Metropolitan Airports Commission

Transcription

1 Metropolitan Airports Commission Management and Operations Committee Regular Monthly Meeting Agenda Monday, May 06, :00 pm

2 SEE ATTACHED SECURITY CHECKPOINT INFORMATION MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONS COMMITTEE Mike Landy, Chair Rick King, Vice Chair Daniel Boivin, Commission Chair Timothy Geisler, F&A Chair Mike Madigan Don Monaco Lisa Peilen, Commission Vice Chair Paul Rehkamp, PD&E Chair OPEN FORUM METROPOLITAN AIRPORTS COMMISSION NOTICE OF REGULAR MEETING MANAGEMENT & OPERATIONS COMMITTEE Monday, May 6, 2013 at 1:00 p.m. Room 3048A, Terminal 1-Lindbergh Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport AGENDA The open forum is a portion of the Commission meeting where persons will be allowed to address the Commission on subjects which are not a part of the meeting agenda. Speakers are asked to limit their remarks to two minutes each. Persons wishing to speak must complete a sign-up card prior to the start of the meeting. The sign-up card should be given to any staff person. The Commission may take action or reply at the time of the statement of may give direction to staff at the end of the meeting regarding investigation of the concerns expressed. DISCUSSION - INFORMATION 1. PARKING AND LANDSIDE OPERATIONS EVALUATION PRESENTATION Steve Busch, Vice President Finance & Administration Michele Krakowski, CPA, Lumin Advisors Arlie Johnson, Assistant Director MSP Operations Landside CONSENT 2. MICROSOFT SQL SERVER DATABASE SOFTWARE LICENSE Dave Ruch, Director Information Systems MHZ ARMER RADIO REPLACEMENTS Dave Ruch, Director Information Systems 4. I.T. SECURITY FIREWALLS ANNUAL MAINTENANCE Dave Ruch, Director Information Systems 5. REAL ESTATE MARKETING AND BROKERAGE SERVICES CONTINUING CONSULTANT RECOMMENDATION Eric Johnson, Director Commercial Management & Airline Affairs

3 DISCUSSION - ACTION 6. AIRPORT SECURITY REGULATIONS ORDINANCE PROPOSED FINDING OF FACTS, CONCLUSIONS, AND ORDER John Kedrowski, Attorney Mike Everson, Commander Airport Police Department DISCUSSION - INFORMATION 7. UPDATE ON SEQUESTRATION IMPACTS Gary Schmidt, Director Reliever Airports Roy Fuhrmann, Vice President Management and Operations Mitchell P. Kilian, Director Governmental Affairs Materials for this meeting are available at the following website: SECURITY CHECKPOINT INFORMATION Stop by the information booth near the tram station on the Tram Level. At the information booth, you will be asked to complete a security checkpoint access form and show valid, government-issued photo identification, such as a driver s license. Take your completed access form with you up two floors, to the Ticketing Level security checkpoints. Show your approved access form to security checkpoint personnel. You will then be screened just as if you were traveling. Access forms are only valid for the purpose of attending a public MAC meeting at a particular date and time. Commission Chambers are located on the Mezzanine Level overlooking the airport s central shopping area (above Chili s Restaurant), past the main security checkpoints. Allow yourself at least 30 minutes to park, complete the access form and get through the security checkpoint prior to the meeting. Parking in the following areas will be validated; please bring your parking ticket to the meeting. Directions to the Tram Level Information Booth From short-term parking: At the Terminal 1-Lindbergh entrance, take the escalator or elevator down to Tram Level. The information booth is straight ahead, in the center of the room. From general parking: If you park in the Blue or Red ramps, take the elevator down to the tram, which will transport you directly to the Terminal 1-Lindbergh Tram Level. When you exit the tram, the information booth is straight ahead, in the center of the room. If you park in the Green or Gold ramps, take the skyway to the Terminal 1-Lindbergh Mezzanine Level. From there, take an elevator or escalator to Tram Level. The information booth is straight ahead, in the center of the room. 4/30/2013 1:07:27 PM

