C.F.R. » Title 14 » CHAPTER I—FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION › SUBCHAPTER C—AIRCRAFT › PART 21—CERTIFICATION PROCEDURES FOR PRODUCTS AND ARTICLES › Subpart D—Changes to Type Certificates

14 C.F.R. § 21.97

Approval of major changes in type design

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) An applicant for approval of a major change in type design must—

(1) Provide substantiating data and necessary descriptive data for inclusion in the type design;

(2) Show that the change and areas affected by the change comply with the applicable requirements of this subchapter, and provide the FAA the means by which such compliance has been shown; and

(3) Provide a statement certifying that the applicant has complied with the applicable requirements.

(b) Approval of a major change in the type design of an aircraft engine is limited to the specific engine configuration upon which the change is made unless the applicant identifies in the necessary descriptive data for inclusion in the type design the other configurations of the same engine type for which approval is requested and shows that the change is compatible with the other configurations.

[Amdt. 21-40, 39 FR 35459, Oct. 1, 1974, as amended by Amdt. 21-92, 74 FR 53387, Oct. 16, 2009; Amdt. 21-96, 77 FR 71695, Dec. 4, 2012]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2016–2021 · leading case: Jill Sikkelee v. Precision Airmotive Corp, 907 F.3d 701 (3rd Cir. 2018).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Jill Sikkelee v. Precision Airmotive Corp, 907 F.3d 701 (3rd Cir. 2018). · cites it 2× “FAA, Order 8110.37F at 2-2, 4-4; see supra note 2. The FAA also regulates aftermarket parts.”
Sikkelee Ex Rel. Est. of Sikkelee v. Precision Airmotive Corp., 822 F.3d 680 (3rd Cir. 2016). · cites it 2× “§ 44704 (b); 14 C.F.R. § 21.97 ; FAA Order 8110.4C, change 1, Type Certification, ch.”
Sikkelee v. AVCO Corp., 268 F. Supp. 3d 660 (M.D. Penn. 2017). “14 C.F.R. § 21.97 . 9 Minor type design changes may be approved “under a method acceptable to the FAA.”
Specter v. Rainbow King Lodge, Inc. (D. Alaska 2021). “70 14 C.F.R. § 21.97 . 71 Martin, 555 F.3d at 810 (citing Montalvo, 508 F.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.