

lik

e t

o s

ee

a r

ati

o o

f a

t le

ast

40

co

me

in

to f

orc

e a

nd

im

po

se a

fa

r lo

we

r Q

1)

MI-

00

2 –

Ga

s m

ete

rs5

7

Issu

es

F

ind

ing

s (s

o f

ar)

E

vid

en

ce/d

ata

/oth

er

info

/ e

xa

mp

les

Exp

eri

en

ce f

rom

th

e

imp

lem

en

tati

on

of

the

Dir

ect

ive

Ov

era

ll,

the

in

du

stry

co

nsi

de

red

th

at

MID

’s m

ain

str

en

gth

s h

av

e b

ee

n t

he

red

uct

ion

of

rest

rict

ion

s to

fre

e t

rad

e,

the

sp

ace

all

ow

ing

fo

r te

chn

olo

gic

al

inn

ov

ati

on

an

d t

he

op

tio

na

lity

cla

use

.

De

ve

lop

me

nt

of

an

eff

icie

nt

op

era

tin

g s

ing

le m

ark

et

Ov

era

ll,

all

ma

nu

fact

ure

rs s

tate

d s

ati

sfa

ctio

n t

ha

t th

e M

ID h

as

he

lpe

d d

ev

elo

p a

n

eff

icie

nt

sin

gle

ma

rke

t.

On

e b

arr

ier

to t

rad

e s

tate

d b

y W

ELM

EC

wg

10

wa

s th

e a

bse

nce

of

a c

om

mo

n

de

fin

itio

n o

f li

gh

t a

nd

he

av

y in

du

stry

. In

th

e c

ase

of

ga

s m

ete

rs,

in D

E t

he

thre

sho

ld i

s 9

,00

0 t

ime

s h

igh

er

tha

n i

n N

L T

he

Hu

ng

ari

an

no

tifi

ed

bo

dy

exp

ress

ed

the

sa

me

co

nce

rn.

Acc

ord

ing

to

Ma

rco

ga

z, A

n i

mp

ort

an

t

be

ne

fit

for

use

rs i

n t

he

uti

lity

se

cto

r is

the

op

po

rtu

nit

y t

o c

on

du

ct p

ub

lic

pro

cure

me

nt

wit

h r

efe

ren

ce t

o M

ID

req

uir

em

en

ts a

nd

no

t fo

r se

pa

rate

na

tio

na

l ce

rtif

ica

tes.

Th

is i

ncr

ea

ses

cho

ice

an

d h

as

the

po

ten

tia

l to

re

du

ce

pri

ce d

ue

to

in

cre

ase

d c

om

pe

titi

on

.

Te

chn

olo

gic

al

inn

ov

ati

on

-

sup

po

rtin

g/h

am

pe

rin

g

Th

ere

is

no

co

mm

on

vie

w o

n t

he

ro

le o

f th

e M

ID o

n t

his

asp

ect

.

Tw

o m

an

ufa

ctu

rers

be

lie

ve

th

at

de

tail

s in

th

e M

ID h

am

pe

r in

no

va

tio

n a

s th

e

fun

da

me

nta

l p

hil

oso

ph

y o

f th

e D

ire

ctiv

e t

o b

e “

tech

no

log

ica

lly

in

de

pe

nd

en

t” h

as

no

t b

ee

n f

oll

ow

ed

th

rou

gh

ou

t. O

ne

pro

ble

m i

de

nti

fie

d i

s th

e d

isp

lay

on

inst

rum

en

ts,

wit

h o

nly

th

e v

olu

me

or

ma

ss o

f g

as

dis

pla

ye

d.

Ho

we

ve

r, M

arc

og

az

con

sid

ere

d t

ha

t th

e D

ire

ctiv

e i

s te

chn

olo

gy

ne

utr

al.

On

e

ma

nu

fact

ure

r a

lso

su

pp

ort

ed

th

is v

iew

su

gg

est

ing

th

at

the

re a

re a

llo

we

d t

o

intr

od

uce

in

no

va

tiv

e s

olu

tio

ns

wit

ho

ut

ne

ed

to

mo

dif

y t

he

MID

. T

he

sa

me

ma

nu

fact

ure

r a

lso

me

nti

on

ed

th

e f

act

th

at

as

the

re i

s n

o o

bli

ga

tio

n t

o s

tan

da

rds,

Acc

ord

ing

to

on

e c

om

pa

ny

th

e M

ID

on

ly a

llo

ws

for

me

ters

dis

pla

yin

g t

he

vo

lum

e o

r th

e m

ass

of

ga

s; i

t d

oe

s n

ot

all

ow

fo

r th

e m

ete

rs d

isp

layi

ng

en

erg

y

or

mo

ne

tary

me

teri

ng

. If

su

ch a

solu

tio

n i

s e

ve

r to

be

in

ve

nte

d,

it w

ill

no

t fa

ll u

nd

er

the

MID

.

57 B

ase

d o

n i

nte

rvie

ws

wit

h r

ep

rese

nta

tiv

es

of

thre

e t

rad

e a

sso

cia

tio

ns

(FA

CO

GA

Z,M

arc

og

az,

OR

ES

) a

nd

th

ree

ma

nu

fact

ure

rs,

Lan

dis

+G

yr

(CH

), E

lste

r (D

E),

Ka

mst

rup

(D

K).

Inte

rim

Ev

alu

ati

on

of

the

Me

asu

rin

g I

nst

rum

en

ts D

ire

ctiv

e –

Fin

al

rep

ort

Ap

pe

nd

ix

Me

asu

rin

g I

nst

rum

en

ts a

na

lysi

s ta

ble

s

E

71

the

re i

s g

rea

ter

fre

ed

om

in

th

e d

ev

elo

pm

en

t o

f fu

ture

te

chn

olo

gie

s.

Ho

we

ve

r, i

t is

als

o s

ug

ge

ste

d b

y a

ll in

terv

iew

ee

s th

at

the

MID

do

es

no

t ca

ter

for

po

ssib

le f

utu

re i

nn

ov

ati

on

th

at

wo

uld

fa

ll o

uts

ide

of

the

Dir

ect

ive

. A

do

cum

en

ted

issu

e c

on

cern

s sm

art

me

ters

. S

ma

rt m

ete

rs a

re e

xpe

cte

d t

o i

ncr

ea

se i

n t

he

fu

ture

be

cau

se o

f e

nv

iro

nm

en

tal

an

d e

ne

rgy

eff

icie

ncy

re

gu

lati

on

. A

nu

mb

er

of

CA

s

pro

po

sed

ch

an

ge

s to

th

e D

ire

ctiv

e t

o t

ak

e i

nto

co

nsi

de

rati

on

sm

art

me

ters

.

Ho

we

ve

r, t

he

in

du

stry

– t

hro

ug

h M

arc

og

az

- is

no

t in

fa

vo

ur

of

an

y c

ha

ng

es

of

the

Dir

ect

ive

at

this

po

int

as

the

re i

s n

ee

d t

o b

uil

d e

xpe

rie

nce

an

d t

he

te

chn

ica

l is

sue

s

rela

ted

to

re

mo

te r

ea

din

g a

nd

tw

o-w

ay

co

mm

un

ica

tio

n t

ha

t a

re s

till

un

cle

ar.

Op

tio

na

lity

- Is

it

use

d i

n t

he

se

cto

r?

- Is

th

ere

ev

ide

nce

of

two

-

tie

r m

ark

et

- Is

th

ere

ev

ide

nce

of

un

fair

com

pe

titi

on

Op

tio

na

lity

no

t u

sed

in

ga

s m

ete

rs (

2 c

ou

ntr

ies)

an

d n

o is

sue

s in

re

lati

on

to

an

y o

f

the

qu

est

ion

s w

ere

re

po

rte

d.

Co

nsu

me

r p

rote

ctio

n d

ue

to

op

tio

na

lity

an

d a

ny

oth

er

fact

or

No

ev

ide

nce

of

the

ro

le o

f o

pti

on

ali

ty id

en

tifi

ed

. M

ore

ge

ne

ral

MA

RC

OG

AZ

sug

ge

sts

tha

t th

ere

ha

s b

ee

n i

mp

rov

em

en

t a

s in

so

me

co

un

trie

s w

ith

lo

we

r

sta

nd

ard

s th

e M

ID d

id p

ush

sta

nd

ard

s u

p a

nd

be

ne

fite

d c

on

sum

ers

/use

rs.

Tw

o

ma

nu

fact

ure

rs e

mp

ha

sise

d t

ha

t a

s fo

r o

the

r u

tili

ty m

ete

rs,

this

is n

ot

see

n a

s a

pro

ble

m a

s m

ete

rs a

re g

en

era

lly

pu

rch

ase

d i

n b

ulk

by

th

e g

as

sup

pli

ers

th

at

ha

ve

an

in

tere

st i

n h

av

ing

eff

icie

nt

me

ters

.

Ad

min

istr

ati

ve

bu

rde

ns

cre

ate

d/r

ed

uce

d

No

sig

nif

ica

nt

cha

ng

e m

en

tio

ne

d s

ince

th

e i

ntr

od

uct

ion

of

the

MID

.

On

e l

arg

e n

ati

on

al

com

pa

ny

sta

ted

tha

t th

e m

ain

ad

min

istr

ati

ve

co

sts

com

e f

rom

th

e p

eri

od

ic a

ud

its

tha

t th

e

NB

is

carr

yin

g o

ut

for

mo

du

le D

ass

ess

me

nt,

wh

ich

did

no

t e

xist

in

th

e

pre

vio

us

leg

al

con

text

. T

he

y d

o

un

de

rlin

e t

ha

t th

ey

co

uld

ch

an

ge

th

e

mo

du

le n

ee

de

d f

or

Ty

pe

Ap

pro

va

l in

wh

ich

ca

se t

he

y w

ou

ld n

ot

ha

ve

to

be

au

dit

ed

an

d t

he

co

st o

f co

nfo

rmit

y

wo

uld

dro

p b

elo

w t

he

le

ve

ls o

f th

e

pre

vio

us

reg

ime

.

Re

pre

sen

tati

on

in

th

e

It i

s co

nsi

de

red

im

po

rta

nt

tha

t th

e i

nd

ust

ry is

re

pre

sen

ted

an

d i

nv

olv

ed

in

th

e

Inte

rim

Ev

alu

ati

on

of

the

Me

asu

rin

g I

nst

rum

en

ts D

ire

ctiv

e –

Fin

al

rep

ort

Ap

pe

nd

ix

Me

asu

rin

g I

nst

rum

en

ts a

na

lysi

s ta

ble

s

E

72

Me

asu

rin

g i

nst

rum

en

ts

com

mit

tee

wg

MI

me

eti

ng

s. M

arc

og

az

con

sid

ers

its

elf

ext

en

siv

ely

in

vo

lve

d w

ith

no

pro

ble

ms.

On

e l

arg

e m

an

ufa

ctu

rer

als

o u

nd

erl

ine

d t

he

im

po

rta

nce

of

the

wo

rkin

g g

rou

ps

to

red

uce

th

e t

ime

be

twe

en

th

e i

mp

lem

en

tati

on

of

the

Dir

ect

ive

an

d t

he

sm

oo

th

un

de

rsta

nd

ing

an

d r

un

nin

g o

f th

e o

pe

rati

on

s.

Imp

act

on

SM

Es

M

an

ufa

ctu

rer

sta

ted

th

at

SM

Es

we

re n

ot

pre

sen

t o

n t

he

ma

rke

t a

nd

as

a r

esu

lt,

the

y a

re n

ot

pa

rtic

ula

rly

aff

ect

ed

. (T

he

y w

ere

no

t b

efo

re t

he

in

tro

du

ctio

n o

f th

e

MID

eit

he

r).

Th

e S

ME

su

rve

y r

esu

lts

ind

ica

te t

ha

t le

ss t

ha

t 2

5%

of

the

fir

ms

in

sect

or

exp

eri

en

ced

ba

rrie

rs t

o t

rad

e a

nd

on

ly o

ne

th

at

con

form

ity

ass

ess

me

nt

pro

ced

ure

s a

re p

rob

lem

ati

c.

Pa

ram

ete

rs t

ha

t a

ffe

ct t

he

im

ple

me

nta

tio

n o

f th

e D

ire

ctiv

e

•

Ro

le o

f st

an

da

rds

an

d

gu

ida

nce

do

cum

en

ts (

incl

.

role

of

WE

LME

C)

Th

e i

ssu

ing

of

sta

nd

ard

s is

se

en

as

on

e o

f th

e k

ey

po

siti

ve

asp

ect

s o

f th

e

ne

w a

pp

roa

ch.

Th

e g

uid

eli

ne

s is

sue

d b

y W

ELM

EC

are

co

nsi

de

red

im

po

rta

nt

reg

ard

ing

th

e l

on

g-t

erm

exp

eri

en

ces

of

me

tro

log

ica

l a

uth

ori

tie

s. H

ow

ev

er,

Ma

rco

ga

z p

rop

ose

d t

ha

t th

e o

pe

rati

on

an

d c

on

sist

en

cy o

f th

e n

oti

fie

d

bo

die

s is

no

t sa

tisf

act

ory

. M

arc

og

az

sug

ge

ste

d a

lso

th

at

the

use

of

OIM

L

no

rma

tiv

e d

ocs

is

stil

l n

ot

10

0%

sa

tisf

act

ory

as

the

re a

rea

s w

he

re t

he

re i

s

no

ha

rmo

niz

ati

on

wit

h E

uro

pe

an

sta

nd

ard

s.

•

Imp

lem

en

tati

on

by

no

tifi

ed

bo

die

s

Tw

o l

arg

e m

an

ufa

ctu

rers

un

de

rlin

ed

th

at

the

MID

’s m

ain

we

ak

ne

ss i

s th

e

va

ryin

g l

ev

el

of

qu

ali

ty o

f th

e n

oti

fie

d b

od

ies,

in

te

rms

of

exp

eri

en

ce,

kn

ow

led

ge

an

d c

ust

om

er

ori

en

tati

on

an

d M

arc

og

az

wa

s a

lso

sce

pti

cal

of

the

qu

ali

ty o

f th

e t

est

s b

y s

om

e N

Bs.

On

e m

an

ufa

ctu

rer

refe

rre

d t

o a

pro

ble

m t

ha

t st

ill

ha

s n

ot

be

en

re

solv

ed

re

ga

rdin

g d

iffe

ren

t in

terp

reta

tio

ns

of

the

ess

en

tia

l re

qu

ire

me

nts

an

d c

on

form

ity

pro

ced

ure

s b

y t

he

No

tifi

ed

Bo

die

s.

On

e c

om

pa

ny

re

po

rte

d a

pro

ble

m w

ith

a

Ge

rma

n n

oti

fie

d b

od

y n

ot

acc

ep

tin

g o

ne

of

the

ir p

rod

uct

s th

at

ha

d b

ee

n a

cce

pte

d b

y

ME

TA

S i

n 2

00

8.

Th

e i

ssu

e w

as

reg

ard

ing

th

e

ma

xim

um

pe

rmis

sib

le e

rro

r.

Th

e i

ssu

e h

as

be

en

ta

ke

n b

y M

ET

AS

to

WE

LME

C a

nd

ha

s

stil

l n

ot

be

en

re

solv

ed

.

•

Ma

rke

t su

rve

illa

nce

by

au

tho

riti

es

All

th

e m

an

ufa

ctu

rers

we

ha

ve

sp

ok

en

to

sta

ted

th

at

the

re i

s a

cle

ar

ne

ed

for

furt

he

r a

ctio

n i

n t

erm

s o

f m

ark

et

surv

eil

lan

ce.

Ma

rco

ga

z co

nsi

de

rs t

ha

t

surv

eil

lan

ce i

s ra

the

r li

mit

ed

alt

ho

ug

h g

rad

ua

lly

in

cre

asi

ng

. R

eg

ula

tio

n

20

07

/29

(N

LF)

tha

t ca

me

in

to f

orc

e i

n J

an

ua

ry 2

01

0 i

s e

xpe

cte

d t

o h

av

e

po

siti

ve

im

pa

cts

on

ma

rke

t su

rve

illa

nce

.

•

Tra

nsi

tio

n p

eri

od

(be

ne

fits

/iss

ue

s)

10

ye

ars

wa

s co

nsi

de

red

an

ap

pro

pri

ate

tra

nsi

tio

n p

eri

od

an

d n

on

e o

f th

e

ma

nu

fact

ure

rs e

xpre

sse

d a

ny

pro

ble

ms/

con

cern

s w

ith

th

e t

ran

siti

on

pe

rio

d.

Inte

rim

Ev

alu

ati

on

of

the

Me

asu

rin

g I

nst

rum

en

ts D

ire

ctiv

e –

Fin

al

rep

ort

Ap

pe

nd

ix

Me

asu

rin

g I

nst

rum

en

ts a

na

lysi

s ta

ble

s

E

73

MI-

00

3 –

Ele

ctri

city

me

ters

58

Issu

es

F

ind

ing

s

Ev

ide

nce

/da

ta/o

the

r in

fo/

ex

am

ple

s

Exp

eri

en

ce f

rom

th

e

imp

lem

en

tati

on

of

the

Dir

ect

ive

Ma

nu

fact

ure

rs a

nd

tra

de

ass

oci

ati

on

are

ple

ase

d w

ith

th

e M

ID a

nd

se

e i

t a

s a

n

imp

rov

em

en

t o

n t

he

pre

vio

us

reg

ime

. H

ow

ev

er,

ma

nu

fact

ure

rs s

till

re

fer

to t

he

fa

ct

tha

t m

an

y o

f th

e b

en

efi

ts o

f th

e M

ID a

re n

ot

ev

ide

nt

as

the

re a

re m

an

y n

ati

on

al

spe

cifi

cati

on

s st

ill

cov

eri

ng

fu

nct

ion

ali

ty a

nd

na

tio

na

l a

pp

rov

als

th

at

are

re

qu

ire

d.

As

a r

esu

lt t

ha

t ‘O

ld a

nd

ne

w’

syst

em

s a

re r

un

nin

g i

n p

ara

lle

l th

ere

fore

in

cre

ase

wo

rklo

ad

.

An

oth

er

issu

e r

efe

rre

d t

o b

y a

tra

de

ass

oci

ati

on

is

the

fa

ct t

ha

t t

he

MID

all

ow

s

Me

mb

er

Sta

tes

to i

mp

ose

me

tro

log

ica

l co

ntr

ol

of

me

asu

rem

en

t u

sin

g d

iffe

ren

t

Cla

sse

s o

f m

ete

r fo

r re

sid

en

tia

l a

nd

co

mm

erc

ial

/ li

gh

t in

du

stri

al

use

. I

t d

oe

s n

ot

ho

we

ve

r d

efi

ne

bo

un

da

rie

s b

etw

ee

n t

he

tw

o t

yp

es

of

me

ters

. O

ne

la

rge

ma

nu

fact

ure

r st

ate

d t

ha

t th

e M

ID’s

co

nfo

rmit

y a

sse

ssm

en

t a

nd

ve

rifi

cati

on

pro

ced

ure

s w

ere

he

lpfu

l in

ste

pp

ing

up

th

e q

ua

lity

ass

ura

nce

of

the

ir p

rod

uct

s

Slo

ve

nia

n C

om

pe

ten

t A

uth

ori

ty

sta

ted

th

at

ma

nu

fact

ure

rs o

f

ele

ctri

city

me

ters

are

in

ge

ne

ral

ple

ase

d.

De

ve

lop

me

nt

of

an

eff

icie

nt

op

era

tin

g s

ing

le m

ark

et

An

eff

icie

nt

sin

gle

ma

rke

t is

sti

ll n

ot

pre

sen

t a

cco

rdin

g t

o a

ll i

nte

rvie

we

es.

Th

ey

refe

rre

d t

o t

rad

e b

arr

iers

by

th

e d

iffe

ren

t tr

ea

tme

nt

of

act

ive

re

act

ive

me

asu

rem

en

t.

As

the

tw

o i

nst

rum

en

ts p

erf

orm

me

teri

ng

ta

sks,

on

ly i

ncl

ud

ing

on

e i

n t

he

MID

do

es

no

t h

elp

in

th

e d

ev

elo

pm

en

t o

n a

n e

ffic

ien

t si

ng

le m

ark

et.

Th

ere

are

dif

fere

nt

sev

eri

ty l

ev

els

of

the

te

sts

use

d b

y t

he

no

tifi

ed

bo

die

s th

at

are

cou

ntr

y-d

ep

en

de

nt

lea

din

g t

o d

iffe

ren

t q

ua

lity

lev

els

.

Fu

rth

erm

ore

, a

ctiv

e e

lect

rici

ty m

ete

rs o

fte

n i

ncl

ud

e c

om

po

ne

nts

th

at

are

no

t co

ve

red

by

th

e M

ID a

nd

are

su

bje

ct t

o n

ati

on

al

ap

pro

va

ls.

Te

chn

olo

gic

al

inn

ov

ati

on

-

sup

po

rtin

g/h

am

pe

rin

g

Acc

ord

ing

to

so

me

CA

s (N

L, A

T)

the

MID

on

ly c

ov

ers

a m

inim

al

pa

rt o

f m

od

ern

ele

ctri

city

me

ter.

An

y “

inn

ov

ati

ve

” fe

atu

re i

s b

ey

on

d s

cop

e o

f M

ID a

nd

th

e D

ire

ctiv

e

ha

s n

o i

nfl

ue

nce

on

th

is.

An

oth

er

issu

e s

tate

d (

by

wh

om

?)

con

cern

ed

th

e s

ma

rt m

ete

rs–

th

is h

am

pe

rs

inn

ov

ati

on

.

