AIR

- 12

- 426

- E

September 7, 2012 Exemption No. 10623 Regulatory Docket No. FAA

- 2012

- 0613

Mr. Carl L. Dye General Manager WACO Classic Aircr a ft 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 o f WACO Classic Aircraft Corporation ( WACO Classic) for an exemption from §§ 4 5 .22(b) (1) and 4 5.29 (b)(1) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) to allow WACO Classic to apply 2

- inch

- high nationality and r egistration marks on all newly manufacture d 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 pe tition would be detr imental 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 nationa l it y and registration marks at least 2

- inches high in acc ordance 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 practi cable, on fixed

- wing aircraft, instead of the smaller marks previously allowed by the regulation. The 12

- inch high marks on the vertical2

tail surface or the fuselage surface provide better visual identification of aircraft. The rule is intended to discou rage 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 tha t 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 an d 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 consideri ng the purchase of one of these airplanes. The FAA does not consider s ales 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 requireme nts 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 registratio n 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 re spects to those presented in your petition. In Denial of Exem ption 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 inst allation 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 exemption s 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 con tain ed in 49 U.S.C . § § 40113 and 44701 , which the FAA Administrator has delegated to m e, 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 Depu ty 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 af ter**  **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 serie s**  **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 petit**  **ioner**

**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; there fore, 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 prece**  **dent, 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 yea**  **rs old or had a configuration of an aircraft more than 30 years old) or were exhibition aircraf**  **t. 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 sma ll**  **marks did not permit air-to-air and air-to-ground identification of aircraft, thus hampering investigation and enforcement activities involving aircraft with sma**  **ll registration marks. Locating alleged violators without positive registrati**  **on 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 air**  **craft permitted to display registration marks less than 12 inches high to antique aircraf**  **t, aircraft with an antique configuration, or aircraft with an experimental cert**  **ificate 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 ret ain them until**  **the aircraft was repainted.**
**The FAA notes that the petitioner’s airplane has a standard airworthiness certi ficate**  **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 registrat**  **ion 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 a re**  **numerous aircraft similar to the petitioner’s with standard airworthiness ce rtificates**  **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 di splay**  **of 12-inch-high registration marks on this aircraft may detract from its aest hetics;**  **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** 

**Exempt ion No. 9919**  **Regulat ory 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 yo ur 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 (Glas s Aviation) for an exemption from**  **§ 45.29(b)(1)(iii) of Title 14, Code of Federal Reg ulations (14 CFR) to allow Glass Aviation**  **to place 3-inch high registration markings on the v ertical 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 sc heme 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 interfer e with the registration marks. Section**  **45.21(c)(3) and (4) states the registration marks m ust 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 require ments of 180 knots and therefore does**  **not meet the 3-inch high N-number requirements.**

**The FAA has determined that good cause exists for n ot 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 Gla**  **ss Aviation.**

**AIR-09-230-E 2** 

**The FAA would like to point out your letter cited t he reference incorrectly. You cited**  **§ 45.29(b)(iii) which omits a requirement in § 45.2 9(b)(1). Section 45.29(b)(1) requires**  **fixed-wing aircraft to display nationality and regi stration marks at least 12-inches high. You**  **should have cited § 45.22 (b) which permits aircraf t, 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 circumstance s 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 uni que 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 s chemes, insignias, and logos do not**  **appropriately substitute for the 12-inch registrati on marks.** 

**In granting any exemption to the provisions of § 45 .29, the FAA must consider the primary**  **reason why amending part 45 was necessary (Amendmen t 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 regu lation. The 12-inch high marks on the**  **vertical tail surface or the fuselage surface provi de better visual identification of aircraft. The**  **rule intends to discourage flight violations and pr ovide for better air traffic control and flow at**  **airports (visual identification of aircraft).**

**The FAA determined that allowing you to display 3-i nch-high registration marks in place of**  **the required 12-inch-high marks to maintain appeara nce is not in the public interest and would**  **not provide a level of safety equivalent to that pr ovided 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 p rotect persons and property.** 

**Having reviewed your reasons for requesting an exem ption, I find that—** 

• **they don’t differ materially from those presented b y the petitioners in the enclosed denials**  **of exemptions;**

• **the reasons stated by the FAA for denying the enclo sed exemptions also apply to the**  **situation you present; and**

• **a grant of exemption would not be in the public int erest. In addition, § 11.81(d) requires**  **that this be addressed when petitioning for an exem ption 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 e xemption 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 an d 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**