4 MEMORANDUM ITEM 1 TO: Management and Operations Committee FROM: Steve Busch, Vice President Finance & Administration ( ) Arlie Johnson, Assistant Airport Director Landside Operations Jeff Courteau, Manager of Landside Systems SUBJECT: PARKING AND LANDSIDE OPERATIONS EVALUATION PRESENTATION DATE: April 30, 2013 At the May 2012 Finance and Administration Committee meeting staff requested approval to issue a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) to solicit proposals from consultants with expertise in the parking and landside operations area. Recall that an internal audit completed early 2012 identified issues in the current parking management contract. As a result, staff determined that it would be prudent to do an in-depth evaluation of the landside and parking management areas. The Review Team consisted of Bob Schauer, Director of Finance; Mike Willis, Director Internal Audit; Arlie Johnson, Assistant Airport Director Landside Operations; Jeff Courteau, Manager of Landside Systems; Steve Busch, Vice President Finance & Administration; and Wendy Bartlett, Legal Administrator (served as an advisor). On May 22, 2012 MAC received three qualification statements. The team identified above reviewed each of the statements and determined Lumin Advisors would be the best firm to conduct this evaluation. The Commission approved Lumin Advisors in June, Lumin Advisors is led by Michele Krakowski who is a Certified Public Accountant with 27 years of experience auditing and evaluating airport parking and ground transportation operations. Ms. Krakowski went through a thorough analysis of parking operations, landside operations and the parking management company s operations. This included flow charting, detailed interviews with all staff, documentation of current processes and procedures and a list of recommendations in all areas. Attached for your review is her Executive Summary of the evaluation. Ms. Krakowski will present highlights of her complete analysis and answer questions at the May 6, 2013 Management and Operations Committee meeting. The Landside Department appreciates the thorough review and thoughtful recommendations provided by Ms. Krakowski. Many of the recommendations have been, or are in the process of, being implemented. A thorough policy manual is being updated and drafted to create a more complete record of procedures relating to all Landside operations, including revenue and expense management. In addition, training of additional employees in critical systems knowledge related to public and employee parking as well as commercial vehicle and taxicab operations is in process. Landside is working with ABM (current parking manager) to develop additional trending reports to help identify potential areas of interest for more review. Job functions and task volume are being evaluated in preparation for re-distribution of these tasks/responsibilities and payment policies are being modified to encourage more direct payment to our bank and through bank cards.

5 The existing parking management agreement includes approximately 85% of the best practices recommended by Lumin Advisors. The current contract for parking management services has expired with ABM, the current provider. They are working on a month-to-month basis. In the near future, staff will bring forward a Request for Proposals (RFP) for these services which will include100% of the Lumin recommendations. THIS IS AN INFORMATIONAL ITEM ONLY; NO COMMITTEE ACTION IS REQUESTED.

6 SUMMARY OF THE LANDSIDE OPERATIONS ANALYSIS APRIL 2013 Scope Lumin Advisors performed a study of MAC s Landside operations that included public parking, employee parking, commercial vehicles, and taxi activity. The purpose of the study was to evaluate processes and staffing levels and then identify risks and inefficiencies. Public Parking MAC public parking generated nearly $80 million in Significant effort was made to review revenue controls, identify risks and the current controls in place, determine if any additional controls were needed, evaluate efficiency of the tasks performed, and determine if too little or too much effort is placed on each area of the operation. Findings Public Parking 1. Public parking is well managed by both the MAC staff and the ABM parking staff. While public parking revenue increased an average of 7% annually from 2002 to 2011, parking management cost increased only 0.16% annually. 2. ABM parking operational staff procedures are efficient and well documented with levels of performance and accountability measures that are above industry standard. 3. MAC manages the parking operator contract very effectively and obtains higher levels of service and reporting than found in most airport parking operations. 4. Risk of revenue loss is far below industry standards due to the operating models and procedures utilized by MAC and the parking operator. 5. Public parking expenses were found to be closely reviewed and well managed. 6. The RCS Zeag parking system provides excellent data and controls. 7. Recommended improvements include: a. MAC is at risk because the knowledge of the RCS Zeag parking system and parking revenue control procedures on the MAC side resides in one MAC employee. Other employees should be trained in the parking system and revenue controls and contribute to the monthly analysis process. b. Additional auditing and trending procedures for the ABM staff as well as a monthly audit report to assess the level of risk activity compared to historical activity. c. Formalize the documentation and distribution of monthly revenue control activities performed by MAC. Page 1

