(b) Conducted interference which is that electromagnetic disturbance which is passed or carried via the equipment or surrounding wiring into the electronics or electrical equipment.

RFI of two basic types emanates from one or more or all of the following electrical and/or electrical energy creating devices:

(a) Diathermy, X-ray and similar medical devices.

(b) Electrical pulsing or operating devices, such as induction heaters, brazers and/or spot welders.

(c) Electrical d.c. motors and generators.

(d) Ignition-type engines, including automotive, marine, industrial, and aircraft-both reciprocating and turbine types.

(e) Such items as teletypewriters, fluorescent lamps, and many types of electromechanical switches.

(f) Powerlines and neon signs.

It should be understood that some of the aforementioned equipment has, by prior regulation or authority, been controlled noisewise since the equipment inherently was so offensive that immediate steps had to be taken to design in effective suppression at the time of manufacture.

All of the above devices are basically transmitters of electrical energy and signals and, theoretically, are not unlike the communications transmitters and receivers which are, today, controlled through licensing and type acceptance by the FCC. Some manufacturers pay particular attention to the interference problem and control or attenuate the unwanted energy transmission by incorporating necessary suppression or shielding techniques at the time of design. Conversely, many manufacturers, today, for a variety of reasons-including lack of knowledge, cost, and/or competitive reasons-do not attempt regulation at the source through good design.

It should be pointed out that due to the tremendous growth of the electronics industry and with the wonderful advances made in providing mass communications mediums, both two-way and broadcast, that unless some legislative action is taken at this time, the full force and effectiveness of these remarkable advances will be crippled or destroyed.

We would like to cite several instances wherein it is believed that two-way radio communications may be as common in your lives as the ordinary broadcast radio in your vehicle. The Automobile Manufacturers Association, in conjunction with public and private highway safety groups, are actively promoting a program known as HELP-highway emergency locating plan-which will, if accepted, obviously provide new-found safety advantages for every motorist. Utilizing low-cost citizens band radio transceivers which are being licensed by the thousands each month by the FCC, the program on a trial basis has already been instituted in some areas. It is our opinion that on a mass production basis, the provision for two-way communications in every vehicle produced could become a reality with simple adaptations and/or additions to the standard automotive broadcast radios being utilized today. However, the very effectiveness of any automotive mobile communications receiver is seriously affected by interference from any one or all of the following sources:

(a) Powerlines.

(b) Industrial electrical equipment operating nearby.

(c) The vehicle's own, or adjoining vehicles', primary (ignition) or secondary (battery-charging) system.

As the vehicle moves away from its base station, the signal becomes weaker and is, therefore, overridden by unwanted stronger signals. Interference is actually an undesired signal which will limit the operating range and usefulness of vehicular communications equipment.

The same is true in the marine small-craft industry. Hulls up to 50 feet in length are usually powered by one or more gasoline engines, all of which produce both conducted and radiated interference which affects the wide varieties of electronic and electrical gear being placed aboard these craft. There can be no doubt that this gear must be capable of operating under "engine on" power conditions to be of most value to the ultimate user in the time of need. Recently, several lives were lost in waters off of southern California when a boat disappeared from sight and was never found again, although the bodies were. It has been reported that the engine had failed and was ultimately started after initial distress calls. We have been advised that the final message was that there was no further need to transmit messages to them since they could not shut down their engine for fear of not getting it started again, and additionally,

they could not receive messages because of the interference being radiated or conducted from the engine electrical system into the distressed boat's receiver. If this report is valid, or even if not precisely correct since logically it is unconfirmed word for word, the actuality of such an occurence is nearly an everyday situation.

While the proposed legislation excepts devices used by the U.S. Government or its agencies, we draw to your attention that all of the military services, obviously, have been required, for many years, to institute very stringent specifications relative to the effective suppression of all types of equipment being utilized by these services. While the science, art, and requirements for suppression were very minor in the days prior to World War II, it became obvious in the time of emergency that vital messages of security and combat must be maintained. Exhaustive research and development studies, over a period of years, have produced not only methods and means by which existing equipment in the field could be adequately and, in many cases, completely suppressed, but additionally, provided stringent and effective specifications which required designing in at the time of original concept the necessary techniques, components, and performance which would render these equipments clean interference wise.

Even though military equipment is suppressed quite adequately, there is a substantial amount of commercial equipment including privately owned vehicles which enter vital security areas continously. We also point out that interference from commercially offensive stationary equipment can be radiated over rather substantial distances and, therefore, security area isolation is not a satisfactory answer in itself.

The proposed legislation will bring to the attention of manufacturers of commercial equipment that should be interference free the realization that their new production costs would be very minor in comparison to retrofitting and cleaning up equipment after it is in the field. We feel that, in general, a broad education program in this area would be a major start with those manufacturers who are not familiar with the problems of interference and that this legislation would also be an initial step in this program.

