G/TBT/W/362  
 
21 March 2013  
(13-1573)  Page: 1/3  
Committee on Technical Brriers to Trade  Original: Spanish  
 
 COLOMBIA – PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO RESOLUTIONS 910/2008 
AND 2604/2009 ON POLLUTANT EMISSIONS FROM 
HEAVY VEHICLES WITH DIESEL ENGINES 
(G/TBT/N/COL/185 AND G/TBT/N/COL/186) 
STATEMENT BY MEXICO TO THE COMMITT EE ON TECHNICAL BARRIERS TO TRADE  
6-7 MARCH 2013 
The following communication, dated 20 March 2013, is being circulated at the request of 
the delegation of Mexico. 
	
 
_______________ 
 
 1.1.  Mexico wishes once again to express a Trade Concern in relation to 
notifications G/TBT/N/COL/185 and G/TBT/N/CO L/186, circulated by the Secretariat of 
the World Trade Organization (WTO) on 4 December 2012, concerning the Republic of Colombia’s proposed modifications to Resolutions 910 of 200 8 and 2604 of 2009 on pollutant emissions from 
heavy vehicles with diesel engines. 
1.2.  It is important that I commence my statement by mentioning that Mexico shares Colombia’s 
objective of improving fuel quality and helping to reduce atmospheric pollution, however, we have a number of comments and questions regarding th e aforementioned proposed modifications.  
1.3.  Since 2011, the Mexican Government, through the Ministry of the Economy, has expressed to 
several officials of the Colombian Government its concern at the significant effects which the measures may have on trade in the products covered by the proposed modifications and their 
likely inconsistency with Colombia’s obligations under the TBT Agreement. 
1.4.  As regards the Specific Concern that Mexico is expressing today, I should like to explain 
the reasons for which we consider that these proposed modifications are inconsistent with the TBT Agreement. 
1.5.  Mexico considers that the draft measures are contrary to Article 2.2 of the TBT Agreement 
inasmuch as by prohibiting use of EPA technology and by not taking into account all available scientific and technical information to justify such a prohibition, they are more trade-restrictive 
than necessary. In this respect, the Colombian Government is only taking into account partial 
information in order to justify the legitimate right to impose this measure.  
1.6.  The draft regulations refer to economic costs or probabilities and do not establish any 
cause/effect relationship based on clear scientific evidence regarding the impact on human health 
of emissions from vehicles using EPA technology. There is no mention anywhere of evidence that could justify any refusal to use EPA technology or the reasons for which its use will be banned from 2015 onwards. There is no comparison either  of the reasons for which EURO technology is 
more suitable for achieving the Colombian Government’s intended objective.  
1.7.  The Mexican Government requests Colombia to provide the scientific information available 
that specifies the direct relationship betw een the emissions of various contaminating 
sources (mobile or fixed), the various contaminants (particulate matter, hydrocarbons 
and nitrogen monoxide), inter alia, which are harmful to Colombians’ health.  G/TBT/W/362 
 
- 2 - 
 
  1.8.  Moreover, in the EPA regulations, the mandatory requirement for On-Board 
Diagnostics Systems controlling nitrogen monoxide (Nox) is based on EPA 10, which specifies 15 ppm (parts per million) of sulphur for diesel. We have information that the Colombian Government is about to produce and supply diesel of 50 ppm of sulphur. Likewise, 
in EURO IV technology, the OBD requirements are voluntary and not mandatory until EURO V. 
We find that making this measure mandatory is inconsistent as it will not lead to compliance 
with EPA technology and even make it difficult to comply with EURO technology. 
1.9.  We therefore request the Colombian Gove rnment to eliminate the OBD requirements on 
control of nitrogen monoxide (Nox) for EPA 04 and EURO IV and, if absolutely necessary and there 
are valid scientific grounds, request that the re quirement henceforth be based on EPA 10 (2013) 
and EURO V. 
1.10.  According to the Colombian Association of Automotive Vehicles ANDEMOS, in 2011 there 
were 466,946 vehicles registered, of which 160,508 (34%) were "unregulated" trucks or trucks dating back to before 2000. This is why Mexico asks Colombia to conduct a comprehensive 
analysis of the impact on contaminant reduction to  be obtained by applying the new regulations to 
vehicles currently operating and not only to new vehicles. 
1.11.  Mexico is also concerned that there have already been cases of regulations that have not 
been notified to the WTO, in violation of Ar ticle 2.9.2 of the TBT Agreement, for example 
Resolution 2604 of 24 December 2009 or Resolu tion 1304 of the Bogota District Environment 
Authority. This resolution ignores the higher standards by raising emission requirements for diesel engines to EURO V and EPA 10 in Bogota without indicating the quality specifications for fuel 
required by these technologies, the conformity assessment procedures or the equivalent 
standards. Consequently, neither Mexico nor the other WTO Members were able to exercise their 
right to make comments, to have these taken into consideration by the Colombian Government 
and to be able to discuss them with the Colombian authorities. 
1.12.  The Mexican Government has not been able to identify which conformity 
assessment procedures will apply in order to prove compliance with the draft measures once they 
have entered into force. In this respect,  the TBT Agreement clearly determines that 
conformity assessment procedures shall be su bject to the principles of transparency. 
The Mexican Government therefore requests Colombia to state clearly the procedure to be followed for this conformity assessment, once the draft measures have been modified to take into account 
Mexico’s comments, and that the Accreditation Certificate from the engine’s country of origin be 
allowed, whether that of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or that of the European Union (EURO).  
1.13.  Colombia makes assemblers, importers, manufacturers and dealers responsible for the 
functioning of their products as far as fuel quality is concerned. This is a governmental responsibility and should not be transferred to the private sector. 
1.14.  Mexico is the foremost exporter of heavy vehicles with EPA technology to Colombia and its 
trade relations would be seriously affected. Over th e past two years, it exported an annual average 
of 12,000 Mexican heavy vehicles with EPA environm ental technology to Colombia, equivalent to 
an average of US$1 billion each year, over 20% of the total value of Mexico’s exports to Colombia.  
1.15.  In the light of the arguments put forward,  the Mexican Government respectfully requests 
the Colombian authorities: 
a. To study the comments made by the Mexican Government since 2011, to convene 
meetings between the technical authorities in order to discuss these comments and to 
take into account both the comments and the outcome of the discussions when drawing up the definitive measures to be implemented by Colombia.  
b. To submit the scientific and technical elements to justify the decision solely to allow 
EURO technology and to eliminate EPA technology for the purposes of compliance with the legitimate objectives set by Colombia. G/TBT/W/362 
 
- 3 - 
 
  c. To maintain EPA 04 environmental technology equally with EURO IV technology as both 
operate with 50 ppm for diesel that will be available in Colombia. 
d. If this is not taken into account, we would request that a longer period be granted for 
adopting the aforementioned technologies, at least two years, so that they can be 
imposed for 2017 and later models. 
__________