1. Introduction History of FAR Part Noise Compatibility Program Planning Process Noise Exposure Maps.

Transcription

1 History of FAR Part 150 The Part 150 Noise Compatibility Program originated from the Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement Act of This Act provides the regulatory guidance used to develop Noise Exposure Maps (NEM) and a Noise Compatibility Program (NCP) for noise disclosure and mitigation around the nation s airports. FAR Part 150 guidelines prescribe the methodologies to assess noise exposure in the vicinity of airports that provides a highly reliable relationship between projected noise exposure and surveyed reaction of people to noise, as indicated in 14 CFR Part 150, and determines individual noise exposure as a result of those aircraft operations. Most importantly, Part 150 guidelines outline the types of land uses that are typically considered compatible or incompatible with specific levels of aircraft noise. Through fiscal year 2009, 255 airports have received Airport Improvement Program (AIP) grants relating to the preparation of NEMs and NCPs. To date, 245 airports have completed and submitted an NCP, and 108 of those airports have revised or amended their program. The Federal government has spent over $96 million in AIP funds to aid airports in the preparation of Part 150 studies, and over $5.3 billion in AIP funds to assist airports in implementing measures identified in their NCPs. When combined with Passenger Facility Charges (PFC), an additional $12.2 million has been spent on the preparation of Part 150 studies and nearly $3.3 billion has been spent on program implementation. This is the first update to Philadelphia International Airport s (PHL) initial Part 150 Study 2, completed in 2002, which is further discussed in forthcoming sections Noise Compatibility Program Planning Process A Part 150 study consists of two elements: Noise Exposure Maps and a Noise Compatibility Program. The Part 150 planning process is designed to facilitate airport user and community input throughout the study. As a voluntary study undertaken by an airport sponsor, the general goals of a Part 150 study include increasing the public s awareness of airport operations, as well as taking steps to reduce the impact of aircraft overflights on noise-sensitive areas around an airport. Many airports often update their Part 150 studies five years following their most recent submission. However, an airport sponsor may elect to start a Part 150 study at any point in time, although most usually update the study when conditions at an airport change or are expected to alter noise exposure around the airport. PHL completed its first Part 150 Study in 2002 and has elected to update the study due to both airspace changes and facility modifications Noise Exposure Maps The Part 150 process typically begins with an introductory meeting concurrent with a data collection effort. The NEM representing existing conditions over a 12-month period is developed and overlaid on a land-use base map that identifies noise-sensitive development (such as residences, places of worship, libraries, and schools), major roadways, airport facilities, and other readily identifiable geographic references. The noise exposure contours are developed using the FAA s Integrated Noise Model (INM), which utilizes input data including flight operations, runway orientation, aircraft types, flight trajectories, 1 Codified in the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) as Title 49, Subtitle VII, Part B, Chapter 475, Subchapter 1 2 Philadelphia International Airport FAR Part 150 Noise Compatibility Study, Final, June 2002.