58 B

ase

d o

n i

nte

rvie

ws

wit

h r

ep

rese

nta

tiv

es

of

two

tra

de

ass

oci

ati

on

(E

ure

lect

ric,

ES

MIG

) a

nd

th

ree

ma

nu

fact

ure

rs :

Bru

no

Ja

nz

(PT

), L

an

dis

+G

yr

(CH

),

Els

ter(

DE

)

Inte

rim

Ev

alu

ati

on

of

the

Me

asu

rin

g I

nst

rum

en

ts D

ire

ctiv

e –

Fin

al

rep

ort

Ap

pe

nd

ix

Me

asu

rin

g I

nst

rum

en

ts a

na

lysi

s ta

ble

s

E

74

Issu

es

F

ind

ing

s

Ev

ide

nce

/da

ta/o

the

r in

fo/

ex

am

ple

s

Op

tio

na

lity

- Is

it

use

d i

n t

he

se

cto

r

- Is

th

ere

ev

ide

nce

of

two

-

tie

r m

ark

et

- Is

th

ere

ev

ide

nce

of

un

fair

com

pe

titi

on

Op

tio

na

lity

is n

ot

use

d i

n t

he

se

cto

r (t

he

on

ly e

xce

pti

on

is

Ma

lta

as

the

re a

re n

o

ele

ctri

city

me

ters

in

th

e c

ou

ntr

y)

Th

ere

we

re n

o c

on

cern

s ra

ise

d b

y m

an

ufa

ctu

rers

co

nce

rnin

g u

nfa

ir c

om

pe

titi

on

an

d

du

e t

o o

pti

on

ali

ty a

nd

no

ne

of

the

co

mp

an

ies

inte

rvie

we

d w

ere

aw

are

of

an

y

occ

urr

en

ce o

f a

tw

o-t

ier

ma

rke

t.

Co

nsu

me

r p

rote

ctio

n d

ue

to

op

tio

na

lity

an

d a

ny

oth

er

fact

or

All

in

terv

iew

ee

s su

gg

est

ed

th

at

the

pro

tect

ion

wa

s a

lre

ad

y g

ua

ran

tee

d i

n p

rev

iou

s

con

text

by

na

tio

na

l m

etr

olo

gic

al

bo

die

s.

On

e l

arg

e c

om

pa

ny

em

ph

asi

sed

th

at

as

the

MID

is

mu

ch c

lea

rer

tha

n t

he

pre

vio

us

leg

isla

tiv

e c

on

text

, th

e c

on

sum

ers

are

be

tte

r p

rote

cte

d.

Fu

rth

erm

ore

, a

s d

istr

ibu

tors

inst

all

th

e m

ete

rs t

he

y h

av

e a

n i

nce

nti

ve

to

en

sure

qu

ali

ty o

f th

e i

nst

rum

en

ts.

Ad

min

istr

ati

ve

bu

rde

ns

cre

ate

d/r

ed

uce

d

On

e l

arg

e m

an

ufa

ctu

rer

sta

ted

th

at

be

cau

se o

f th

e a

dd

itio

na

l n

ati

on

al

spe

cifi

cati

on

s

for

use

th

e ‘

Old

an

d n

ew

’ sy

ste

ms

are

ru

nn

ing

in

pa

rall

el

an

d t

his

in

cre

ase

s w

ork

loa

d;

du

e t

o t

he

ne

w t

erm

ino

log

y in

th

e M

ID (

ne

w c

lass

A,

old

cla

ss 1

) th

e h

arm

on

ise

d E

U

sta

nd

ard

s a

re i

n c

on

flic

t w

ith

th

e I

EC

sta

nd

ard

s cr

ea

tin

g a

co

mp

lete

ly u

nn

ece

ssa

ry

com

pli

cati

on

.

Tw

o m

an

ufa

ctu

rers

sta

ted

th

at

th

ere

wa

s n

o n

oti

cea

ble

ch

an

ge

ov

era

ll a

s a

de

cre

ase

in b

urd

en

s fo

r i

nd

ust

ria

l co

mm

erc

ial

use

s h

as

be

en

co

mp

en

sate

d b

y a

sub

sta

nti

al

incr

ea

se o

f th

e a

dm

inis

tra

tiv

e b

urd

en

fo

r re

sid

en

tia

l m

ete

rs d

ue

to

th

e

rem

ain

ing

na

tio

na

l a

pp

rov

als

fo

r a

spe

cts

of

the

me

ters

. S

imp

lifi

cati

on

s a

re e

xpe

cte

d i

f

rea

ctiv

e m

ea

sure

me

nt

is a

lso

in

clu

de

d.

Ho

we

ve

r, o

ne

co

mp

an

y s

ug

ge

ste

d t

ha

t th

ere

wa

s a

sig

nif

ica

nt

incr

ea

se o

f th

e p

eri

od

ic

au

dit

co

sts

for

the

mo

du

le D

(q

ua

lity

sy

ste

m)

ass

ess

me

nt

tha

t d

id n

ot

exi

st i

n t

he

pre

vio

us

con

text

.

Re

pre

sen

tati

on

in

th

e

Me

asu

rin

g i

nst

rum

en

ts

com

mit

tee

Eu

rele

ctri

c st

ate

d t

ha

t th

ere

is

no

re

al

rep

rese

nta

tio

n o

f in

du

stry

. W

hil

e t

he

y h

ad

con

sult

ing

ro

le f

ina

lly

all

de

cisi

on

co

nce

rnin

g M

ID w

as

tak

en

by

th

e r

eg

ula

tory

bo

die

s.

Imp

act

on

SM

Es

A

cco

rdin

g t

o o

ne

la

rge

ma

nu

fact

ure

r, S

ME

s h

av

e v

ery

lim

ite

d p

rese

nce

in

th

e m

ark

et.

Th

e M

ID i

s n

ot

exp

ect

ed

to

ha

ve

ha

d a

ny

pa

rtic

ula

r e

ffe

ct o

n t

he

m.

In a

dd

itio

n,

on

e S

ME

in

vo

lve

d i

n t

he

Ib

eri

an

pe

nin

sula

ma

rke

t, d

id n

ot

fee

l th

e

Dir

ect

ive

ha

d a

ny

ne

ga

tiv

e i

mp

act

Inte

rim

Ev

alu

ati

on

of

the

Me

asu

rin

g I

nst

rum

en

ts D

ire

ctiv

e –

Fin

al

rep

ort

Ap

pe

nd

ix

Me

asu

rin

g I

nst

rum

en

ts a

na

lysi

s ta

ble

s

E

75

Issu

es

F

ind

ing

s

Ev

ide

nce

/da

ta/o

the

r in

fo/

ex

am

ple

s

•

Ro

le o

f st

an

da

rds

an

d

gu

ida

nce

do

cum

en

ts (

incl

.

role

of

WE

LME

C)

Acc

ord

ing

to

Eu

rele

ctri

c in

th

e n

ew

te

rmin

olo

gy

of

the

MID

, th

e h

arm

on

ise

d E

U

sta

nd

ard

s a

re i

n c

on

flic

t w

ith

th

e I

EC

sta

nd

ard

s a

nd

th

is is

an

un

ne

cess

ary

com

pli

cati

on

. W

ELM

EC

’s g

uid

an

ce i

s p

art

ly u

ncl

ea

r. T

his

wa

s co

nfi

rme

d b

y o

ne

ma

nu

fact

ure

r. A

no

the

r m

an

ufa

ctu

rer

wa

s n

ot

aw

are

of

this

iss

ue

.

•

Imp

lem

en

tati

on

by

no

tifi

ed

bo

die

s

Ov

era

ll,

com

pa

nie

s a

re g

en

era

lly

ha

pp

y w

ith

th

e i

mp

lem

en

tati

on

by

no

tifi

ed

bo

die

s;

the

re w

as

no

ne

ga

tiv

e c

om

me

nts

On

e l

arg

e c

om

pa

ny

wa

s p

art

icu

larl

y h

ap

py

wit

h t

he

wo

rkin

g r

ela

tio

nsh

ip d

ev

elo

pe

d w

ith

th

e n

oti

fie

d b

od

ies.

•

Ma

rke

t su

rve

illa

nce

by

au

tho

riti

es

On

e t

rad

e a

sso

cia

tio

n m

en

tio

ne

d t

ha

t m

ark

et

surv

eil

lan

ce is

mis

sin

g f

rom

th

e M

ID

•

Tra

nsi

tio

n p

eri

od

(st

ate

d

be

ne

fits

/iss

ue

s)

Th

e 1

0 y

ea

rs p

eri

od

wa

s se

en

as

ap

pro

pri

ate

. N

on

e o

f th

e m

an

ufa

ctu

rers

we

ha

ve

spo

ke

n t

o i

de

nti

fie

d a

ny

pro

ble

ms.

Oth

er

MI-

00

4 –

He

at

me

ters

59

Issu

es

F

ind

ing

s

Ev

ide

nce

/da

ta/o

the

r in

fo/

ex

am

ple

s

Exp

eri

en

ce f

rom

th

e i

mp

lem

en

tati

on

of

the

Dir

ect

ive

Th

ere

is

an

ov

era

ll p

osi

tiv

e v

iew

of

the

im

ple

me

nta

tio

n o

f th

e D

ire

ctiv

e.

Acc

ord

ing

to

th

e t

rad

e a

sso

cia

tio

n (

AC

QU

A),

th

e e

xpe

rie

nce

is

ov

era

ll p

osi

tiv

e,

esp

eci

all

y t

he

fo

llo

win

g a

spe

cts:

•

pa

rtic

ipa

tio

n in

th

e w

gM

Is a

llo

ws

exc

ha

ng

e o

f p

oin

t o

f v

iew

s

•

WE

LME

C’s

gu

ide

lin

es

•

Sim

pli

fica

tio

n o

f th

e m

ark

et

De

ve

lop

me

nt

of

an

eff

icie

nt

op

era

tin

g s

ing

le m

ark

et

Acc

ord

ing

to

th

e t

rad

e a

sso

cia

tio

n,

the

MID

ha

s g

on

e q

uit

e a

lo

ng

wa

y i

n s

ett

ing

-

up

a s

ing

le m

ark

et

for

30

co

un

trie

s. O

ne

co

mp

an

y s

tre

sse

d t

ha

t th

e m

ark

et

for

he

at

me

ters

is

tra

dit

ion

all

y r

ela

tiv

ely

lim

ite

d g

eo

gra

ph

ica

lly

bu

t th

e M

ID m

igh

t

all

ow

he

at

me

ters

to

exp

an

d i

n n

ew

ma

rke

ts,

alt

ho

ug

h n

o s

pe

cifi

c d

ata

or

59 B

ase

d o

n i

nte

rvie

w w

ith

th

e r

ep

rese

nta

tiv

e o

f tw

o t

rad

e a

sso

cia

tio

ns

(AQ

UA

, E

SM

IG)

an

d t

hre

e l

arg

e m

ult

ina

tio

na

l m

an

ufa

ctu

rers

La

nd

is +

Gy

r (C

H),

Ka

mst

rup

(DK

), A

llm

ess

(D

E).

Inte

rim

Ev

alu

ati

on

of

the

Me

asu

rin

g I

nst

rum

en

ts D

ire

ctiv

e –

Fin

al

rep

ort

Ap

pe

nd

ix

Me

asu

rin

g I

nst

rum

en

ts a

na

lysi

s ta

ble

s

E

76

Issu

es

F

ind

ing

s

Ev

ide

nce

/da

ta/o

the

r in

fo/

ex

am

ple

s

ev

ide

nce

wa

s a

va

ila

ble

.

Te

chn

olo

gic

al

inn

ov

ati

on

-

sup

po

rtin

g/h

am

pe

rin

g

Ap

art

fro

m t

he

‘u

sua

l;’

con

cern

on

sm

art

me

ters

, n

on

e o

f th

e p

eo

ple

we

ha

ve

spo

ke

n t

o s

ee

th

e M

ID a

s h

am

pe

rin

g i

nn

ov

ati

on

Op

tio

na

lity

- Is

it

use

d i

n t

he

se

cto

r (h

ow

ma

ny

MS

an

d w

hy

)

- Is

th

ere

ev

ide

nce

of

two

-tie

r

ma

rke

t

- Is

th

ere

ev

ide

nce

of

un

fair

com

pe

titi

on

Th

ere

is

an

im

po

rta

nt

nu

mb

er

(5 f

or

resi

de

nti

al

an

d 6

fo

r co

mm

erc

ial&

lig

ht

ind

ust

ry)

of

cou

ntr

ies

tha

t h

av

e o

pte

d o

ut

of

the

MID

. T

his

ca

n b

e a

ris

k,

bu

t

acc

ord

ing

to

AQ

UA

, fo

r th

e m

om

en

t th

ere

is

no

ev

ide

nce

to

pro

ve

or

dis

pro

ve

th

is

cla

im.

On

e l

arg

e m

an

ufa

ctu

rer

als

o s

tre

sse

d t

ha

t so

me

co

un

trie

s d

id n

ot

fee

l th

e p

oli

tica

l

ne

ed

to

op

t in

th

e l

eg

isla

tio

n s

ince

he

at

me

ters

are

vir

tua

lly

no

n-e

xist

en

t in

th

eir

cou

ntr

ies.

Co

nsu

me

r p

rote

ctio

n d

ue

to

op

tio

na

lity

an

d a

ny

oth

er

fact

or

Acc

ord

ing

to

on

e m

an

ufa

ctu

rer,

th

e h

ea

t m

ete

r m

ark

et

is s

o c

on

cen

tra

ted

in

Eu

rop

e t

ha

t it

wo

uld

no

t m

ak

e s

en

se f

or

ma

nu

fact

ure

rs t

o d

ev

elo

p t

wo

ty

pe

s o

f

me

ters

fo

r M

ID a

nd

no

n-M

ID m

ark

ets

.

Ad

min

istr

ati

ve

bu

rde

ns

cre

ate

d/r

ed

uce

d

No

ne

of

the

co

mp

an

ies

we

ha

ve

sp

ok

en

re

ferr

ed

to

ad

dit

ion

al

ad

min

istr

ati

ve

bu

rde

n.

Th

ere

is

a g

en

era

l se

nse

th

at

the

be

ne

fits

of

ha

vin

g E

U-w

ide

ce

rtif

ica

tes

ou

tstr

ip t

he

ad

min

istr

ati

ve

bu

rde

ns

of

the

MID

. H

ow

ev

er,

no

on

e c

ou

ld p

rov

ide

ha

rd d

ata

on

th

is a

spe

ct.

Re

pre

sen

tati

on

in

th

e M

ea

suri

ng

inst

rum

en

ts c

om

mit

tee

All

th

e m

an

ufa

ctu

rers

we

sp

ok

e w

ere

ple

ase

d w

ith

th

eir

re

pre

sen

tati

on

in

th

e

Me

asu

rin

g i

nst

rum

en

t co

mm

itte

e t

hro

ug

h A

QU

A,

wh

ich

is

see

n a

s v

ery

act

ive

, it

ga

the

rs m

an

ufa

ctu

rers

’ v

iew

s, a

nd

ke

ep

th

em

up

-to

-da

te.

Th

ere

we

re n

o

issu

es/

com

pla

ints

of

un

de

r-re

pre

sen

tati

on

.

Imp

act

on

SM

Es

T

he

re w

ere

no

iss

ue

s o

n S

ME

s p

oin

ted

, th

e m

ain

re

aso

n b

ein

g t

he

do

min

an

t ro

le

of

larg

e c

om

pa

nie

s. T

he

SM

E s

urv

ey

in

dic

ate

d n

o p

rob

lem

s w

ith

th

e c

on

form

ity

ass

ess

me

nt

pro

ced

ure

s fo

r th

e S

ME

s a

nd

th

e m

ajo

rity

(>

80

%)

did

no

t in

dic

ate

an

y

ba

rrie

rs t

o t

rad

e.

Pa

ram

ete

rs/f

act

ors

aff

ect

ing

im

ple

me

nta

tio

n

•

Ro

le o

f st

an

da

rds

an

d g

uid

an

ce

do

cum

en

ts (

incl

. ro

le o

f

WE

LME

C)

Acc

ord

ing

to

AQ

UA

, th

e n

ew

gu

ida

nce

do

cum

en

ts b

y W

ELM

EC

he

lpe

d

ha

rmo

nis

ati

on

wit

hin

th

e f

ram

ew

ork

of

the

MID

. I

t w

as

con

sid

ere

d a

s u

sefu

l

tow

ard

s h

arm

on

isin

g v

iew

s o

n t

he

MID

an

d d

ev

elo

p a

co

mm

on

in

terp

reta

tio

n.

•

Imp

lem

en

tati

on

by

no

tifi

ed

bo

die

s

AQ

UA

sta

ted

th

at

the

im

ple

me

nta

tio

n b

y n

oti

fie

d b

od

ies

wa

s ra

the

r sa

tisf

act

ory

an

d t

ha

t W

ELM

EC

gu

ide

lin

es

we

re c

on

sid

ere

d a

s h

elp

ing

no

tifi

ed

bo

die

s.

Inte

rim

Ev

alu

ati

on

of

the

Me

asu

rin

g I

nst

rum

en

ts D

ire

ctiv

e –

Fin

al

rep

ort

Ap

pe

nd

ix

Me

asu

rin

g I

nst

rum

en

ts a

na

lysi

s ta

ble

s

E

77

Issu

es

F

ind

ing

s

Ev

ide

nce

/da

ta/o

the

r in

fo/

ex

am

ple

s

•

Ma

rke

t su

rve

illa

nce

by

au

tho

riti

es

AQ

UA

un

de

rlin

ed

th

e l

ack

of

ma

rke

t su

rve

illa

nce

in

th

e M

ID a

s th

e m

ain

sho

rtco

min

gs.

Th

e i

ntr

od

uct

ion

of

the

NLF

an

d t

he

re

qu

ire

me

nt

it i

ntr

od

uce

d i

s

con

sid

ere

d a

s a

po

siti

ve

ste

p b

y A

QU

A a

lth

ou

gh

it

is n

ot

cle

ar

if i

t w

ill

be

suff

icie

nt.

Th

e c

om

pa

nie

s d

id n

ot

see

m t

o t

hin

k t

his

wa

s a

pro

ble

m a

s th

ey

ha

ve

the

ir t

rust

ed

cu

sto

me

rs i

n d

iffe

ren

t n

ati

on

al

ma

rke

ts.

•

Tra

nsi

tio

n p

eri

od

(st

ate

d

be

ne

fits

/iss

ue

s)

No

in

terv

iew

ee

co

nsi

de

red

th

e 1

0 y

ea

r tr

an

siti

on

pe

rio

d a

s a

n i

ssu

e

Oth

er

MI-

00

5a

– F

ue

l D

isp

en

sers

60

Issu

es

F

ind

ing

s

Ev

ide

nce

/da

ta/o

the

r in

fo/

ex

am

ple

s

Exp

eri

en

ce f

rom

th

e

imp

lem

en

tati

on

of

the

Dir

ect

ive

(ov

era

ll)

Th

e e

xpe

rie

nce

is

tha

t d

esp

ite

ge

ne

ral

imp

rov

em

en

ts in

co

mp

ari

son

to

th

e p

ast

an

d

the

cle

ar

be

ne

fits

of

the

use

of

a s

ing

le c

ert

ific

ati

on

th

ere

are

a n

um

be

r o

f is

sue

s

tha

t a

pp

ea

r to

ca

use

pro

ble

ms

to m

an

ufa

ctu

rers

an

d t

o C

As.

Th

e m

ain

iss

ue

s (d

iscu

sse

d b

elo

w)

are

:

•

Th

e p

rob

lem

ati

c si

tua

tio

n t

ha

t cr

ea

tes

ob

sta

cle

s to

th

e m

ark

et

con

cern

ing

se

lf

serv

ing

de

vic

es

an

d t

he

op

po

rtu

nit

y t

o m

ix a

nd

co

nn

ect

old

se

lf-s

erv

ing

de

vic

es

wit

h M

ID c

ert

ifie

d f

ue

l d

isp

en

sers

in

pe

tro

l st

ati

on

s (a

nd

th

e r

ev

ers

e)

an

d t

he

dif

fere

nce

s in

th

e s

itu

ati

on

am

on

g M

em

be

r S

tate

s

•

Th

e d

iffe

ren

t a

pp

roa

che

s fo

llo

we

d b

y a

uth

ori

tie

s in

so

me

MS

s in

re

ga

rds

to

ad

dit

ion

al

req

uir

em

en

ts a

nd

ch

eck

s e

ve

n i

f th

ey

fa

ll o

uts

ide

MID

De

ve

lop

me

nt

of

an

eff

icie

nt

op

era

tin

g s

ing

le m

ark

et

CE

CO

D a

nd

a n

um

be

r o

f m

an

ufa

ctu

rers

sta

ted

th

at

the

re a

re i

mp

rov

em

en

ts i

n

com

pa

riso

n t

o t

he

pa

st b

ase

d o

n t

he

use

of

sin

gle

ce

rtif

ica

te b

ut

an

eff

icie

nt

sin

gle

ma

rke

t is

sti

ll n

ot

op

era

tin

g d

ue

to

th

e a

dd

itio

na

l re

qu

ire

me

nt

in s

om

e c

ou

ntr

ies

for

ad

dit

ion

al

che

cks

on

iss

ue

s li

ke C

E+

M m

ark

se

als

. H

ow

ev

er,

oth

er

ma

nu

fact

ure

rs

CE

CO

D r

ep

ort

s th

at

in s

om

e

Me

mb

er

sta

tes

(re

fere

nce

ma

de

to S

pa

in,

Ita

ly)

the

re a

re

ad

dit

ion

al

req

uir

em

en

ts (

e.g

. si

ze

60 B

ase

d o

n i

nte

rvie

ws

wit

h t

he

re

pre

sen

tati

ve

of

the

tra

de

ass

oci

ati

on

, o

ne

in

de

pe

nd

en

t e

xpe

rt (

Te

rry

Ro

ge

rs),

PE

IMF

(U

K+

IE)

an

d 3

la

rge

or

ve

ry l

arg

e

ma

nu

fact

ure

rs (

PE

TR

OT

EC

-PT

, G

ILB

AR

CO

- U

K,

SC

HE

IDT

an

d B

AC

HM

AN

-DE

).

