Message from Ambassador Clifford Sobel to Acting FAA

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 BRASILIA 000288 SIPDIS SENSITIVE FAA FOR LYNNE OSMUS AND PEGGY GILLIGAN STATE FOR EEB/TRA JOHN BYERLY AND DAN MOORE, WHA/BSC, WHA/EPSC E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: EAIR ECON BR SUBJECT: Message from Ambassador Clifford Sobel to Acting FAA Administrator Lynne Osmus BRAZIL: FAA Flight Standards Consultations REF: A) STATE 20084 B) STATE 21635 ¶1. (SBU) I strongly recommend that FAA HQ Flight Standards Office work cooperatively with ANAC to select technical consultation dates to take place after the May ICAO inspection rather than March 16-17 as currently proposed. Insisting that consultations happen March 16-17 or not at all risks undercutting our success in achieving broader safety and security objectives with ANAC, with whom Mission, FAA and TSA have been striving, successfully until the current issue arose, to build a constructive and cooperative relationship. ¶2. (SBU) Post received the formal request for March 16-17 consultations on March 4 (ref A) and instructions to deliver March 9 (ref B),which post did immediately. While Mission FAA representative informally confirmed January 21 with the working level of ANAC that relevant participants for consultations would be in town March 16-17, no formal request was made at that time and it was only on March 4 that FAA rep confirmed with ANAC working level that the formal request had arrived at the Embassy for delivery. At that point, ANAC working level alerted ANAC senior management, who misunderstood the nature of the request (consultations rather than a formal assessment) and strongly objected to the short notice. The head of ANAC, Solange Vieira, called me personally March 5, extremely upset, to object to the way FAA was requesting consultations and the lack of information provided before the formal request was sent at the last minute. EEB confirmed that post should hold sending the diplomatic note formally requesting consultations until the FAA clarification letter ANAC requested was received. That letter (ref B) was received OOB March 9 and delivered that day to ANAC, whereupon the original diplomatic note was also sent. That is, ANAC was formally informed of the consultation request 7 days before the FAA team proposes to arrive in country (and even if Mission had not, as confirmed by Washington, waited for the clarification letter, a maximum of 12 days notice of the formal consultations request was provided). The FAA Flight Standards Office is insisting that the consultation dates can not be moved due to ANAC "agreeing" at the working level, based on the informal discussions in January. In other words, ANAC senior management received formal notification of the consultation request less than two weeks before the team plans to arrive, while FAA itself knew, and has been able to prepare, at least 7 weeks before that (being 9 weeks before arrival). FAA has not provided an agenda describing topics to be discussed. ¶3. (SBU) GOB is mindful of safety issues and is not objecting to consultations or declining consultations. GOB is requesting scheduling these consultations for May, after their ICAO inspection, rather than March. Mission and FAA rep have been working intensively to develop a productive relationship with this new civil aviation agency. We have made more progress on important safety and security objectives with ANAC in the past year than seen for many years previously. We have been particularly focused, with success almost in sight, on achieving agreement for TSA airport inspections in-country, an extremely sensitive sovereignty issue for Brazil that has required much careful negotiation with ANAC. ANAC had been eager to partner with us in this area and had finally agreed to allow TSA inspections, pending External Affairs Ministry approval. ¶4. (SBU) Since ANAC Director Vieira's call to me last Thursday, ANAC is now no longer returning our FAA representative's calls or e-mails. Instead, ANAC teed up the External Affairs Ministry to call my DCM March 10 to object to the March 16-17 date and to request dates after the May ICAO inspection. This is the same External Affairs section that must approve TSA inspections. Demanding that ANAC either accept consultations on March 16-17 or else FAA will initiate a formal IASA assessment is not a productive way to work with an important partner in achieving critical safety and security objectives. Jeopardizing big-picture cooperation with ANAC through a completely inflexible position is counter-productive and risks progress we have made and need to continue to make in achieving our aviation safety and security goals. ¶5. (SBU) My Embassy and I strongly support achieving USG safety aims in Brazil. However, as there has been no IASA assessment of Brazil since 2001, we cannot explain why technical consultations must now take place March 16-17 or else not at all before a formal assessment audit is launched. The difference of two months in a process that has not happened in eight years, and where the GOB is already preparing for an ICAO audit, is not clear to us and the risk of damaging relations is significant. I therefore urge you to show two-months flexibility in finding workable dates for both sides for BRASILIA 00000288 002 OF 002 the technical consultations. I will hold in abeyance the question of country clearance for the FAA team pending resolution of this issue. KUBISKE