2 1-2 and temporal distribution of operations to create an average annual day of noise exposure, expressed using the Day-Night Level (DNL) metric. A forecast condition is typically modeled as a five-year projection, and takes into account anticipated changes at an airport such as the number of operations, the composition of the fleet mix, and any planned facility development that has been evaluated under separate study. At PHL, there are two such studies. One study, the Capacity Enhancement Program (CEP) is proposing physical airport infrastructure improvements to enhance airfield capacity and reduce delay. The other, the FAA s NY/NJ/PHL Metropolitan Airspace Redesign Project is restructuring the airspace around PHL to enhance airspace capacity and efficiency. No new headings or procedures from the NY/NJ/PHL Metropolitan Airspace Redesign Project have been implemented since The proposed 230 jet departure heading from Runways 27L and 27R and the 112 and 127 headings for jet departures from Runways 9L and 9R are anticipated to be introduced in the spring or summer of 2012 and are included in the data that created the 2013 NEM. The CEP is planned to provide additional long-term capacity at PHL, however there are no significant construction activities that would change runway or taxiway utilization or alter aircraft operations within or during the next five years. Elements of the CEP therefore were not modeled as part of the Future NEM. As noted in Program Measure PM-6, a future update of the NCP and NEMs would need to be done to evaluate noise exposure resulting from the CEP. The FAA determined that the PHL NEMs were developed in accordance with procedures contained in FAR Part 150 and that the maps were acceptable (see Appendix C for the June 1, 2010 acceptance letter). The official NEMs are included in this document in Appendix C and the supporting NEM documentation is incorporated by reference. Complete NEM documentation may be found at the Airport Noise and Community Services Office and on the project website at Figure 1-1 depicts the official 2013 NEM. The 2008 Existing Condition NEM, as approved in June 2010, is still representative of conditions at PHL, due to the following: 1. In 2010, the number of aircraft, type of operation and fleet mix utilizing Runway 17/35 is similar to what occurred in A substantial increase in the amount of narrowbody and regional jet aircraft departing Runway 35 was the primary driver of the change in the 65 db DNL contour between the 2008 and 2013 NEMs. Although an increase in narrowbody and regional jet flights (particularly arrivals to Runway 35) has been observed, the actual number of flights does not approach the levels to change the contour substantially for the baseline year. Table 1-1 below shows the approximate number of average daily operations for Runway 17/35, for both 2008 and The number of daily flights between 2008 and 2010 is comparable. 2. The FAA s Opsnet database showed approximately 492,000 annual operations in 2008 and approximately 461,000 in There have been no changes in land use development patterns or zoning around the airport. 4. No new headings or procedures from the NY/NJ/PHL Metropolitan Airspace Redesign Project have been implemented since The proposed 230 jet departure heading from Runways 27L and 27R and the 112 and 127 headings for jet departures from Runways 9L and 9R are anticipated to be introduced in the spring or summer of These new headings are included in the data that created the 2013 NEM. The Future NEM represents the anticipated operational conditions at PHL, with an extended Runway 17/35, full use of airspace redesign headings including the addition of the 230 heading from Runways 27L and 27R and the 112 and 127 headings from Runways 9L and 9R, and implementation of this NCP. Therefore, this NCP is representative of future conditions expected five years from the submittal date.

3 1-3 TABLE 1-1 Average Daily Operations All Aircraft Runway Arrivals Departures Total Narrowbody Only* Arrivals Departures Total Regional Jets Only** Arrivals Departures Total (Source: Airscene NOMS) * Boeing, McDonnell-Douglas and Airbus aircraft ** Canadair and Embraer Aircraft Noise Compatibility Program The projected noise exposure contour, as shown in Figure 1-1, serves as the baseline for the development of the NCP, which consists of noise abatement, land use management, and program management alternatives. The responsibility for reducing the impact of noise exposure from operations at airports is a shared one, and includes the Federal government, the airport operator, airlines and tenants, and local jurisdictions. Noise abatement alternatives address aircraft noise at its source, and include an evaluation of flight path locations, the frequency of aircraft overflights, flight management alternatives, flight restrictions, ground activity restrictions, and facility design and construction. Land use management alternatives can be considered either remedial or preventive. Remedial land use management alternatives address noise mitigation in areas exposed to noise levels of DNL 65 db or greater and could include sound insulation or voluntary acquisition and relocation. Preventive land use management alternatives seek to prevent future noise-sensitive development in areas exposed to high levels of noise, and include changes to zoning or subdivision regulations, comprehensive planning, and acquisition of undeveloped land. Often land use management alternatives include methods for which the airport itself may have control and strategies that could only be effective if implemented by local jurisdictions or other stakeholders. Program management alternatives are those that relate to the airport s management of noise issues, including the development and staffing of a noise abatement office, flight track monitoring equipment, and fly quiet or community awareness programs. The basic measures of potential noise impact in the FAR Part 150 study are numbers of persons exposed to aircraft noise in excess of DNL 65 db, and numbers of noise-sensitive land uses (i.e., residences, schools or churches) in areas with aircraft noise exposure in excess of DNL 65 db. The development of NEMs for the existing and future condition at PHL indicated that noise-sensitive land uses were present in the 2013 NEM, specifically as shown in Figure 1-2 in the City of Philadelphia neighborhood of Eastwick.

