AIR-12-426-E

September 7, 2012 Exemption No. 10623

 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2012-0613

Mr. Carl L. Dye

General Manager

WACO Classic Aircraft Corporation

15955 South Airport Rd.

Battle Creek, MI 49015

Dear Mr. Dye:

This letter is to inform you that we have denied your petition for exemption. It transmits our 

decision and explains its basis.

The Basis for Our Decision

By letter dated June 1, 2012, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on 

behalf of WACO Classic Aircraft Corporation (WACO Classic) for an exemption from 

§§ 45.22(b)(1) and 45.29(b)(1) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) to allow 

WACO Classic to apply 2-inch-high nationality and registration marks on all newly 

manufactured Great Lakes Model 2T-1A aircraft.

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition 

in the Federal Register because this is not a precedent-setting petition, and any delay in acting 

on this petition would be detrimental to WACO Classic.

WACO Classic manufactures the new Great Lakes Model 2T-1A aircraft that is identical to 

those built more than 30 years ago. Those aircraft were permitted to display nationality and 

registration marks at least 2-inches high in accordance with § 45.22(b).

In granting any exemption to the provisions of §§ 45.22 and 45.29, the FAA must consider the 

primary reason for which part 45 was amended (Amendment 45-13, November 2, 1981) to 

require at least 12-inch high, or as high as practicable, on fixed-wing aircraft, instead of the 

smaller marks previously allowed by the regulation. The 12-inch high marks on the vertical 
2

tail surface or the fuselage surface provide better visual identification of aircraft. The rule is 

intended to discourage flight violations and provides for better air traffic control and flow at 

airports (visual identification of aircraft). One of the needs for Amendment 45-13 stated 

“Citizens, law enforcement agencies, and the Department of Defense have complained that 

aircraft displaying small marks cannot be positively identified because the marks are too small 

to see; consequently, appropriate action cannot be taken against violators of regulations, 

particularly low-flying aircraft that cause hazardous conditions and excessive noise in the 

community. The FAA, however, has determined that the12-inch high marks allow the FAA to 

fulfill its responsibility for positive identification of aircraft; the small marks on each side of 

the fuselage are ineffective because they are too difficult to see. The FAA has determined that 

the display of at least 12-inch high marks on the sides of aircraft is most effective for aircraft 

identification purposes.” 

The petitioner stated potential buyers of the new 2T-1A “objected to the 12-inch registration 

numbers and the detrimental effect of large numbers on the sides of the fuselage and the

intrinsic value of the aircraft’s design.” The petitioner also stated aesthetics is a very 

important factor for prospective buyers when considering the purchase of one of these 

airplanes. The FAA does not consider sales and aesthetics to be in the public interest.

In summary, the FAA has been uncompromising in its application of the marking rules since 

1981. It has refused to relax the requirements when petitioned by law enforcement agencies, 

citing public interest and safety concerns. To date, the FAA has not been persuaded by the 

arguments presented by the petitioners regarding their need for relief from the 12-inch 

nationality and registration marks. In all cases, the FAA held that its duty under the Act, as 

amended, to provide for positive identification outweighed the justification presented by the 

petitioners.

The FAA issued denials of exemption in circumstances similar in all material respects to those 

presented in your petition. In Denial of Exemption Nos. 7760 and 9919 (copies enclosed), the 

FAA found that the display of 12-inch registration marks on an aircraft may detract from its 

aesthetics; however, the FAA has determined that installation of distinctive paint schemes, 

insignias, and logos do not appropriately substitute for the 12-inch registration marks.

Having reviewed your reasons for requesting an exemption, I find that—

 they don’t differ materially from those presented by the petitioners in the enclosed denials 

of exemption;

 the reasons stated by the FAA for denying the enclosed exemptions also apply to the 

situation you present; and

 a grant of exemption wouldn’t be in the public interest.
3

Our Decision

Under the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. §§ 40113 and 44701, which the FAA 

Administrator has delegated to me, I hereby deny the petition of WACO Classic Aircraft 

Corporation for an exemption from 14 CFR §§ 45.22(b)(1) and 45.29(b)(1).

Sincerely,

/s/

Frank P. Paskiewicz

Deputy Director, Aircraft Certification Service

Enclosures
Exemption No. 7760 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

WASHINGTON, DC 20591 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

*

In the matter of the petition of * 

*

RAYMOND F. HOFFMAN * Regulatory Docket No. FAA–2001–10454 

*

for an exemption from § 45.29 * 

of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations * 

*

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

DENIAL OF EXEMPTION 

 By letter dated August 14, 2001, Mr. Gary L. Evans, Counsel for Raymond F. Hoffman, 

Coats & Evans, P.C., P.O. Box 130246, The Woodlands, Texas 77393–0246, petitioned the 

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on behalf of Mr. Hoffman for an exemption from 

§ 45.29 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). The proposed exemption, if 

granted, would permit Mr. Hoffman to continue to display 3-inch-high nationality 

and registration marks on his refinished Beechcraft Bonanza V35B (Bonanza) airplane

(registration No. N35YR, serial No. D–10397) instead of the 12-inch-high marks required 

by the regulation. 