Inte

rim

Ev

alu

ati

on

of

the

Me

asu

rin

g I

nst

rum

en

ts D

ire

ctiv

e –

Fin

al

rep

ort

Ap

pe

nd

ix

Me

asu

rin

g I

nst

rum

en

ts a

na

lysi

s ta

ble

s

E

78

Issu

es

F

ind

ing

s

Ev

ide

nce

/da

ta/o

the

r in

fo/

ex

am

ple

s

(Pe

tro

tec,

S&

B)

we

re m

ore

po

siti

ve

sta

tin

g t

ha

t th

e a

cce

ss t

o a

big

ge

r m

ark

et

is

ind

ee

d t

he

ca

se a

nd

did

no

t re

po

rt s

imil

ar

pro

ble

ms.

Th

e p

rob

lem

ap

pe

ars

to

be

lim

ite

d t

o o

nly

so

me

co

un

trie

s.

An

oth

er

imp

ort

an

t p

rob

lem

wh

ich

, a

cco

rdin

g t

o t

he

in

du

stry

(in

clu

din

g C

EC

OD

an

d

firm

s),

aff

ect

s th

e o

pe

rati

on

of

the

ma

rke

t a

nd

th

e a

do

pti

on

of

MID

in

stru

me

nts

con

cern

s th

e i

na

bil

ity

to

mix

old

er

na

tio

na

l ce

rtif

ied

eq

uip

me

nt

wit

h M

ID c

ert

ifie

d

on

es.

It

con

cern

s sy

ste

ms

for

un

ma

nn

ed

sta

tio

ns

(se

lf-s

erv

ice

an

d p

ay

me

nt

in o

ne

syst

em

) o

r st

ati

on

s w

ith

se

lf-s

erv

ice

de

vic

es

wit

h p

ay

ing

at

the

kio

sk a

nd

sta

ckin

g o

f

the

co

nsu

me

rs t

ran

sact

ion

(m

ix a

nd

ma

tch

pro

ble

m).

Acc

ord

ing

to

CE

CO

D,

the

y

rep

rese

nt

30

% o

f th

e m

ark

et

wit

h i

ncr

ea

sin

g t

ren

ds.

Fo

llo

win

g t

he

MID

, e

xist

ing

syst

em

s th

at

are

ap

pro

ve

d a

cco

rdin

g t

o n

ati

on

al

leg

isla

tio

n c

an

be

pla

ced

on

th

e

ma

rke

t a

nd

pu

t in

to u

se d

uri

ng

th

e t

ran

siti

on

pe

rio

d,

bu

t th

ey

are

no

t a

llo

we

d t

o b

e

alt

ere

d.

Th

is m

ea

ns

tha

t a

sy

ste

m a

pp

rov

ed

un

de

r o

ld n

ati

on

al

leg

isla

tio

n c

an

no

t b

e

up

gra

de

d w

ith

an

“M

ID”

com

po

ne

nt

(PO

S o

r d

isp

en

ser

wit

ho

ut

see

kin

g M

ID

ap

pro

va

l fo

r th

e c

om

ple

te s

yst

em

. A

s so

me

co

mp

an

ies

are

pro

du

cers

of

on

ly t

he

PO

S t

his

ma

y i

ncl

ud

e t

he

m g

ett

ing

ap

pro

va

l fr

om

th

e m

an

ufa

ctu

rers

of

the

dif

fere

nt

dis

pe

nse

rs t

o i

ncl

ud

e t

he

ir P

OS

in

th

e M

ID c

ert

ific

ate

of

the

dis

pe

nse

r. C

urr

en

tly

,

du

rin

g t

he

tra

nsi

tio

n p

eri

od

, th

ere

are

dif

fere

nt

reg

ime

s a

mo

ng

co

un

trie

s in

re

lati

on

to t

he

acc

ep

tan

ce o

f co

mb

inin

g n

ew

(M

ID c

ert

ifie

d)

an

d o

ld (

na

tio

na

lly

ce

rtif

ied

)

dis

pe

nse

rs a

nd

po

int

of

sale

s (P

OS

) in

pe

tro

l st

ati

on

s. (

UK

an

d N

L n

ot

all

ow

ing

mix

ing

of

old

an

d n

ew

un

til

rece

ntl

y a

nd

cu

rre

ntl

y a

llo

win

g o

nly

if t

he

y a

re a

lso

con

ne

cte

d t

o o

the

r p

re-M

ID s

yst

em

s).

It i

s su

gg

est

ed

as

rep

rese

nti

ng

ba

rrie

rs t

o

tra

de

bu

t a

lso

a d

isin

cen

tiv

e t

o r

en

ew

eq

uip

me

nt

(un

less

th

e d

eci

sio

n i

s m

ad

e t

o

ren

ew

bo

th e

qu

ipm

en

ts a

t th

e s

am

e t

ime

).

In

du

stry

an

d u

ser

rep

rese

nta

tiv

es

sug

ge

st t

ha

t th

is c

lea

rly

lim

its

the

op

era

tio

n o

f

the

ma

rke

t in

th

ose

co

un

trie

s th

at

ha

ve

im

po

se t

his

re

qu

ire

me

nt

– i

n t

he

UK

on

ly

10

% h

as

swit

che

d t

o M

ID d

isp

en

sers

- a

nd

it

is e

xpe

cte

d t

o d

o t

ha

t e

ve

n a

fte

r th

e

of

CE

ma

rk o

r a

dd

itio

na

l se

als

in

Ita

ly a

nd

sim

ila

r ty

pe

s o

f ch

eck

s

in S

pa

in)

wh

ich

are

no

t le

ga

l

acc

ord

ing

to

th

e D

ire

ctiv

e b

ut

ad

d c

ost

s a

nd

are

tim

e-

con

sum

ing

wh

en

th

ey

en

d u

p

cha

lle

ng

ed

in

co

urt

s61

61 T

he

Sp

an

ish

CA

str

on

gly

ch

all

en

ge

d t

ha

t a

nd

su

gg

est

ed

th

at

wh

ile

CE

CO

D h

as

be

en

in

vit

ed

in

a n

um

be

r o

f o

cca

sio

ns

to r

ep

ort

an

d p

rov

ide

ev

ide

nce

th

is h

as

no

t ta

ke

n p

lace

.

Inte

rim

Ev

alu

ati

on

of

the

Me

asu

rin

g I

nst

rum

en

ts D

ire

ctiv

e –

Fin

al

rep

ort

Ap

pe

nd

ix

Me

asu

rin

g I

nst

rum

en

ts a

na

lysi

s ta

ble

s

E

79

Issu

es

F

ind

ing

s

Ev

ide

nce

/da

ta/o

the

r in

fo/

ex

am

ple

s

tra

nsi

tio

n p

eri

od

sin

ce t

he

lif

eti

me

of

dis

pe

nse

rs i

s u

p t

o 2

0 y

ea

rs.

It i

s a

lso

se

en

as

forc

ing

use

rs t

o e

ith

er

cha

ng

e b

oth

in

stru

me

nts

or

on

ly m

ak

e r

ep

air

s w

ith

ou

t

ma

kin

g f

ull

use

of

the

eq

uip

me

nt.

Th

e p

rop

osa

l o

f C

EC

OD

is

to a

do

pt

a s

ub

-ass

em

bly

fo

r p

oin

ts o

f sa

le.

On

th

is i

ssu

e,

a

big

nu

mb

er

of

CA

s a

lso

ag

ree

s th

at

the

sit

ua

tio

n i

s p

rob

lem

ati

c w

hil

e t

he

CA

s in

th

e

cou

ntr

ies

tha

t h

av

e a

do

pte

d a

mo

re s

tric

t a

pp

roa

ch d

uri

ng

th

e t

ran

siti

on

pe

rio

d (

UK

an

d N

L) c

on

sid

ers

th

at

it i

s a

pp

rop

ria

te f

or

con

sum

er

pro

tect

ion

. T

he

iss

ue

ha

s b

ee

n

rais

ed

an

d w

ell

do

cum

en

ted

in

th

e c

on

text

of

WE

LME

C a

nd

a l

arg

e n

um

be

r o

f C

As

sup

po

rt a

su

b-a

sse

mb

ly a

pp

roa

ch b

ut

this

is

no

t u

na

nim

ou

s.

Te

chn

olo

gic

al

inn

ov

ati

on

-

sup

po

rtin

g/h

am

pe

rin

g

Th

ere

we

re b

oth

po

siti

ve

an

d n

eg

ati

ve

vie

ws

in r

ela

tio

n t

o t

he

ro

le o

f th

e M

ID i

n

tech

no

log

ica

l in

no

va

tio

n:

On

e m

an

ufa

ctu

rer

sug

ge

ste

d t

ha

t th

e g

rea

ter

ma

rke

ts a

nd

th

e c

rea

tio

n o

f si

ng

le s

et

of

req

uir

em

en

ts i

s p

osi

tiv

e a

s it

pro

vid

es

ince

nti

ve

fo

r d

ev

elo

p m

ark

ets

fo

r la

rge

r

ma

rke

ts (

no

exa

mp

le m

en

tio

ne

d t

ho

ug

h).

On

th

e o

the

r h

an

d,

CE

CO

D s

ug

ge

ste

d t

ha

t th

e D

ire

ctiv

e i

s ra

the

r p

resc

rip

tiv

e a

nd

the

ess

en

tia

l re

qu

ire

me

nts

are

ra

the

r li

mit

ing

cre

ati

ng

lim

ita

tio

ns

to m

an

ufa

ctu

rers

in t

erm

s o

f in

no

va

tio

n (

alt

ho

ug

h n

o s

pe

cifi

c e

xam

ple

s w

ere

giv

en

).

It i

s a

gre

ed

by

alm

ost

all

in t

he

in

du

stry

(C

EC

OD

, fi

rms

an

d u

sers

) th

at

the

ab

sen

ce

of

som

e p

rov

isio

n f

or

test

ing

sy

ste

ms

(in

clu

din

g f

ue

l d

isp

en

sers

an

d s

elf

-se

rvic

e

ma

chin

es/

PO

S)

on

pe

tro

l st

ati

on

sit

es

po

ses

dif

ficu

ltie

s to

in

no

va

tio

n.

Ma

nu

fact

ure

rs a

re n

ot

all

ow

ed

to

co

nd

uct

pro

pe

r m

ark

et

test

s fo

r n

ew

pro

du

cts

an

d s

erv

ice

s th

at

wo

uld

re

qu

ire

in

sta

lle

d u

nit

s w

ith

ou

t fi

rst

go

ing

th

rou

gh

th

e M

ID

cert

ific

ati

on

pro

ced

ure

s. A

cco

rdin

g t

o o

ne

co

mp

an

y t

he

y c

an

on

ly d

o s

om

e t

est

s in

the

ir h

om

e c

ou

ntr

y.

Eit

he

r w

ay

th

is i

s se

en

as

a r

ep

rese

nti

ng

a l

imit

ati

on

to

th

e

de

ve

lop

me

nt

of

ne

w p

rod

uct

s.

A c

om

pa

ny

sta

ted

th

at

the

y c

an

on

ly d

o t

est

s in

th

eir

ho

me

cou

ntr

y u

sin

g M

ID c

ert

ifie

d

inst

rum

en

ts b

ut

cou

ld n

ot

po

ssib

ly t

est

in

oth

er

cou

ntr

ies.

Op

tio

na

lity

- Is

it

use

d i

n t

he

se

cto

r

- Is

th

ere

ev

ide

nce

of

two

-

tie

r m

ark

et

- Is

th

ere

ev

ide

nce

of

un

fair

com

pe

titi

on

Op

tio

na

lity

is n

ot

use

d i

n t

he

ca

se o

f M

I-0

05

a.

(on

ly o

ne

co

un

try

- M

T)

CE

CO

D c

on

sid

ers

op

tio

na

lity

as

un

fair

bu

t th

ere

wa

s n

o e

vid

en

ce p

rov

ide

d (

by

CE

CO

D o

r a

ny

co

mp

an

y)

of

a t

wo

tie

r m

ark

et

or

un

fair

co

mp

eti

tio

n d

ue

to

it.

Inte

rim

Ev

alu

ati

on

of

the

Me

asu

rin

g I

nst

rum

en

ts D

ire

ctiv

e –

Fin

al

rep

ort

Ap

pe

nd

ix

Me

asu

rin

g I

nst

rum

en

ts a

na

lysi

s ta

ble

s

E

80

Issu

es

F

ind

ing

s

Ev

ide

nce

/da

ta/o

the

r in

fo/

ex

am

ple

s

Co

nsu

me

r p

rote

ctio

n d

ue

to

op

tio

na

lity

an

d a

ny

oth

er

fact

or

In t

he

UK

, u

sers

of

fue

l d

isp

en

ser

syst

em

s (P

EIM

L) s

ug

ge

ste

d t

ha

t th

e i

ntr

od

uct

ion

of

the

MID

bro

ug

ht

gre

ate

r le

ve

l o

f p

rote

ctio

n t

hro

ug

h t

he

in

tro

du

ctio

n o

f th

e

ess

en

tia

l re

qu

ire

me

nts

an

d t

he

ir a

pp

lica

tio

n a

cro

ss t

he

EU

.

Ad

min

istr

ati

ve

bu

rde

ns

cre

ate

d/r

ed

uce

d

Th

ere

is

at

this

po

int

no

cle

ar

vie

w o

f th

e c

ha

ng

e i

n a

dm

inis

tra

tiv

e c

ost

wit

h

con

flic

tin

g i

nfo

rma

tio

n f

rom

th

e d

iffe

ren

t in

terv

iew

s. I

t se

em

s th

at

wh

ile

ch

arg

es

of

no

tifi

ed

bo

die

s in

ge

ne

ral

incr

ea

sed

-d

ue

to

mo

re t

ho

rou

gh

te

sts

an

d l

on

ge

r ti

me

to

issu

e a

ce

rtif

ica

te -

th

e o

ve

rall

co

sts

ha

ve d

ecr

ea

sed

– p

art

icu

larl

y f

or

tho

se w

ith

pre

sen

ce i

n m

ult

iple

ma

rke

ts.

CE

CO

D s

ug

ge

ste

d t

ha

t a

dm

inis

tra

tiv

e b

urd

en

s h

av

e n

ot

be

en

re

du

ced

as

mu

ch a

s it

wa

s e

xpe

cte

d d

ue

to

th

e u

se o

f si

ng

le E

U-w

ide

ce

rtif

ica

te a

s in

ma

ny

MS

s th

ere

are

ad

dit

ion

al

req

uir

em

en

ts p

ose

d w

hic

h,

acc

ord

ing

to

CE

CO

D,

are

ill

eg

al.

On

e m

an

ufa

ctu

rer

sta

ted

als

o a

co

st r

ed

uct

ion

fo

r u

sers

(p

etr

ol

sta

tio

ns)

as

the

re i

s

no

ne

ed

fo

r in

itia

l v

eri

fica

tio

n

On

e c

om

pa

ny

sta

ted

th

at

No

tifi

ed

Bo

die

s te

nd

to

ch

arg

e

mo

re t

ha

n i

n t

he

pa

st f

or

the

cert

ific

ati

on

(u

p t

o 5

0%

fro

m t

he

pre

vio

us

pro

ced

ure

s) a

nd

ta

ke

mo

re t

ime

be

cau

se t

he

pro

ced

ure

s a

re m

ore

th

oro

ug

h.

An

oth

er

com

pa

ny

sta

ted

th

at

the

ov

era

ll a

dm

inis

tra

tiv

e c

ost

s h

av

e

ma

rgin

all

y d

ecr

ea

sed

an

d t

ha

t

the

re

qu

ire

d t

ime

is

no

t v

ery

dif

fere

nt

(no

est

ima

te p

rov

ide

d).

Ho

we

ve

r, t

wo

mo

re f

irm

s w

ith

pre

sen

ce i

n o

ve

r 1

0 E

U c

ou

ntr

ies

sta

ted

th

at

the

y h

ad

exp

eri

en

ced

a r

ed

uct

ion

of

aro

un

d 8

0%

in

cost

s a

nd

th

at

the

ce

rtif

ica

tio

n

pro

cess

ha

s b

eco

me

fa

ste

r (3

-4

mo

nth

s in

co

mp

ari

son

to

up

to

a

ye

ar)

Re

pre

sen

tati

on

in

th

e M

ea

suri

ng

inst

rum

en

ts c

om

mit

tee

Th

e p

art

icip

ati

on

in

th

e w

gM

Is a

nd

th

e o

pp

ort

un

ity

to

exp

ress

vie

ws

is w

elc

om

ed

by

CE

CO

D.

Th

e m

ain

iss

ue

ra

ise

d i

s th

e r

ep

rese

nta

tio

n a

nd

in

flu

en

ce i

n W

ELM

EC

,

wh

ich

, in

th

e a

bse

nce

of

Eu

rop

ea

n s

tan

da

rds,

is

see

n a

s h

av

ing

in

cre

ase

d r

ole

thro

ug

h t

he

iss

uin

g o

f g

uid

an

ce d

ocu

me

nts

. In

th

is a

rea

, C

EC

OD

co

nsi

de

rs t

ha

t th

eir

role

as

ob

serv

ers

- i

s n

ot

ad

eq

ua

te.

Imp

act

on

SM

Es

C

EC

OD

su

gg

est

ed

th

at

un

de

r th

e c

urr

en

t li

mit

ati

on

s fo

r co

mb

inin

g o

ld a

nd

ne

w

eq

uip

me

nt,

sm

all

ma

nu

fact

ure

rs t

ha

t u

sua

lly

pro

du

ce a

nd

se

ll in

div

idu

al

pa

rts

of

the

to

tal

un

it (

PO

S o

r d

isp

en

ser)

ca

nn

ot

ha

ve

th

eir

pro

du

cts

CE

ce

rtif

ied

an

d a

re i

n a

dis

ad

va

nta

ge

d p

osi

tio

n a

ga

inst

la

rge

ma

nu

fact

ure

rs.

Co

nsu

me

rs b

uy

ing

in

teg

rate

d

.

Inte

rim

Ev

alu

ati

on

of

the

Me

asu

rin

g I

nst

rum

en

ts D

ire

ctiv

e –

Fin

al

rep

ort

Ap

pe

nd

ix

Me

asu

rin

g I

nst

rum

en

ts a

na

lysi

s ta

ble

s

E

81

Issu

es

F

ind

ing

s

Ev

ide

nce

/da

ta/o

the

r in

fo/

ex

am

ple

s

syst

em

s a

re e

xpe

cte

d t

o f

av

ou

r la

rge

ma

nu

fact

ure

rs t

ha

t h

av

e t

he

wh

ole

sy

ste

m

cert

ifie

d.

Ho

we

ve

r, n

o r

ea

l li

fe e

xam

ple

s w

ere

pro

vid

ed

.

Th

e S

ME

su

rve

y (

ba

sed

on

re

spo

nse

s o

f 2

4 f

irm

s) d

id n

ot

ind

ica

te t

ha

t S

ME

s fa

ce

an

y b

arr

iers

to

tra

de

an

d t

he

co

nfo

rmit

y a

sse

ssm

en

t p

roce

du

res

did

no

t a

lso

ap

pe

ar

to p

ose

pro

ble

ms

(all

re

spo

nd

en

ts c

on

sid

er

the

m a

de

qu

ate

).

Pa

ram

ete

rs/f

act

ors

aff

ect

ing

im

ple

me

nta

tio

n

•

Ro

le o

f st

an

da

rds

an

d g

uid

an

ce

do

cum

en

ts (

incl

. ro

le o

f

WE

LME

C)

Th

ere

are

no

Eu

rop

ea

n s

tan

da

rds

issu

ed

as

far

as

no

fo

rma

l re

qu

est

ha

s b

ee

n

pla

ced

. O

IML

no

rma

tiv

e d

ocu

me

nts

are

no

t co

nsi

de

red

sa

tisf

act

ory

by

CE

CO

D a

nd

som

e c

om

pa

nie

s. T

he

y a

re c

on

sid

ere

d r

ath

er

stri

ct a

nd

pre

scri

pti

ve

an

d t

he

ind

ust

ry h

as

no

ro

le i

n t

he

ir d

raft

ing

.

Sim

ila

rly

WE

LME

C d

ocu

me

nt

are

se

en

as

be

ing

to

o p

resc

rip

tiv

e a

nd

, a

cco

rdin

g t

o

CE

CO

D a

nd

alm

ost

all

ma

nu

fact

ure

rs,

the

no

tifi

ed

bo

die

s te

nd

to

use

th

em

as

if t

he

y

are

sta

nd

ard

s a

nd

are

re

luct

an

t to

acc

ep

t o

the

r a

pp

roa

che

s.

