have to weigh, and we really have to weigh them based on which things make the biggest difference?

Senator BAUCUs. When will the agency know?

MS. CLAUSSEN. Probably by the end of the year.

Senator BAUCUs. What is your best guess today as to what that statement will be?

MS. CLAUSSEN. I think the interim dates in the Clean Air Act are faster than the Protocol dates, and we certainly can meet the interim dates in the Clean Air Act. We may be able to move some of those.

I am sure that, technically, it will be feasible to phase out before the year 2000. Working with developing countries, I believe that we will, over the next six to nine months, find that several others will move their schedules up at least ten years. I think we can control a fair number of the HCFCs, so that they are only used in limited ways where they are absolutely necessary.

Senator BAUCUs. Isn't it true that some industrialized countries have committed to 1997?

Ms. CLAUSSEN. Yes, that's true.

Senator BAUCUS. Then why can't the United States?

Ms. CLAUSSEN. I expect the United States probably will, once we finish our assessment. I expect that is perfectly possible that we will do that.

However, please let me tell you that the interim dates are much more crucial in terms of total chlorine than the difference between 2000 and 1997. It is a lot of stuff that you really have to weigh here to figure out what the best solution is.

Senator BAUCUs. Do you agree, Mr. Fay, that in view of that most recent data, the problem is more alarming, which would indicate that the United States Government, the Congress, and your industry should step up your phase-out and development of safe substitutes?

Mr. FAY. Senator, I think they are stepping up. Certainly, the data indicates that we need to do everything we can to reduce emissions of CFCs.

As I indicated, in terms of introducing substitutes for new product, I think that we have made far greater progress than anyone anticipated. The biggest problem we have, which other countries do not have, is the existing base of equipment. In fact, many of these countries that are calling for accelerated phase-outs of CFCs don't say anything about their existing equipment base.

If we could get some assurance that the policy process will take into account the problem of existing equipment, then I think that we are making substantial progress toward eliminating CFCs in the new products, much more quickly than the 2000 phase-out date or even the 1997 phase-out date.

Senator BAUCUS. Ms. Claussen, even the year 2000 phase-out-as you know, it is going to continue to get worse from now until the year 2000 and even worse after the year 2000.

Ms. CLAUSSEN. That's right.

Senator BAUCUS. So, if in fact, all the countries of the world phase out even by the year 2000, what does your data show as to how much worse over what period of time the stratospheric ozone

layer depletion will be? When does it begin to become fully restored?

Ms. CLAUSSEN. If we assume that fully restored is two parts per million of chlorine, which is the way we've looked at it over the past couple of years, then you are talking about the middle of the next century before you get back to that. You are actually right that there is a curve which gets worse before it gets better.

Senator BAUCUs. And how much longer does it get worse before it gets better?

Ms. CLAUSSEN. It gets worse for probably another 20 or 30 years before it starts to get better.

Senator BAUCUS. So for the next 20 or 30 years, even assuming a year 2000 phase-out, more Americans will be subject to skin cancer, cataracts, to retina cancer, to possible or probable immune system suppression?

Ms. CLAUSSEN. You may recall that when we did make the announcement, we said that there are three kinds of things that make a difference. Some of them make more difference than others and we probably have to do some in all of those categories.

The biggest thing that makes a difference would be growth in developing country's use of CFCs and using developing country phaseout dates of 10 years beyond developed country phase-out dates. That is number one.

Number two is use of some of the chlorine-containing HCFCs. Senator BAUCUS. What percentage of CFCs do we Americans produce?

Mr. FAY. Well, it was 30 percent, but that is declining. I think we are now down in the mid-twenties.

Senator BAUCUs. Developing countries—what are they?
Mr. FAY. About 15 percent.

Ms. CLAUSSEN. About 15 percent, but you know that under the Protocol, they have 10 years additionally to comply with the schedules. That is the crucial issue.

Senator BAUCUs. What about that? Is that wise policy?
Ms. CLAUSSEN. I think it was wise policy in 1987.

