sr-061273-7h.>1
is
r
CITY OF SANTA MONiCA
r ~~~ ~a 4'3-:~5 .~.=~~
°-. ~~~ ~ d
BATE: May 22 , 1973 v ~l ~~, ~ rj iq ~ ~
TO: Perry Scott, City Manager
- '~;y ""`(°"`'i ~~
REYURIVE[7 Y;7 'fit-:'-: ~.
G17Y CtEr~;S'5 DF}S,:s
FROPv1: C. V. Fitzgerald, Airport Dire ctor ~ Sec'y. to Airport Cammis£to~~:d^.
SUBJECT: Decision on L. A. County Report relati°ve to Santa Aianica ~,unicipai
Airport noise findings,
Reference is mach tc the attacY:ed Airport Commission's
recasrmendation dated April 12, 1°73, relative to the above r,:atter,
caherein tht Cam~nissian recommended Caurcil seek to have the naise
designation rc:cinded.
The above. item v7as deferred to Cho joint council/airport
commission meeting of Thursday, May 10th.
At Cho joist session, the item was briefly reviewed. Aaw-
ever, no formal decision or ac+,:io*.x vase taken,
In view cf the approaching dr:sdline (within six moths
of the County's notice) it is rec.o:remm~ded by this office that
action be taken by Council as aeon as ccrviently passible, in order
that the City is not in violation a£ the State's naise regulatory
statute.
l""
~~~~ - ~~
`" Airport ~ar~~cr~`i
i
Ssc`y, to Aispart Co,»rE~ssior.
CVF : g*.a °
F,.nC10IIna`e
C13Y OF SANTA MONICA
~~~'~Ps~~A~~y~~T ~~~~r~0
DATE
April 12,.1973
T0: The Honorable City Council (Through City Manager)
FROM: C. V. Fitzgerald, Airport Director ~ Sec'y. to Airport Commission
SUBJECT: L. A. County Reporr relatide to Santa Monica Municipal Airport
Noise Findings.
The Airport Commission, at its regular meeting j:ednesday,
April 11, 1973, formally zeviecaed the Santa tdonica cunicipal Airport. Noise
Finding Report which was prepared by the Northrop Corporation for the
County, in accordance with State haw Title 4, Chapter 4, sub-Chapter 5,
Hoisc Standards, wherein it was speci~icaliy :^_mphasized by said report that,
paradoxically, Sarta P•lonica Airpor*_ did not have a noise problem under
State noise standards, in that the CNEL of 70 was well within tha e:stablish-
ed airport boundaries itself. The report further recormnended that, until
an average of six jet operations per day at thy airport were reached, the
airport would be eligible for exemption £rom etatahiishing a noise monitoring
system, and rurthcr recommended the City mould request a waiver of same in
s.. a.tsiv n~. ti. OGV. JvGV situ LGt;. 7V.]1 Oi Che JL$t'.° @Catn to g0verning r.OlYse
standards.
Following discussion, Mrs. Minter moved to recommend to City
Council that, in view of the Legal ramifications involved, the City should
first try to have the official noise designation (as indicated by th?
Los Angeles County Engineer's letter of i`igrch '29, 1973, recindnd, in that
their own consultant, tha Northrop Corporation, had, indeed, specified in
their report that the airport was within State noise standards.
If City fails to get the designation recinded, then the com-
mittee recommends the City apply for a waiver, in accordance with the
rerommendations in the Northrop report.
The motion was seconded by ASr. Robbins and carried
unanimously.
C/~ A~irport,Uirector
Secretary =Co~Airnort Commission
CVF:gw v
/"
I _
NARVH' T. EiRANDT ~ ROBERT K. WILLIAMS ''.~
COUNTY ENGMEER CO UI\TTY OF LOS ANGELES GHIER DERDTY ~.