We further comment on the proposed legislation by affirming the fact that our Nation is far behind most countries of the world as far as prescribing radiation limits for such equipment. Vehicles which are produced in the United States today for export to Western European nations are required to be suppressed to a greater degree than those produced for domestic consumption. It is also our understanding that some Western European nations have check stations, or are contemplating the establishment of same, similar to weigh stations on our highways wherein the vehicle will be measured and, subsequently, a citation issued if it is offensive noise wise. The same is true for marine engines produced for export and these must be completely shielded in order to meet the radiation tolerances established by some importing nations. Conversely, we are cognizant of instances wherein a vehicle of foreign manufacture imported into the Unted States is not equipped with the suppression system or components as supplied for European market use.

Recent publicity has appeared in trade journals and news media relative to an interference problem encountered with garage door openers. We quote from the May 21, 1965 issue of Industrial Communications Weekly News Service: "FEDERAL AVIATION AGENCY ISSUES SPECIAL PLEA FOR GARAGE-DOOR INTERFERENCE CURB

"The Federal Aviation Agency put out a special plea last week to homeowners with radio-controlled garage doors to take every possible step to curb interference from their devices which could be hazardous to air navigation.

"FAA, pointing out that it is working closely with the FCC and the military services in a program to eliminate this type of radio interference, noted that in the Los Angeles area alone recently, 58 garage openers were tracked down in 1 week and taken 'off-the-air' for interfering with air navigation signals."

The principal offenders, FAA said, are those which radiate in the 230-290 megacycle band. Signals from some receivers, the Agency noted,"are strong enough to be picked up by aircraft as far away as 16 miles. Thus, it would be possible for a pilot to inadvertently 'home-in' on a garage door signal and fly directly toward it with great accuracy-conceivably with disastrous results." It is our understanding that the air tragedy which took place several years ago over New York City wherein two planes collided in midair was quite likely

caused by radiated signals from arc welding equipment operating in or around the Brooklyn, N.Y., area. It is also a known fact that a rather substantial number of arc welders and similar equipment were shut down immediately following this tragedy until such time as the equipment was adequately suppressed and cleaned up from an interference standpoint.

In conclusion, we have reviewed very carefully Senate bill 1015 and explanatory statement accompanying same, as prepared by the Federal Communications Commission, and feel that the proposed amendment (proposed new section 302) is practical, reasonable, and that the statements made therein relative to this problem are both comprehensive and factual. The advantages both in ultimate cost savings plus the potential saving of human life will be the obvious benefits of this legislation.

Senator PASTORE. All right, sir.

STATEMENT OF ROBERT M. BOOTH, JR., GENERAL COUNSEL, THE AMERICAN RADIO RELAY LEAGUE, INC.

Mr. BOOTH. Mr. Chairman, my name is Robert M. Booth, Jr. I appear as general counsel of the American Radio Relay League, Inc., in support of S. 1015.

I have prepared a statement which I have supplied to the committee counsel and have no objection to that being incorporated in the record also.

Senator PASTORE. All right, sir.

Mr. BOOTH. But I would like to make one or two additional comments if I may.

Senator PASTORE. All right. Without objection, your statement will be placed in the record, and you may make whatever comments you like.

(The statement of Mr. Booth follows:)

STATEMENT OF ROBERT M. BOOTH, JR.

My name is Robert M. Booth, Jr., 1100 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, D.C. I am appearing as general counsel of the American Radio Relay League, Inc., in support of S. 1015.

The league is a nonprofit organization of United States and Canadian amateur radio operators with headquarters in Newington, Conn., and with more than 85,000 U.S. amateurs as voting members. The league was founded 51 years ago by the late Hiram Percy Maxim and last year, on its 50th anniversary, was honored by a special U.S. postage stamp commemorating amateur radio.

By way of background, I am not only an attorney specializing in communications law but also am a registered professional engineer in the field of electrical engineering. I became a licensed amateur operator some 37 years ago while attending high school in Cincinnati, Ohio. My interest in amateur or "ham" radio led me to study electrical engineering at Purdue University where I specialized in communications. After some years of work as an engineer at Station WLW, Cincinnati, which then was the most powerful broadcast station in the world with an experimental power of 500 kilowatts, I was called to active duty in January 1941 as an aviation electronics officer in the U.S. Navy. During World War II, while I was superintendent of the Aeronautical Radio & Electrical Laboratory of the Naval Air Experimental Station at Philadelphia, Pa., much of my work was devoted to the study and elimination of interference to radio and radar reception in aircraft. Following my release from active duty in October 1945 with the rank of commander in the Naval Reserve, I embarked upon the practice of communications law. I have been privileged to serve as president of the Federal Communications Bar Associatian and to have testified on pending legislation before this and other committees of Congress.

The amateur radio service operates in bands of frequencies throughout the radio spectrum. The lowest frequency, 1,800 kilocycles, is just above the standard (AM) broadcast band, and the highest frequencies are in the microwave

region. Unlike most stations which operate on but one or a limited number of discrete frequencies assigned by the Federal Communications Commission or, in the case of Government stations, by the Interdepartmental Radio Advisory Committee or the Department of Defense, the amateurs may select the frequency bands and operating frequencies within those bands which they find are necessary to conduct the desired communications.