4 1-4

5 1-5

6 1-6 This update to the Airport s NCP is occurring at a time when portions of the New York/New Jersey/Philadelphia Airspace Redesign Project (ARD) have been implemented, and the extension of Runway 17/35 has been completed. As such, this evaluation will include alternatives from a number of sources in a number of categories. Sources of potential alternatives that were considered include those suggested by PHL staff, feedback from multiple public workshops, the range of alternatives and measures considered in the Airport s initial Part 150 study, mitigation components of past and ongoing airport studies (Airspace Redesign, Runway 17/35 EIS, Capacity Enhancement Project (CEP), EIS, etc), suggestions by the Study Advisory Committee (SAC), and the range of alternatives that are evaluated as required by FAA. Although the Eastwick neighborhood in the City of Philadelphia is the only area within the DNL 65 db noise exposure contour that contains noise-sensitive land uses, PHL desires to evaluate a full range of alternatives that may offer benefits both within and beyond the DNL 65 db noise contour. The intended outcome of the PHL NCP process is to develop: A list of measures that are feasible, practical, and able to be implemented at PHL, either by the Airport, tenants, or local jurisdictions, and will be approved by FAA within the parameters of FAR Part 150; A set of strategies that, while outside the scope of a Part 150, may be practical and feasible for implementation at PHL (includes measures aimed to reduce noise beyond the DNL 65 db noise contour); and An NCP and noise management plan that the public understands, that is transparent, and that is able to be continuously updated. Based on the intended outcome of the NCP process at PHL, the overall goals of the NCP process are to: Reduce or mitigate significant noise impacts within the DNL 65 db of the 2013 Noise Exposure Map; Reduce the possibility of future incompatible land uses within the DNL 65 db noise contour; Establish Program Management Measures to support PHL s ongoing Noise Compatibility Program; and Evaluate and recommend, where appropriate, strategies that reduce noise exposure beyond the DNL 65 db noise exposure contour Range of Potential Alternatives and Screening Process During the course of the study, each of the strategies evaluated is referred to as an alternative. Once an alternative passes the various screening criteria, it is referenced as a recommended measure. After the range of optimum noise abatement alternatives are identified, appropriate noise mitigation measures such as zoning changes, sound insulation programs, and other land-use measures are prescribed by the study as recommendations. After an airport sponsor has determined, in coordination with its stakeholders, that the set of abatement, mitigation and programmatic measures that would result in meeting compatibility goals and that are practical for implementation, the NCP is submitted to the FAA for review and approval. The primary analysis method is the comparison of impacts from different scenarios, according to the measures that are recommended for further consideration. To be considered for inclusion in the recommended NCP, each of the noise abatement alternatives is evaluated based on the following questions: Would it benefit the noise environment? What are the drawbacks? Whose responsibility is it?

7 1-7 Who will pay for it? Can it be implemented? Once the NCP is submitted, the FAA evaluates each individual program measure. Each measure is evaluated to determine if it: would create an undue burden on interstate or foreign commerce, be reasonably consistent with obtaining the goal of reducing noncompatible land uses and preventing the introduction of additional noncompatible land uses; include the use of new or modified flight procedures to control the operation of aircraft for purposes of noise control, or affect flight procedures in any way; or whether the measure adversely affects the exercise of authority and responsibilities of the Federal government. The FAA either approves or disapproves each measure in the context of the entire program. Approvals indicate only that the actions would, if implemented, be consistent with the purposes of Part 150. The NCP must be developed and submitted in accordance with the provisions set forth in 14 CFR Part 150, which states specifically in Subparts (a) and (b) some of the limitations of the FAA s role in approving the Sponsor s NCP. Subpart (a) states: Approval of a NCP under this part is neither a commitment by FAA to financially assist in the implementation of the program, nor a determination that all measures covered by the program are eligible for grant-in-aid funding from the FAA. Subpart (b) states: Approval of a NCP under this part does not by itself constitute an FAA implementing action. A request for Federal action or approval to implement specific noise compatibility measures may be required, and an FAA decision on the request may require an environmental assessment of the proposed action, pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act and applicable regulations, directives, and guidelines. Part 150 also prescribes the steps in the development of the NCP, including consultation with airport tenants, public, state and local jurisdictions, and the FAA. Once a measure is approved, steps necessary for its implementation may begin. Neither the FAA approval nor the Sponsor s identification of a measure assures it will be implemented many unforeseen obstacles or changes in operations or land use may negate the need for a specific measure. Further, many measures require funding from both the FAA and local sources, which may not always be available. In short, even though a measure may have been identified, submitted, and approved, it may still not be implemented. However, an airport s NCP often serves as a blueprint for actions taken or proposed by an airport to address noise impacts Consultation and Public Involvement An integral part of the noise compatibility planning is public participation and agency coordination. Per FAR Part 150 section (b), the development of the NCPs has included consultation with interested parties. In particular the City has consulted with: the FAA Air Traffic Control Tower manager and his staff the Chief Pilots of the major airlines providing service at PHL the surrounding jurisdictions including the Delaware County Planning Department, Philadelphia City Planning Commission, and Tinicum Township and the general public This consultation is summarized in the following sections. Details such as sign-in sheets and minutes are contained in Appendix A.

8 Study Advisory Committee The initial public participation action was to convene a Study Advisory Committee (SAC). An extensive list of elected officials, government agencies, civic groups and airport-affiliated organizations was developed for consideration. Selections were made from this list to ensure representation from adjacent communities in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Delaware, while keeping the size of the committee appropriate to the interaction required to fulfill its role as advisor to the study. The meetings were designed and managed to encourage the exchange of information and creative ideas. In addition, SAC Members were asked to comment on each meeting and rank components of the meeting through evaluation/comment forms. The SAC met seven times over the course of the study. Initially, the meeting focused on the roles and responsibilities of the SAC, the development of the noise exposure maps and the findings of the noise measurement program. Later in the process, the focus of the meetings shifted to the development of the noise compatibility program and the analyses required to formulate the noise abatement measures. Table 1-2 below lists the SAC meeting dates and primary agenda items: Table 1-2 Study Advisory Committee Meetings/Agenda SAC Meeting Primary Agenda Items # 1 October 30, 2007 Purpose and Role of the SAC to the Part 150 Process # 2 March 13, 2008 Results of the Noise Measurement Program Status of FAA Airspace Redesign Project # 3 June 17, 2008 Development of the Baseline Noise Exposure Maps # 4 November 20, 2008 Contour Review Update NCP Working Session # 5 September 17, 2009 Supplemental Noise Metrics NCP Alternatives Analysis # 6 November 18, 2009 NCP Alternatives Analysis and Screening Criteria # 7 May 27,2010 NCP Recommendations SAC Meeting #4 included an NCP Working Session at which the committee members were encouraged to share ideas on noise abatement measures, land use management measures and program management measures. Table 1-3 summarizes the suggestions, by type of alternative (i.e. noise abatement, land use, program management, or other) that were discussed. Appendix A contains a listing of the SAC membership, meeting minutes, sign-in sheets, and copies of the presentations from each meeting.

9 1-9 Table 1-3 Study Advisory Committee Alternative Suggestions Noise Abatement Land Use Program Management Other Nighttime runway restrictions on Runway 17/35 for large turbo-jet planes Limit nighttime departures Implementation of timing (i.e. evaluate airline schedules) Have aircraft fly and turn at 4,000 feet rather than 3,000 feet after departure Limit capacity through gate management Stop early turns Midnight to 6amimpose UPS & FedEx flight limits Don t route nighttime cargo to the Pottstown Fix Arrival noise abatement measure in New Jersey similar to Delaware changes Buy development rights Communicate with, and assist, municipal planning and zoning boards when they deny a developer with plans near an airports. Provide factual information to the municipalities Bring to Pennsylvania something similar to the New Jersey disclosure law, so the buyer is aware of nearby airports when purchasing a home Improve airport and municipality communication on land use changes Improve noise information on website, include a blog Provide public access to flight data Existing noise office tracking: use metrics to measure compliance pass information to air traffic tower Record action by air traffic tower Change/Broaden the noise model beyond DNL, such as SEL Validate noise model with noise monitoring Make it easier to mandate noise procedures - compliance is currently voluntary Revisit federal deregulation Utilize other airports in region