•

Imp

lem

en

tati

on

by

no

tifi

ed

bo

die

s

As

ab

ov

e,

CE

CO

D a

nd

co

mp

an

ies

rep

ort

ed

th

at

no

tifi

ed

bo

die

s te

nd

to

use

WE

LME

C

gu

ide

lin

es

rath

er

stri

ctly

an

d b

e l

ess

op

en

to

oth

er

ap

pro

ach

es

po

sin

g li

mit

ati

on

s o

r

de

lay

s in

ce

rtif

ica

tio

n p

roce

du

re.

Fu

rth

erm

ore

, C

EC

OD

re

po

rts

tha

t N

B

rep

ort

s/ce

rtif

ica

tes

are

va

ryin

g i

n c

on

ten

t.

•

Ma

rke

t su

rve

illa

nce

by

au

tho

riti

es

Ind

ust

ry (

CE

CO

D a

nd

so

me

ma

nu

fact

ure

rs)

rep

ort

ed

th

at

ma

rke

t su

rve

illa

nce

is

in

ma

ny

co

un

trie

s li

mit

ed

or

ab

sen

t. O

ne

ma

nu

fact

ure

r su

gg

est

ed

th

at

in G

ree

ce t

he

re

is c

om

ple

te a

bse

nce

of

an

y s

urv

eil

lan

ce w

ith

no

te

stin

g o

f C

E+

M m

ark

ing

an

d f

ree

circ

ula

tio

n o

f a

ll t

yp

es

of

dis

pe

nse

rs.

AS

su

gg

est

ed

ab

ov

e,

the

re a

re a

lso

pro

ble

ms

du

e t

o t

he

ad

dit

ion

al

req

uir

em

en

ts p

ose

d b

y s

om

e a

uth

ori

tie

s (I

T,

ES

) th

at

go

be

yo

nd

MID

re

qu

ire

me

nts

.

•

Tra

nsi

tio

n p

eri

od

T

he

tra

nsi

tio

n p

eri

od

is c

on

sid

ere

d r

ath

er

lon

g b

y C

EC

OD

an

d s

om

e m

an

ufa

ctu

rers

.

CE

CO

D c

on

sid

ere

d t

ha

t m

ore

cle

ar

gu

ide

lin

es

fro

m t

he

Co

mm

issi

on

wo

uld

he

lp

solv

e t

his

pro

ble

m.

Inte

rim

Ev

alu

ati

on

of

the

Me

asu

rin

g I

nst

rum

en

ts D

ire

ctiv

e –

Fin

al

rep

ort

Ap

pe

nd

ix

Me

asu

rin

g I

nst

rum

en

ts a

na

lysi

s ta

ble

s

E

82

MI-

00

5b

– O

the

r li

qu

id d

isp

en

sin

g s

yst

em

s 6

2

Issu

es

F

ind

ing

s

Ev

ide

nce

/da

ta/o

the

r in

fo/

ex

am

ple

s

Exp

eri

en

ce f

rom

th

e

imp

lem

en

tati

on

of

the

Dir

ect

ive

As

in t

he

ca

se o

f fu

el

dis

pe

nse

rs t

he

vie

w w

ere

ra

the

r m

ixe

d.

CE

CO

D r

eco

gn

ise

d t

he

be

ne

fit

fro

m a

cce

ssin

g a

wid

er

ma

rke

t o

ne

co

mp

an

y a

dd

ed

th

e c

lea

r b

en

efi

t fr

om

th

e o

pp

ort

un

ity

for

in-h

ou

se v

eri

fica

tio

n.

Th

e m

ain

pro

ble

ms/

issu

es

con

cern

ed

th

e n

ee

d f

or

ma

ny

ce

rtif

ica

tio

ns

for

ev

ery

co

mb

ina

tio

n

of

dif

fere

nt

com

po

ne

nts

bu

t a

lso

th

e u

ncl

ea

r si

tua

tio

n i

n r

ela

tio

n t

o t

he

co

mb

ina

tio

n o

f n

ew

an

d o

ld e

qu

ipm

en

t.

In r

esp

ect

to

th

e s

eco

nd

at

lea

st t

wo

co

mp

an

ies

sta

ted

th

at

un

de

r th

e M

ID m

an

ufa

ctu

rers

cou

ld o

nly

se

ll c

om

ple

te s

yst

em

s. S

ep

ara

te e

qu

ipm

en

t ca

nn

ot

be

so

ld w

ith

an

MID

ce

rtif

ica

te

as

on

ly c

om

ple

te s

yst

em

s ca

n b

e c

ert

ifie

d a

nd

th

is i

s se

en

as

lim

itin

g t

he

acc

ess

of

som

e

com

pa

nie

s to

th

e m

ark

et.

Ho

we

ve

r, W

ELM

EC

su

gg

est

ed

th

at

this

is

no

t a

big

ch

an

ge

fro

m t

he

pre

vio

us

sch

em

e a

s a

lre

ad

y m

ost

co

un

trie

s h

ad

mo

ve

d t

ow

ard

s th

e f

ull

sys

tem

ap

pro

ach

.

As

sug

ge

ste

d b

y o

ne

ma

nu

fact

ure

r cu

sto

me

rs t

en

d

to a

sk f

or

sep

ara

te

pa

rts/

com

po

ne

nts

to

be

MID

-

cert

ifie

d b

it t

his

ca

nn

ot

tak

e

pla

ce.

De

ve

lop

me

nt

of

an

eff

icie

nt

op

era

tin

g s

ing

le m

ark

et

Th

e i

nte

rvie

we

es

reco

gn

ise

d a

cle

ar

(or

po

ten

tia

l b

en

efi

t) f

rom

th

e u

se o

f a

sin

gle

ce

rtif

ica

te.

Ho

we

ve

r, i

nte

rvie

ws

wit

h W

ELM

EC

re

ferr

ed

to

th

e p

ract

ice

of

som

e M

S t

o a

sk f

or

na

tio

na

l

cert

ific

ati

on

/ve

rifi

cati

on

fo

r th

e u

se o

f in

stru

me

nts

ju

st 2

mo

nth

s a

fte

r th

eir

pla

cin

g i

n

ma

rke

t. T

he

se a

re b

ase

d o

n d

iffe

ren

t n

ati

on

al

reg

ula

tio

ns

(no

t h

arm

on

ise

d)

an

d e

ffe

ctiv

ely

cre

ate

ma

rke

t b

arr

iers

th

at

eff

ect

ive

ly d

o n

ot

all

ow

ma

kin

g f

ull

use

of

the

MID

be

ne

fits

. A

t

lea

st o

ne

co

mp

an

y a

gre

ed

an

d s

tate

d t

ha

t th

is i

s a

dis

ince

nti

ve

fo

r e

nte

rin

g o

the

r m

ark

ets

.

As

in t

he

ca

se o

f fu

el

dis

pe

nse

rs,

CE

CO

D r

efe

rs t

o b

arr

ier

to f

ree

cir

cula

tio

n in

re

lati

on

to

th

e

pro

cess

of

ren

ew

ing

exi

stin

g in

stru

me

nts

in

fix

ed

in

sta

lla

tio

ns

(tru

ck l

oa

din

g m

ea

suri

ng

syst

em

or

a m

ea

suri

ng

sy

ste

m o

n p

ipe

lin

e o

r fo

r lo

ad

ing

sh

ips,

etc

.).

Un

de

r th

e M

ID,

the

up

gra

de

of

an

exi

stin

g o

ld s

yste

m w

ith

a c

ha

ng

e o

f a

co

mp

on

en

t –

an

d n

ot

a n

ew

on

e –

ca

n

on

ly b

e d

on

e b

y r

ep

laci

ng

an

eq

uip

me

nt

wit

h t

ha

t o

f th

e s

am

e m

an

ufa

ctu

rer

or

bu

yin

g a

ne

w

MID

sy

ste

m.

Th

is,

acc

ord

ing

to

CE

CO

D,

me

an

s a

dd

itio

na

l o

ve

rall

co

sts

for

the

ma

rke

t o

f u

p t

o

€2

3m

illi

on

an

d im

po

rta

nt

lim

ita

tio

ns

for

com

pa

nie

s th

at

on

ly m

an

ufa

ctu

re c

om

po

ne

nts

fo

r

MIs

. C

EC

OD

su

gg

est

s a

ga

in t

ha

t a

n i

ntr

od

uct

ion

of

sub

-ass

em

bli

es

un

de

r M

I-0

05

an

d

de

fin

itio

n o

f th

e c

om

pa

tib

ilit

y re

qu

ire

me

nts

sh

ou

ld s

olv

e t

he

pro

ble

m.

Ag

ain

, th

is i

s w

ell

62 C

EC

OD

, Is

oil

Im

pia

nti

(IT

) ,

Fla

co (

DE

), A

cra

m (

IT)

Inte

rim

Ev

alu

ati

on

of

the

Me

asu

rin

g I

nst

rum

en

ts D

ire

ctiv

e –

Fin

al

rep

ort

Ap

pe

nd

ix

Me

asu

rin

g I

nst

rum

en

ts a

na

lysi

s ta

ble

s

E

83

Issu

es

F

ind

ing

s

Ev

ide

nce

/da

ta/o

the

r in

fo/

ex

am

ple

s

do

cum

en

ted

th

rou

gh

WE

LME

C p

roce

du

res

bu

t th

ere

is

no

un

an

imit

y a

s a

nu

mb

er

of

cou

ntr

ies

stil

l co

nsi

de

r th

at

a s

ub

-ass

em

bly

is

no

t a

pp

rop

ria

te.

Te

chn

olo

gic

al

inn

ov

ati

on

-

sup

po

rtin

g/h

am

pe

rin

g

Ov

era

ll,

the

co

mp

an

ies

do

no

t se

e a

ny

im

pa

ct o

f th

e D

ire

ctiv

e a

s th

e m

ain

dri

ver

for

mo

st o

f

the

m i

s th

e c

om

pe

titi

on

.

In t

he

ca

se o

f so

ftw

are

re

late

d t

o t

he

eq

uip

me

nt

the

y p

rod

uce

, th

ey

su

gg

est

ed

th

at

the

MID

req

uir

em

en

ts a

re t

oo

re

stri

ctiv

e f

or

inn

ov

ati

on

(e

.g.

the

ne

ed

to

se

pa

rate

cle

arl

y m

etr

olo

gic

al

an

d n

on

-me

tro

log

ica

l p

art

th

at

did

no

t e

xist

in

th

e p

ast

).

Op

tio

na

lity

- Is

it

use

d i

n t

he

sect

or

- Is

th

ere

ev

ide

nce

of

two

-tie

r m

ark

et

- Is

th

ere

ev

ide

nce

of

un

fair

co

mp

eti

tio

n

Op

tio

na

lity

ha

s b

ee

n u

sed

in

th

is c

ate

go

ry b

y a

nu

mb

er

of

cou

ntr

ies

(4-5

) m

ain

ly c

on

cern

ing

cry

og

en

ic a

nd

liq

ue

fie

d g

as

an

d m

ilk

dis

pe

nse

rs.

Th

e b

asi

s is

oth

er

the

ab

sen

ce f

rom

th

e

ma

rke

t o

r th

at

it w

as

see

n a

s n

ece

ssa

ry t

o h

av

e m

an

da

tory

re

gu

lati

on

to

pro

tect

cu

sto

me

rs.

No

su

ch e

vid

en

ce p

rov

ide

d b

y c

om

pa

nie

s o

f tw

o t

ier

ma

rke

ts i

n t

he

se

cto

rs c

ov

ere

d a

nd

of

un

fair

co

mp

eti

tio

n.

Co

nsu

me

r p

rote

ctio

n d

ue

to

op

tio

na

lity

an

d a

ny

oth

er

fact

or

No

iss

ue

s ra

ise

d b

y a

ny

in

terv

iew

ee

on

iss

ue

s o

f co

nsu

me

r p

rote

ctio

n.

Ad

min

istr

ati

ve

bu

rde

ns

cre

ate

d/r

ed

uce

d

Th

ere

is

no

cle

ar

vie

w c

on

cern

ing

th

e c

ha

ng

es

in t

he

ad

min

istr

ati

ve

co

sts

be

cau

se o

f th

e M

ID.

Th

e f

ocu

s is

on

th

e c

ert

ific

ati

on

co

sts

wh

ere

fe

es

of

NB

s re

po

rte

d v

ary

by

up

to

30

%.

On

e c

om

pa

ny

sta

ted

th

at

ind

ivid

ua

l ce

rtif

ica

tes

ha

ve

be

com

e m

uch

mo

re e

xpe

nsi

ve

wh

ile

an

oth

er

com

pa

ny

in

DE

did

no

t se

e a

ny

ch

an

ge

in

th

e p

rice

or

tim

e.

Acc

ord

ing

to

on

e m

an

ufa

ctu

rer,

ad

dit

ion

al

cost

s a

re i

ncu

rre

d w

he

n t

he

re i

s a

re

qu

est

fo

r a

cha

ng

e i

n o

nly

on

e c

om

po

ne

nt

of

the

sy

ste

m a

s th

ere

is

stil

l a r

eq

uir

em

en

t fo

r n

ew

cert

ific

ati

on

. T

his

me

an

s m

an

y m

ore

ce

rtif

ica

tes

tha

t in

th

e p

ast

an

d i

ncr

ea

sed

co

sts

for

ea

ch

ne

w p

rod

uct

.

Ma

nu

fact

ure

rs s

tate

d t

ha

t in

the

pa

st t

he

y w

ou

ld n

ot

spe

nd

mo

re t

ha

n €

5,0

00

fo

r a

syst

em

, cu

rre

ntl

y in

so

me

no

tifi

ed

bo

die

s in

so

me

cou

ntr

ies

ov

er

€2

5,0

00

. F

or

mo

dif

ica

tio

ns,

th

e t

ime

sp

en

t

cou

ld r

ea

ch 6

0 d

ay

s w

ith

2

pe

op

le o

ccu

pie

d f

ull

tim

e t

ha

t

wa

s a

sig

nif

ica

nt

ad

min

istr

ati

ve

bu

rde

n.

Re

pre

sen

tati

on

in

th

e

Me

asu

rin

g i

nst

rum

en

ts

Th

e p

art

icip

ati

on

an

d t

he

op

po

rtu

nit

y t

o e

xpre

ss v

iew

s a

re w

elc

om

ed

. T

he

ma

in i

ssu

e r

ais

ed

is t

he

re

pre

sen

tati

on

an

d i

nfl

ue

nce

in

WE

LME

C,

wh

ich

, in

th

e a

bse

nce

of

Eu

rop

ea

n

Inte

rim

Ev

alu

ati

on

of

the

Me

asu

rin

g I

nst

rum

en

ts D

ire

ctiv

e –

Fin

al

rep

ort

Ap

pe

nd

ix

Me

asu

rin

g I

nst

rum

en

ts a

na

lysi

s ta

ble

s

E

84

Issu

es

F

ind

ing

s

Ev

ide

nce

/da

ta/o

the

r in

fo/

ex

am

ple

s

com

mit

tee

st

an

da

rds,

is

see

n a

s h

av

ing

in

cre

ase

d r

ole

th

rou

gh

th

e i

ssu

ing

of

gu

ida

nce

do

cum

en

ts.

In t

his

are

a,

CE

CO

D c

on

sid

ers

th

at

the

ir r

ole

as

ob

serv

ers

- i

s n

ot

con

sid

ere

d a

de

qu

ate

.

Imp

act

on

SM

Es

C

EC

OD

an

d s

om

e f

irm

s su

gg

est

th

at

SM

Es

tha

t p

rod

uce

co

mp

on

en

ts c

an

no

t g

et

MID

cert

ific

ati

on

an

d t

his

pu

ts t

he

m i

n d

isa

dv

an

tag

e.

An

oth

er

pro

ble

m p

art

icu

larl

y f

or

sma

ll c

om

pa

nie

s w

ith

lim

ite

d d

istr

ibu

tio

n n

etw

ork

s

con

cern

ed

in

stru

me

nts

th

at

ne

ed

to

be

ce

rtif

ied

on

sit

e w

hic

h a

re b

ou

gh

t th

rou

gh

dis

trib

uto

rs.

Ma

nu

fact

ure

rs a

re r

esp

on

sib

le b

ut

usu

all

y d

o n

ot

kn

ow

wh

ere

th

ey

are

in

sta

lle

d.

Th

ere

is

a p

rob

lem

of

ma

na

gin

g t

ime

an

d r

eso

urc

es

if t

he

y d

o n

ot

ha

ve

lo

cal

rep

rese

nta

tiv

es

an

d t

he

co

sts

we

re t

ran

sfe

rre

d t

o t

he

co

nsu

me

r.

Pa

ram

ete

rs/f

act

ors

aff

ect

ing

im

ple

me

nta

tio

n

•

Ro

le o

f st

an

da

rds

an

d

gu

ida

nce

do

cum

en

ts

(in

cl.

role

of

WE

LME

C)

Th

e c

om

pa

nie

s su

gg

est

ed

th

at

OIM

L st

an

da

rds

are

wid

ely

re

cog

nis

ed

an

d t

he

y c

on

sid

ere

d

tha

t a

s b

en

efi

cia

l fo

r in

tern

ati

on

al

tra

de

. T

he

y d

id n

ot

see

a n

ee

d f

or

CE

N/C

EN

ELE

C

sta

nd

ard

s. W

ELM

EC

co

ntr

ibu

tio

n w

as

als

o p

osi

tiv

ely

ass

ess

ed

alt

ho

ug

h t

he

co

nti

nu

ou

s

issu

ing

of

gu

ida

nce

do

cum

en

ts o

ve

rwh

elm

s th

em

– d

iffi

cult

to

fo

llo

w

•

Imp

lem

en

tati

on

by

no

tifi

ed

bo

die

s

Th

ere

we

re n

o p

art

icu

lar

pro

ble

ms

rais

ed

by

th

e i

nte

rvie

we

es

in t

erm

s o

f th

e o

pe

rati

on

of

the

NB

s. M

ost

ag

ree

d t

ha

t th

e p

rice

s ch

arg

ed

by

NB

s v

ary

gre

atl

y b

ut

this

wa

s n

ot

see

n

ne

cess

ari

ly a

s a

ne

ga

tiv

e i

ssu

e.

On

sp

eci

fic

issu

es,

on

e c

om

pa

ny

re

po

rte

d t

ha

t n

oti

fie

d

bo

die

s h

av

e d

iffe

ren

t in

terp

reta

tio

ns

as

to w

hic

h t

est

s ca

n b

e d

on

e i

n m

an

ufa

ctu

rers

’

lab

ora

tori

es.

–

•

Ma

rke

t su

rve

illa

nce

by

au

tho

riti

es

Ov

era

ll,

the

va

ria

tio

n in

th

e l

ev

el

of

ma

rke

t su

rve

illa

nce

am

on

g M

Ss

is s

ee

n a

s th

e m

ain

pro

ble

m c

on

cern

ing

th

e i

mp

lem

en

tati

on

of

the

Dir

ect

ive

an

d o

ne

co

mp

an

y r

efe

rre

d t

o a

nu

mb

er

of

cou

ntr

ies

(IT

, E

S,

GR

, n

ew

Me

mb

er

Sta

tes)

wh

ere

th

ey

kn

ow

th

at

the

re i

s n

o c

he

ck

at

all

in

th

e c

ase

of

mil

k d

isp

en

sers

. T

his

is

sug

ge

ste

d a

s a

llo

win

g u

nfa

ir c

om

pe

titi

on

.

Fu

rth

erm

ore

, W

ELM

EC

re

ferr

ed

to

th

e p

ract

ice

of

som

e M

S t

o a

sk f

or

na

tio

na

l

cert

ific

ati

on

/ve

rifi

cati

on

fo

r th

e u

se o

f in

stru

me

nts

ju

st 2

mo

nth

s a

fte

r th

eir

pla

cin

g i

n m

ark

et

ba

sed

on

dif

fere

nt

na

tio

na

l re

gu

lati

on

s (n

ot

ha

rmo

nis

ed

). T

his

is s

ee

n a

s e

ffe

ctiv

ely

cre

ati

ng

ma

rke

t b

arr

iers

. A

t le

ast

on

e c

om

pa

ny

ag

ree

d a

nd

sta

ted

th

at

this

is a

dis

ince

nti

ve

fo

r

en

teri

ng

oth

er

ma

rke

ts.

WE

LME

C c

on

ve

no

rs s

ug

ge

ste

d t

ha

t so

me

act

ion

to

ha

rmo

niz

e a

pp

roa

ch a

mo

ng

MS

s is

ne

cess

ary

•

Tra

nsi

tio

n p

eri

od

A

cco

rdin

g t

o W

ELM

EC

WG

10

th

e t

ran

siti

on

pe

rio

d w

as

ne

cess

ary

as

on

ly f

ew

la

rge

Inte

rim

Ev

alu

ati

on

of

the

Me

asu

rin

g I

nst

rum

en

ts D

ire

ctiv

e –

Fin

al

rep

ort

Ap

pe

nd

ix

Me

asu

rin

g I

nst

rum

en

ts a

na

lysi

s ta

ble

s

E

85

Issu

es

F

ind

ing

s

Ev

ide

nce

/da

ta/o

the

r in

fo/

ex

am

ple

s

com

pa

nie

s w

he

re p

rep

are

d f

or

the

MID

. M

ost

co

mp

an

ies

are

(st

ill)

no

t p

rop

erl

y i

nfo

rme

d

ev

en

if

me

cha

nis

ms

do

exi

st (

incl

ud

ing

th

e N

Bs

tha

t a

re p

rov

idin

g t

his

in

fo)

Fo

r a

t le

ast

on

e c

om

pa

ny

th

e p

rob

lem

of

the

tra

nsi

tio

n p

eri

od

is

tha

t it

pro

lon

gs

the

con

fusi

on

co

nce

rnin

g i

ssu

es

rela

ted

to

th

e c

om

bin

ati

on

of

old

an

d n

ew

in

stru

me

nts

an

d t

he

dif

fere

nt

inte

rpre

tati

on

s fr

om

no

tifi

ed

bo

die

s

Acc

ord

ing

to

an

oth

er

com

pa

ny

th

e t

ran

siti

on

pe

rio

d l

ea

ds

to a

de

lay

in

th

e u

se o

f M

ID

cert

ifie

d i

nst

rum

en

ts –

fo

r th

e t

ime

be

ing

ma

ny

co

mp

an

ies

an

d u

sers

fo

cus

on

th

e u

se o

f p

re-

MID

in

stru

me

nts

MI-

00

6 –

Au

tom

ati

c w

eig

hin

g i

nst

rum

en

ts6

3

Issu

es

F

ind

ing

s

Ev

ide

nce

/da

ta/o

the

r in

fo/

ex

am

ple

s

Exp

eri

en

ce f

rom

th

e

imp

lem

en

tati

on

of

the

Dir

ect

ive

Fo

r b

oth

tra

de

ass

oci

ati

on

an

d f

or

the

in

div

idu

al

ma

nu

fact

ure

rs t

he

ad

op

tio

n o

f u

nif

orm

inte

rna

tio

na

l st

an

da

rds

an

d s

ing

le c

ert

ific

ate

re

pre

sen

t a

ve

ry i

mp

ort

an

t co

ntr

ibu

tio

n o

f

the

Dir

ect

ive

th

at

ha

s le

d t

o i

mp

ort

an

t co

st s

av

ing

s.

Ho

we

ve

r, t

he

y s

tate

th

at

the

pra

ctic

al

exp

eri

en

ce c

on

cern

ing

th

e i

mp

lem

en

tati

on

of

the

MID

th

at

incl

ud

e t

he

op

era

tio

n o

f th

e n

oti

fie

d b

od

ies,

th

e m

ark

et

surv

eil

lan

ce a

nd

so

me

of

the

ad

min

istr

ati

ve

wo

rk r

eq

uir

ed

are

sti

ll p

rob

lem

ati

c.

SLO

CA

sta

ted

th

at

ma

nu

fact

ure

rs

of

AW

I h

av

e g

ive

n p

osi

tiv

e

com

me

nts

.

De

ve

lop

me

nt

of

an

eff

icie

nt

op

era

tin

g s

ing

le

ma

rke

t

Th

e v

iew

of

CE

CIP

is

tha

t so

fa

r th

e m

ark

et

is s

till

no

t o

pe

rati

ng

in

a e

ffic

ien

t w

ay

as

a

resu

lt o

f th

e o

pti

on

ali

ty (

see

be

low

), t

he

re

stri

ctiv

e w

ay

no

tifi

ed

bo

die

s u

se W

ELM

EC

gu

ida

nce

do

cum

en

ts (

see

be

low

) a

nd

th

e f

act

th

at

som

e s

urv

eil

lan

ce a

uth

ori

tie

s te

nd

to

cre

ate

min

or

issu

es

pro

ble

ms/

ob

sta

cle

s b

y b

ein

g p

art

icu

larl

y s

tric

t in

va

rio

us

ad

min

istr

ati

ve

/bu

rea

ucr

ati

c re

qu

ire

me

nts

.

Ho

we

ve

r, a

t le

ast

on

e m

an

ufa

ctu

rer

exp

ect

ed

th

at

ov

er

tim

e t

hin

gs

sho

uld

imp

rov

e a

s

63 B

ase

d o

n i

nte

rvie

w w

ith

th

e m

ain

in

du

stry

ass

oci

ati

on

(C

EC

IP),

ma

nu

fact

ure

rs (

PE

NK

O –

SM

E (

NL)

, W

ELW

AA

RT

S-

SM

E (

NL)

, M

ett

ler

To

led

o-

Larg

e

mu

ltin

ati

on

al

(CH

),..

.).

Inte

rim

Ev

alu

ati

on

of

the

Me

asu

rin

g I

nst

rum

en

ts D

ire

ctiv

e –

Fin

al

rep

ort

Ap

pe

nd

ix

Me

asu

rin

g I

nst

rum

en

ts a

na

lysi

s ta

ble

s

E

86

Issu

es

F

ind

ing

s

Ev

ide

nce

/da

ta/o

the

r in

fo/

ex

am

ple

s

exp

eri

en

ce b

uil

ds

up

.

Te

chn

olo

gic

al

inn

ov

ati

on

-

sup

po

rtin

g/h

am

pe

rin

g

CE

CIP

an

d c

om

pa

nie

s a

gre

e t

ha

t th

e M

ID p

rov

ide

s a

mp

le s

pa

ce f

or

tech

no

log

ica

l

inn

ov

ati

on

ba

sed

on

th

e e

sse

nti

al

req

uir

em

en

ts.

Ho

we

ve

r, C

EC

IP a

nd

in

div

idu

al

ma

nu

fact

ure

rs r

ep

ort

ed

th

at

in p

ract

ice

no

tifi

ed

bo

die

s

ten

d t

o u

se W

ELM

EC

gu

ida

nce

do

cum

en

ts “

as

if t

he

y w

ere

la

w”

, i.

e.

as

rep

rese

nti

ng

th

e

on

ly w

ay

of

con

form

ing

to

th

e r

eq

uir

em

en

ts.

As

a r

esu

lt,

ma

nu

fact

ure

rs t

ha

t d

o n

ot

foll

ow

the

m a

re a

ske

d t

o j

ust

ify

th

e r

ea

son

s fo

r n

ot

do

ing

th

at

an

d c

on

sid

er

this

as

a r

est

rict

ion

to t

he

ir c

ap

aci

ty t

o d

ev

elo

p i

nn

ov

ati

ve

so

luti

on

s.

At

lea

st o

ne

co

mp

an

y s

ug

ge

ste

d t

ha

t in

re

lati

on

to

th

e s

oft

wa

re f

or

AW

Is W

ELM

EC

do

cum

en

ts w

ere

lo

ng

, v

ery

re

stri

ctiv

e a

nd

pre

scri

pti

ve.

On

e c

om

pa

ny

re

ferr

ed

to

sp

eci

fic

case

s w

he

n t

he

no

tifi

ed

bo

dy

reje

cte

d a

sp

eci

fic

con

fig

ura

tio

n/a

pp

roa

ch t

ha

t d

id n

ot

foll

ow

th

e W

ELM

EC

ap

pro

ach

CE

CIP

re

ferr

ed

als

o t

o e

xam

ple

s

con

cern

ing

so

ftw

are

in

AW

I w

he

re

alt

ern

ati

ve

s to

th

at

pro

po

sed

by

WE

LME

C u

nd

er

mo

du

le B

ha

ve

be

en

reje

cte

d b

y n

oti

fie

d b

od

ies.

Op

tio

na

lity

- Is

it

use

d i

n t

he

sect

or

- Is

th

ere

ev

ide

nce

of

two

-tie

r

ma

rke

t

- Is

th

ere

ev

ide

nce

of

un

fair

com

pe

titi

on

Op

tio

na

lity

ha

s n

ot

be

en

use

d e

xte

nsi

ve

ly i

n t

he

se

cto

r. I

n t

hre

e c

ou

ntr

ies

(CY

, M

T,

IE)

the

re i

s n

o c

ov

era

ge

of

rail

we

igh

bri

dg

es

tha

t a

re n

ot

pre

sen

t in

th

e d

om

est

ic m

ark

et.

Ho

we

ve

r, C

EC

IP r

efe

rs t

o a

ca

se w

he

re t

he

pri

ce o

f n

on

-co

nfo

rmin

g M

Is w

as

low

er

tha

n

for

the

co

nfo

rmin

g M

Is.

It a

lso

re

ferr

ed

to

a s

pe

cifi

c co

un

try

(w

ith

ou

t p

rovi

din

g n

am

e6

4)

wh

ere

lo

cal

ma

nu

fact

ure

rs h

av

e s

up

po

rte

d o

pti

ng

ou

t in

ord

er

to m

ain

tain

co

mp

eti

tiv

e

ad

va

nta

ge

.

Sti

ll,

the

co

mp

an

ies

did

no

t se

em

to

be

pa

rtic

ula

rly

tro

ub

led

wit

h p

rob

lem

s o

f u

nfa

ir

com

pe

titi

on

or

two

tie

r m

ark

ets

.

CE

CIP

re

ferr

ed

to

a c

ase

of

a

ma

nu

fact

ure

r o

f a

uto

ma

tic

inst

rum

en

ts t

ha

t h

as

be

en

un

ab

le t

o c

om

pe

te i

n a

n

un

reg

ula

ted

ma

rke

t b

eca

use

of

the

pri

ce o

f it

s p

rod

uct

s w

hic

h

are

in

co

mp

lia

nce

wit

h t

he

MID

we

re t

oo

exp

en

siv

e w

he

n

com

pe

tin

g w

ith

pro

du

cts

no

t in

co

mp

lia

nce

du

e t

o t

he

op

tio

na

lity

.

Co

nsu

me

r p

rote

ctio

n d

ue

to o

pti

on

ali

ty a

nd

an

y

oth

er

fact

or

All

in

terv

iew

ee

s a

gre

ed

th

at

con

sum

er

pro

tect

ion

ha

s im

pro

ve

d b

eca

use

of

the

ess

en

tia

l

req

uir

em

en

ts o

f th

e M

ID.

Th

ere

wa

s n

o e

vid

en

ce o

f lo

we

r q

ua

lity

be

ing

a p

rob

lem

to

con

sum

er

pro

tect

ion

.

As

rep

ort

ed

by

tw

o c

om

pa

nie

s, d

ue

to

pro

ble

ma

tic

ma

rke

t su

rve

illa

nce

, s

om

e

com

pe

tito

rs p

rod

uce

go

lde

n p

roto

typ

es

to g

et

the

ce

rtif

ica

tio

n a

nd

th

en

bri

ng

to

th

e

64 B

ase

d o

n t

he

da

ta f

or

the

use

of

op

tio

na

lity

th

ese

co

un

trie

s ca

n b

e S

wit

zerl

an

d (

au

tom

ati

c g

rav

ime

tric

fil

lin

g i

nst

rum

en

ts)

or

UK

(a

uto

ma

tic

catc

hw

eig

he

rs)

Inte

rim

Ev

alu

ati

on

of

the

Me

asu

rin

g I

nst

rum

en

ts D

ire

ctiv

e –

Fin

al

rep

ort

Ap

pe

nd

ix

Me

asu

rin

g I

nst

rum

en

ts a

na

lysi

s ta

ble

s

E

87

Issu

es

F

ind

ing

s

Ev

ide

nce

/da

ta/o

the

r in

fo/

ex

am

ple

s

ma

rke

t lo

we

r q

ua

lity

pro

du

cts

Ad

min

istr

ati

ve

bu

rde

ns

cre

ate

d/r

ed

uce

d

Ov

era

ll a

re

du

ctio

n i

n t

he

to

tal

cost

s fo

r fi

rms

du

e t

o t

he

MID

is

reco

rde

d a

lth

ou

gh

wit

h

gre

at

va

ria

tio

n.

Larg

er

firm

s w

ith

pre

sen

ce i

n m

an

y m

ark

ets

be

ne

fit

mo

re.

CE

CIP

est

ima

ted

th

at

ov

era

ll a

dm

inis

tra

tiv

e b

urd

en

s h

av

e b

ee

n r

ed

uce

d g

ive

n t

he

va

lid

ity

of

cert

ific

ate

s a

rou

nd

Eu

rop

e e

ve

n i

f a

dm

inis

tra

tio

n c

ost

s a

re s

till

a s

ign

ific

an

t b

urd

en

.

Ho

we

ve

r, C

EC

IP s

ug

ge

ste

d t

ha

t th

e o

ve

rall

be

ne

fits

are

lim

ite

d c

on

cern

ing

a n

um

be

r o

f

mo

du

les

as

the

re a

re n

ow

mu

ch m

ore

exp

en

siv

e b

eca

use

of

the

str

icte

r re

qu

ire

me

nts

fo

r

the

use

of

spe

cifi

c m

od

ule

s (D

, F

) o

r b

eca

use

of

WE

LME

C g

uid

eli

ne

s fo

r m

ark

ing

.

An

oth

er

issu

e r

ais

ed

co

nce

rne

d t

ran

sla

tio

n r

eq

uir

em

en

ts u

nd

er

the

NLF

th

at

are

se

en

as

po

ssib

ly e

xce

ssiv

e.

On

e c

om

pa

ny

est

ima

ted

th

at

cost

s fo

r tr

an

sla

tio

n p

er

cou

ntr

y

exc

ee

de

d €

5,0

00

. T

wo

co

mp

an

ies

sta

ted

th

at

in t

he

ca

se o

f co

un

trie

s w

he

re t

he

y d

id n

ot

exp

ect

to

se

ll m

ore

th

an

2-3

in

stru

me

nts

an

nu

all

y,

the

y d

eci

de

d n

ot

to e

nte

r a

t a

ll.

On

e c

om

pa

ny

wit

h p

rese

nce

in

6

cou

ntr

ies

rep

ort

ed

to

tal

red

uct

ion

of

cost

s o

f €

20

,00

0-3

0,0

00

/ye

ar.

An

oth

er

com

pa

ny

wit

h p

rese

nce

in

all

27

co

un

trie

s re

ferr

ed

to

a

red

uct

ion

of

clo

se t

o 8

0%

. H

ow

ev

er,

the

y a

lso

sta

ted

th

at

the

re i

s a

ne

ed

for

mo

re c

ert

ific

ate

s fo

r e

ach

pro

du

ct f

oll

ow

ing

min

or

cha

ng

es

tha

t ca

n m

ea

n €

3,0

00

-40

00

ext

ra

cost

s fo

r a

ne

w s

yst

em

.

Re

pre

sen

tati

on

in

th

e

Me

asu

rin

g i

nst

rum

en

ts

com

mit

tee

Ov

era

ll,

ind

ust

ry s

tak

eh

old

ers

co

nsi

de

r th

at

the

y a

re a

de

qu

ate

ly r

ep

rese

nte

d a

nd

in

clu

de

d

in t

he

pro

ced

ure

s. H

ow

ev

er,

th

ere

is a

co

nce

rn t

ha

t it

is

no

t p

oss

ible

to

fo

llo

w a

ll r

ele

va

nt

wo

rkin

g g

rou

ps

in W

ELM

EC

an

d t

o m

on

ito

r a

ll d

ocu

me

nts

pro

du

ced

. O

ne

co

mp

an

y a

ctiv

e

in W

ELM

EC

gro

up

s fe

lt t

ha

t th

eir

pa

rtic

ipa

tio

n i

s a

de

qu

ate

bu

t th

eir

in

pu

ts a

re a

lmo

st

ne

ve

r ta

ke

n i

nto

acc

ou

nt.

Imp

act

on

SM

Es

C

EC

IP p

rop

ose

d t

ha

t S

ME

s th

at

focu

s o

n a

sse

mb

lin

g c

ert

ifie

d e

qu

ipm

en

t/co

mp

on

en

ts

bo

ug

ht

fro

m o

the

r m

an

ufa

ctu

rers

an

d h

av

e t

o g

et

ad

dit

ion

al

cert

ific

ate

s fo

r th

e f

ina

l M

I

ass

em

ble

d w

ill

face

ad

dit

ion

al c

ost

s.

Fu

rth

erm

ore

, a

cco

rdin

g t

o C

EC

IP t

he

ad

dit

ion

al

tra

nsl

ati

on

co

sts

un

de

r th

e N

FL

can

be

a

dis

pro

po

rtio

na

te b

urd

en

fo

r S

ME

s if

au

tho

riti

es

req

uir

e a

ll r

ele

va

nt

do

cum

en

tati

on

.

Th

e S

ME

su

rve

y (

ba

sed

on

43

re

spo

nse

s) d

id n

ot

ind

ica

te t

he

pre

sen

ce o

f p

rob

lem

s w

ith

con

form

ity

ass

ess

me

nt

an

d n

o b

arr

iers

to

tra

de

cre

ate

d.

Pa

ram

ete

rs/f

act

ors

aff

ect

ing

im

ple

me

nta

tio

n

•

Ro

le o

f st

an

da

rds

an

d

gu

ida

nce

do

cum

en

ts

(in

cl.

role

of

WE

LME

C)

CE

CIP

an

d c

om

pa

nie

s co

nsi

de

r th

at

the

use

of

OIM

L n

orm

ati

ve

do

cum

en

ts i

s a

de

qu

ate

as

the

y h

elp

ke

ep

Eu

rop

e i

n l

ine

wit

h t

he

re

st o

f th

e w

orl

d a

nd

he

lp e

xpo

rts.

Th

e a

bse

nce

of

Eu

rop

ea

n s

tan

da

rds

do

es

no

t p

ose

an

y p

rob

lem

Th

ere

is

a p

rob

lem

ho

we

ve

r –

acc

ord

ing

to

CE

CIP

– c

on

cern

ing

WE

LME

C g

uid

eli

ne

s th

at

are

se

en

as

too

ma

ny

an

d b

eco

min

g a

bu

rde

n.

Inte

rim

Ev

alu

ati

on

of

the

Me

asu

rin

g I

nst

rum

en

ts D

ire

ctiv

e –

Fin

al

rep

ort

Ap

pe

nd

ix

Me

asu

rin

g I

nst

rum

en

ts a

na

lysi

s ta

ble

s

E

88

Issu

es

F

ind

ing

s

Ev

ide

nce

/da

ta/o

the

r in

fo/

ex

am

ple

s

•

Imp

lem

en

tati

on

by

no

tifi

ed

bo

die

s

Acc

ord

ing

to

on

e c

om

pa

ny

th

ere

is

sig

nif

ica

nt

pro

ble

m li

nke

d t

o t

he

NB

s u

sin

g W

ELM

EC

do

cum

en

ts a

re i

f th

ey

are

la

w w

hil

e f

or

an

oth

er

the

NB

s te

nd

to

ap

ply

co

nfo

rmit

y

ass

ess

me

nt

mo

du

les

in a

n i

nco

nsi

ste

nt

wa

y w

ith

va

ryin

g t

est

s.

At

lea

st t

wo

co

mp

an

ies

me

nti

on

ed

exa

mp

les

of

NB

s u

sin

g

•

Ma

rke

t su

rve

illa

nce

by

au

tho

riti

es

Ind

ust

ry e

xpe

rie

nce

th

at

the

ma

rke

t su

rve

illa

nce

is

lim

ite

d a

nd

un

sati

sfa

cto

ry a

s in

alm

ost

all

ca

ses

au

tho

riti

es

are

lim

ite

d r

ed

uce

d t

o l

ab

els

an

d a

dm

inis

tra

tiv

e r

eq

uir

em

en

ts,

seld

om

to

th

e q

ua

lity

of

the

inst

rum

en

t.

Th

e i

mp

ort

an

t p

rob

lem

– a

s re

po

rte

d b

y t

wo

co

mp

an

ies

- is

th

at

som

e c

om

pe

tito

rs

pro

du

ce g

old

en

sa

mp

les/

pro

toty

pe

s to

ge

t th

e c

ert

ific

ati

on

an

d t

he

n b

rin

g t

o t

he

ma

rke

t

low

er

qu

ali

ty p

rod

uct

s w

ith

imp

lica

tio

n f

or

fair

co

mp

eti

tio

n a

nd

cu

sto

me

r p

rote

ctio

n.

Th

e S

ME

s su

rve

y a

lso

su

pp

ort

ed

th

e v

iew

th

at

ma

rke

t su

rve

illa

nce

is

pro

ble

ma

tic.

Aro

un

d

40

% r

efe

rre

d t

o t

he

pre

sen

ce o

f n

on

-CE

+M

ma

rke

d p

rod

uct

s co

nsi

de

red

pre

sen

tin

g u

nfa

ir

com

pe

titi

on

.

On

e c

om

pa

ny

re

po

rte

d t

ha

t in

th

e

UK

ch

eck

we

igh

ers

th

at

are

no

t M

ID-

cert

ifie

d a

re i

n c

ircu

lati

on

an

d a

re

aro

un

d 1

5%

ch

ea

pe

r.

•

Tra

nsi

tio

n p

eri

od

M

ost

co

mp

an

ies

con

sid

ere

d t

he

tra

nsi

tio

n p

eri

od

ad

eq

ua

te t

o a

llo

w s

ell

ing

th

e p

re-

exi

stin

g s

tock

.

MI-

00

7 -

Ta

xim

ete

rs6

5

Issu

es

Fin

din

gs

E

vid

en

ce/d

ata

/oth

er

info

/

ex

am

ple

s

Exp

eri

en

ce f

rom

th

e

imp

lem

en

tati

on

of

the

Dir

ect

ive

(o

ve

rall

)

Th

ree

of

fou

r m

an

ufa

ctu

rers

sta

ted

th

at

MID

ha

s so

fa

r o

ffe

red

le

ss t

ha

n w

ha

t th

ey

ho

pe

d f

or

in t

erm

s o

f a

cce

ss t

o m

ark

ets

an

d r

ed

uct

ion

of

the

ad

min

istr

ati

ve

wo

rk.