The amateur service is particularly susceptible to interference from devices which cause harmful interference to radio reception. Unlike the Government and large commercial operators, the average amateur cannot choose a location far from a concentration of population where the interference or noise level is low. Even though he must receive extremely weak signals from low-power stations throughout the world, the amateur must operate as best he can from his present home or apartment in spite of the high interference levels which already exist. In some locations and areas, the noise from poorly designed, installed, or maintained powerlines, industrial equipment, applicances, television receivers, and numerous other devices has made amateur operation virtually impossible. Further increases in interference levels may drive many amateurs off the air.

Most of the power transmission lines in use in the United States today may be maintained and operated so as to cause little interference, even to receivers located close to the lines. Many of the power companies maintain crews to track down and correct interference from their lines and equipment. In this area, the Potomac Electric Power Co. and the Virginia Electric Power Co. are most cooperative. However, if new transmission lines with higher voltages are constructed, it may be impossible to eliminate interference to all reception, both radio and television, within thousands of feet of the lines. The League hopes the proposed legislation is sufficiently broad to permit the Federal Communications Commission, in cooperation with other appropriate agencies on both the Federal and State levels, to prevent establishment of extremely high voltage powerlines in built-up areas which will cause severe and prohibitive interference in their proximity.

In its explanation of the proposed legislation, the Commission noted that interference creating devices include electronic door openers, certain electronic toys, high-powered electric heaters, diathermy machines, welders, and radio and television receivers. However, the Commission failed to note that other electrical devices, such as motors, switches, and appliances, cause severe interference and add to the "spectrum pollution" if not properly designed and installed. The interference from these devices is both radiated and conducted through powerlines. Elimination of the interference usually may be accomplished by use of small capacitors costing only a few cents each. The League hopes that the proposed legislation is sufficiently broad to insure good design practices by the manufacturers of electrical equipment and appliances.

I understand that a very high percentage of interference complaints received by the Federal Communications Commission comes from television viewers. All too often, the "ham" in the block or across the street is accused. Usually, investigation discloses that the interference has resulted from other sources, such as appliances, or from improperly designed television receivers and that the interference may be eliminated by installing an inexpensive filter at the receiver's antenna terminals. The League hopes that the proposed legislation is sufficiently broad to require the proper design and construction of television and other receivers to make them less susceptible to undesired signals. There is a most pressing need for the legislation proposed by this bill. The American Radio Relay League urges favorable action on S. 1015. Thank you very much for permitting me to appear here today.

Mr. BOOTH. The devices which cause interference to radio reception which were the subject of Chairman Henry's testimony this morning appear to me to be those which radiate signals on particular frequencies, so that they cause interference only to receivers tuned to those particular frequencies.

The type of interference which I have discussed in my statement is more broad and general in nature. It is interference which occurs over a band of frequencies which can cause interference to a large number of receivers tuned to these particular frequencies.

Your illustration this morning of the vacuum cleaner is an illustration of the type of interference which we believe leads to this term of "spectrum pollution" used by the Commission in its supporting statement of S. 1015.

This type of interference generally can be eliminated by very simple techniques which are employed by some manufacturers and not others. For example, in the case of your vacuum cleaner, proper design of the motor and the use of a very small capacitor about the size of the eraser of a lead pencil would eliminate most of that interference.

We believe that the Commission should have authority to cause manufacturers to take these precautions which are nothing more than good engineering practice.

At the same time, we are concerned about proposals to erect highvoltage transmission lines in certain parts of the United States which, because of their particular design characteristics and the high voltage, will cause, we believe, interference or may cause interference to all radio reception within some thousands of feet of these lines.

We understand the need for high-voltage or high-efficiency transmission lines, but believe that they should be limited to the rural areas where the population is not very dense rather than to built-up areas. We have occasions of this occurring in some major metropolitan areas in the United States.

The third subject I touched upon in my statement was the question of interference to television receivers, for example. Much of the interference to television receivers is caused by poor design of the receivers themselves. They are susceptible to signals received which are transmitted on frequencies other than the desired frequency to which the receiver is tuned.

This again can be taken care of by a very simple application of good engineering principles and parts which cost only a very few cents in each case, and we believe that S. 1015 should be broad enough, if enacted, to enable the Commission to insure that these

Senator PASTORE. In other words, this legislation is not motivated by any capriciousness on the part of anyone. It is merely a question of live and let live? All these things can be adjusted in such a way that not only we can get good reception but at the same time we can carry out the function of this apparatus without injury to anyone with a little bit of cooperation and coordination?

Mr. BOOTH. Yes sir.

Senator PASTORE. And the compulsion of the law is because of marginal cases?

Mr. HENRY. That is our interpretation of it; yes sir.

Senator PASTORE. Heretofore, there has been fine cooperation with the industry and the FCC? Is that correct?

Mr. HENRY. We believe so.

Senator PASTORE. All right.

Is there anyone else in this room that wants to speak on any of the bills that have been presented today?

Is Mr. Thomas here?

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I am David Thomas of the Federal Aviation Agency.

Senator PASTORE. Would you come forward, sir?

Now, this is on what bill? S. 1015 as well?