Senator BAUCUs. I am asking whether it is wise policy in 1991? Ms. CLAUSSEN. I think that my view is that it is unwise policy to have them take the 10 years, but it is also unwise policy to try to amend the Protocol in 1992. I think that having the Fund work and having people start to make decisions and having projects getting underway where you have actual reductions will make it very easy to do it after 1992.

Senator BAUCUs. It seems to me that since the problem is now much more dire and urgent today than it was then, and because developing countries are receiving financial assistance, then there might be some way without amending the Protocol.

Ms. CLAUSSEN. Absolutely, Mr. Chairman. We have bilateral projects with Brazil, Mexico, Egypt, China, India, Ecuador, Venezuela—you name it—and the purpose of those projects is to get people ready to have projects to fund and to get them out of CFCs. As you make progress on those fronts, I think it is inevitable that all of those countries will be able to make the same dates that we do. It's a question of making sure that the money is available and

used appropriately, and we have an extensive effort to make sure that happens.

Senator BAUCus. Ms. Cook, you said that you were not sure that the countries would agree to a significant speedup. You were uncertain about that?

Ms. Cook. Yes.

Senator BAUCUs. Why?

Ms. COOK. Well, I was at the meeting in Nairobi, and when this subject was addressed, many government delegates spoke up with concern over making any commitment at this point in time. In fact, they were not all as concerned as the United States and some other governments are about the new NSA findings. That leads us to believe that it is not certain that the amendments will take place in 1992.

One of the most important things in seeing that they happen is leadership from the United States. Right now, until our position is clearer about the phase-out data that you've just been discussing, I am not sure that we will be able to take a leadership role on that. Senator BAUCUs. Can you categorize the countries? Are there certain groups that are more concerned than others?

Ms. COOK. Clearly, the EFTA (European Free Trade Association) countries and the European Community countries were favorable to accelerating the phase-out dates. The countries that I remember making some suggestions about being concerned were the Soviet Union, Japan, and several of the developing countries.

Senator BAUCUS. Mr. FitzGerald, could you give me a little bit more sense of the degree to which other countries can adopt the same processes that Northern Telecom has adopted? You mentioned that military specs may cause a problem, but just generally, could you tell me what other categories and classes of companies could adopt the same procedures, which cannot, and what can be done to help them do so?

Mr. FITZGERALD. On the military specifications, it is true that it has been a blocking feature so far to adoption of some of the technology. For instance, the no-clean technologies that Northern Telecom has chosen to go with cannot be taken in a military application.

Senator BAUCUS. What is it about military specs? Is it just because that's the way they do it?

Mr. FITZGERALD. That's the way it has been done.
Senator BAUCUS. Are those specs necessary?

Mr. FITZGERALD. Presumably, specs are necessary.
Senator BAUCUS. Those specific ones?

Mr. FITZGERALD. They are in a process of rapid change at this point. I currently am not knowledgeable as to where the specifications stand, but they do now accept alternatives to the traditional CFC solvents and, presumably shortly, there will be allowance to use the no-clean technologies and other technologies. As I understand it, that program is moving quite well.

Senator BAUCUS. Are you therefore saying that both military and nonmilitary purchasers could just as well use equipment that has utilized the no-clean technologies?

Mr. FITZGERALD. It's interesting that in the case of the products that Northern Telecom produces-with fine-line spacings, there

was always the feeling that you could not use the no-clean and leave some residue on the board. We have discovered that that is not the case and you still get a reliable product, so it is a concern for the military reliability. I think we have shown that we can go with that, so the specifications, hopefully, will change.

Senator BAUCUs. Even though you get a reliable product, is it less "clean?"

it?

Mr. FITZGERALD. It is less clean, but is reliable.

Senator BAUCUs. On a percentage basis, how much less clean is

Mr. FITZGERALD. It leaves a trace of residue on the board. Generally, people have been concerned for two reasons, I guess: cosmetic or appearance, if you will, and whether it is reliable. The accelerated testing that we have done and we are looking at a product that goes 20 to 40 years, central switches-so it has to be reliable, and we have said that it is quite an acceptable procedure to go with.

