FAAPart 16 Docket Clerk AGC-600 Federal AviationAdministration 800 IndependenceAvenue SW \Vashir.glon, DC 2.0591 

## RECEIVED AUG 2 52015 PART 16 DOCKETS

August 24 2015 

## HOWARD C. JONES II ATTORNEYAT LAW howardcjones@attglobal.net 105WESTFOURTH

**STREE1~** SillTE400 E WINSTON-SALEM, NC 27101

TELEPHONE: 336.750.0860 FAX: 336.727.1085

Re: William Alfred Hicks, Jr. A!KiABillyHicksV. City OfMountAiry, North Carolina; AndThe Cmmty OfSuiTy, NorthCarolina; ThroughThe MountAiry/Suny CountyAi.rport Authority; FAADocketNo. 16-15-07 DearFAAPart 16 Docket Clerk: Enclosedplease find an original andthree copies (one ofwhichhasnotbeen stapled) ofrespondentMountAiiy/Surry County Airport's Motionto Strike A11d For Appropriate Relief. Also enclosedis copy ofthe first page ofthe motion. Please markthis as tiled andreturn it inthe selfaddressed and stampedenvelope. Thankfor yourconsid.eration ofthis matter

cc: counsel ofrecord

### UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON, DC WILLIAM ALFRED HICKS, JR. a/kJaBILLYHICKS Complainant,
vs. CITY OF MOUNT AIRY, NORTH CAROLINA; and the COUNTY OF SURRY, NORTH CAROLINA; throughthe MOUNT AIRY/SURRY COUNTYAIRPORT AUTHORITYRespondent.

SubmittedBy:
· Howard C. Jones II, AttorneyAt 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 DocketNo. 16-15-07

MOTION TO STRIKE AND FORAPPROPRIATE 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'sresponse and for suchfurther reliefas this tribunal deems appropriate.Introduction Complainant's response argues that summaryjudgment 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 ofthis assertion, complainant attaches Table A7-9 form AC 150/5300-13A, entitled "Runway design standardsmatrix, 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 expansionproject at issue inthis Part 16 proceeding are premised
on B-11 not C-111 standards. Second, the complaint filed in this Part 16 proceeding makes no mention ofairport design standards, and contains no allegationthatrespondents have failed to acquire titleto 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 expansionproject; (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 ofExhibit 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.



### 2ReliefSought Pursuantto 14 CFR 16.9, respondent states that the reliefsought in this motion is
as follows: I. Anorder strikingthe document attached as exhibit 8 to complainant's response and complainant's corresponding argument concerning design standards.
/ 2. Suchfurther reliefas this tribunal deems appropriate. Grounds ForReliefSought Pursuantto 14 CFR 16.9(b), respondent states thatthe 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 ofexcerpt from FONSI for expansion project authored by NCDOT attached as Exhibit 1to this motion). All grants from the FAA/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

3affidavits and other documentary evidence in support ofcomplainant'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 offact regarding acquisition oftitle to comply with inapplicable design standards is permittedunder a good faith reading ofthis 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 offact to avoid sunuuaryjudgment. (See analogous Federal Rule 56(c)(2) providing that a summaryjudgment movant may objectto 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 causethrough amotion and supporting documents." 5. The filing ofinapplicable design standards and argument ofthe same violates 14 CFR 16.13(c). Complainant's attempt to manufacture a material issue of
4fact by attaching the wrong design standards, and the false representations and argument inhis response concerningthe 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 ofinapplicable design standards and filing ofa response that argues thatrespondenthas violated grant assurances by failing to comply withthe
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 orreversal ofexisting 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 ofthe 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 increasedthe cost ofthis Part 16 proceeding. 

### 56. 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 ofmaterial fact. This would also be
an affront to the dignity and efficacy ofthis tribunal.
7. Striking Exhibit 8 and the corresponding argument in complainant's response would be in the interest ofjustice and promote the mandate ofthis 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 ofAugust 2015.

a

## a .Jones NCSB#17726 stFourth 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 AirportAuthority

6CERTIFICATE 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 thereofand three copies to the FAA, in prepaid first class or better envelopes in the custody ofthe United States Mail and by mailing a copy to counsel ofrecord addressed as follows: MailedTo: FAAPart 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 Mailedto: EdwinM. Woltz 119 Rawley Avenue MountAiry, NC 27030 Attorney for the County ofSurry, North Carolina Mailedto: Hugh B. Campbell, III 235 E. Independence Blvd. PO Box 1846 Mount Airy,NorthCarolina 27030 Attorney for the City ofMount Airy, North Carolina

7MICIIAI:L F !EASLeY**Govr:.~lc~<** 

# I STATE OF NORTH CAROUN1\ 

## DEi \RTMENT OFTRANSPORTATION
May 5, 2006

Ms.**~hrys** Baggett, D.irc- 1 .or**NorL~ICarolina** State Clc :;ringhouse**NorLh;Carolin~** Departm nt ofAdministration 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 ofthe FONSJ for the Mow>t Airy-Sun-y County AirpOJ'l Runway Extension. This

### docum~nt completes apreviously eirculated envirdnmental assessment. This documunt is to be reviewed under the provisions ofthe

### N~1tim~al Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Ifyou, or any ofthe Teviewers, shouldhave ar1y**q~1estions** Ican be contacted at (919) 840-0112 or rbarkes@dot.stalc.nc.us. 

# I
.

# s~ V

# /.)P~ RichJd W. Barkes

### MaN<~er, AirportDevelopment 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 ofAviation

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 ofthe State Aid to Airports Program

Richard W. 

### Barkes 

# 5/\/or:, 

# r 7 

### Date I 

### ManagerAirport 

### 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 ImpactCategories 

### 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 underthe guidelines set forth unde:rthe National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The proposed development ofthis airport will require that the federal and local governmental unitslparticipate in the funding ofthis project and the development has been proposed forfederal funu1ng underthe State Block Grant Program.



# Und~r the provision ofthCJ National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the

**Nort~** Carolina Environmental PolicyAct (NCEPA) no funds may be dispersed until the funding agency l1as reviewed the potential environmental impacts ofthe prop9sed projects and has concluded that the impacts. if any, are acceptable. In the scop1ng ofthese projects. Statesville was required to develop an Envirpnmental Assessment (EA) meeting the provisions of both the federal and statejenvlronmental 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



# ~ountAiry. 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 ofthe Interstate 74 inter,ange
.. The projects proposed are to extend the runway 18·36 1,200feetfor atotal runway length of 5,500 feet. Complete the parallel taxiway by extending it 1,200 feet n:ortherly and 1030feet southerly. More importantlythe 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 OFAs 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 aprecision approach (ILS like) tb the runway along with a potential airport approach lighting system can be added sometime in the future. The durpose ofthe project is to provide asafer and more usable runway for the most demanding aircraft conducting arrival and departure operations at the

**alrpo~.** The critical design aircraft forthis 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