EASA, FAA, TCAA & ANAC Relationships

February 09, 2026

Blog

Introduction by Sofema Aviation Services – SAS – These four entities-FAA , EASA,TCCA, and ANAC Brazil form the Certification Management Team (CMT), a strategic partnership designed to harmonize standards and reduce regulatory duplication for the global aviation industry.

Regulatory Frameworks: A Deep Dive – Each authority operates under a distinct legal structure, though they strive for technical alignment.

EASA: The “Basic Regulation” & The Soft Law Approach

EASA’s structure is unique because it is a supranational body acting on behalf of multiple sovereign states (EU Member States).

The “Basic Regulation”: This is the constitution of European aviation safety (currently Regulation (EU) 2018/1139). It is “Hard Law” (binding). It sets high-level “Essential Requirements” but does not contain the technical details.
Implementing Rules (IRs): Detailed regulations (e.g., Part 21, Part 145) adopted by the European Commission. They are also Hard Law.
Soft Law (CS, AMC, GM):
- CS (Certification Specifications): Technical standards (e.g., CS-25 for large aeroplanes) comparable to FAA Airworthiness Standards.
- AMC (Acceptable Means of Compliance): “Soft law.” If you follow the AMC, you are presumed compliant.
- GM (Guidance Material): Explanatory non-binding material.

FAA: Federal Aviation Regulations (FARs)

The FAA operates under a national legal framework based on the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR).

Title 14 CFR: Commonly referred to as “FARs” (though the FAA prefers “14 CFR”). These are prescriptive federal laws.
Structure: Organized by Parts (e.g., Part 25 for Airworthiness of Transport Airplanes, Part 121 for Operating Requirements).
Advisory Circulars (ACs): Similar to EASA’s AMC. They provide a method for compliance, but are not the only method.
Prescriptive vs. Performance: Historically, FAA regulations were highly prescriptive (telling you how to do it). Recent moves (such as the Part 23 rewrite) are shifting toward performance-based standards (specifying the required outcome), aligning more closely with EASA’s CS approach.

TCCA: Canadian Aviation Regulations (CARs)

Transport Canada Civil Aviation operates under the Aeronautics Act.

CARs Structure: The regulations are divided into eight “Parts” (e.g., Part V is Airworthiness, Part VII is Commercial Air Services).
Regulations vs. Standards:
- The Regulation (CAR): The law requiring compliance.
- The Standard: The technical “how-to” referenced by the regulation. For example, the CAR says “you must maintain the aircraft,” and the corresponding Standard details the maintenance schedule.
Delegation: TCCA relies heavily on a “Ministerial Delegation” system, empowering individuals (Delegates) rather than organizations (such as EASA DOAs).

ANAC: Regulamentos Brasileiros da Aviação Civil (RBACs)

ANAC (Brazil) is the newest of the “Big Four” (created in 2005, replacing the DAC), but it is critical as the State of Design for Embraer.

Transition from RBHA to RBAC: Brazil is transitioning from older rules (RBHA) to modern RBACs (Regulamentos Brasileiros da Aviação Civil).
Harmonization Strategy: ANAC’s RBACs are intentionally modeled very closely after 14 CFR (FAA) to facilitate the export of Brazilian aircraft.
- Example: RBAC 25 is virtually identical to 14 CFR Part 25.
IS (Instrução Suplementar): These are “Supplementary Instructions” that serve a role similar to FAA Advisory Circulars or EASA AMCs.

Comparative Overview: Regulatory Equivalency Across Authorities

The following overview explains how key regulatory domains align across four major aviation authorities: the FAA (United States), EASA (European Union), TCCA (Canada), and ANAC (Brazil).

Primary aviation legislation is established under Title 14 CFR in the United States, while the European Union operates under Regulation (EU) 2018/1139 (the Basic Regulation). In Canada, the governing framework is the Aeronautics Act, and in Brazil, aviation oversight is founded on Law nº 11.182.

In the area of aircraft design and certification, the FAA applies Part 21, which corresponds to EASA Part-21 (Annex I to Regulation 748/2012). Canada regulates this domain through CAR 521, while Brazil applies RBAC 21.

For transport category aeroplanes, certification requirements are defined under Part 25 in the FAA system. The EASA equivalent is CS-25, Canada uses CAR 525 (AWM 525), and Brazil follows RBAC 25.

Maintenance organisation approvals are governed by Part 145 under the FAA framework, mirrored by EASA Part-145 in Europe. Canada applies CAR 573, while Brazil regulates maintenance organisations under RBAC 145.

With respect to pilot licensing, the FAA relies on Part 61, which aligns with EASA Part-FCL. In Canada, pilot licensing is regulated under CAR 401, and in Brazil under RBAC 61.

Finally, commercial air transport operations (airline operations) fall under Part 121 in the United States. The European equivalent is EASA Air OPS (Part-OPS), while Canada regulates airline operations through CAR 705, and Brazil through RBAC 121.

Relationships & Harmonization (The CMT)

The relationship between these four is governed by the Certification Management Team (CMT). Their goal is to move from “validation” (checking each other’s work) to “acceptance” (trusting each other’s work).

Bilateral Aviation Safety Agreements (BASAs)

These are the treaty-level agreements that allow for reciprocal acceptance.

FAA ↔ EASA: The most active BASA. It relies on a TIP (Technical Implementation Procedures) document.
FAA ↔ ANAC: Governed by an IPA (Implementation Procedures for Airworthiness). Because ANAC regulations (RBACs) are modeled on FARs, integration is high, but specific “Special Emphasis Items” (SEI) still require review.
TCCA ↔ FAA: A very mature relationship. Canada and the US share a unique “level of confidence” due to geographic proximity and long history.

The “Validation” Spectrum

The four authorities use a risk-based model to handle foreign products (e.g., an Airbus entering the US, or an Embraer entering Europe):

Full Technical Validation: The importing authority reviews the technical data (old method, slow).
Streamlined Validation: The importing authority considers only “critical” or “novel” features (e.g., new lithium battery technology).
Acceptance: The importing authority issues their certificate automatically based on the exporting authority’s approval, with zero technical involvement.
- Current State: The CMT is actively pushing more products (like TSO parts and simple modifications) into the “Acceptance” bucket to save resources.

CATA & CAPP (Harmonization Groups)

To prevent manufacturers from having to design an aircraft twice (once for FAA rules, once for EASA rules), the CMT established specific working groups:

CATA (Certification Authorities for Transport Airplanes): Harmonizes policy on Part 25/CS-25 issues.
CAPP (Certification Authorities for Propulsion Products): Harmonizes engine and propeller standards.

Summary of Differences

EASA is the only one that is a “system of states,” relying on National Aviation Authorities (NAAs) for local enforcement.
The FAA has the greatest influence on the global “Hard Law” structure (FARs).
TCCA is often seen as the “resource-constrained” innovator, heavily utilizing delegation and Safety Management Systems (SMS) to manage oversight.
ANAC serves as the crucial bridge for South America, with a regulatory philosophy that mirrors the FAA’s but operates within a civil-law framework similar to that of Europe.