7 Landside Operations (Employee parking, Commercial Vehicles, Taxi) Public parking generates about 95% of all Landside Ops revenue. The remaining 5% is primarily generated from employee parking. Commercial vehicle and taxi activity are based on recovering budgeted expenses and are not intended to be revenue sources. Employee parking, commercial vehicle, and taxi controls and procedures were examined for risks, controls, and efficiencies. Findings Landside Activity: Employee Parking, Commercial Vehicles, and Taxis 1. MAC s Landside management is well balanced between customer service, operations, and revenue controls understanding and respecting the importance of excelling in all three areas. 2. MAC incurs significant labor demands for taxi activity due to the following reasons: a. Due to state legislation, MAC cannot use a concession model. b. MAC self-permits rather than using a municipal permit as the initial requirement. c. The taxi companies do not function as true companies, placing the burden of managing over 1,000 drivers and 700 vehicles on the MAC staff. d. Permitting is done annually rather than on a rolling monthly basis, requiring a huge labor effort each October. 3. The MAVIS system for Landside activity is an excellent system that provides strong revenue controls and data management. 4. Recommended improvements include: a. MAC would greatly benefit from operating under a taxi concession agreement. b. Formalize the roles and processes of the MAC Landside staff. c. Distribute the MAVIS system knowledge, revenue controls, and workload currently owned by one MAC staff to other staff members. d. Minimize the payments received in the Landside Ops front office and utilize the lockbox and auto credit card payment methods that are currently available. e. Redistribute some of the duties among the Landside Ops staff in order to achieve more from the organization as a whole. Parking Operator Agreement MAC requested best practices to incorporate into its future parking operator agreement. MAC s goal is to decrease the level of audit effort required for the Page 2

8 monthly invoices and address contestable expenses such as worker s compensation and self-funded insurance. Recommendations Include: 1. Use a limited reimbursement management agreement - The parking operator provides everything to manage the parking operation and the owner reimburses limited expenses that are defined on an approved reimbursement list. The owner also provides items defined in the contract, which usually consists of items needed to provide operational continuity should a new operator be obtained. The owner funds major maintenance and capital expenses. All expenses not defined as reimbursable or provided by the owner is included in the operator s management fee. The advantage of this type of agreement is that it reduces the amount of time to audit the monthly invoice reimbursements and it eliminates the difficulty of confirming costs of contestable expenses such as self-funded insurance, worker s compensation, and services provided by sister companies. It also provides incentive to the operator to manage a safe operation that produces savings in insurance and worker s compensation costs. 2. Reimbursable Expenses: a. Labor - The following labor expense are reimbursable for cashiers, control room assistants, diversion staff, and shift managers (these positions are typically reimbursed to ensure that the quantity and quality of front line staff are not reduced in order to save on expenses). b. Wages and payroll taxes, excluding Workers Compensation. c. Health and Welfare Benefits: i. Define a fixed dollar amount allowance per employee per month for all health and welfare benefits. Fixed costs is based on local costs and owner organization benefit coverage to determine a reasonable benefit amount for each employee. ii. To qualify for benefits, the employee must meet defined criteria. For example: The employee must be a full time employee on the last business day of the month after having worked 90 days. 3. Staffing schedule and budget hours for reimbursed labor categories shall be submitted to the owner for approval. 4. For reimbursable labor, the operator is required to submit a computergenerated payroll sheet with all wage, hours, and payroll tax information for the pay period and year-to-date information with each monthly invoice. 5. For non-reimbursed labor - Define the number of paid time off days (vacation, sick, bereavement, jury duty, etc.) allowed for non-reimbursable labor. Page 3