DEPARTMENT OF COUNT"X ENGINEER JAMES r. RosrRON
108 WEST SECOND STREET' ASST. CHIEF DEpuTY
LO$ ANGELES. CALIFORNIA 9tlO12 ROBERT J. REICH '
' ~ ASST. CHIEF DEPUTY '
629-4747 ~ IRA H. ALEXANDER
qp) ). ALST. CNIER DEPUTY
March 27, ~ 973 RICHARD T. REID
ADNINIBTRATIYE DEPUTY
l
Mr. Clyde Fitzgerald, Manager
..Santa Monica Municipal Airport
Santa Monica, California
Dear Mr. Fitzgerald:
~_ - SANTA MONICA MUNICIPAL
NOISE FINDING
The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, at its meeting of March 6, ]973,
received the "Los Angeles County Airpot~ Noise Study" prepared by its consultants.
The study disclosed that the Santa Monica Municipal Airport has a noise problem
as defined in Section 5050 of Title 4 Business Regulations, Chapter 9 Department
of Aeranautics. The Board thus finds that the Santa Monies Municipal Airport has
a noise problem and must be monitared as required in the above regulations. You
..
vac nlclciulc inai~wicuiu imfw~ anu uFeruie ^n wlNuri nyi~c uluniiuring ~yaimn
within six months as required by the State Airport Noise Regulations.
' We are enclosing for your information and aid one copy of the approved report
which includes details of the findings and o copy of the California Airport Noise
Regulations,
Please advise us at the earliest time of your plan of compliance.
Very truly yours,
Harvey T. Brandt
HTB:amd 3 COUNTY ENGINEER and
Enclosures 2 DIRECTOR OF AVIATION
ECTION 1 ~ '
A MONICA MI7NICIPAL AIRPOB'L'
ANALYSIS OF SANT
_ DE,,CgIPTION eld is located in Santa Monica,
3.5'1 GFI3E~' ort (Clover Fi
. Saner Monica icipal Aire crated by the City o£
The airport is a general aviation Field oP
artures. There is a
- California. p average daily dep
nica• In 1972 there are 39 to Septem-
` Santa Mo a normally to the west. UP
single east-west r~mway• Operations ~
et departures a day•
p ben 1972 there were •75 average daily 3
uses are residential to the west, east and south. On the
Siu•rounding land ~ ~
north side are industrial uses.
~~
._
ti.
` CONTOURS , _ ~ ..c.... ---_ ..
_~~_.._ -
15 2 NOISE ,,,etc - s
• .,,~ . -
e • ::~ ~~~` +v t the back o£
_ - ~~"" `~ '~ "~ V"J data is attached a
1980 70 ~~' noise contour Operational
2 noise impact area is 2ero•
_ section. The 197
a 1972• `T`here were a total o£ 381
_ 15.3
de on October 26, the points.
Measurements were ma p~,te 15_1 shows
- measurements made at 10 separate locations.
' Table 15°1 lists the CNEL values.
MCdt7NITY FACTORS roue
' 15•x+ ~ o£ concerted, individual- and g
ci al has a history effort
Santa Monica Muni P ears. As early as 1962 a serious
action dating back: more than ten Y
was made to close down the airport•
15-1
In November 1966, the City of Santa Monica, in response to public
pressure, produced a study of the airport primarily responsive to complaints
and allegations that noise was a problem, most notably executive jet noise..
About the same time a legal action was brougj~t against the City of Santa
Monica, (IRA Nestle et a1, versus the City of Santa Monica} in which 700
plaintiffs sought to recover both groperty and personal injury damages caused
by t??e defendant's operation of the airport. The plaintiff asserted Pour
theories of recovery: {I} inverse condemnation, (II) nuisance, (III) negli-
gence, and (1V) zoning violations.
The trial court found for the defendant on Count I. The court dismissed
Counts III and IV prior to trial on failure to state cause. It also subse-
quently dismissed Count II on the same basis.. The trial court action was
appealed to the California Supreme 'Court
On appeal, on May 1972, the Supreme Court offered the decision for the de-
fendant in Count I and reversed the trial court on Counts II, III and IV.
The plaintiffs can now amend their original brief and a new trial on Counts
II, III and N can be held.
At the time the lawsuit was brought, the estimated jet departures were three
a day. At present there are several active groups, some of which are involved
in the legal action. These are the Sunset Park Property owners, the 4?est-
crest Community Association, and the West National Assoiiation.
