FAA Part 16 Docket Clerk 

AGC-600 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue SW 

\Vashir.glon, DC 2.0591 

RECEIVED 

AUG 2 5 2015 

PART 16 DOCKETS 

August 24 2015 

HOWARD C. JONES II 

ATTORNEY AT LAW 

howardcjones@attglobal.net 

105 WEST FOURTH STREE1~ SillTE 400 E 

WINSTON-SALEM, NC 27101 

TELEPHONE: 336.750.0860 

FAX: 336.727.1085 

Re: William Alfred Hicks, Jr. A!KiA Billy Hicks V. City Of Mount Airy, North 

Carolina; And The Cmmty Of SuiTy, North Carolina; Through The Mount Airy/Suny 

County Ai.rport Authority; FAA Docket No. 16-15-07 

Dear FAA Part 16 Docket Clerk: 

Enclosed please find an original and three copies (one of which has not been 

stapled) of respondent Mount Aiiy/Surry County Airport's Motion to Strike A11d For 

Appropriate Relief. 

Also enclosed is copy of the first page of the motion. Please mark this as tiled 

and return it in the self addressed and stamped envelope. 

Thank for your consid.eration of this matter 

cc: counsel of record 
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

WASHINGTON, DC 

WILLIAM ALFRED HICKS, JR. 

a/kJa BILLY HICKS 

Complainant, 

vs. 

CITY OF MOUNT AIRY, NORTH 

CAROLINA; and the COUNTY OF SURRY, 

NORTH CAROLINA; through the MOUNT 

AIRY/SURRY COUNTY AIRPORT 

AUTHORITY 

Respondent. 

Submitted By: 

· Howard C. Jones II, Attorney At Law 

105 West Fourth Street, Suite 400-E 

Winston-Salem, NC 27101 

Phone: 336 750-0860; Cell: 336-816-1716 

Fax: (336) 727-1085 

Email: howardcjonesii@gmail.com 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

FAA Docket No. 16-15-07 

MOTION TO STRIKE 

AND FOR APPROPRIATE RELIEF 

Attorney for Mount Airy/Surry County Airport Authority 

Pursuant to 14 CFR 16.13(e), 16.19, 16.23(j) and the inherent power of this 

tribunal to protect the dignity and fairness of its proceedings, respondent Authority 

moves this tribunal for an order striking Exhibit 8 to complainant's response to 

respondents' motion to dismiss or in the alternative for summary judgment 

("complainant's response") and also striking the corresponding argument contained in 

complainant's response and for such further relief as this tribunal deems appropriate. 
Introduction 

Complainant's response argues that summary judgment should be denied on the 

grounds that there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether respondents have 

acquired title necessary to comply with standards for a C-III runway. In support of this 

assertion, complainant attaches Table A7-9 form AC 150/5300-13A, entitled "Runway 

design standards matrix, C/D/E-III" as Exhibit 8. 

There are two main problems with complainant's attempt to use AAC/ADG CIII design standards to create a material issue of fact in this case. First, the grants 

approved for the airport expansion project at issue in this Part 16 proceeding are premised 

on B-11 not C-111 standards. Second, the complaint filed in this Part 16 proceeding 

makes no mention of airport design standards, and contains no allegation that respondents 

have failed to acquire title to comply with design standards. 

As set forth below, Exhibit 8 and the corresponding argument in complainant's 

response should be stricken because: (1) C-III standards are not relevant and hence not 

admissible in determining whether grant assurances have been violated in a B-II 

expansion project; (2) the complaint contains no allegations concerning these matters and 

complainant is not permitted to use his response to amend or supplement his complaint; 

and (3) the submission of Exhibit 8, and the representations and argument contained in 

respondent's response concerning inapplicable design standards violate 14 CFR 16,13(e) 

and constitute an affront to the inherent power of this tribunal to protect the dignity 

efficacy of these proceedings. 

2 
Relief Sought 

Pursuant to 14 CFR 16.9, respondent states that the relief sought in this motion is 

as follows: 

I. An order striking the document attached as exhibit 8 to complainant's 

response and complainant's corresponding argument concerning design standards. / 

2. Such further relief as this tribunal deems appropriate. 

Grounds For Relief Sought 

Pursuant to 14 CFR 16.9(b ), respondent states that the grounds for this motion are 

as follows. 