The petitioner requires relief from the following regulation: 

Section 45.29(b)(1) prescribes, in pertinent part, that except as provided in 

§ 45.29(h), the nationality and registration marks must be of equal height and at 

least 12 inches high on fixed-wing aircraft. However, an aircraft manufactured after 

November 2, 1981, but before January 1, 1983, may display marks at least 2 inches high 

until the aircraft is repainted. 

The petitioner supports its request with the following information: 

The petitioner states that his Bonanza is a unique 35th anniversary edition of that series 

aircraft, and has borne for the past 19 years of operation a custom paint scheme that 

displays nationality and registration marks approximately 3 inches high. The petitioner 

AIR–01–620–E 
2

states that the airplane will be repainted, and the petitioner would like to continue 

to operate the Bonanza in the current paint scheme, including the use of the 

3-inch-high marks. 

The petitioner claims that based on the Bonanza’s configuration and paint scheme, 

the 12-inch-high marks required by the regulation are not feasible. Therefore, the 

petitioner indicates that in accordance with § 45.22(d), he submits this petition for 

exemption as an application to the Administrator for a different marking procedure. 

The petitioner attaches to the petition some of the history of the Bonanza series 

airplane, and photographs of Mr. Hoffman’s airplane. 

The petitioner states that maintaining the Bonanza in its current paint scheme is in the 

public interest because it preserves the original appearance of the Bonanza; therefore, it 

preserves an important chapter of general aviation history. 

The petitioner states that the use of the 3-inch-high nationality and registration 

marks would not adversely affect safety because he has operated his Bonanza with 

the 3-inch-high marks for the past 19 years without incident. 

 The FAA has determined that good cause exists for waiving the requirement for 

Federal Register publication because the exemption, if granted, would not set a precedent, 

and any delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to Mr. Hoffman. 

The FAA’s analysis/summary is as follows: 

The FAA has considered the petitioner’s supporting information and finds that a grant 

of exemption would not be appropriate, is not in the public interest, and could adversely 

affect safety. 

The FAA notes that before September 14, 1977, 14 CFR required all aircraft to display 

12-inch-high registration marks unless the aircraft were antique (more than 30 years old 

or had a configuration of an aircraft more than 30 years old) or were exhibition aircraft. 

Amendment No. 45–9, effective September 14, 1977 (42 FR 41102), amended part 45 

to allow aircraft with a cruising and operating speed less than 180 knots to display 

registration marks less than 12 inches high. 

The FAA found that the results of this rule change were unsatisfactory because small 

marks did not permit air-to-air and air-to-ground identification of aircraft, thus 

hampering investigation and enforcement activities involving aircraft with small 

registration marks. Locating alleged violators without positive registration number 

identification became difficult. The FAA also found that the rule permitted an 

increasing number of newly manufactured copies of antique aircraft to display the 

smaller marks. 
3

Therefore, in Amendment No. 45–13, effective November 2, 1981 (46 FR 48600), the 

FAA reinstated the rule requiring aircraft with speeds less than 180 knots to display

12-inch-high registration marks, unless they fell into one of the other excepted 

categories. The FAA notes that this amendment restricted the category of aircraft 

permitted to display registration marks less than 12 inches high to antique aircraft, 

aircraft with an antique configuration, or aircraft with an experimental certificate based 

on either the exhibition or amateur-built nature of the aircraft. The FAA adds that the

regulation made provisions for aircraft with small registration marks to retain them until 

the aircraft was repainted. 

The FAA notes that the petitioner’s airplane has a standard airworthiness certificate 

and was manufactured after November 2, 1981, but before January 1, 1983. Therefore, 

the FAA finds that the petitioner’s airplane must display 12-inch-high registration 

marks when repainted. The FAA also finds that the petitioner has not presented unique 

circumstances that would justify granting an exemption. The FAA notes that there are 

numerous aircraft similar to the petitioner’s with standard airworthiness certificates 

subject to the 12-inch-high marking requirement. The FAA finds that the petitioner has 

not shown how he is unique from the general class of regulated persons subject to 

compliance with § 45.29(b)(1) so as to justify relief by way of an exemption rather than 

through the general rulemaking process. 

The FAA must have an effective means of identifying and locating potential law 

violators, and a grant of this exemption would be inconsistent with the FAA’s 

responsibility to regulate identification of aircraft. The FAA notes that the display 

of 12-inch-high registration marks on this aircraft may detract from its aesthetics; 

however, the FAA has determined that distinctive paint schemes, insignias, and logos 

do not provide the identification required to fulfill its obligations to protect persons and 

property. 

In conclusion, the FAA has determined that allowing the petitioner to display 

3-inch-high registration marks in place of the required 12-inch-high marks to maintain 

appearance is not in the public interest and would not provide a level of safety 

equivalent to that provided by the regulation. 

