No C 62/2 Official Journal of the European Communities 12. 3. 90 
Done at Brussels, 19 December 1989. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Alberto MASPRONE 
Opinion on the proposal for a Council Directive on the approximation of the laws of the 
Member States relating to the spray-suppression devices of certain categories of motor 
vehicles and their trailers (!) 
(90/C 62/02) 
On 6 September 1989, the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under 
Article 100A of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, on the 
abovementioned proposal. 
The Section for Industry, Commerce, Crafts and Services, which was responsible for the 
Committee's work on the subject, adopted its Opinion on 29 November 1989. The Rapporteur was 
Mr Perrin-Pelletier. 
At its 272nd Plenary Session (meeting of 19 December 1989) the Economic and Social Committee 
adopted the following Opinion by a majority with one vote against and four abstentions: 
1. Introduction 
1.1. The draft Directives under review follow up the 
commitment which the Commission made in the 1986 
Road Safety Year to have specific measures adopted in the 
areas in question. 
Any Commission initiative which seeks to introduce 
measures to reduce further the number and seriousness of 
accidents, and hence to improve safety for all road users, is 
to be welcomed. 
1.2. An initial draft Directive was presented in August 
1987; its main aim was to improve road safety by using 
spray-suppression devices intended to limit the amount of 
water, mud and pebbles thrown up by the wheels of moving 
vehicles. The technical content of this draft Directive was 
based on current requirements in various Member States 
and on recommendations by experts. 
1.3. This initial draft Directive gave rise to discussions 
in the Economic and Social Committee (2) and in the 
European Parliament; given the importance of the 
amendments requested, the draft was replaced by a new 
proposal, now the subject of this Opinion. However, the 
(!) OJ No C 263, 16. 10. 1989, p. 19. 
(2) OJ No C 80, 28. 3. 1988, p. 17. Committee deplores the fact that there has not been 
sufficient advance consultation with industry on the 
subject, a point already raised in its last Opinion. 
2. General comments 
2.1. The problems addressed by the Commission in this 
draft Directive are most certainly a source of concern for 
the driving public and the authorities. 
2.2. The clouds of spray thrown up by the tyres of heavy 
commercial vehicles travelling at relatively high speeds on 
wet road surfaces create potentially dangerous driving 
conditions for other motorists, particularly when overtak­
ing. 
2.3. The formation of spray depends mainly on 1) the 
type of road surface, particularly its design, 2) the tyre tread 
configuration, 3) the aerodynamics and speed of the 
vehicle. 
Rough road surfaces and wide-grooved tyre treads tend to 
produce less spray than smooth surfaces and finely grooved 
tyres. The spray itself is generated by the water forced out 
of the area of contact between the road surface and the 
tyre; the problem tends to be further aggravated by the 
combined aerodynamic effects of 1) vehicle movement, 
12. 3.. 90 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 62/3 
2) wind and 3) the flow of water from the vehicle roof 
down along its sides. 
2.4. Design changes have meant that heavy vehicles are 
now being fitted with more axles. As a result, the level of 
nuisance caused by spray has also risen. 
2.5. Beyond the scope of the Commission proposal, 
recent research (which must be continued) has shown that 
it is possible to mitigate this problem considerably by using 
certain materials in road construction which combine 
excellent traction with optimal water drainage; this is 
achieved by means of a high number of cavities in the road 
surface texture (pervious coated macadam). Coating the 
road surface in this way means not only that the amount of 
spray generated can be reduced considerably, but there is 
also potential for cutting down on rolling noise. 
2.6. Spray thrown up by tyres is forced out sideways, 
especially when wheel rotation in an almost completely 
enclosed area open only to the vehicle's outer side causes a 
'swirl effect'. The installation of spray-suppression devices 
(SSDs) such as lateral 'valances' and 'carpet sweepers' will 
only provide a temporary solution to the problem. Indeed, 
once the SSD has reached a certain saturation level, 
conditions for water evacuation from the wheel housing are 
likely to deteriorate, particularly with available space 
already more restricted. Moreover, SSDs can contribute to 
the build up of ice and mud, which might subsequently fall 
on to the road in solid chunks. 
2.7. The aerodynamic characteristics of the vehicle as a 
whole (lorry plus trailer) will, to a great extent, determine 
how much spray is produced; the nuisance caused by spray 
will therefore vary considerably according to vehicle 
design. 
2.8. To deal with the effects caused by the above-
mentioned phenomena, the Commission advocates the use 
of fittings such as rain flaps, in accordance with the 
requirements set out in the Directive. 