Ho

we

ve

r, t

his

is

pri

ma

rily

lin

ked

wit

h t

he

ro

le o

f n

ati

on

al/

reg

ion

al

tari

ff r

eg

ula

tio

ns

tha

t

are

no

t co

ntr

oll

ed

by

MID

(se

e b

elo

w)

De

ve

lop

me

nt

of

an

eff

icie

nt

op

era

tin

g s

ing

le m

ark

et

On

e l

arg

e a

nd

tw

o S

ME

s m

an

ufa

ctu

rers

su

gg

est

ed

th

at

a s

ing

le m

ark

et

is s

till

no

t in

pla

ce d

ue

to

th

e d

iffe

ren

ces

in t

he

na

tio

na

l o

r re

gio

na

l re

gu

lati

on

s co

nce

rnin

g t

ari

ffs

(no

t co

ntr

oll

ed

by

MID

) a

nd

ta

riff

str

uct

ure

s in

ma

ny

MS

. T

his

me

an

s d

iffe

ren

t

req

uir

em

en

ts f

or

the

so

ftw

are

th

at

ne

ed

s to

be

in

teg

rate

d i

n t

he

ta

xim

ete

r a

nd

ge

t a

n

MID

ce

rtif

ica

te.

Th

is i

s se

en

pa

rtic

ula

rly

pro

ble

ma

tic

in t

he

UK

wh

ere

ov

er

40

0 l

oca

l

au

tho

riti

es

resp

on

sib

le.

Th

e m

an

ufa

ctu

rer

sta

te t

ha

t in

som

e c

ou

ntr

ies

(e.g

. U

K,

Po

rtu

ga

l)

na

tio

na

l o

r a

nd

re

gio

na

l

req

uir

em

en

ts t

en

d t

o o

pe

rate

as

pro

tect

ion

fo

r lo

cal

pro

du

cers

th

at

in s

om

e c

ase

s h

av

e p

ress

ed

lo

cal

65 B

ase

d o

n i

nte

rvie

ws

wit

h r

ep

rese

nta

tiv

es

of

fou

r m

an

ufa

ctu

rers

. (

HA

LE-

SM

E(A

U),

AQ

UIL

A-

SM

E (

UK

), D

IGIT

AX

-La

rge

(UK

), S

EM

EL-

SM

E(F

I)

Inte

rim

Ev

alu

ati

on

of

the

Me

asu

rin

g I

nst

rum

en

ts D

ire

ctiv

e –

Fin

al

rep

ort

Ap

pe

nd

ix

Me

asu

rin

g I

nst

rum

en

ts a

na

lysi

s ta

ble

s

E

89

Issu

es

Fin

din

gs

E

vid

en

ce/d

ata

/oth

er

info

/

ex

am

ple

s

Ma

nu

fact

ure

rs s

tate

d t

ha

t if

th

ey

wa

nt

to a

cce

ss m

ore

th

an

on

e m

ark

et

ne

ed

to

inte

gra

te a

ll t

ari

ff r

eq

uir

em

en

ts (

wh

ich

are

no

t M

ID r

eg

ula

ted

) to

th

e t

axi

me

ter’

soft

wa

re f

rom

th

e b

eg

inn

ing

(o

ne

co

mp

an

y s

aw

th

at

as

a p

osi

tiv

e i

nce

nti

ve

) o

r g

et

ad

dit

ion

al

cert

ific

ate

s fo

r e

ve

ry c

ha

ng

e m

ad

e.

On

e c

om

pa

ny

re

po

rte

d t

ha

t it

wa

s

ess

en

tia

lly

no

t a

llo

we

d t

o e

nte

r a

no

the

r m

ark

et

du

e t

o t

his

pro

tect

ion

alt

ho

ug

h a

no

the

r

SM

E d

id c

on

sid

er

tha

t a

s a

n i

ssu

e.

au

tho

riti

es

for

intr

od

uci

ng

ne

w

req

uir

em

en

ts.

Te

chn

olo

gic

al

inn

ov

ati

on

-

sup

po

rtin

g/h

am

pe

rin

g

Ne

ith

er

for

mo

st f

irm

s M

ID h

as

cre

ate

d o

bst

acl

es

no

r h

as

it p

lay

ed

a s

tro

ng

ro

le i

n

sup

po

rtin

g i

nn

ov

ati

on

. H

ow

ev

er,

on

e c

om

pa

ny

sta

ted

th

at

the

use

of

a s

ing

le E

U

cert

ific

ate

wa

s a

ctu

all

y a

po

siti

ve

in

cen

tiv

e f

or

de

ve

lop

ing

a n

ew

EU

wid

e t

yp

e t

axi

me

ter

an

d a

no

the

r th

at

the

re

qu

ire

me

nt

of

soft

wa

re s

ep

ara

tio

n (

leg

al

an

d n

on

-le

ga

l p

art

) is

po

siti

ve

in

th

e s

en

se t

ha

t is

cre

ate

d a

n i

nce

nti

ve

fo

r in

no

va

tio

n.

In c

on

tra

st,

the

ma

in i

ssu

es/

ob

sta

cle

s fo

r th

e d

ev

elo

pm

en

t o

f n

ew

ta

xim

ete

rs c

om

e

fro

m t

he

na

tio

na

l ta

riff

re

gu

lati

on

s. M

ore

sp

eci

fica

lly

th

e r

eq

uir

em

en

ts c

on

cern

ing

taxi

me

ter

dis

pla

ys

or

the

mu

ltip

le a

nd

dif

fere

nt

tari

ff s

tru

ctu

res

we

re s

ee

n a

s re

stri

ctiv

e.

Op

tio

na

lity

- Is

it

use

d i

n t

he

sect

or

- Is

th

ere

ev

ide

nce

of

two

-tie

r m

ark

et

- Is

th

ere

ev

ide

nce

of

un

fair

co

mp

eti

tio

n

Op

tio

na

lity

ha

s b

ee

n u

sed

in

on

ly t

wo

co

un

trie

s (N

O,

CH

) w

he

re t

he

re i

s a

tw

o t

ier

ma

rke

t re

po

rte

d b

y m

an

ufa

ctu

rers

ba

sed

on

th

e i

mp

ort

of

che

ap

old

ta

xim

ete

rs f

rom

oth

er

cou

ntr

ies.

Th

e C

A o

f N

orw

ay

did

no

t co

nsi

de

r th

at

the

be

ne

fits

to

co

nsu

me

rs

just

ifie

d t

he

co

sts

of

imp

osi

ng

re

gu

lati

on

. T

he

fo

cus

of

au

tho

riti

es

is o

n r

eg

ula

tin

g a

nd

che

ckin

g t

he

ta

riff

s a

s th

is is

se

en

as

the

im

po

rta

nt

issu

e f

or

con

sum

ers

.

Co

nsu

me

r p

rote

ctio

n d

ue

to

op

tio

na

lity

an

d a

ny

oth

er

fact

or

Co

nsu

me

r p

rote

ctio

n i

s ,

acc

ord

ing

to

in

du

stry

, su

b-o

pti

ma

l as

ma

rke

t su

rve

illa

nce

in

som

e M

S i

s p

art

ial

or

ev

en

no

n-e

xist

en

t (s

ee

be

low

) a

llo

win

g f

or

all

ty

pe

s o

f n

on

-

con

form

ing

ta

xim

ete

rs p

rod

uce

d b

y l

oca

l p

rod

uce

rs w

ith

no

MID

ce

rtif

ica

te t

o e

nte

r th

e

ma

rke

t. A

ga

in,

CA

s d

o n

ot

con

sid

er

tha

t co

nsu

me

r p

rote

ctio

n i

s li

nk

ed

wit

h t

he

MID

req

uir

em

en

ts c

on

cern

ing

ta

xim

ete

rs a

s ta

riff

str

uct

ure

s a

nd

oth

er

issu

es

con

cern

ing

ta

xi

dri

ve

rs a

nd

co

nsu

me

rs a

re r

eg

ula

ted

at

the

na

tio

na

l o

r lo

cal

lev

el.

Ad

min

istr

ati

ve

bu

rde

ns

cre

ate

d/r

ed

uce

d

Co

mp

an

ies

sta

te t

ha

t th

ere

are

gre

ate

r co

sts

rela

ted

to

th

e u

se o

f so

me

of

the

mo

du

les

for

con

form

ity

ass

ess

me

nt.

Tim

e r

eq

uir

ed

wa

s o

ve

r a

ye

ar

alt

ho

ug

h e

xpe

ct t

his

to

be

less

in

th

e f

utu

re.

On

e c

om

pa

ny

me

nti

on

ed

th

e

cert

ific

ati

on

is

4-5

tim

es

mo

re

exp

en

siv

e i

n t

ota

l in

co

mp

ari

son

Inte

rim

Ev

alu

ati

on

of

the

Me

asu

rin

g I

nst

rum

en

ts D

ire

ctiv

e –

Fin

al

rep

ort

Ap

pe

nd

ix

Me

asu

rin

g I

nst

rum

en

ts a

na

lysi

s ta

ble

s

E

90

Issu

es

Fin

din

gs

E

vid

en

ce/d

ata

/oth

er

info

/

ex

am

ple

s

Sti

ll,

bo

th t

he

la

rge

an

d m

ed

ium

siz

e f

irm

s su

gg

est

ed

th

at

the

ad

va

nta

ge

de

riv

ed

fro

m

the

ca

pa

city

to

acc

ess

mo

re t

ha

n o

ne

ma

rke

t w

ith

on

e c

ert

ific

ate

ou

twe

igh

s th

e c

ost

s.

wit

h p

rev

iou

s p

eri

od

– i

ncl

ud

ing

lon

ge

r w

ait

ing

pe

rio

d a

nd

ass

oci

ate

d c

ost

s.

Re

pre

sen

tati

on

in

th

e

Me

asu

rin

g i

nst

rum

en

ts

com

mit

tee

Th

ere

is

no

bo

dy

(a

sso

cia

tio

n)

rep

rese

nti

ng

ta

xim

ete

rs' m

an

ufa

ctu

rers

. In

div

idu

al

ma

nu

fact

ure

rs a

re i

n g

en

era

l u

na

ble

to

co

mm

un

ica

te t

he

ir c

on

cern

s a

nd

pro

ble

ms.

Sti

ll,

the

in

terv

iew

ed

co

mp

an

ies

did

no

t se

em

to

co

nsi

de

r it

as

a p

art

icu

larl

y im

po

rta

nt

pro

ble

m

Imp

act

on

SM

Es

N

o s

pe

cifi

c is

sue

s w

ere

ra

ise

d d

uri

ng

th

e i

nte

rvie

ws

wh

ile

th

e S

ME

su

rve

y i

nd

ica

ted

th

at

the

re a

re n

o b

arr

iers

to

tra

de

be

cau

se o

f th

e M

ID.

In t

he

UK

an

d s

om

e o

the

r co

un

trie

s,

loca

l m

an

ufa

ctu

rers

co

mp

ete

in

lo

cal

ma

rke

ts b

ase

d o

n n

ati

on

al/

reg

ion

al

req

uir

em

en

ts

an

d a

bse

nce

of

ma

rke

t su

rve

illa

nce

. A

t le

ast

in

th

e U

K,

the

ce

rtif

ica

tio

n c

ost

s a

re s

ee

n

as

pa

rtic

ula

rly

hig

h f

or

SM

Es.

A U

K c

om

pa

ny

sta

ted

£3

0,0

00

(€3

5,0

00

) in

to

tal

for

init

ial

cert

ific

ati

on

fo

llo

win

g m

od

ule

s B

+D

an

d £

6,0

00

(€

7,0

00

) fo

r a

nn

ua

l

rev

iew

of

mo

du

le D

(q

ua

lity

co

ntr

ol

syst

em

).

Pa

ram

ete

rs/f

act

ors

aff

ect

ing

im

ple

me

nta

tio

n

•

Ro

le o

f st

an

da

rds

an

d

gu

ida

nce

do

cum

en

ts (

incl

.

role

of

WE

LME

C)

Acc

ord

ing

to

th

e i

nte

rvie

ws

the

re a

re n

o a

gre

ed

sta

nd

ard

s u

sed

(a

lth

ou

gh

th

ere

are

OIM

L r

eco

mm

en

da

tio

ns

an

d r

esp

ect

ive

WE

LME

C g

uid

an

ce d

ocu

me

nts

). T

he

La

tvia

n

CA

sta

ted

th

at

the

re a

re n

o s

tan

da

rds

an

d t

his

is

see

n a

s a

pro

ble

m f

or

ma

nu

fact

ure

rs.

On

e c

om

pa

ny

co

nsi

de

red

th

at

WE

LME

C d

ocs

are

he

lpfu

l

•

Imp

lem

en

tati

on

by

no

tifi

ed

bo

die

s

Ma

nu

fact

ure

rs r

ep

ort

ed

in

con

sist

en

cie

s a

mo

ng

no

tifi

ed

bo

die

s in

re

lati

on

to

th

e

inte

rpre

tati

on

of

the

ess

en

tia

l re

qu

ire

me

nts

an

d t

he

te

stin

g m

eth

od

s. O

ne

co

mp

an

y

wa

s a

fra

id t

ha

t th

e s

tric

t in

terp

reta

tio

n i

n N

ord

ic c

ou

ntr

ies

is n

ot

foll

ow

ed

in

oth

ers

.

Fu

rth

erm

ore

, m

an

ufa

ctu

rers

re

po

rt t

ha

t te

sts

by

no

tifi

ed

bo

die

s te

nd

to

ta

ke

a v

ery

lon

g t

ime

(m

ore

th

an

1 y

ea

r).

(exp

eri

en

ce s

ug

ge

sts

tha

t p

riva

te o

ne

s a

re f

ast

er

bu

t le

ss

tho

rou

gh

, p

ub

lic

on

es

are

ext

rem

ely

th

oro

ug

h b

ut

slo

w a

nd

in s

om

e c

ase

s in

de

cisi

ve

)

An

oth

er

com

pa

ny

(S

ME

) su

gg

est

ed

th

at

the

co

sts

of

cert

ific

ati

on

are

ra

the

r h

igh

an

d

cre

ate

dis

ince

nti

ve

fo

r in

tro

du

cin

g f

req

ue

nt

cha

ng

es.

Ho

we

ve

r, t

his

wa

s n

ot

a c

om

mo

n

vie

w.

Fu

rth

erm

ore

, o

ne

SM

E r

ep

ort

ed

th

at

the

ma

in n

oti

fie

d b

od

y i

n F

ran

ce c

he

cke

d f

or

ad

dit

ion

al

issu

es

rela

ted

to

th

e n

ati

on

al

reg

ula

tio

n a

nd

eff

ect

ive

ly c

rea

ted

ba

rrie

r to

en

ter

the

sp

eci

fic

ma

rke

t.

Inte

rim

Ev

alu

ati

on

of

the

Me

asu

rin

g I

nst

rum

en

ts D

ire

ctiv

e –

Fin

al

rep

ort

Ap

pe

nd

ix

Me

asu

rin

g I

nst

rum

en

ts a

na

lysi

s ta

ble

s

E

91

Issu

es

Fin

din

gs

E

vid

en

ce/d

ata

/oth

er

info

/

ex

am

ple

s

• M

ark

et

surv

eil

lan

ce b

y

au

tho

riti

es

All

co

mp

an

ies

sta

ted

th

at

ma

rke

t su

rve

illa

nce

is

pro

ble

ma

tic

an

d t

ha

t it

va

rie

s g

rea

tly

.

In t

he

UK

an

d F

I it

is

rep

ort

ed

th

at

the

re i

s a

lmo

st n

o s

urv

eil

lan

ce.

Th

e S

ME

s su

rve

y

fro

m P

ort

ug

al

an

d S

pa

in i

nd

ica

ted

th

e p

rese

nce

of

un

ma

rke

d t

axi

me

ters

th

at

com

pe

te

in t

he

do

me

stic

ma

rke

t.

On

e m

an

ufa

ctu

rer

sug

ge

ste

d t

ha

t

de

spit

e c

on

tin

uo

us

req

ue

sts

to

the

au

tho

riti

es,

in

ess

en

ce t

he

re

is n

o s

urv

eil

lan

ce o

f th

e m

ark

et

in

the

UK

an

d t

ha

t ta

xim

ete

rs

pro

du

ced

by

lo

cal

ma

nu

fact

ure

rs

wit

h n

o c

ert

ific

ati

on

an

d n

o C

E

ma

rkin

g a

re c

ircu

late

d i

n t

he

ma

rke

t66.

•

Tra

nsi

tio

n p

eri

od

T

he

co

mp

an

ies

con

sid

ere

d t

ha

t th

e t

ran

siti

on

pe

rio

d c

ou

ld b

e s

ho

rte

r b

ut

this

did

no

t

ap

pe

ar

to p

lay

a p

art

icu

lar

po

siti

ve

or

ne

ga

tiv

e r

ole

.

Oth

er

S

om

e t

axi

me

ter

pro

du

cers

pro

po

sed

th

at

MID

ess

en

tia

l re

qu

ire

me

nts

sh

ou

ld b

e

ext

en

de

d t

o c

ov

er

mo

re t

ari

ffs

an

d t

o b

e m

ore

sp

eci

fic

in t

erm

s o

f th

e t

yp

es

of

tari

ffs

all

ow

ed

in

ord

er

to a

dd

ress

th

e p

rob

lem

s o

f a

dd

itio

na

l n

ati

on

al/

reg

ion

al

reg

ula

tio

n.

In t

he

co

nte

xt o

f W

ELM

EC

wo

rkin

g g

rou

ps

the

iss

ue

of

the

in

clu

sio

n o

f d

ista

nce

sig

na

l

ge

ne

rato

rs a

s su

b-a

sse

mb

lie

s h

as

be

en

ra

ise

d b

ut

it i

s n

ot

sup

po

rte

d b

y a

ll C

As.

It

is

als

o p

rop

ose

d t

ha

t m

ore

de

tail

ed

sp

eci

fica

tio

ns

of

the

ma

xim

um

pe

rmis

sib

le e

rro

r fo

r

the

re

al

tim

e c

lock

of

taxi

me

ters

are

ne

cess

ary

.

MI-

00

8a

– T

ap

es/

Dip

stic

ks6

7

Issu

es

F

ind

ing

s

Ev

ide

nce

/da

ta/o

the

r

info

/ex

am

ple

s

Exp

eri

en

ce f

rom

th

e

Th

e c

om

pa

nie

s in

terv

iew

ed

su

gg

est

ed

th

at

the

re h

av

e n

ot

be

en

an

y p

art

icu

lar

cha

ng

es

or

66 T

He

UK

CA

ack

no

wle

dg

e t

his

pro

ble

m a

nd

sta

te t

ha

t th

e m

ain

re

aso

n i

s th

e a

bse

nce

of

inte

rna

l e

xpe

rtis

e,

reso

urc

es

an

d c

ap

aci

ty i

n t

he

De

pa

rtm

en

t o

f

Tra

nsp

ort

. T

he

y a

re i

nte

nd

ing

to

ad

dre

ss i

t b

ut

cou

ld n

ot

ind

ica

te a

tim

eta

ble

.

67 B

ase

d o

n i

nte

rvie

w w

ith

th

e r

ep

rese

nta

tiv

e o

f m

an

ufa

ctu

rers

:EN

RA

F-

Ho

ne

yw

ell

(F

R).

Fis

che

r-D

are

x O

uti

lla

ge

(im

po

rte

r fr

om

Ta

iwa

n t

o F

ran

ce),

To

olv

izio

n

Inte

rna

tio

na

l (N

L) a

nd

co

mm

en

ts f

rom

Eu

rop

ea

n H

an

d T

oo

ls a

sso

cia

tio

n (

CE

O).

Inte

rim

Ev

alu

ati

on

of

the

Me

asu

rin

g I

nst

rum

en

ts D

ire

ctiv

e –

Fin

al

rep

ort

Ap

pe

nd

ix

Me

asu

rin

g I

nst

rum

en

ts a

na

lysi

s ta

ble

s

E

92

imp

lem

en

tati

on

of

the

Dir

ect

ive

be

ne

fits

wit

h t

he

ne

w r

eg

ime

an

d t

ha

t it

is

ve

ry m

uch

bu

sin

ess

as

usu

al

wit

h o

nly

ch

an

ge

s in

na

me

s. S

till

acc

ord

ing

to

CE

O t

he

ma

in a

nd

re

al

be

ne

fit

for

its

me

mb

ers

ha

s b

ee

n t

he

act

ua

l

red

uct

ion

of

ba

rrie

rs b

y t

he

use

of

a s

ing

le c

ert

ific

ate

acr

oss

EU

. M

ain

be

ne

fits

co

nce

rne

d t

he

qu

ali

ty s

ea

l th

at

the

CE

ma

rk p

rovi

de

s w

hil

e m

ino

r is

sue

s co

nce

rn t

he

lo

ng

er

tim

e f

or

the

cert

ific

ati

on

pro

cess

an

d n

ee

d f

or

fre

qu

en

t u

pg

rad

e o

f ce

rtif

ica

te f

or

soft

wa

re.

De

ve

lop

me

nt

of

an

eff

icie

nt

op

era

tin

g s

ing

le m

ark

et

Tw

o l

ow

-te

ch c

om

pa

nie

s st

ate

d d

id n

ot

con

sid

er

MID

wa

s n

ot

as

imp

ort

an

t fo

r th

eir

pro

du

cts

giv

en

th

eir

fo

cus

on

th

e d

om

est

ic m

ark

et.

Ho

we

ve

r a

hig

he

r-te

chn

olo

gy

co

mp

an

y s

ug

ge

ste

d

tha

t it

he

lpe

d e

nte

r n

ew

EU

ma

rke

ts a

nd

th

e C

EO

sta

ted

th

at

all

its

me

mb

ers

co

nsi

de

red

th

at

the

MID

did

in

de

ed

he

lp c

rea

te a

sin

gle

ma

rke

t th

at

is o

pe

rati

ng

qu

ite

eff

ect

ive

ly.