1. C-III design standards are not relevant to this case. Exhibit 8 is table 

A7-9 from AC 150/5300-13A, entitled "Runway design standards matrix, C/D/E-III." 

However, the Mount Airy/Surry County Airport is not a C-III design and the expansion 

project does not call for the airport to become a C-III design. Instead, the expansion 

project at issue in this case, and the grants therefore, are intended to bring the Mount 

Airy/Surry County Airport into compliance with B-II design standards. (See highlighted 

portion of excerpt from FONSI for expansion project authored by NCDOT attached as 

Exhibit 1 to this motion). All grants from the F AA/NCDOT have been approved for B-11 

design, not C-111. Therefore, C-III design standards have no relevance to the Mount 

Airy/Surry County Airport, the expansion project or grant assurances pertaining to the 

same. 

2. Since C-111 design standards are not relevant, filing and argument of 

the same is not proper under 14 CFR 16.26(c)(3). Section 16.26(c)(3) provides that 

complainant's answer to a motion for summary judgment may be accompanied by 

3 
affidavits and other documentary evidence in support of complainant's "contention" that 

there are "material facts" to which "there is a genuine issue." There is simply no 

conceivable way that attaching inapplicable design standards and arguing that there are 

material issues of fact regarding acquisition of title to comply with inapplicable design 

standards is permitted under a good faith reading of this section. 

3. Since C-III design standards are not relevant, they are not admissible 

evidence for consideration on summary judgment. Since C-III design standards are 

not relevant, the standards would not be admissible as evidence. Since these standards 

would not be admissible as evidence, they cmmot be used to try and manufacture a 

material issue of fact to avoid sunuuary judgment. (See analogous Federal Rule 56(c)(2) 

providing that a summary judgment movant may object to material which has been cited 

to dispute a material fact on the grounds that the material would not be admissible in 

evidence). 

4. Complainant is not permitted to use his response to summary 

judgment to amend or supplement his complaint. Complainant's complaint did not 

contain any allegations concerning airport design standards, nor any allegations that 

respondents failed to acquire title necessary to comply with design standards. 

Complainant's attempt to use his response to amend or supplement his complaint with 

these new allegations is barred by 14 CPR 16.23G) which provides "Amendments or 

supplements to the pleadings described in this section will not be allowed without 

showing good cause through a motion and supporting documents." 

5. The filing of inapplicable design standards and argument of the same 

violates 14 CFR 16.13(c). Complainant's attempt to manufacture a material issue of 

4 
fact by attaching the wrong design standards, and the false representations and argument 

in his response concerning the same violate Section 16.13(e) as follows: 

(a) Violation of Section 16.13(e)(l). 16.13(e)(1) reqlilres that 

documents filed in a Part 16 proceeding be "consistent with this part." 

Complainant's filing of inapplicable design standards and filing of a response that 

argues that respondent has violated grant assurances by failing to comply with the 

same is not "consistent with" the purpose of Part 16 or a proceeding initiated 

thereunder. 

(b) Violation of 14 CFR 16.13(e)(2). 16.( e )(2) reqlilres that 

documents filed in a Part 16 proceeding be "warranted by existing law or that a 

good faith argument exists for extension, modification, or reversal of existing 

law." Here, complainant has not cited and cannot cite any existing law or any 

good faith argument for extension, modification or reversal of existing law which 

would support complainant's attempt to apply C-III design standards to a B-II 

project. 

(c) Violation of 14 CFR 16.13(e)(3). 16( e )(3) reqlilres that 

documents filed in a Part 16 proceeding not be "interposed for any improper 

purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in 

the cost of the administrative process." Here, there is no legitimate purpose for 

filing Exhibit 8. Nor is there a legitimate purpose for filing a response claiming 

that respondents have violated grant assurances by failing to acquire title in 

compliance with inapplicable design standards. Instead, this practice has harassed 

respondents and needlessly increased the cost of this Part 16 proceeding. 