15.5 SPECIAL FACTORS
The average daily jet departures were 2.60 in_1967, .R3 in 1971, and .75 in
1972 (through September 1972). There were a sj.milar set of arrivals.
15_2
I .. ~ -
~ '.
v . -
i ~ _ - ~ _
,,
_ 15.6 ANALYSls
The airport presents s very clear paradox. At present the 70 GTIEL contour
impact area is zero. Yet there exists a very high level of community action
and extended legal action not yet resolved.
w'_ • `~'ti+ re s no technical basis for declarin~~,~o lem to Exist according to
the. strict criteria being applied in this investigation. Further by defi-
m
nation of the Standard, the noisiest recurrent aircraft would not be the
executive het since it has an average of less than two operations per day on
average over a year`s period as verified by airport records. This would mean. '
--j a tzao engine propeller aircrafh is the noisiest, fixed wing aircraft now
j currently operating on a recurrent basis.
.,a
-t The high level of nnmminj tv art.i nn. is elno nrimor9 ~.. }n +»~ n1n l..r ^~i ^^°a
~ residential land uses .and the short runway. This the residents at either end
of the runway live in the 65-'09 CT1ET, area. It has been demonstrated on a
number of occasions, most notably at Orange County Airport, Santa Ana, Califor-
nia, that under the stimulus of legal action there can be a lowering of the
-7 noise level at which concerted group action can be expected to appear. In
i
the development of the State Noise Standard, the 70 CPTFd, criteria was ad meted
for the period 1971 to 1985 for existing airports based on the concept of
... what was both economically and technologically feasible at existing airports. ',
,~ It was admitted that 65 G'~IEL was a better criteria on purely a community
basis.
__ But the problem at Santa Monica is not fully explained by this either. Since
the CNEI~ used in this analysis is based on an average. set of operations, ove:•
i5..3
•e year, (as required by the Standard) there is a potential tendency to mask
out certain factors in the acoustical impact. On the one hand the average f
SINFS, used is always higher than the median value. For example the-SFnrFrr. j.//
$$~ db at the point nearest the west end of the a'r~,, AO_.±_ hnnnAa~ (bewe~z .
r
and Sunsetl. The median value (50~)SINII,m = 85.6 db. The most frequently
s recurring value was SENII, - 85 db. But what is of interest in this case is
°~ that 16~ of all events exceeded S~''iEL. Another consideration is that the
'" CNII, value is determined taking into account the percentage reverse patterns.
4 This consideration (about 20~ at Santa Monica) tends to cause the tip of the
. contour to move toward the airport on average, but it means thst 80~ of the
.,
® "time the contour is slightly farther out on the departure side than the aver-
, age. Conversely 80~ of the time the tip is closer on the landing side.
4nnth er fa.ctnr,-enntrbutine to the community response is the elevation differ-
-- epees. The airport sits above the communities on both approach and landing.
The runway is at 175' elevation while the approach area and the departure
area adjacent are lower. The result is that aqy aircraft will be masked
in part.by the terrain while on the runway. For executive jets this fact
o combined with the relatively low magnitude eF forward propagated engine sound,
-~ produces a significant step increase on departure of sound well above the ,
"' ambient level.. When the source to ambient differential is quick and large,
it generally produces a startled reaction in people. Thus, at Santa Monica,
there is a strong "startle factor" for very noisy aircraft.
~. r
While no one consideration seems sufficient to warrant the existin~~community
y reaction, the combination suggests. that there are factors which amplii~ the
normally expected community reaction in this case.
~.
..~
# j .~
Since the importance of economic and technological factors were weighed in
.~
the selection of the 70 CNRS, criteria in the Standard, then similar considera-
_.,, = tion must. also be given weight in this analysis. The implications of declaring
J the airport a noise problem are many. If a problem is declared to exist,
_.., the Standard mandates a monitoring program. However, the impact area,~s
.. presently zero and in fact the 70 GNEL contours fall exq,~cwlusivey: on air~o~r,~t
property. Practically, it is not real ossible to monitor the noise
.,, contour in the maer_~r~s~cribed by thereg
ulat
i
on.