Te

chn

olo

gic

al

inn

ov

ati

on

-

sup

po

rtin

g/h

am

pe

rin

g

Tw

o c

om

pa

nie

s in

terv

iew

ed

su

gg

est

ed

no

t re

al

eff

ect

of

the

MID

as

the

ir p

rod

uct

s a

re r

ath

er

sta

nd

ard

an

d l

ow

te

ch.

Fo

r th

e o

ne

co

mp

an

y p

rod

uci

ng

mo

re a

dv

an

ced

te

chn

olo

gy

inst

rum

en

ts w

ith

so

ftw

are

, th

e m

ain

pro

ble

m i

s th

at

ev

en

sm

all

so

ftw

are

ch

an

ge

s n

ee

d t

o b

e

ap

pro

ve

d.

Th

is w

as

see

n a

s ti

me

co

nsu

min

g a

nd

co

stly

.

Op

tio

na

lity

- Is

it

use

d i

n t

he

sect

or

- Is

th

ere

ev

ide

nce

of

two

-tie

r m

ark

et

- Is

th

ere

ev

ide

nce

of

un

fair

co

mp

eti

tio

n

Op

tio

na

lity

wa

s u

sed

in

5 c

ou

ntr

ies

be

cau

se t

he

y w

ere

no

t re

gu

late

d b

efo

re a

nd

th

at

the

re

wa

s n

ot

pe

rce

ive

d n

ee

d.

On

e m

an

ufa

ctu

rer

sug

ge

ste

d t

ha

t th

ey

we

re a

wa

re o

f so

me

sm

all

fir

ms

tha

t d

o n

ot

ha

ve

th

e

CE

ma

rk a

nd

so

ld a

t lo

we

r p

rice

s. S

till

, th

ey

did

no

t se

e t

he

m a

s co

mp

eti

ng

in

th

e s

am

e

ma

rke

t– t

he

y m

ain

ly s

ell

on

la

rge

sca

le t

o h

yp

erm

ark

ets

.

Co

nsu

me

r p

rote

ctio

n d

ue

to

op

tio

na

lity

an

d a

ny

oth

er

fact

or

Ma

nu

fact

ure

rs d

id n

ot

con

sid

er

tha

t th

ere

wa

s m

ajo

r/im

po

rta

nt

iss

ue

wit

h t

he

se p

rod

uct

s

Ad

min

istr

ati

ve

bu

rde

ns

cre

ate

d/r

ed

uce

d

Th

e c

om

pa

nie

s d

id n

ot

ind

ica

te i

mp

ort

an

t ch

an

ge

s a

nd

hig

he

r co

sts

in c

om

pa

riso

n t

o t

he

pre

-

MID

re

gim

e a

nd

giv

en

th

eir

pre

sen

ce i

n o

nly

on

e m

ark

et

the

y d

id n

ot

exp

eri

en

ce s

ign

ific

an

t

dif

fere

nce

s. O

ne

co

mp

an

y (

EN

RA

F)

sta

ted

th

ou

gh

th

at

cert

ific

ati

on

te

nd

s to

ta

ke

a b

it –

bu

t

no

t cr

itic

all

y -

lo

ng

er

tha

n i

n t

he

pa

st.

Acc

ord

ing

to

on

e c

om

pa

ny

cost

s fo

r th

e p

roce

ss r

an

ge

d

be

twe

en

€3

-5k

.

Re

pre

sen

tati

on

in

th

e

Me

asu

rin

g i

nst

rum

en

ts

com

mit

tee

Mo

st c

om

pa

nie

s w

ere

no

t a

wa

re o

f th

e p

rese

nce

of

the

wo

rkin

g g

rou

p b

ut

did

no

t se

em

to

con

sid

er

the

ir a

bse

nce

an

iss

ue

.

Imp

act

on

SM

Es

T

he

re w

as

no

ev

ide

nce

pro

vid

ed

fro

m a

ny

so

urc

e t

ha

t S

ME

s e

xpe

rie

nce

d a

dd

itio

na

l im

pa

cts

du

e t

o t

he

MID

. T

he

SM

E s

urv

ey

in

dic

ate

d t

ha

t co

nfo

rmit

y a

sse

ssm

en

t p

roce

du

res

we

re

ad

eq

ua

te f

or

ov

er

75

% o

f th

e f

irm

s a

ctiv

e i

n t

he

se

cto

r a

nd

on

ly 1

5%

of

the

co

mp

an

ies

Inte

rim

Ev

alu

ati

on

of

the

Me

asu

rin

g I

nst

rum

en

ts D

ire

ctiv

e –

Fin

al

rep

ort

Ap

pe

nd

ix

Me

asu

rin

g I

nst

rum

en

ts a

na

lysi

s ta

ble

s

E

93

refe

rre

d t

o p

rese

nce

of

ba

rrie

rs t

o t

rad

e.

Pa

ram

ete

rs/f

act

ors

aff

ect

ing

im

ple

me

nta

tio

n

•

Ro

le o

f st

an

da

rds

an

d

gu

ida

nce

do

cum

en

ts

(in

cl.

role

of

WE

LME

C)

Th

e u

se o

f O

IML

sta

nd

ard

s in

th

e c

ase

of

hig

h-t

ech

pro

du

cts

is s

ee

n a

s a

de

qu

ate

an

d d

oe

s n

ot

cre

ate

an

y p

rob

lem

s. T

he

re i

s n

o a

dd

ed

va

lue

ass

ign

ed

to

WE

LME

C f

rom

th

e m

an

ufa

ctu

rers

sid

e.

•

Imp

lem

en

tati

on

by

no

tifi

ed

bo

die

s

Co

mp

an

ies

did

no

t in

dic

ate

ch

an

ge

s in

co

mp

ari

son

to

th

e p

ast

an

d d

id n

ot

refe

r to

an

y

pro

ble

ms.

•

Ma

rke

t su

rve

illa

nce

by

au

tho

riti

es

Th

e c

om

pa

nie

s d

id n

ot

ind

ica

te a

ny

pro

ble

ms

in r

ela

tio

n t

o m

ark

et

surv

eil

lan

ce a

nd

at

lea

st

on

e o

f th

em

wa

s p

osi

tiv

e t

ha

t p

rod

uct

s w

ith

ou

t C

E+

M m

ark

are

no

t a

llo

we

d i

n t

he

ma

rke

t,

wh

ich

wa

s co

nsi

de

red

su

ffic

ien

t. H

ow

ev

er,

th

e S

ME

su

rve

y r

esp

on

ses

ind

ica

ted

th

at

the

pre

sen

ce o

f n

on

-CE

ma

rke

d l

en

gth

me

asu

rin

g i

nst

rum

en

ts t

ha

t, a

cco

rdin

g t

o t

he

ma

jori

ty

con

stit

ute

d u

nfa

ir c

om

pe

titi

on

. H

ow

ev

er

,it

is n

ot

cle

ar

wh

eth

er

refe

ren

ce w

as

ma

de

on

ly t

o

MIs

use

d f

or

leg

al

me

tro

log

y p

urp

ose

s

•

Tra

nsi

tio

n p

eri

od

It

wa

s n

ot

con

sid

ere

d a

s e

ith

er

too

lo

ng

or

too

sh

ort

tw

o c

om

pa

nie

s b

ut

use

ful

for

a m

ore

hig

h-t

ech

co

mp

an

y.

MI-

00

8b

– C

ap

aci

ty s

erv

ing

me

asu

res6

8

Issu

es

F

ind

ing

s

Ev

ide

nce

/da

ta/o

the

r

info

/ex

am

ple

s

Exp

eri

en

ce f

rom

th

e

imp

lem

en

tati

on

of

the

Dir

ect

ive

(o

ve

rall

)

Th

e c

om

pa

nie

s su

gg

est

ed

th

at

the

re w

ere

no

sig

nif

ica

nt

dif

fere

nce

s w

ith

th

e p

re-M

ID

situ

ati

on

an

d t

ha

t th

ey

co

uld

no

t re

po

rt p

art

icu

lar

pro

ble

ms

or

issu

es

fro

m t

he

imp

lem

en

tati

on

of

the

Dir

ect

ive

. P

erc

eiv

ed

qu

ali

ty f

rom

th

e C

E-m

ark

wa

s se

en

as

a b

en

efi

t b

ut

oth

erw

ise

th

ere

we

re n

ot

ma

jor

issu

es.

De

ve

lop

me

nt

of

an

eff

icie

nt

op

era

tin

g s

ing

le m

ark

et

MID

in

tro

du

ctio

n is

no

t se

en

as

ha

vin

g p

lay

ed

an

y i

mp

ort

an

t ro

le f

or

the

co

mp

an

ies

tha

t h

av

e

lim

ite

d e

xpo

rts

an

d w

he

re a

lre

ad

y u

sin

g q

ua

lity

sy

ste

ms.

Te

chn

olo

gic

al

inn

ov

ati

on

-

sup

po

rtin

g/h

am

pe

rin

g

All

co

mp

an

ies

inte

rvie

we

d s

ug

ge

ste

d t

ha

t th

ere

is

no

ro

le o

n t

ech

no

log

ica

l in

no

va

tio

n a

s th

e

ind

ust

ry is

lo

w t

ech

.

Op

tio

na

lity

- Is

it

use

d i

n t

he

Op

tio

na

lity

ha

s b

ee

n u

sed

in

a n

um

be

r o

f co

un

trie

s (5

) a

s ca

pa

city

se

rvin

g m

ea

sure

s w

ere

no

t

see

n a

s a

pro

ble

m a

rea

th

at

ha

d t

o b

e r

eg

ula

ted

.

68 B

ase

d o

n i

nte

rvie

w w

ith

th

e r

ep

rese

nta

tiv

e o

f th

ree

ma

nu

fact

ure

rs:

Mit

che

l &

Co

op

er

(Mu

ltin

ati

on

al)

, In

vict

a P

last

ics

(UK

), F

isch

er-

Da

rex-

Ou

tila

ge

(im

po

rt

fro

m T

aiw

an

to

Fra

nce

) a

nd

on

e t

rad

e F

EV

E (

Eu

rop

ea

n G

lass

Co

nta

ine

rs A

sso

cia

tio

n).

Inte

rim

Ev

alu

ati

on

of

the

Me

asu

rin

g I

nst

rum

en

ts D

ire

ctiv

e –

Fin

al

rep

ort

Ap

pe

nd

ix

Me

asu

rin

g I

nst

rum

en

ts a

na

lysi

s ta

ble

s

E

94

sect

or

(ho

w m

an

y

MS

an

d w

hy

)

- Is

th

ere

ev

ide

nce

of

two

-tie

r m

ark

et

- Is

th

ere

ev

ide

nce

of

un

fair

co

mp

eti

tio

n

Tw

o t

ier

ma

rke

ts d

o e

xist

bu

t C

As

did

no

t se

e t

ha

t a

s a

pro

ble

m.

Co

mp

an

ies

did

no

t h

av

e

exp

eri

en

ce o

f p

rob

lem

s.

Co

nsu

me

r p

rote

ctio

n d

ue

to

op

tio

na

lity

an

d a

ny

oth

er

fact

or

No

ma

jor

issu

es

rep

ort

ed

in

re

lati

on

to

th

e o

pti

on

ali

ty.

On

e i

ssu

e s

tate

d f

rom

on

e c

om

pa

ny

in

the

UK

is

tha

t th

e u

nd

er

MID

pla

stic

gla

sse

s th

at

are

usu

all

y ch

ea

pe

r ca

n s

till

be

MID

ce

rtif

ied

de

spit

e t

ha

t fa

ct t

ha

t th

ey

ma

y n

ot

be

as

acc

ura

te b

eca

use

th

ey

ca

n b

e b

en

t d

uri

ng

th

e

serv

ing

.

Ad

min

istr

ati

ve

bu

rde

ns

cre

ate

d/r

ed

uce

d

Tw

o c

om

pa

nie

s d

id n

ot

con

sid

er

tha

t th

ere

we

re s

ub

sta

nti

al

cha

ng

es

an

d g

ive

n t

ha

t th

ey

we

re

focu

sin

g o

n d

om

est

ic m

ark

et

the

re w

ere

als

o li

mit

ed

be

ne

fits

.

Th

e t

hir

d r

efe

rre

d t

o t

he

ne

ed

fo

r ch

an

ge

of

the

ye

ar

in t

he

sta

mp

ing

to

ol

as

the

on

ly m

arg

ina

l

incr

ea

se i

n t

he

ad

min

istr

ati

ve

co

sts.

FE

VE

– b

ase

d o

n c

om

me

nts

fro

m m

an

ufa

ctu

rers

- a

lso

rep

ort

ed

th

ese

co

sts

are

re

lati

ve

ly im

po

rta

nt

bu

t a

lso

me

nti

on

ed

an

in

cre

ase

in

ov

era

ll c

ost

s

for

do

cum

en

tati

on

.

Re

pre

sen

tati

on

in

th

e

Me

asu

rin

g i

nst

rum

en

ts

com

mit

tee

Ma

nu

fact

ure

rs w

ere

no

t fa

mil

iar

wit

h t

he

wo

rkin

g g

rou

p a

nd

th

e o

the

r re

pre

sen

tati

on

me

cha

nis

ms

bu

t d

id n

ot

ide

nti

fy p

art

icu

lar

rea

son

s fo

r b

ein

g a

ctiv

ely

en

ga

ge

d.

Imp

act

on

SM

Es

N

o s

pe

cifi

c d

iffe

ren

ces

be

twe

en

SM

Es

an

d l

arg

e c

om

pa

nie

s w

ere

id

en

tifi

ed

. T

he

sm

all

nu

mb

er

of

firm

s in

th

e S

ME

su

rve

y a

ctiv

e i

n t

he

se

cto

r (6

) in

dic

ate

d n

o b

arr

iers

to

tra

de

an

d n

o

pro

ble

ms

wit

h c

on

form

ity

ass

ess

me

nt.

Tw

o o

f th

e 6

sta

ted

ho

we

ve

r th

e p

rese

nce

of

un

fair

com

pe

titi

on

.

Pa

ram

ete

rs/f

act

ors

aff

ect

ing

im

ple

me

nta

tio

n

•

Ro

le o

f st

an

da

rds

an

d

gu

ida

nce

do

cum

en

ts

(in

cl.

role

of

WE

LME

C)

No

iss

ue

re

po

rte

d.

Th

e c

om

pa

nie

s su

gg

est

ed

th

at

the

y a

re e

asy

to

me

et

an

d n

ot

ve

ry d

iffe

ren

t

fro

m t

he

pa

st.

•

Imp

lem

en

tati

on

by

no

tifi

ed

bo

die

s

No

iss

ue

/pro

ble

ms

we

re r

ep

ort

ed

by

an

y o

f th

e i

nte

rvie

we

es

in t

he

ir r

ela

tio

n w

ith

th

e n

oti

fie

d

bo

die

s.

•

Ma

rke

t su

rve

illa

nce

by

au

tho

riti

es

No

iss

ue

re

po

rte

d.

At

lea

st i

n r

ela

tio

n t

o t

he

UK

, co

mp

an

ies

sug

ge

ste

d t

ha

t su

rve

illa

nce

wa

s

ad

eq

ua

te a

nd

no

n-m

ark

ed

pro

du

cts

are

no

t a

llo

we

d t

o c

ircu

late

.

•

Tra

nsi

tio

n p

eri

od

T

he

tra

nsi

tio

n p

eri

od

wa

s co

nsi

de

red

ap

pro

pri

ate

alt

ho

ug

h n

on

e o

f th

e c

om

pa

nie

s su

gg

est

ed

an

y r

ea

l n

ee

d o

f it

.

Inte

rim

Ev

alu

ati

on

of

the

Me

asu

rin

g I

nst

rum

en

ts D

ire

ctiv

e –

Fin

al

rep

ort

Ap

pe

nd

ix

Me

asu

rin

g I

nst

rum

en

ts a

na

lysi

s ta

ble

s

E

95

MI-

00

9 –

Dim

en

sio

na

l m

ea

suri

ng

in

stru

me

nts

69

Issu

es

F

ind

ing

s

Ev

ide

nce

/da

ta/o

the

r in

fo/

ex

am

ple

s

Exp

eri

en

ce f

rom

th

e

imp

lem

en

tati

on

of

the

Dir

ect

ive

No

sig

nif

ica

nt

issu

es/

pro

ble

ms

we

re r

ep

ort

ed

by

ma

nu

fact

ure

rs t

ha

t st

ate

d l

imit

ed

ch

an

ge

s

fro

m t

he

pre

vio

us

reg

ime

bu

t re

cog

nis

ed

th

e p

osi

tiv

e r

ole

of

a s

ing

le c

ert

ific

ate

. F

rom

th

e

ne

ga

tiv

e s

ide

, fo

r m

ore

co

mp

lica

ted

/hi-

tech

MIs

th

at

incl

ud

e s

oft

wa

re t

he

re a

re a

dd

itio

na

l

cost

s a

s e

ve

ry t

ime

th

ere

is

ne

w v

ers

ion

th

ere

is

ne

ed

fo

r u

pd

ati

ng

th

e c

ert

ific

ate

.

De

ve

lop

me

nt

of

an

eff

icie

nt

op

era

tin

g s

ing

le m

ark

et

Acc

ord

ing

to

all

co

mp

an

ies,

th

e i

mp

lem

en

tati

on

of

the

Dir

ect

ive

ha

s h

elp

ed

eli

min

ate

so

me

na

tio

na

l b

arr

iers

th

at

exi

ste

d b

efo

re.

All

co

mp

an

ies

con

sid

er

the

sin

gle

ce

rtif

ica

te a

s

sup

po

rtin

g e

ntr

y i

n o

the

r m

ark

ets

an

d r

efe

rre

d t

o a

ctu

al

be

ne

fits

in

te

rms

of

sale

s.

No

sp

eci

fic

exa

mp

les

of

be

ne

fits

giv

en

Te

chn

olo

gic

al

inn

ov

ati

on

-

sup

po

rtin

g/h

am

pe

rin

g

Fo

r lo

we

r te

ch p

rod

uct

s, t

he

Dir

ect

ive

ha

s a

ne

utr

al

eff

ect

.

In t

he

ca

se o

f m

ore

co

mp

lica

ted

pro

du

cts

- e

spe

cia

lly

wh

en

th

ere

is

soft

wa

re i

nv

olv

ed

- t

he

re

is a

pro

ble

m s

ince

th

ey

ne

ed

to

go

th

rou

gh

th

e c

ert

ific

ati

on

pro

cess

wh

en

a c

ha

ng

e i

s m

ad

e o

r

ne

w f

un

ctio

ns

are

ad

de

d.

Th

is,

acc

ord

ing

to

on

e c

om

pa

ny

, d

ela

ys

inn

ov

ati

on

cy

cle

.

On

e m

an

ufa

ctu

rer

refe

rre

d a

lso

to

th

e c

ase

of

inst

rum

en

ts t

ha

t co

mb

ine

dis

tan

ce a

nd

we

igh

t

for

wh

ich

th

ey

fe

lt t

he

y w

ere

no

t co

ve

red

by

th

e M

ID a

nd

th

at

the

y n

ee

de

d t

o s

ep

ara

te

cert

ific

ati

on

. T

his

wa

s se

en

as

inh

ibit

ing

th

eir

in

teg

rati

on

in

to a

sin

gle

me

asu

rin

g i

nst

rum

en

t

Op

tio

na

lity

- Is

it

use

d i

n t

he

sect

or

- Is

th

ere

ev

ide

nce

of

two

-tie

r m

ark

et

- Is

th

ere

ev

ide

nce

of

un

fair

co

mp

eti

tio

n

Op

tio

na

lity

ha

s b

ee

n w

ide

ly u

sed

(9

co

un

trie

s) a

s M

S d

id n

ot

con

sid

er

ne

cess

ary

to

re

gu

late

to

en

sure

co

nsu

me

r p

rote

ctio

n a

nd

en

forc

em

en

t a

nd

co

mp

lia

nce

co

sts

wo

uld

ou

twe

igh

an

y

be

ne

fits

.

Fro

m t

he

sid

e o

f th

e m

an

ufa

ctu

rers

it

wa

s su

gg

est

ed

th

at

eit

he

r th

ey

we

re n

ot

aw

are

of

un

ma

rke

d p

rod

uct

s co

mp

eti

ng

or

the

y w

ere

no

t co

nce

rne

d b

y t

his

co

mp

eti

tio

n a

s th

ey

we

re

in d

iffe

ren

t m

ark

et

seg

me

nts

.

Co

nsu

me

r p

rote

ctio

n d

ue

to

op

tio

na

lity

an

d a

ny

oth

er

fact

or

No

iss

ue

s/e

xpe

rie

nce

s re

po

rte

d.