It is nevertheless necessary to keep in mind that no spray-
suppression device, however sophisticated, can simply 
make this water 'disappear'; it can do no more than 
channel the water to areas where less spray is produced. 
Moreoever, the Committtee welcomes the fact that the 
Commission is proposing a second type of test for 'air/ 
water separator' devices, not envisaged in the previous 
draft Directive. 2.9. This demonstrates that the subject is in fact much 
more complex than it might first appear. The United States 
provides another case in point; despite extensive research 
into this matter, the American authorities (NHTSA — 
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration) con­
cluded in May 1988 that, in the absence of conclusive test 
results, no legislation on spray-suppression devices would 
be introduced. 
Likewise only two EC Member States have brought in 
legislation on this subject. The Commission is strongly 
advised to go beyond the scope of the present proposals and 
improve the requirements set out therein by taking into 
account results which the many Community and non-
Community research programmes will be producing. 
By following this approach, it should be possible to work 
out methods to assess the spray reduction performance of 
the whole vehicle. It is essential to lay down requirements 
based on objective performance evaluation criteria rather 
than design evaluation criteria; such requirements would 
be applicable not only to components but to the vehicles 
covered by the proposed regulations. 
2.10. The Directive should also include an article which 
stipulates that a device may be awarded an EEC component 
type-approval, if that device can be proved to be at least as 
effective as the devices specified in Annexes II and III. 
2.11. With regard to the effectiveness of SSDs, no 
statistics have been made available on the number of 
accidents caused by spray, but such statistics do not appear 
to be essential in view of the fact that spray-suppression 
devices cost relatively little. 
2.12. Under the requirements of the proposed Directive, 
not only should the amount of water spray be reduced, but 
the quantity of small stones thrown up and backwards by 
the tyres of a vehicle should also be reduced; these, too, are 
often potentially dangerous for other road users. 
2.13. The amount of spray generated depends on the 
various individual vehicle specifications and its speed; it 
will also depend a great deal, however, on the type of tyres 
fitted. The Commission should therefore launch a study 
into ways to reduce spray produced by tyres. 
2.14. The Commission should also establish a mecha­
nism, to work in tandem with the proposed Directive, 
designed to encourage Member States to make maximum 
use of pervious coated macadam on the surface of 1) fast 
roads and 2) lanes most often used by heavy vehicles. 
No C 62/4 Official Journal of the European Communities 12. 3. 90 
2.15. The Committee notes that the Commission has 
reverted to the optional method for granting EEC 
component type-approval, and would agree with the 
Commission that to change from the optional to the global 
method would only be workable if the method were to 
embrace the whole EEC type-approval procedure covered 
by the parent Directive 70/156/EEC. 
2.16. Notwithstanding the above comments, and in as 
much as it will in many cases help prevent accidents,.the 
Commission proposal represents a positive step towards 
improved road safety. 
However, the Commission should devise a vehicle testing 
method which takes into account all known factors and is 
designed to assess the effectiveness of complete and 
mounted spray-suppression devices — the main purpose of 
the Directive under review. This method should replace 
design specifications as well as the currently incomplete 
laboratory tests. The Directive should, moreoever, include 
an article stating in greater detail that performance tests 
will eventually be introduced for complete vehicles; these 
should replace the arrangements covering devices and 
components, particularly those set out in Articles 2, 3 and 5 
and Annexes II and III. 
2.17. Subject to the abovementioned reservations and in 
view of the practical difficulties which will have to be 
overcome before the final objective is achieved, the 
Committee's opinion of the Commission's proposal is 
generally positive in so far as it seeks a practical, short-term 
solution to mitigate the spray problem. 
3. Specific comments 
3.1. Article 1 
This Article should also make it possible to grant EEC 
component type-approval for types of devices other than 
those mentioned in Annex II, as long as they can be proved 
to be at least as effective. 
3.2. Article 3 
Line 2: the word 'operation' should be replaced by 
'performance'. 
3.3. Articles 9 and 10 
The Committee generally welcomes moves to speed up the 
procedure for adapting Directives to take account of 
technical progress. It has, however, repeatedly announced 
that it would not approve the introduction of a new 
procedure which would confine the role of the Committee 
on Adaptation to Technical Progress to a purely advisory 
one. 
3.4. Article 11 
The wording should be changed. The present wording of 
the draft Directive means that Member States can make the 
installation of spray suppression devices mandatory immediately after publication of the Directive; vehicles not 
complying with the Directive's requirements could accord­
ingly be refused entry to those States. 