_ ~
t
_ / _
t.//
Section 5024~in fact, allows a speci°ic exemption that wouldapex~at,,,~the
-_ rorop^tetor exemption from any ClVII, monitoring. S'nz ce~the zeryo-,~~paEt~re~
lies in an area the airport land~wh~ich trill remain compatible the air rt
would be exempted from single event monitoris?,by Bect„~~n 501,
... `
,
___w, ~_ air ~r~ ,.~ uc~xa.ceCl a. ~robiem zn tines cacti, r.nA „r~,,,.,o+~,...,,.,,i,: a
_.x _,...__ ... n,.s..~,-
be exempted from monitoring. The only obligation is that the airport submit
® a monitoring plan for approval by the State. Without measurement, there is
a question as to what the State could require the airport to implement. It
® appears possible that the State could request some alternative from such a ~!
submittal of operational data. At this airport, if the average daily opera-
.a,..~,....-..
tions returned to 6, it is likely the impact area would be non-zero. Hence,
® there would be a basis for invoking the provisions of the Standard regarding
measurement. The State could then ask for just a regular declaration of
-.
operations until and if the operations reached 6 per day. At that time, the , /
Y
` proprietor would then be requested to institute measurement monitoring or
show cause for a variance.
15-5
~~,.._ xw,_ ,
Such a process insures at least a scheduled progress report and appears
worthwhile. '
The writers of the State Noise Standard tended not to address the case where
there were .almost no technical reasons (in the context of the Standard) for
declaring a problem to exist, but where the localized acoustic condition and
community situation pointed to an abnormal amount of community factors. The
supporting docinnentation on the Standard is silent to the issue except generally
to say it could happen. As pointed out, the difference between a 65 and 70
~,~ criteria was really a concession to potential constraints on operating
airports. ~
It is the conclusion of the consultant that there does exist sufficient reason
~^ (JiF ~ I v L, Te I v -
and tight interface between the airport runway and residential living areas. /-
However, such a declaration should be accompanied by a stipulation tha.+ a go/
waiver of monitoring should be anted b the State to the reguiremen fq~
CNEL and SEidII, measurem-e._nt, is logical basis for a asu~„~~,t.~,i~e ±.p~m~~,~rP~,an+-
would be a report on the number~,~„fgt ope~ats. When such operations
exceeded a predetermined number, then it"would be presumed the 70 CNEL impact
area was no longer zero and that the airport would have to revert to the %
written provisions of the Standard. A look at the 1975 and 1980 contours {//
suggests that this number is six executive jet operations a day.
15.7 RECOMC~TDATIOTdS
It is recommended that Santa Monica'Municipal Airport be declared to have a ,/
NOISE PROB:,~+1. It is flu~ther recommended that the Board stinulate that their ~"
i5-6
investigation supports a request to the State by t'~e nrourtPto
from both the single event and CNII, measurement .along the lines suggested in
.~...,..
the analysis.
15.8 REF'ERIIJCES
A. Operation Data supplied by the airport manager per the request of
Northrop.
B. Santa Monica. City 1'~.anager, "City of Santa Monica, Santa Monica Munici-
pal Airport" Report, November 1966.
C. Legal Brief, IRA Nestle et al versus City of Santa Monica, Supreme
Court of California on appeal of Trial Court verdict in same case,.
j
1~J2.
D. Correspondence, Airport Director to Consultant, Subject -- Data on
het operations 1967,-1971 and 1972..
15-7
~
- _.
\, .
..-
~r
~ ~ ~ \
~. ~ ~~~
,~_
~ ~.~, f r
' ~ ~ ~~ ~~~
\ ;.; ~ ,
i
~~~ ~ /
^1~~/~l
~~~:-~~
:. :~
r
;., ,
r \
.~/ ~ l/'~' > ~ \
~ ~ ~~~
n ,.
_.