10 FAA and Airline Coordination During development of the NCP, Philadelphia International Airport (PHL) facilitated opportunities for active and direct participation by the FAA and aeronautical users of the airport. This effort supplemented the SAC meetings by providing these airport stakeholders a means to share their views or comments on the formulation of the program. FAA Coordination As elements of the NCP were being developed, the study team coordinated with the FAA Air Traffic Control Tower Manager and staff. Given the recent implementation of the FAA s Airspace Redesign Project (ARD) at PHL, it was imperative to understand the effects of the changes that had already been implemented as well as the timing of the changes yet to be implemented. In fact, the significance of the ARD prompted the Airport to invite the FAA Air Traffic Manager to present a summary of the ARD at the Study Advisory Committee Meeting #2. Two meetings were held with FAA Air Traffic Control (ATC). The first meeting (September 8, 2008) afforded PHL an opportunity to present a status of the Noise Compatibility Study Update and to garner information from the FAA on air traffic issues which may affect the noise compatibility study, in particular, implementation of Airspace Redesign at PHL. The purpose of the second meeting (November 9, 2009) was to obtain any updates on ARD implementation as well as to discuss any noise abatement alternatives that would require FAA ATCT involvement for implementation. Meeting Materials from these meetings are contained in Appendix A. Airline Coordination As elements of the NCP were being developed, the study team also coordinated with the chief pilots of air carrier and cargo operators of the primary carriers utilizing PHL. FAA Air Traffic Control representatives actively participated in this coordination effort as well. Two meetings with the Chief Pilots were held (January 20, 2009 and November 16, 2009). The primary purpose of these meetings was to explain and get feedback on the types of in-flight noise abatement alternatives that the NCP will explore. These include flight management alternatives, flight path location alternatives, flight frequency alternatives, and flight restrictions. It was explained that these alternatives are just one type of alternative that the study will evaluate, but that this type directly relates to the airlines and air traffic controllers, and their input is valuable as the alternatives analysis evolves. Meeting Materials from these meetings are contained in Appendix A Planning Agency Coordination Planning agencies involved in land use planning and control efforts within the DNL 65 db contour include the Philadelphia City Planning Commission, the Delaware County Planning Department, Gloucester County Planning Division and Tinicum Township. Though these interests are represented on the SAC, individual meetings were also held the Pennsylvania planning agencies to discuss what potential role they each could have in implementing any of the recommended zoning or land use management or land development changes that could result from the NCP Update.

11 1-11 A meeting was held with Philadelphia City Planning Commission (PCPC) on December 17, The primary purpose of this meeting was to discuss the NCP alternatives relative to the Eastwick neighborhood, and to understand what, if any, land use or development controls the City has in place or on the horizon. The team explained that at this point in the study, the primary mitigation effort would be to continue the residential sound insulation program by incorporating the incompatible noise-sensitive land uses in Eastwick. The potential effectiveness of land use controls and development controls in this area was also discussed. A meeting was held with the Delaware County Planning Department (DCPD) on March 4, The primary purpose of this meeting was to explain the NCP process to county planners and to understand the role of the county in land use or development controls. DCPD acts in an advisory capacity providing professional decision-making support to the residents and municipalities of Delaware County. A meeting was held with Tinicum Township officials on August 11, The primary purpose of this meeting was to discuss the results on the NCP alternatives analysis and to understand what, if any, land use or development controls the Township has in place or on the horizon. Tinicum Township officials are responsible for the zoning and land use development controls within the township. Meeting Materials from these three meetings are contained in Appendix A Community Workshops Three rounds of Community Workshops were held to share project information and to solicit feedback from the public. Workshops were held in Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Delaware. These workshops were attended by interested citizens, civic leaders, elected officials or their representatives, and local media. Table 1-4 summarizes the dates and locations of the Community Workshops. The first series of community workshops held in November 2007 focused on introducing the study and the study process. Philadelphia International Airport operations and characteristics were explained as were the basics of sound, sound measurement, and the methodology that will be used to identify current and future noise exposure. An introduction to the types of alternatives that could be included in the updated NCP was also presented. Each type of alternative included an example specific to PHL. This information prompted suggestions from the public as summarized in Table 1-5. The second series of community workshops was held in June At these workshops, the study team presented the Draft Noise Exposure Contours as well as the supporting flight tracks and input data used in the development of these maps. The results of the Noise Measurement Program, undertaken in the fall of 2007, were also presented to attendees for their information. The third series of community workshops was held in August and September The focus of these workshops was the recommended noise abatement, land use management and program management measures that will be included in the updated Noise Compatibility Program. The full range of alternatives evaluated as well as the measures that are being recommended were presented for public discussion and feedback. Appendix B includes the promotional materials, meeting materials, sign-in sheets, and photos from each series of workshops.

12 1-12 Round 1 November 2007 Date Wednesday November 7, 2007 Thursday November 8, 2007 Tuesday November 13, 2007 Wednesday November 14, 2007 Thursday November 15, 2007 Round 2 June 2008 Date Table 1-4: Community Workshops Location Crowne Plaza Hotel 2349 W. Marlton Pike Cherry Hill, NJ Claymont Community Center 3301 Green Street Claymont, DE Tinicum School First & Seneca Streets Essington, PA Mercy Wellness Center 2821 Island Avenue Philadelphia, PA Paulsboro High School 670 N. Delaware Street Paulsboro, NJ Location Paulsboro Volunteer Fire Association Tuesday 1502 Swedesboro Ave. June 17, 2008 Paulsboro, NJ Tinicum School Wednesday First & Seneca Streets June 18, 2008 Essington, PA Claymont Community Center Thursday 3301 Green Street June 19, 2008 Claymont, DE Cherry Hill Public Library Tuesday 1100 Kings Highway North June 24, 2008 Cherry Hill, NJ Mercy Wellness Center Wednesday 2821 Island Avenue June 25, 2008 Philadelphia, PA Round 3 August/September 2010 Date Location Paulsboro Volunteer Fire Association Monday 1502 Swedesboro Ave. August 30, 2010 Paulsboro, NJ Tuesday August 31, 2010 Wednesday September 1, 2010 Tinicum School First & Seneca Streets Essington, PA Mercy Wellness Center 2821 Island Avenue Philadelphia, PA