 In consideration of the foregoing, I find that a grant of exemption would not be in 

the public interest. Therefore, pursuant to the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. §§ 40113 

and 44701, delegated to me by the Administrator, the petition of Raymond F. Hoffman for an 

exemption from 14 CFR § 45.29 is hereby denied. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on April 17, 2002. 

/s/ Ronald T. Wojnar 

Acting Director, Aircraft Certification 

 Service .
4

 AIR–01–620–E (Docket No. FAA-2001-10454) Exemption No. 7760, 04/17/2002 

MR.GARY L. EVANS 

COUNSEL FOR RAYMOND F. HOFFMAN 

COATS & EVANS, PC 

P.O. BOX 130246 

THE WOODLANDS, TX 77393–0246 

Certificate holding region: ASW-200, Flight Standards Service, Southwest Region
August 18, 2009 

 Exemption No. 9919 

 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2009-0415 

Mr. Matthew Boehm 

Aircraft Technician 

Glass Aviation Skydance Productions 

3100 Donald Douglass Loop North 

Hangar Two 

Santa Monica, CA 90405 

Dear Mr. Boehm: 

This letter is to inform you that we have denied your petition for exemption. It transmits our 

decision and explains its basis. 

The Basis for Our Decision 

By letter dated April 29, 2009, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on 

behalf of Glass Aviation Skydance Productions (Glass Aviation) for an exemption from 

§ 45.29(b)(1)(iii) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) to allow Glass Aviation 

to place 3-inch high registration markings on the vertical fin of its Experimental Lancair 

Legacy aircraft N323DE, S/N L2K-288, as outlined in § 45.25 (b)(l). 

You stated the aircraft has a truly unique paint scheme and the aircraft will be in motion 

pictures. You then stated the 12-inch registration markings take away from the clean lines on 

the aircraft. The paint scheme should not interfere with the registration marks. Section 

45.21(c)(3) and (4) states the registration marks must contrast in color with the background; 

and be legible. Although the classification of the aircraft is an experimental amateur-built, the 

aircraft exceeds the maximum cruising speed requirements of 180 knots and therefore does 

not meet the 3-inch high N-number requirements. 

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition 

in the Federal Register. The requested exemption would not set a precedent and any delay in 

acting on this petition would be detrimental to Glass Aviation. 

AIR-09-230-E 
2 

The FAA would like to point out your letter cited the reference incorrectly. You cited 

§ 45.29(b)(iii) which omits a requirement in § 45.29(b)(1). Section 45.29(b)(1) requires 

fixed-wing aircraft to display nationality and registration marks at least 12-inches high. You 

should have cited § 45.22 (b) which permits aircraft, built at least 30 years ago, to operate 

“without displaying marks in accordance with §§ 45.21 and 45.23 through 45.33 ..." 

The FAA issued denials of exemption in circumstances similar in all material respects to those 

presented in your petition. In Denial of Exemption Nos. 7760 and 9771 (copies enclosed), the 

FAA noted, in both cases, the petitioner is not unique from the general class of regulated 

persons who are subject to the requirements of § 45.29(b)(1). The display of 12-inch 

registration marks on an aircraft may detract from its aesthetics; however, the FAA has 

determined that installation of distinctive paint schemes, insignias, and logos do not 

appropriately substitute for the 12-inch registration marks. 

In granting any exemption to the provisions of § 45.29, the FAA must consider the primary 

reason why amending part 45 was necessary (Amendment 45-13, November 2, 1981). It now 

requires at least 12-inch high marks, or as high as practicable, on fixed-wing aircraft, instead 

of the smaller marks previously allowed by the regulation. The 12-inch high marks on the 

vertical tail surface or the fuselage surface provide better visual identification of aircraft. The 

rule intends to discourage flight violations and provide for better air traffic control and flow at 

airports (visual identification of aircraft). 

The FAA determined that allowing you to display 3-inch-high registration marks in place of 

the required 12-inch-high marks to maintain appearance is not in the public interest and would 

not provide a level of safety equivalent to that provided by the regulation. We find the 12-

inch registration marks will best allow the FAA to fulfill its responsibility for positive 

identification of aircraft and its obligations to protect persons and property. 

Having reviewed your reasons for requesting an exemption, I find that— 

• they don’t differ materially from those presented by the petitioners in the enclosed denials 

of exemptions; 

• the reasons stated by the FAA for denying the enclosed exemptions also apply to the 

situation you present; and 

• a grant of exemption would not be in the public interest. In addition, § 11.81(d) requires 

that this be addressed when petitioning for an exemption and you failed to explain why an 

exemption would be in the public interest. 

• You have not addressed all of § 11.81(e) “how the exemption would provide a level of 

safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you seek the exemption.” 
3 

Our Decision 

Under the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Administrator 

has delegated to me, I hereby deny the petition of Glass Aviation Skydance Productions for an 

exemption from 14 CFR § 45.29(b)(1)(iii). 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

K.C. Yanamura 

Acting Director, Aircraft Certification Service 

Enclosures