Date: 201901
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZMP.ARTCC, MN
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZMP
ATC / advisory: Center ZMP
Second aircraft: Airbus Industrie Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Aircraft X and Aircraft Y were both arrivals into MCI. My airspace was from FL240 and above. I gave both arrivals FL240 and handed them off to ZMP Sector 26. Aircraft X was in front so I assigned hem 300 knots or greater; Aircraft Y I assigned 280 knots or less. They were both indicating 500 knots (Aircraft X was descending through FL250 and Aircraft Y was descending through FL310. Sector 26 took the hand off on both aircraft and entered their new assigned altitude of FL190. I issued the new altitudes to both aircraft. As Aircraft X was descending through FL230 for FL190; I noticed that his airspeed indicated 462 knots while Aircraft Y; who was descending through FL300 to FL190 was indicating 503 knots.  Aircraft X and Aircraft Y were 9 miles apart with a large overtake. Aircraft Y was leaving FL250 for FL190 and 30 knots faster than Aircraft X who was level at FL190. I increased Aircraft X's airspeed to 310 or greater and stopped Aircraft Y at FL200. This was all done 4000-5000 feet below my airspace! I then had to coordinate with the ZKC sector my new plan since they had the hand off on both aircraft. I also needed to coordinate my new plan with Sector 26 (both aircraft were in his airspace). Apparently; after reviewing the Falcon; ZKC didn't like my plan and told the ZMP Sector 26 to descend Aircraft Y to FL190 and increase his airspeed to 300 knots or less. What? Speed that back guy up and assign him the same altitude as the aircraft in front? There was only 6 miles of separation! ZKC also said that FL200 was not approved on Aircraft Y. I was providing positive separation on these two aircraft and ZKC was trying to be difficult by denying us to use FL200.  Sector 26 had to back coordinate to me to tell me this information because ZKC called the sector that should be working these two aircraft. I never received this information and shipped both aircraft to ZKC without incident. This new procedure is flawed and dangerous! Sector 39 is working aircraft 5000 ft. below their airspace for no reason! I am coordinating with two sectors and controlling aircraft that are no longer in my airspace! I had no time to do all of that coordination! I did not hear ZKC unable FL200 or issue the new speed assignments! This whole situation would be resolved if I had descended both aircraft to cross 10 west of PWE at FL240 and shipped them both to sector 26! Sector 26 could have amended the speeds/altitude and coordinate with ZKC themselves on two aircraft that were in their own airspace! This new procedure is unsafe! The high altitude sector is always busier [than] Sector 26 to have this many distractions and restrictions! Critical safety information was missed because the sectors around us don't realize ZMP high altitude sectors are working aircraft in the low altitude sectors! There is no reason to have this procedure! Altitudes are being entered in the data block by a sector that is not working or controlling those aircraft! We are relying on good memory to determine if that altitude was issued or not. There [are] no tools to indicate if the altitude was issued or going to be issued! Unsafe!




Synopsis: ZMP Center Controller reported an unsafe procedure that was resolved; but was not what the center controller wanted; which would have led to an operational error.