Through The Fence Agreements

At present, several airports have concluded agreements that go through closure, which apply in the event of a breach of certain subsidies contrary to insurance. To date, we have not put sponsors in a non-compliant status simply because they have a closing agreement. This proposed policy will not have a significant impact on the eight non-compliant sponsors. They must continue to work with local FAA staff to develop a corrective action plan to address violations of their subsidy guarantees. As soon as the FAA accepts this corrective action plan, it will become its plan to access residential buildings through the fence. In addition, the directive would require sponsors with access rules through the fence to immediately present access points to their airport set-up plans with a `pen and ink` amendment. You have additional time to formally update this document – three years from the date the FAA accepts its access plan. During its site visits, the policy review team observed a number of conditions of concern first-hand. First, we saw the diversity and complex nature of the different residential-across-fence arrangements.

We have also learned that some of these agreements were reached on the FAA`s objections; others were wrongly approved by FAA agents. Finally, we found that the housing plans we visited had been affected by the closure of one or more of the intrinsic features of public purpose airports, supported by tax-funded projects. In 2007, we published a “Director`s Determination” in which it was found that a residential construction next to the airport site is an incompatible land use. We have also started training our local staff on the need to better inform airport sponsors and mitigate problems related to residential areas through the fence. Unfortunately, the end result was mixed. Some airport sponsors followed our advice, while others did not, and some FAA regional offices tried to identify and mitigate all existing residential access agreements through the fence, while others decided to wait until an actual breach of the subsidy guarantee had already occurred. . . .