Senator BAUCUS. I am curious about your agreement with Mexico. What is that again?

Mr. FITZGERALD. In partnership with the EPA and with SEDUE, which is the Mexican equivalent of EPA, we have struck a partnership to transfer solvent elimination technology into the Maquiladora. The first project is ongoing at this point in time.

Mexico's intention is to take the training and have experts that they can then have participate in transferring technology in a cascading sense into other developing countries; Spanish-speaking countries, for example. Hopefully, Northern Telecom will continue the role that we're playing now.

Senator BAUCUS. Are you doing this on your own, or is this under the auspices of some program?

Mr. FITZGERALD. Northern Telecom initially stepped up to do this on its own, but in terms of actually retrofitting Mexican industry with new technology, if there is a cost involved, that comes out of the UNEP multilateral funding mechanism.

Senator BAUCUS. Did you coordinate it at all with the North American Free Trade Agreement negotiations, or is that entirely separate?

Mr. FITZGERALD. No, we did not. It was ongoing before that.

Senator BAUCUs. Is there any model there? There are a lot of environmental concerns that we have with Mexico under the North American Free Trade Agreement.

Mr. FITZGERALD. We think it's a model for other projects that can be initiated along those same lines. We are very optimistic that it will be a successful project.

Senator BAUCUS. Ms. Claussen, are we going to get these regulations out by September 15th?

Ms. CLAUSSEN. I sure hope so.

Senator BAUCUs. Well, you aren't doing very well so far.

Ms. CLAUSSEN. No. I hope the review process is complete this week.

Senator BAUCUS. And that means what?

Ms. CLAUSSEN. I hope they get cleared by OMB this week.

Senator BAUCUs. Well, the law is the law. The law says September 15th.

Ms. CLAUSSEN. That's why I said let's hope.

Senator BAUCUS. Can you give us some sense of how much leeway you have under the statute? You do have leeway to develop regulations that even go a little further than the statute; isn't that correct?

Ms. CLAUSSEN. That's correct.

Senator BAUcus. Can you give me some examples?

Ms. CLAUSSEN. When we completed our proposal package on nonessential uses, for example, only a couple of things are in the statute. We felt that it was sensible to go beyond that and, in our draft, have done so.

There are other cases where certain things were in the statute and we can go beyond. There are also cases where some things in the statute, like the labeling provisions-we may be out of CFCs by the time we put out the labeling provisions-so in that case, we would not be ahead of it. In fact, we probably wouldn't do it because we would no longer be using CFCs, for example, in solvent uses by the time those rules came out.

It is a question of each case on deciding the maximum that you can do. That's the goal, to do as much as possible.

Senator BAUCUS. What about HCFC phase-out? Can you go farther there, too?

Ms. CLAUSSEN. We can go farther there. We are doing a series of analyses under the Safe Alternatives Program which will really look at the safety of each of the HCFCs and the alternatives for them. We will probably put out a draft of our views on that some time this Fall, sector by sector. That would be the basis for regulations there.

Senator BAUCUS. What lessons are there with respect to the Protocol on CFCs that might be applied to the global climate convention process? Do any of you have any ideas?

Ms. CLAUSSEN. Let me offer a few. We dealt in 1987 with very uncertain science in the ozone protection issue. In fact, we went ahead and did things with only model predictions, no real ozone depletion.

I think it's a good thing that we did because, in fact, things turned out to be far worse than the models have predicted. That might be one lesson.

Another might be that our relatively dire predictions about what industry could accomplish have never turned out and, in fact, just as the science is always worse than we thought, the industry has always been able to do better than we thought. That might be some indication as well.

Perhaps third, on the ozone depletion issue, I think the United States really has played a leadership role and has shaped the entire international process.

Mr. FAY. Let me add there that I think it's critical—the Montreal Protocol is driven by a balancing of environmental effectiveness and economic sensibilities. It has this internal assessment process to ensure that it remains environmentally effective and that we're doing things that make sense from a scientific, technological, and economic standpoint. That is critical, I think, to giving not only industry the incentive to participate in it, but also in giving developing countries some indication that they are going to be taken care