For this reason it is necessary to revert to the wording 
traditional when laying down deadlines for compliance 
with Directives. 
(a) Member States shall bring into force the provisions 
necessary in order to comply with this Directive by 1 
October 1991. 
(b) As of 1 October 1991, Member States can 
— decide not to grant EEC component type-approval 
for a spray-suppression device, in accordance with 
Article 2; 
— refuse to approve a vehicle for any type of vehicle not 
conforming to the Directive. 
(c) As of 1 October 1992, Member States can refuse to 
allow vehicles not conforming to the Directive to be 
brought into service. 
3.5. Annex II 
Every type of spray-suppression device should be subject to 
the same requirements in objective tests; these require­
ments should under all circumstances cover performance. 
Consequently there is a case for getting rid of the 
distinction between the 'spray-suppression devices' in 
category I and those in category II, as soon as it is 
technically possible to do so. 
3.5.1. The spray-suppression device testing procedures 
set out in Annex II only partly reproduce traffic conditions 
in which the devices would operate. The direction and 
force of spray generated by tyres is of course fairly random, 
but these factors are also affected by 1) air displacement, 
which depends on the vehicle's speed, and 2) air movement 
around the wheel; neither of the above conditions are 
reproduced in these tests. 
3.5.2. The Directive does not provide for any EEC type-
approval testing of materials used in the manufacture of 
spray-suppression devices. Of particular relevance would 
be a test of resistance to 1) abrasion by sand and pebbles 
and 2) general wear and tear with time. It would be 
unfortunate if these devices were granted EEC component 
type-approval without any guarantee that they would 
remain effective when used. 
3.5.3. So as to absorb the energy generated with the 
spray, the devices covered by the Directive are made of 
porous materials or have cavities, uneven surfaces or 
'carpet-sweeper' configurations; these tend to become 
clogged by solid materials in the water thrown up from the 
road surface. No EEC type approval test has been provided 
for to look into the propensity of these materials to become 
clogged up with solids, a phenomenon which could vary 
considerably from one material to another when the device 
is in use. 
12. 3.. 90 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 62/5 
3.6. Annex HI 
3.6.1. This Annex should be amended in line with the 
comments made earlier. 
3.6.2. Scope 
The Committee proposes that category N2 vehicles of less 
than 7,5 tons, which are mainly used for trade deliveries in 
urban areas, be excluded from the scope of the Directive. 
Done at Brussels, 19 December 1989. 
1. General comments 
The Committee endorses the proposed Directive whose 
aim, in view of current inconsistencies in the application of 
simplified procedures, is to place all imports into the 
Community on an equal footing. 
The Committee emphasizes the fact that domiciliation and 
simplified declaration procedures, which apply solely to 
imports, may be authorized either simultaneously or 
separately by the competent national authorities. However, 
between applicant firms and the relevant customs author­
ities there must in any case be an agreement covering these 
procedures. This agreement is bilateral and establishes the 
basic principles of the procedures, their application 
conditions and the guarantees necessary 1) to authorize 
release and 2) to complete the formalities for release of 
goods for free circulation. 
(!) OJ No C 235, 13. 9. 1989, p. 16. 3.6.3. Paragraph 6.1. 
This should be amended to read as follows: 
'... rain flaps of non-steered or self-steering wheels that 
are covered by the bodywork floor ...'. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Alberto MASPRONE 
In view of the economic importance of these procedures, 
the Committee recommends that they be extended 
accordingly to cover export arrangements. 
2. Specific comments 
Without wanting to detract from the positive nature of the 
Opinion, the Committee would point out that although the 
simplified declaration does a great deal to improve firms' 
productivity, it does sometimes entail adverse effects for 
the customs authorities responsible for monitoring sum­
mary declarations. 
Monitoring these declarations sometimes involves con­
siderable extra compilation work, particularly where 
inward and outward processing customs procedures are 
concerned. Opinion on the proposal for a Council Directive amending Directive of 24 July 1979 on the 
harmonization of procedures for the release of goods for free circulation (79/695) (]) 
(90/C 62/03) 
On 6 September 1989, the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee under 
Article 100A of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, on the 
abovementioned proposal. 
The Section for Industry, Commerce, Crafts and Services, which was responsible for preparing the 
Committee's work on the subject, adopted its Opinion on 29 November 1989; the Rapporteur was 
Mr Mourgues. 
At its 272nd Plenary Session (meeting of 19 December 1989), the Economic and Social Committee 
unanimously adopted the following Opinion: