How do U.S.-EU aviation safety agreements handle disputed certification outcomes between FAA and EASA?
Executive summary
The U.S.–EU aviation safety framework relies on a formal Bilateral Aviation Safety Agreement (BASA) and detailed Technical Implementation Procedures (TIP) that prioritize reciprocal acceptance, audits, and joint working groups to resolve divergent certification outcomes between the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) [1] [2]. When differences arise, the TIP and associated annexes prescribe escalation via cooperative audits, Certification Review/Coordination Groups, and senior-level Committee on Bilateral (COB) meetings — not unilateral re-certification — while acknowledging residual Significant Standards Differences that must be managed [2] [3].
1. The legal architecture: BASA, annexes and TIP define the rules
The backbone of U.S.–EU cooperation is the BASA (U.S.–EU Safety Agreement) and its annexes, which set out reciprocal acceptance of many airworthiness and environmental approvals and pilot licensing, and delegate implementation details to the Technical Implementation Procedures (TIP) and other annex guidance such as the Maintenance Annex Guidance (MAG) [1] [4] [5]. EASA’s public BASA page and the FAA’s bilateral-agreements pages emphasize that these documents legally bind how each authority treats the other's approvals in scope, while TIP contains the procedural mechanisms for handling disagreements and coordinating validations [6] [7] [2].
2. Day-to-day practice: primary-certificating authority and role reversals
Under the agreement, the agency of design or primary product certification normally acts as the primary-certificating authority for that product, with the other agency relying on its processes for validation or reciprocal acceptance; for aircraft designed in the EU, EASA is primary and FAA typically validates, and vice versa — a role-allocation explicitly described in the BASA and supporting GAO analysis [8] [9]. This structure reduces duplicate work and creates a clear starting point for dispute resolution because the primary authority leads technical assessments, while the partner agency performs validation against its certification basis, subject to identified Significant Standards Differences (SSD) that must be reconciled [8] [3].
3. Mechanisms for handling disputes: audits, working groups, and escalation paths
The TIP and related documents establish concrete dispute-resolution tools: joint audits, cooperative information sharing, Common Action Groups (CAG) or Certification Assessment Groups, Technical Agents communications, and annual COB meetings to present and resolve audit findings and outstanding concerns, with the expectation that resolution and follow-up be agreed between FAA and EASA [2] [1]. The FAA/EASA TIP explicitly assigns tasks — for example, using CAGs to determine corrective courses and requiring timely communication between Technical Agents — which frames disputes as technical coordination problems to be worked through collaboratively rather than immediate regulatory confrontation [2] [1].
4. Where harmonization stops: Significant Standards Differences and national variances
Despite close cooperation, EASA maintains and publishes Significant Standards Differences where EASA rules differ from FAA standards or have no FAA equivalent; these SSDs form part of EASA’s certification basis for validations and can force project-specific mitigation or additional compliance demonstrations when the authorities disagree about applicability or sufficiency [3]. GAO reporting underscores that member-state interpretations and the agencies’ differing procedures — including FAA’s evolving post-737 MAX reforms — mean full harmonization is aspirational, and disputes can reflect deeper regulatory or procedural divergence requiring negotiated accommodations [8] [9].
5. Practical outcomes and limits of the process
In practice, most certification disagreements are handled through the TIP’s collaborative processes: technical consultations, acceptance of alternative means of compliance when agreed, and stepwise escalations up to COB if unresolved; the written BASA and TIP documents commit both parties to accept each other’s procedures where appropriate and to cooperate on investigations and enforcement actions [1] [2]. Public sources show the system prioritizes continuity of international trade in aircraft and parts via validation rather than fresh recertification, yet they also make clear that absolute parity is not guaranteed and that unresolved technical differences may persist in SSD tables or require additional compensatory measures [1] [3].
Conclusion: a negotiated, procedural balance rather than arbitration
The U.S.–EU safety regime resolves disputed certification outcomes through pre-agreed procedural pathways — primary-certificating authority roles, TIP-defined working groups, audits, SSD tracking, and senior-level COB oversight — emphasizing mutual acceptance and negotiation instead of external arbitration; the record in FAA, EASA, and GAO documents shows a durable, technical-collaboration model designed to contain disagreements while preserving safety and market access, albeit with acknowledged areas where rule differences remain and must be managed case-by-case [2] [1] [8].