~. ` ,
5 ~ -
;~
w j'i
v /~;',~'•f/ ;
,C f
! ~ f/~ Y/
t y
!'5
J~ - f /p
/1 ~{`{}
'9,
~~~~r-
.~
\UQ a~.~~~pa~~~
a;' ~ ~<~.,' ,~
\~`%< ~_ c
i,, ~~: ,o
Y ~P \4
C
n~ p d0 ~~~
~, S, ~ \5
,y
.\ \L
~~ ~. ~ ~4
~~~ ~ ~~.
' ~T ~.
G~q.` <~ ~
N~, . n ~~,~ c:
?`~ \\-~\
ti'
,J;P
~~..
4 ~,
~c~
.,,
cam. x~ `~ \b\ T ~' i ,,/ ~~, ~,;,~/` \ \/
'~,~.>.n ~~ ~~c~Er .' a ~. ~,_~~ ~
'r
7 r~~ A ~ ~~ xS,l v y~ / /~
j ~.% r' ~~~ ,~~ ~~ -'~j v F~ ~~. PLATE 15-T
~ ~ ~,~. `"~~~ \`;: ~ ~. C, - SANTA MONKA MUNM
~4~'~~'7'~ ~ ~., ''
~,,~ ~ ~ T972 70 CNEL NOISE CC
~`\~s°~ ti~<~,> ~ ~ ,' ,,, - --PROPERTY UNE
`~~ct\ > v •~ ~
> , tip' ., , , ~ M~sU~€~~r~r Sao
( J •~' ,
-' ~ ~ ~ L._1~...L.._L
\ \.~' Sri ~~E
~ ~ ~,. ~
f .r
\ 1 ~
+9.~/- .r/l Ian
:1
;.~.
.'
l
`~
q a
~- REVISIO\' RECORD FOR REGISTER 70, N0.48
(November,28, 1970)
TITLE 4. BUSINESS REGULATIONS
CHAPTER 9. DEYARTJIEFT OF' AP,RO VAIITICS ~ - -
This part of Register 70, No. 48, contains all the addrttons, ameud~
meats; and repeals affcetin~ the shove-entitled portion of the. ('aliPur
nia Administra*.ive Code which teem' filed with the Secretary of ;;tatt
from l~fovemher 21, 1970, to and including Novcalbcr ?8, 1970. Tht
latest prior Re~•isfer eonhtini0;; reguhttious ut' the uhut•e at,+enev war
Register 70, Ao. 43 (10-2~1-70).
~; It is important that the holders of the above-entitled portion of the
code check the section numbers listed beinw as well as the page numbort
when inserting this material in the Code and removing the superseded
material. In ease of doubt rely upon the section numbers rather than
the page numbers einee the section numbers must run consecutively
even though there may be an error in the paging.,
SEGTlON CH ANGa F_R
'Phe sections listed below are amended :IS indicated.
Section Sectimr
~.% - 4050 through }O:n4 Rrpctlyd and Added 5W5 through 50}S Added
4120 Certifiuate of ('nmplin are - 5030 Added
" - 4125 Certificate of Compliance 30:i.'r .4ddrd
50(X1 through ~(>VU :ltldrd fi0(i0 tlvaugh :iOGd Added
5010 through :i01k Arldrd 5065 Added
5020 through 50°a Added 5Ui0 Added
b0„0 throufih 6032 Added 5070 Added
5035 Added 50s(I Added - -
5010 Added 5080.1 through 5084:1 Added
_ Paa~ cwANCEs
REPdOYE IN8EliT -
Otd Pegve Attach®d Papee
364.7-364.4
~r~2b• ~><-418
~~
• %t Is Suggested That Superseded material Be Retained. Savt• it
atul plai•e.it in a scp:u ate file u0der the ori~iaal heading (either tIre
ttppropriate'1'ith' m• mister hexdiug). It will then ahva}~~ be possible
to find the prior ivordiug of any scetimf by using the histot•y note's
provided.
Ko'ra.: 't'his racisiun sheet is not n part of ^,r rude. Tt is rhielly Gn~ (ilia;;
. purpasrs. IC prrsercrd n•ifh Iho nuanced page+. it will Alford a re:;d}' rrfirrenre L, the
Seetimib naboL•d be :~genry netiuii. - .
