**Table 6:  Ex Post Evaluation of Mexico’s Environmental Regulation**

|Regulation|Regulation Description|Effect or<br>Impact|<br>Effectivenes|s Efficacy|Efficiency|Average<br>Rating|<br>Observations|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|NOM-062-SEMARNAT-1994|Specifications for mitigating the adverse effects of the<br>change in forest and farmland use on biodiversity|0|0|0|0|0.00|Has zero effect, because there are other<br>policyinstruments withgreater authority|
|NOM-001-SEMARNAT-1996|Maximum allowed levels of contamination for waste water<br>discharges|0|1|2|0|0.75|Little to no compliance or changes in<br>polluter behavior|
|NOM-027-SEMARNAT-1996|Procedures, criteria, and specifications for the use,<br>transport,and storage of mountain earth|1|1|2|2|1.50|Mixed knowledge and compliance due to<br>lack of supervision|
|NOM-003-SEMARNAT-1997|Maximum allowed levels of contamination for wasted water<br>for treatment|2|2|1|4|2.25|Compliance is economically beneficial rather<br>than forced onpolluters|
|NOM-120-SEMARNAT-1997|Environmental protection specifications for direct<br>exploratory mining in climates with specific flora|0|0|0|0|0.00|There is confusion about application of<br>regulation. Therefore, it is not applied.|
|NOM-047-SEMARNAT-1999|Characteristics of the measurement equipment and<br>procedure for verifying the emissions limits for pollutants<br>for motor vehicles in circulation|2|2|3|3|2.50|In complying states, there is a drop in air<br>pollution. Fines are the main enforcement<br>tool.(Applied with 041)|
|NOM-133-SEMARNAT-2000|Specifications for dealing with polychlorinated biphenyls<br>contamination|1|1|2|1|1.25|Competes with an international agreement<br>for authority.|
|NOM-040-SEMARNAT-2002|Maximum levels of atmospheric emissions for cement<br>production|3|3|3|4|3.25|Low compliance costs because no<br>equipment changes are necessary|
|NOM-098-SEMARNAT-2002|Operation specifications and pollutant limits for waste<br>incineration|2|4|3|4|3.25|While compliance is expensive, incineration<br>operations are still economically viable.|
|NOM-055-SEMARNAT-2003|Requirements for places designated for controlled storage<br>of dangerous, previouslystabilized,waste|0|0|3|0|0.75|Conflicts with legislation regulating this<br>activity. No regulatedparties|
|NOM-083-SEMARNAT-2003|Requirements for places designated for solid municipal<br>waste as a function of daily tonnage|1|1|3|1|1.50|It is more expensive to comply than to pay<br>the fines. There are higher levels of<br>compliance among private firms than<br>|
||||||||municipalities(57% overall)|
|NOM-115-SEMARNAT-2003|Environmental protection specifications that must be met<br>for perforation and maintenance of land petroleum wells|3|3|4|4|3.50|Cost of compliance are very low for the<br>single regulated agent, leading to high<br>compliance rates.|
|NOM-137-SEMARNAT-2003|Sulfur emissions controls for desulfurization plants for gas<br>and condensate|4|2|4|3|3.25|The only agent subject to the regulation<br>changed its technology base to comply<br>before the regulation was enacted.|
|NOM-141-SEMARNAT-2003|Procedure for the development of talings dams|2|3|2|3|2.50|Mixed compliance and very moderate<br>environmental effects due to the nature of<br>dam lifetime and use.|
|NOM-041-SEMARNAT-2006|Maximum allowed levels of emissions of polluting gases<br>from the exhaust of gasoline vehicles|2|2|3|3|2.50|In complying states, there is a drop in air<br>pollution. Fines are the main enforcement<br>tool.(Applied with 047)|
|NOM-045-SEMARNAT-2006|Regulates exhaust emissions of diesel vehicles through<br>exhaust opacitymeasurements|1|1|0|1|0.75|Only 15 states apply tests. Compliance has<br>led to minimal environmental effect|