13 1-13 Alternative Type Noise Abatement Land Use Management Program Management Alternatives Table 1-5 Community Workshop Alternative Suggestions Suggestion Allowance of ATC & pilots to turn right after departing 27L should be limited to weather and emergencies only. No aircraft should be allowed to turn right after departing 27L until passing Interstate 476. Flights taking off should stay over the river until they reach a higher altitude before banking over homes. Restrict incoming flights from the east to 10:30pm for 737 s & 757 s near Ft. Mifflin. Keep over Delaware River, don t fly over residential areas. Utilize noise abatement procedures. Fly to the Commodore Barry Bridge; then turn to different headings. Departures on 27L over Delaware County should be eliminated. Upgrade GPS on planes and at airports. Consider steeper descents. Nighttime curfew for PHL. If Reagan International can have a 10pm-7am curfew so can PHL. No flights over state of Delaware past 11pm. Please consider a 5000 ft. minimum at MRTIN (formerly KIRDE) Intercept. Please consider landing more aircraft from the west to east direction. Adopt a noise abatement arrival procedure. Continue RSIP. All of Tinicum Township should be considered for sound insulation. Consider moving UPS so that Philadelphia International Airport can use that runway(s). Soundproof homes in Delaware. Plant trees as a sound insulation measure. Public needs access to and to be informed of the final study report. Need more noise monitoring locations. Use Passur Airport Monitor The Noise Compatibility Program needs to be brought up to date and be readily available to the people. Need more permanent noise sensors with greater accuracy and precision in more areas, i.e. Media, Wallingford, and Rose Valley. You should have constant updates, and let us know what s happening. Recognize that updating systems is a benefit to everyone. More access to information regarding airplane altitudes over our houses. New York and other airports provide this data, but PHL has given us promises but no action in this regard. Online, real-time software to track flights. Accurate data on real time noise levels and the number of minutes per day this level exists. Averages are a way of covering up extremes. Enforce current hours. Public notice and information. Maximum sound pressure levels recorded and frequency in addition to averages should be made known.

14 Publications During the time the NCP Update was developed, a project website was maintained to present key study findings, to advertise community meetings or publications and to provide a means for the public to leave comments, request information, and sign up to receive information. Information pertaining to the Noise Compatibility Program may be found at The study also produced a fact sheet at the inauguration of the study and project newsletters issued at key milestones. Refer to Appendix B for project related publications Public Hearing Part 150 section (d) requires that NCP documentation include evidence that the Airport Operator provided notice and an opportunity for a public hearing before submitting the NCP to the FAA for approval. Philadelphia International Airport held a public hearing on September 1, The purpose of the hearing was to accept formal public comments on the recommended NCP. A Notice of Public Hearing appeared in newspapers in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Delaware thirty days before the hearing. The complete Draft NCP was published and made available on August 18, 2010 for public review and comment at the following locations: PHL Noise and Community Services Office 2801 Island Avenue, Suite 13, Philadelphia, PA Tinicum Memorial Library 620 Seneca Street, Essington, PA Free Library of Philadelphia Eastwick Branch 2851 Island Avenue, Philadelphia, PA West Deptford Public Library 420 Crown Point Road, West Deptford, NJ Claymont Library 3303 Green Street, Claymont DE the project website - PHLPart150Update.com Notification of the availability of the NCP, the public workshops and the public hearing was provided to the SAC on August 16th, The public was notified of the availability of the NCP, the workshops and the hearing through newspaper advertisements, press releases, postcards, and/flyers. The public comment period remained opened until September 17, Comments were accepted through the mail, the project website, at the workshops, and at the hearing. Twenty-eight people submitted comments on the draft NCP. These comments and the City s responses to substantive comments are included in Appendix D. Also included in Appendix D are all advance notifications and public hearing materials, including the official hearing transcript.