I[ is suggested that the lutrsl Rocisian [teeurd hr n•hti:,rd for enucruirnrv
in Yerif}'iug ~e~elhrr ur nut the prior Itrgiater has born n•crised.
(Precedes Pa g'+aCt, Title 4)
• p". ..
v
t
`yi
I
y
-___
,W~ .~ - . --___ - --- - _~_.~ ____...
. '~
1
xTLE 4 Deraa•rntr:~•r or• A>ao~nr•rtc5 397
pe9ister 70, No. 48-1t•28.70)
(b) For all othet• locations mrd for all hu•ations at other airports,
an intermittent utuuituring schedule is :dhmrd. The intermittent nuuti- .
taring schedule shall be designed so as to obtain the resulting annual
C\'EL as computed from measurements at rarh location tchirh t~'ill
eorrespoud to the value tchieh tconld be measured be a monitor op- i
crated continuously throu2l+out the tear at that location. tt'ithin au t
aecurac}' of + 1 5 dB. •
`i~
i
{- rt [~>
6
`L~s
X
~,
Thus, it is rev{aired that fhr intermittent mnnihu•ing sehrduh•
be designed so as to obtain a rralistir statistical saniplr of fhr noisy
at each loc:atimr. As a mininnuu, this rryttrrs that nu•;isurrnumts he
taken eontinuonsty for 24--hoar periods during i•nur 7-d:p• sawph•s
throughout the }'ray, choern sm•h that fur rash s:unple, ear6 day of
fhr ~crek is repmsrntrd, the four seasons of fhr ye:n• :u~r represented,
and the results acrouut fur the el7rct u1• annual proportiim of ruutrnt.
ufiliratiun. At most airports. 16esr iuh•rmittrnf uieasurraunrts c•an hr
aecumnlitihrd by a singly portable nrouihiring inst rttuuvrl.
5023. Initial Establishment of the Noise Impact Boundary. 'I'hr.
method Yo be uacd fur initial rstnblishnirut of the noisy impart humid-
arc of airports required to nuxtitr:r trill v3rv tleprndin~ upon sjmrifir
situations. Thy follutsin~ guitlrliucs represent ouc possibly ou•thodr
(a) Calculate fire appt•u~inuttr lur;iiiuu of the noise impact huuud-
ary using applicahlc_ac•oustic estiuuriion h•chniyttes.
{b) Select rouceuieut nteagurenrrrtt locations un this estimated -
boundxry accm•ding to Section 5031.
lines perpendiutlar to tht etitinnrtc d noisy ~ iuutart bound i r c. P'or rs-
ample, ttt•o to three measurcntrnts Derr ague-to-seven d;rv {reriud along
a line perpendicular to the estimated noisy impart buundat;y should
provide snfficirnt data to define. xithiu the rryuirrd arrurary, the
nominal positimr of the uuiso impart boundat;a. -
Due consideration shuuhl bo given to the ntturbrr and time period
of ttirrraft. operations, mis of xirva•aty classes, average ruun-ay ntiliza-
~ tion :md other nu;tsnrabh• factors trhirh tcould caase a diff'erruer be-
hceru the trial uu•usurrments of t`NE[. and the etipcrh°d :umual
average.
(d) Lritiafe validntiou rtteasurenumts of fhr noise inytaet boundary
folloe'ing selection of prrtmnn•nt tn• intermittent uumihn~ing locations
to comply tciti the validation aecuraec criterion sperificd in Section
50.30. Fur pernnuu•nt nicasuremm~t locations at trhieh fhr measured
('NI;L lies outside this aceuru•y criterion. suitable auxiliar}• mrasm•r-
uu•nts or anah'tical nu•thods uui}• br used to estrapolari° fhr nu•asured
CNEL to drh•rmim• fhr ratite mt fhr noise impact boundary. Such
estrx m atiou procedures tn•e stthjrei to approval by ihr drpartnrent.