5 
6. It would be wholly unjust and unfair to for this tribunal to permit 

complainant to file the wrong design standard matrix and use argument concerning the 

same to manufacture a dispute as to a genuine issue of material fact. This would also be 

an affront to the dignity and efficacy of this tribunal. 

7. Striking Exhibit 8 and the corresponding argument in complainant's 

response would be in the interest of justice and promote the mandate of this tribunal to 

fairly adjudicate Part 16 proceedings. 

Conclusion 

Wherefore, for the foregoing reasons, respondent Authority respectfully requests 

that this tribunal strike Exhibit 8 to complainant's response and the corresponding 

argument in complainant's response and for such further relief as this tribunal deems 

appropriate. 

Respectfully submitted, this the 24'h day of August 2015. 

a a . Jones NCSB#17726 

st Fourth Street, Suite 400-E 

Winston-Salem, NC 27101 

Telephone: (336) 750-0860 

Fax: (336) 727-1085 

Email: howardcjol}eili@gmail.com 

Attorney for Mount Airy/Surry County Airport Authority 

6 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I, Howard C. Jones II, certify that on August 24th 2015 I filed and served this 

Motion to Strike and for Appropriate Relief (together with all attachments and exhibits 

thereto) by placing the original thereof and three copies to the FAA, in prepaid first class 

or better envelopes in the custody of the United States Mail and by mailing a copy to 

counsel of record addressed as follows: 

Mailed To: 

FAA Part 16 Docket Clerk 

AGC-600 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue SW 

Washington, DC 20591 

Mailed To: 

Randolph M. James 

Randolph M. James, P.C. 

P.O. Box 20069 

Winston-Salem, NC 27120 

Attorney For Complainant 

Mailed to: 

Edwin M. Woltz 

119 Rawley Avenue 

Mount Airy, NC 27030 

Attorney for the County of Surry, North Carolina 

Mailed to: 

Hugh B. Campbell, III 

235 E. Independence Blvd. 

PO Box 1846 

Mount Airy, North Carolina 27030 

Attorney for the City of Mount Airy, North Carolina 

7 
MICIIAI:L F !EASLeY 

Govr:.~lc~< 

I 

STATE OF NORTH CAROUN1\ 

DEi \RTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

May 5, 2006 

Ms. ~hrys Baggett, D.irc- 1.or 

NorL~ICarolina State Clc :;ringhouse 

NorLh;Carolin~ Departm nt of Administration 

II G \Vest Jones Street 

Ralei~h, North Carnlins 761 l ~ 

Dccn· r~· Baggett: 

L .'NDO TIPPeTT 

St'(KI:'TAR'r' 

Ple::tsci l'ind enclosed fift ... n (15) copies of the FONSJ for the Mow>t Airy-Sun-y County 

AirpOJ'l Runway Extension. This docum~nt completes a previously eirculated 

envirdnmental assessment. This documunt is to be reviewed under the provisions of the 

N~1tim~al Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). If you, or any of the Teviewers, should have 

ar1y q~1estions I can be contacted at (919) 840-0112 or rbarkes@dot.stalc.nc.us. 

I . 

s~ V /.)P~ RichJd W. Barkes 

MaN<~er, Airport Development Section 

RWB[ 

i 

Enclosure: IS I 

cc: File 

I 

I 

MA"ING ADOR SS; 

NC Oll'I..I.RTI,IIi.N'r OF TRAN$POfti.I.T(J~< 

OtY~ON 0, AV'IAY~ 

1 !leO MAll. SOAV1C:C. CC:NTC!i 

~"""'" NC 21e~~-1~0 

I 

TELtPHONt: 919·840·0112 

FAX. ~·1~·M0-9267 

WE9SfTE' W'WaN DOT. STATE NC US 

LOCA.i!QN: 

R.OU AlRPQRT 

1 oso M~PJO,IJ; DRIVt 

RDU NC 2'71:l23 
Mount Airy- Surry County Airport 

Mount Airy, North Carolina 

Runway Extension and Associated Projects 

I 

The North Carolina Department of Transportation 

I Division of Aviation 

1 State Block Grant Program ! 

Administrative Action 

Finding of No Significant Impact 

Submitted Pursuant to the Provisions of 

The National Environmental Policy Act 

1 And 

Requirements of the State Aid to Airports Program 

Richard W. Barkes 

5/\ /or:, r 7 Date 

I Manager Airport System Development 

~'·-: " " -
. i'JRi- .,)Cit. 15:22 FRDM:DOT RIJii'Hl ·r CIJMF'LEX 919 840 9267 T0:9541345 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