Ad

min

istr

ati

ve

bu

rde

ns

cre

ate

d/r

ed

uce

d

All

ma

nu

fact

ure

rs s

ug

ge

ste

d t

ha

t th

ere

is

mo

re a

dm

inis

tra

tiv

e w

ork

loa

d,

pa

pe

rwo

rk i

nv

olv

ed

,

an

d t

ha

t th

e p

roce

ss o

f ce

rtif

ica

tio

n t

en

ds

to t

ak

e l

on

ge

r. S

till

, o

ve

rall

th

ey

als

o a

gre

ed

th

at

the

be

ne

fits

of

imp

rov

ed

ma

rke

t a

cce

ss o

utw

eig

he

d t

he

co

sts

On

e c

om

pa

ny

est

ima

ted

th

at

foll

ow

ing

an

in

itia

l

inv

est

me

nt

for

eq

uip

me

nt

69 B

ase

d o

n i

nte

rvie

w w

ith

th

e r

ep

rese

nta

tiv

e o

f fo

ur

ma

nu

fact

ure

rs:

Vit

ron

ic (

DE

), M

etr

ie (

CZ

), K

ab

elm

at

(DE

), F

ISC

O (

UK

)

Inte

rim

Ev

alu

ati

on

of

the

Me

asu

rin

g I

nst

rum

en

ts D

ire

ctiv

e –

Fin

al

rep

ort

Ap

pe

nd

ix

Me

asu

rin

g I

nst

rum

en

ts a

na

lysi

s ta

ble

s

E

96

Issu

es

F

ind

ing

s

Ev

ide

nce

/da

ta/o

the

r in

fo/

ex

am

ple

s

a

nd

tra

inin

g o

f a

rou

nd

€1

1m

it w

ou

ld s

av

e a

rou

nd

€1

1m

an

nu

all

y.

An

oth

er

refe

rre

d t

o a

to

tal

du

rati

on

of

the

pro

cess

of

up

to 9

mo

nth

s in

to

tal,

mo

re

tha

t in

th

e p

ast

.

Re

pre

sen

tati

on

in

th

e

Me

asu

rin

g i

nst

rum

en

ts

com

mit

tee

Fir

ms

we

re u

na

wa

re o

f th

e C

om

mit

tee

bu

t d

id n

ot

ind

ica

te a

ne

ed

to

be

re

pre

sen

ted

.

Imp

act

on

SM

Es

T

he

in

terv

iew

s d

id n

ot

ind

ica

te t

he

pre

sen

ce o

f sp

eci

fic

imp

act

s to

SM

Es

be

cau

se o

f th

e M

ID.

Th

e S

ME

su

rve

y r

esu

lts

– i

ncl

ud

ing

40

fir

ms

act

ive

in

th

e s

ect

or

– i

nd

ica

te t

he

pre

sen

ce o

f

lim

ite

d m

ark

et

surv

eil

lan

ce t

ha

t is

se

en

as

cau

sin

g u

nfa

ir c

om

ple

tio

n (

32

% o

f fi

rms)

bu

t, in

ge

ne

ral,

no

ba

rrie

rs t

o t

rad

e (

aro

un

d 7

3%

sta

ted

) a

nd

on

ly o

ne

re

ferr

ed

to

pro

ble

ms

wit

h

con

form

ity

ass

ess

me

nt

pro

ced

ure

s.

Pa

ram

ete

rs/f

act

ors

aff

ect

ing

im

ple

me

nta

tio

n

•

Ro

le o

f st

an

da

rds

an

d

gu

ida

nce

do

cum

en

ts

Th

ere

are

no

iss

ue

s ra

ise

d b

y t

he

in

terv

iew

ee

s in

re

lati

on

to

th

e u

se o

f st

an

da

rds.

Tw

o l

ow

-te

ch c

om

pa

nie

s w

ere

un

aw

are

of

WE

LME

C w

hil

e t

he

mo

re h

igh

-te

ch i

nd

ica

ted

th

at

WE

LME

C d

ocu

me

nts

we

re u

sefu

l.

•

Imp

lem

en

tati

on

by

no

tifi

ed

bo

die

s

Th

ere

are

no

iss

ue

s o

r p

rob

lem

s re

po

rte

d a

nd

th

e f

irm

s su

gg

est

ed

th

at

the

y h

av

e o

ve

rall

be

en

ve

ry h

elp

ful

in g

ett

ing

ce

rtif

ica

tio

n w

ith

ou

t m

ajo

r is

sue

s. H

ow

ev

er,

on

e U

K c

om

pa

ny

sta

ted

tha

t th

ere

is

a s

ho

rta

ge

of

ve

rifi

cati

on

/te

stin

g l

ab

ora

tori

es

an

d o

f a

pp

rop

ria

tely

sk

ille

d l

ab

s.

Th

is h

old

s b

ack

th

e a

pp

rov

al

pro

cess

.

•

Ma

rke

t su

rve

illa

nce

by

au

tho

riti

es

All

co

mp

an

ies

con

sid

ere

d t

ha

t th

ere

we

re n

o i

ssu

es

or

pro

ble

ms

con

cern

ing

ma

rke

t

surv

eil

lan

ce.

•

Tra

nsi

tio

n p

eri

od

C

om

pa

nie

s su

gg

est

ed

th

at

it w

as

ap

pro

pri

ate

an

d o

ne

of

the

m t

ho

ug

ht

it w

as

ne

cess

ary

to

pla

n p

rod

uct

ion

ch

an

ge

s.

Oth

er

O

ne

co

mp

an

y s

tate

d t

ha

t it

is

rath

er

cost

ly t

o p

ut

CE

in

ea

ch i

nd

ivid

ua

l M

I a

s th

ey

are

usu

all

y

sold

wh

ole

sale

. C

urr

en

tly

CE

ma

rk i

s p

lace

d b

y b

atc

h w

ith

th

e w

ho

lesa

ler

ho

ldin

g t

he

cert

ific

ate

bu

t th

ey

we

re u

ncl

ea

r w

he

the

r th

is f

oll

ow

ed

MID

re

qu

ire

me

nts

.

Inte

rim

Ev

alu

ati

on

of

the

Me

asu

rin

g I

nst

rum

en

ts D

ire

ctiv

e –

Fin

al

rep

ort

Ap

pe

nd

ix

Me

asu

rin

g I

nst

rum

en

ts a

na

lysi

s ta

ble

s

E

97

MI-

01

0 –

Ex

ha

ust

ga

s a

na

lyze

rs7

0

Issu

es

F

ind

ing

s

Ev

ide

nce

/da

ta/o

the

r in

fo/

ex

am

ple

s

Exp

eri

en

ce f

rom

th

e

imp

lem

en

tati

on

of

the

Dir

ect

ive

Acc

ord

ing

to

EG

EA

th

e i

nd

ust

ry i

s p

osi

tiv

e f

rom

th

e i

mp

lem

en

tati

on

of

the

Dir

ect

ive

as

it

ha

s m

ad

e m

uch

ea

sie

r, l

ess

co

st i

nte

nsi

ve

an

d l

ess

bu

rea

ucr

ati

c th

e p

laci

ng

of

EG

As

in

the

Me

mb

er

Sta

tes

ma

rke

t.

In t

he

UK

, th

ere

is

lim

ite

d e

xpe

rie

nce

. T

he

UK

ga

rag

e e

qu

ipm

en

t a

sso

cia

tio

n w

ith

re

fere

nce

to

on

ly

6 u

nit

s a

pp

rove

d d

uri

ng

th

e la

st 4

ye

ars

. S

o f

ar,

pro

du

cts

de

ve

lop

ed

be

fore

th

e e

ntr

y o

f th

e M

ID

into

fo

rce

are

so

ld in

th

e m

ark

et.

De

ve

lop

me

nt

of

an

eff

icie

nt

op

era

tin

g s

ing

le m

ark

et

Acc

ord

ing

to

on

e m

an

ufa

ctu

rer

the

ma

in b

arr

ier

to t

he

de

ve

lop

me

nt

of

an

eff

icie

nt

sin

gle

ma

rke

t is

th

e f

act

th

at

insp

ect

ion

ce

ntr

es

(th

e o

nly

bu

ye

rs f

or

EG

As)

re

qu

ire

bu

yin

g b

oth

EG

As

an

d s

mo

ke

-me

ters

to

ge

the

r. A

s sm

ok

e-m

ete

rs a

re n

ot

incl

ud

ed

in

th

e

MID

an

d s

till

re

qu

ire

na

tio

na

l ap

pro

va

l th

e M

ID h

as

stil

l n

o e

ffe

ct i

n t

his

re

spe

ct.

Th

is i

s

sup

po

rte

d b

y E

GE

A t

ha

t su

gg

est

th

at

the

no

n-c

ov

era

ge

Te

chn

olo

gic

al

inn

ov

ati

on

-

sup

po

rtin

g/h

am

pe

rin

g

EG

EA

co

nsi

de

rs t

ha

t th

e c

urr

en

t le

gis

lati

on

on

te

st p

roce

du

res

lim

it i

nn

ov

ati

on

fo

r

ma

nu

fact

ure

rs

Acc

ord

ing

to

GE

A t

he

Dir

ect

ive

did

no

t in

tro

du

ce c

ha

ng

es

in t

he

ess

en

tia

l re

qu

ire

me

nts

as

it a

do

pte

d t

he

OIM

L re

qu

ire

me

nts

. T

he

on

ly d

iffe

ren

ce c

on

cern

ed

th

e s

tric

ter

req

uir

em

en

ts f

or

the

se

ali

ng

of

soft

wa

re a

ga

inst

ta

mp

eri

ng

wh

ich

ha

s n

ot

bro

ug

ht

imp

ort

an

t ch

an

ge

s.

Th

e M

ID d

oe

s n

ot

cov

er

the

pro

cess

no

r th

e s

oft

wa

re n

ece

ssa

ry f

or

EG

A b

ut

on

ly t

he

me

asu

rin

g i

nst

rum

en

t it

self

. M

an

ufa

ctu

rers

th

us

stil

l n

ee

d t

o r

ece

ive

na

tio

na

l a

pp

rova

l

for

the

ir i

nst

rum

en

ts.

Op

tio

na

lity

- Is

it

use

d i

n t

he

se

cto

r

- Is

th

ere

ev

ide

nce

of

two

-tie

r

ma

rke

t

- Is

th

ere

ev

ide

nce

of

un

fair

com

pe

titi

on

Acc

ord

ing

to

EG

EA

op

tio

na

lity

ha

s n

ot

be

en

use

d i

n t

he

sp

eci

fic

sect

or.

Ho

we

ve

r, d

ata

fro

m W

ELM

EC

in

dic

ate

th

ree

co

un

trie

s (D

K,

MT

an

d A

ust

ria

).

Co

nsu

me

r p

rote

ctio

n d

ue

to

E

nd

-use

rs a

re t

he

MO

T c

en

tre

s ra

the

r th

an

co

nsu

me

rs.

Th

ey

are

no

t a

ffe

cte

d s

ince

70 B

ase

d o

n i

nte

rvie

w w

ith

tw

o t

rad

e a

sso

cia

tio

ns,

EG

EA

(re

pre

sen

tin

g g

as

an

aly

zers

ma

nu

fact

ure

rs,

the

UK

Ga

rag

e E

qu

ipm

en

t A

sso

cia

tio

n -

GE

A (

rep

rese

nti

ng

use

rs o

f g

as

an

aly

zers

) a

nd

on

e m

an

ufa

ctu

rer.

Inte

rim

Ev

alu

ati

on

of

the

Me

asu

rin

g I

nst

rum

en

ts D

ire

ctiv

e –

Fin

al

rep

ort

Ap

pe

nd

ix

Me

asu

rin

g I

nst

rum

en

ts a

na

lysi

s ta

ble

s

E

98

Issu

es

F

ind

ing

s

Ev

ide

nce

/da

ta/o

the

r in

fo/

ex

am

ple

s

op

tio

na

lity

an

d a

ny

oth

er

fact

or

op

tio

na

lity

ha

s n

ot

be

en

use

d i

n t

his

se

cto

r.

MID

, in

co

mb

ina

tio

n w

ith

Dir

ect

ive

20

09

/40

EC

, h

as

set

qu

ali

ty l

ev

el

an

d s

tan

da

rds

for

ga

s-te

ste

rs a

nd

ra

ise

d t

he

qu

ali

ty l

ev

el

in t

he

ma

rke

t.

Evi

de

nce

of

two

-tie

r m

ark

et

an

d

un

fair

co

mp

eti

tio

n d

ue

to

op

tio

na

lity

an

d o

the

r fa

cto

rs

Acc

ord

ing

to

GE

A g

as

an

aly

sers

fo

r M

OT

s71 i

n t

he

UK

ha

ve

to

be

ce

rtif

ied

an

d a

pp

rov

ed

an

d r

ep

rese

nt

80

% o

f th

e U

K m

ark

et.

Fo

r th

e r

em

ain

ing

20

% u

sed

in

ga

rag

es

the

re a

re

no

sim

ila

r te

sts

bu

t th

ere

is

no

exp

eri

en

ce a

s to

wh

eth

er

the

re i

s u

nfa

ir c

om

pe

titi

on

.

Ad

min

istr

ati

ve

bu

rde

ns

cre

ate

d/r

ed

uce

d

Acc

ord

ing

to

EG

EA

wh

ile

th

e i

nit

ial

ad

min

istr

ati

ve

in

ve

stm

en

t h

as

incr

ea

sed

, th

e e

ffo

rt

for

mo

st c

om

pa

nie

s d

ue

th

e u

se o

f si

ng

le c

ert

ific

ate

. I

n t

he

UK

, th

e n

ati

on

al

ass

oci

ati

on

sug

ge

sts

the

re i

s a

dd

itio

na

l re

d t

ap

e f

or

an

aly

sers

to

be

use

d a

t M

OT

s (8

0%

of

the

ma

rke

t) a

s in

ste

ad

of

rep

laci

ng

th

e M

ID c

ert

ific

ati

on

ad

de

d o

ne

mo

re s

tep

. A

dd

itio

na

l

test

s b

y s

ep

ara

te l

ab

ora

tori

es

are

sti

ll r

eq

uir

ed

.

Fro

m t

he

pro

du

ctio

n s

ide

on

e m

an

ufa

ctu

rer

sta

ted

th

at

the

in

tro

du

ctio

n o

f M

od

ule

D

an

d s

ub

seq

ue

nt

surv

eil

lan

ce a

ud

its

incr

ea

sed

co

sts

bu

t co

uld

no

t a

sse

ss i

f th

e b

en

efi

t

fro

m a

sin

gle

ce

rtif

ica

te w

as

gre

ate

r o

r n

ot.

Th

e U

K i

mp

act

ass

ess

me

nt

est

ima

tes

ad

min

istr

ati

ve

bu

rde

ns

at

aro

un

d £

5,0

00

(€6

,00

0)

pe

r a

nn

um

fo

r

ma

nu

fact

ure

rs.

Re

pre

sen

tati

on

of

sta

ke

ho

lde

rs

in t

he

Me

asu

rin

g i

nst

rum

en

ts

com

mit

tee

an

d W

ELM

EC

Th

e i

nd

ust

ry h

as

no

t b

ee

n r

ep

rese

nte

d i

n t

he

me

asu

rin

g i

nst

rum

en

ts c

om

mit

tee

or

in

WE

LME

C.

EG

EA

exp

ress

ed

wil

lin

gn

ess

to

be

mo

re a

ctiv

ely

inv

olv

ed

an

d e

xpre

sse

d

con

cern

th

at

it h

as

no

t re

ceiv

ed

su

ch i

nv

ita

tio

n in

th

e p

ast

.

Imp

act

on

SM

Es

A

cco

rdin

g t

o E

GE

A t

he

eff

ect

of

cutt

ing

re

d t

ap

e a

nd

re

du

cin

g a

dm

inis

tra

tiv

e b

urd

en

is

imp

ort

an

t fo

r o

ur

com

pa

nie

s, w

ho

are

ty

pic

all

y S

ma

ll a

nd

Me

diu

m s

ize

d E

nte

rpri

ses

(SM

Es)

.

Acc

ord

ing

to

on

e l

arg

e m

an

ufa

ctu

rer

the

bu

rde

n o

n s

ma

ll b

usi

ne

sse

s is

no

t

pro

po

rtio

na

tely

gre

ate

r th

an

fo

r la

rge

bu

sin

ess

es

aft

er

an

in

itia

l p

eri

od

of

fam

ilia

risa

tio

n.

Th

e S

ME

su

rve

y i

ncl

ud

ing

17

fir

ms

act

ive

in

th

e s

ect

or

ind

ica

ted

th

at

the

re a

re n

ot

pro

ble

ms

wit

h t

he

co

nfo

rmit

y a

sse

ssm

en

t (n

o f

irm

sta

ted

pro

ble

ms)

an

d o

nly

on

e

refe

rre

d t

o t

he

pre

sen

ce o

f b

arr

iers

to

tra

de

. T

he

ma

jori

ty s

tate

d t

ha

t th

ere

are

no

n

CE

+M

ma

rke

d p

rod

uct

s in

th

e m

ark

et

– m

ain

ly a

mo

ng

ne

w M

em

be

r S

tate

s –

bu

t o

nly

2

tho

ug

ht

tha

t th

ey

co

nst

itu

ted

un

fair

co

mp

eti

tio

n.

•

Ro

le o

f st

an

da

rds

an

d

Th

e u

se o

f th

e O

IML

no

rma

tive

do

cum

en

ts h

as

be

en

in

lin

e w

ith

th

e s

tan

da

rds

use

d b

y

71

Inte

rim

Ev

alu

ati

on

of

the

Me

asu

rin

g I

nst

rum

en

ts D

ire

ctiv

e –

Fin

al

rep

ort

Ap

pe

nd

ix

Me

asu

rin

g I

nst

rum

en

ts a

na

lysi

s ta

ble

s

E

99

Issu

es

F

ind

ing

s

Ev

ide

nce

/da

ta/o

the

r in

fo/

ex

am

ple

s

gu

ida

nce

do

cum

en

ts

MO

Ts

for

ap

pro

va

l o

f a

na

lyse

rs a

nd

th

ere

ha

ve

be

en

no

pro

ble

ms

to t

his

po

int.

On

e m

an

ufa

ctu

rer

un

de

rlin

ed

th

e u

sefu

lne

ss o

f W

ELM

EC

;’s

do

cum

en

tati

on

, e

spe

cia

lly

reg

ard

ing

th

e t

ran

smis

sio

n b

etw

ee

n i

nst

rum

en

ts a

nd

so

ftw

are

•

Imp

lem

en

tati

on

by

no

tifi

ed

bo

die

s

On

e c

om

pa

ny

in

Ita

ly is

usi

ng

PT

B f

or

Mo

du

le B

be

cau

se t

he

y h

av

e a

lo

ng

exp

eri

en

ce

wit

h i

t. M

od

ule

D h

as

be

en

do

ne

wit

h N

Mi

Ne

the

rla

nd

s b

eca

use

th

ey

ha

ve

th

e I

tali

an

bra

nch

wh

ich

av

oid

ed

a l

ot

of

do

cum

en

t tr

an

sla

tio

n.

EG

A i

s a

ne

w b

usi

ne

ss a

nd

ap

pro

va

ls a

re s

till

re

lati

ve

ly r

ece

nt.

T

he

re i

s n

o e

xpe

rie

nce

to

co

mp

are

wit

h f

rom

pre

vio

us

exp

eri

en

ces.

Th

is c

om

pa

ny

ha

s o

nly

en

tere

d

the

EG

s m

ark

et

in 2

00

0

na

tio

na

lly

an

d i

n 2

00

5 i

n

an

oth

er

cou

ntr

y.

•

Ma

rke

t su

rve

illa

nce

by

au

tho

riti

es

Acc

ord

ing

to

GE

A t

he

re h

as

be

en

lim

ite

d m

ark

et

surv

eil

lan

ce f

rom

th

e n

ati

on

al

au

tho

riti

es

in t

he

UK

co

nce

rnin

g g

as

an

aly

sers

. H

ow

ev

er,

in

th

e c

ase

of

MO

T t

est

ing

faci

liti

es

tha

t re

pre

sen

t a

rou

nd

80

% o

f th

e t

ota

l m

ark

et

MID

ce

rtif

ica

te i

s a

re

qu

ire

me

nt

in a

dd

itio

n t

o o

the

r re

qu

ire

me

nts

se

t.

•

Tra

nsi

tio

n p

eri

od

T

he

tra

nsi

tio

n p

eri

od

do

es

no

t se

em

to

po

se a

ny

pro

ble

ms.

Oth

er

T

he

re a

re q

ue

stio

ns

rais

ed

by

EG

EA

, a

ma

nu

fact

ure

r a

nd

at

lea

st o

n C

A (

DE

) a

s to

th

e

lim

ite

d c

ov

era

ge

of

ga

s a

na

lyse

rs b

y t

he

MID

. A

cco

rdin

g t

o E

GE

A I

t is

in

con

sist

en

t, t

ha

t

the

pe

tro

l p

art

of

an

an

aly

zer

is c

ov

ere

d b

y t

he

MID

, w

he

rea

s th

e d

iese

l sm

ok

e p

art

is

no

t re

qu

irin

g a

se

pa

rate

na

tio

na

l ce

rtif

ica

tio

n.

Th

is f

act

ha

s li

mit

ed

th

e a

cce

pta

nce

of

the

MID

, b

eca

use

ma

nu

fact

ure

rs h

av

e t

o g

et

na

tio

na

l a

pp

rov

als

fo

r th

e d

iese

l p

art

. T

hu

s a

the

in

clu

sio

n o

f a

‘d

iese

l’ r

ela

ted

re

qu

ire

me

nt

is s

ee

n a

s n

ece

ssa

ry.

Inte

rim

Ev

alu

ati

on

of

the

Me

asu

rin

g I

nst

rum

en

ts D

ire

ctiv

e –

Fin

al

rep

ort

Ap

pe

nd

ix

Op

tio

na

lity

use

by

Me

mb

er

Sta

tes

F

10

0

Interim Evaluation of the Measuring Instruments Directive

Documents

Transcript of Interim Evaluation of the Measuring Instruments Directive