5024 Deviations from Specified Measurement Locations. Hce-
ogu the unique geographic and Iaud~ use features surrouudiu;c
specific airport s, the drpa rtux•nt trill ru nsider nn•asurrmrnf pl:ws
hrihn•ed to fit our airport for tvhir6 Ihr sprrifird (•N F,L uunriturim~
luc•atiou, are impruct lea 1. h'ur esamplp, monitors should nut be lurntrd
ou bodies of tr:dcr or at point, retiree other noise suurres Wight in-
~?
- ~
i
4. ..
__
r '
1 ,
i
{r
..~..a..~~,~,a,._,.,_ ..
f
~• .
..
..~.-_..___ _.. ~
--•-~.~•..
__ _
-----
~- -~-~____r.
!
900 ~ '
j
~,t. I3tatxe>s REGCI..ITIO~g i
'
~
dLl ~ (Register )0, No. 48--ITS,
'
~~ terfere with aircraft C\
~
E1, measnrements• nor are mcasurrmettt
yuired in region. where laud us
~
i
.
r
e w
ll c6•ar1} remain e•umpatible.
5025. Alternati
'
ve Ix
feasurement Systems. '19u• aeyui,ilion „j
measurement s}atetrls th~rt are uuln' c~hmtiic<' ut s
refined thatt th
i
..
c
entitieally marls
ose spee•ified herein is encouraged. partieularl}' at air
ports frith a major noise probl
.
em, where emnplimACe with the intent.
of Section 50i3(a)(I) requires more comprehensit'e noi
partieularl)' to m
i
_
on
se monitoring,
tor uuise a4<Itenxent procedures. Airports con-
templating the arqui.~tivn of such monitorin
~ the de
t
.
par
g- spsteuls may a
ment fm• exemptions from specific numitoritre re
f PPIy to
set forth iu this subcha N
uir
q
er o
ements
I thtse regulations,
Article 4, i1fe,~suremelAt of Si
ngk• Et~cnt noise Exposm•c Level
{ b030. Measurement Requirem
1
ents. Dleasun•monts of the single ~ ~
orenf uoi~e exposure Icrel (SI:\P.1
airports with a
i
l
no
1
sy prublrm as drtrru i
~ 50$1). '1'hcsc' rnexunrnn'nl
ned in ,n~c•urd:~mce~ccith•Sr
~ i
f,
ctinn
s are iuh•uded to monitor the uuise oi' aircraft.
~ to imm'e eumpliam'r' with the uuise limit
prn
i
pr
s reeouPuandc'd b,Y the uirpor•t.
cirAr and appruer°d by the dcparhnl'nt in acrord
Artirl • 5.
i
~ •
ancl' with
5031. B'feasurement Locations
h
t
.
t
tileasurnmenis snap he merle on
e eeu crlinc nl' the nominal laklufl• and l
c•;In•ier
di
an
ng flin~ht irarkn for air
jet aircraft xnd private jet aircraft at 161• lae.,liurrm
itt 1•'igure 2. 'Phe nomi
l
-
'
na
sproified
flight track is the line pro,jer•terl on the 1~;.
- ground under the uumin:a night path of fhr air
te1~11imt be re
f
i
l
~~ ~
.
cra
ou
t. l
rrd fn
;.
frasureurr+~r..
- air,•r..et------~...a.... 1 1 Indin~ iu r ~L,,.. n• q:.~., s
_. _
~ -_ •.
.
Biel Al l U t4'
-.; ;;h~c^ ao not uurflribuh to ttu~ uo151 ~ tt°a~a.~
_ _0 1 le aurputt nup.,ciilrr~a
~
_
5032. Frequency of N(easurement
tion
At
a~
.
each mil•rophone loc
tiulgle event ^OiSe exposure Irvl=1 nn'asuremer,is shall b
emlLnuousl}' for a mini s
e made
mum of 4A necks
4 weeks arc intended tv allow fur inter
r r Year. The remaining
i
i
m
egn
ttent
Periods of down-time fbr
pulcnt nurinten:lnt'e and calibration
.
~,