I 

Preliminlry Notes: 

Page Number 

Purpose And Need: 

Atternatiles 

Environmental Impact Categories 

N l. 

orse 

Cbmpatible Land Use 

sdciallmpacts 

ln~uced Socioeconomic Impacts 

Air Quality 

W~ter Quality 

section 303 ( c) Lands 

Hiktorical, Architectural, Archeological, and Cultural Resources 

Bibtic Communities 

Endangered and Threatened Species I Wetlands and Streams 

Flbodplains I Coastal Zone Management Program 

Coastal Barriers 

Wild and Scenic Rivers 

I Farmland 

I Energy Supply and Natural Resources 

Light Emissions 

Solid Waste 

Construction Impacts 

Ha2:ardous Sites/Material 

Environmental Justice 

Other cJnsiderations: 

RecomJendations 

1 

1 - 3 

3 

4-11 

4- 5 

5 

5 

6 

6 

6 

7 

7 

7 

7 

7-8 

8 

8 

8 

8 

9 

9 

9 

9 

9 

10 

10- 11 

11 

12 
A. •

1

1Preliminary Notes: 

I 

This 'env'1ronmental document is to be reviewed under the guidelines set forth 

unde:r the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The proposed 

development of this airport will require that the federal and local governmental 

unitslparticipate in the funding of this project and the development has been 

proposed for federal funu1ng under the State Block Grant Program. 

Und~r the provision of thCJ National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the 

Nort~ Carolina Environmental Policy Act (NCEPA) no funds may be dispersed 

until the funding agency l1as reviewed the potential environmental impacts of the 

prop9sed projects and has concluded that the impacts. if any, are acceptable. In 

the scop1ng of these projects. Statesville was required to develop an 

Envirpnmental Assessment (EA) meeting the provisions of both the federal and 

state jenvlronmental regulations. After the EA was circulated and reviewed by 

both state and federal agencies, the comments and concerns were addressed 

and i\ has been determined that the environmental impacts are minimal. As a 

result of this documentation, a Finding Of No Significant Impact (FONSI) is 

appropriate and acceptable in this matter. 

B. _\Purpose and Need: 

The ~ount Airy. Surry County AirpOrt is located in Surry County. It is 

apprqximately four miles southeast of Mount Airy and seven miles northwest of 

Pilot ~ountain. The Airport is on the east side of US 52 north of the Interstate 74 

inter,ange .. 

The projects proposed are to extend the runway 18·36 1,200 feet for a total 

runway length of 5,500 feet. Complete the parallel taxiway by extending it 1 ,200 

feet n:ortherly and 1030 feet southerly. More importantly the planned projects 

include purchasingprop~rty both in fee simple and easern.ent to.ri11'\~Sj!.QPJiQgJ,h~ 

e¥isti~~~~PY",RY.,pafety Areas·.<RSA)and~bject~\ee.Areas (OFA)u~ to airport 

ref10renc:e code .6~1.1 stan.dards, These proJects Will involve the relocat1on of Holly 

Springs Church Road and provide for additional area for hangar expansion. See 

attacTed drawing page 2. The current RSAs and OF As do not meet standards 

for thr> type of airport as defined in the FAA Advisory Circular 150/5300-13 

"Airport Design". These improvements will allow for a precision approach (ILS 

like) tb the runway along with a potential airport approach lighting system can be 

added sometime in the future. 

The durpose of the project is to provide a safer and more usable runway for the 

most demanding aircraft conducting arrival and departure operations at the 

alrpo~. The critical design aircraft for this project are the Lear 31 and the Citation 

XL business jet aircraft These aircraft are an Airport Reference Code (ARC) 8·11 

aircra~. The existing runway length does not meet NC ~OA standa:ds, which 

recommend a minimum runway length of 5000' for publicly owned a1rports m