9 MEMORANDUM ITEM 2 TO: Management & Operations Committee FROM: Dave Ruch Director, Information Systems ( ) SUBJECT: MICROSOFT SQL SERVER DATABASE SOFTWARE LICENSE DATE: April 11, 2013 This is a request to purchase an enterprise license for the Microsoft SQL Server database software. Much of the MAC s data is stored in databases. Database software provides structure to the data items based on the relationships among those data items in the real world. Such software allows the user to create queries and generate reports that extract portions of the stored data that meet specified criteria. Over time many different copies of the Microsoft SQL Server software have been purchased for specific projects database needs. The proposed software license allows MAC staff to establish a single database cluster with redundant server hardware and software, enabling constant availability of the data. Many different databases can employ the same instance of the Microsoft SQL Server software, thus reducing the number of copies of SQL Server and the associated cost by relocating existing databases to the cluster. The MAC purchases Microsoft software using the State of Minnesota Microsoft Select Agreement from Software House International (SHI), the approved reseller. The cost of the license and the required software Assurance or support is $132, with sales tax. The support extends through February 28, This amount has been included in the approved 2013 operating budget. COMMITTEE ACTION REQUESTED: RECOMMEND TO THE FULL COMMISSION APPROVAL OF THE PURCHASE OF AN ENTERPRISE MICROSOFT SQL SERVER LICENSE INCLUDING THREE YEARS OF SOFTWARE ASSURANCE SUPPORT FROM SOFTWARE HOUSE INTERNATIONAL FOR $132,884.10, AND THAT THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR/CEO OR HIS DESIGNEE BE AUTHORIZED TO SIGN THE NECESSARY DOCUMENTS.

10 MEMORANDUM ITEM 3 TO: Management & Operations Committee FROM: Dave Ruch Director, Information Systems ( ) SUBJECT: 800 MHZ ARMER RADIO REPLACEMENTS DATE: April 9, 2013 This is a request to approve the purchase of replacement 800 MHz portable radios that are at their end of life. MAC uses the statewide Allied Radio Matrix for Emergency Response (ARMER) 800 MHz digital trunked radio system for both emergency and day to day operations. The system not only allows seamless radio communication among MAC departments, it also connects MAC to other metro and state public safety and emergency resources, an essential capability in time of emergency. Prior to implementation of this system, the MAC operated four separate radio systems using several different technologies. The ARMER system has proven to be a highly successful communications tool. The MAC joined the ARMER system in late 2004 and rolled it out to Public Safety first, then in early 2005 Airside Operations, Field Maintenance and Trades joined allowing all of MAC s departments to operate under one radio system and have the ability to communicate easily when needed for events and emergencies. MAC currently owns a fleet of approximately 645 radios, both mobile for vehicles as well as portable that can be carried by hand. All radios are manufactured by Motorola who suggests a seven year lifespan on portable radios and ten years on mobile radios. Many of the MAC s portable radios are starting to see more trips to the repair shop due to their age and the constant use in our 24/7 environment. These radios also only carry a 3 year warranty and the radios being replaced are between 7 and 9 years old. As part of this refresh, the MAC intends to replace 243 radios and any necessary accessories. Most accessories and batteries can be reused from the existing radios. All radios being replaced were purchased between 2004 and Most of these radios will go to Police, Fire, Airside Operations, Field Maintenance and Trades. The total cost for all radios, which have no shipping costs under the State Contract or sales tax according to MN State Statute 297A.70 subdivision 8, is $547, which is included in the approved 2013 operating budget. COMMITTEE ACTION REQUESTED: RECOMMEND TO THE FULL COMMISSION APPROVAL OF THE PURCHASE OF 243 REPLACEMENT ARMER HANDHELD RADIOS AND ACCESSORIES FROM MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF $547,217.08, AND THAT THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR/CEO OR HIS DESIGNEE BE AUTHORIZED TO SIGN THE NECESSARY DOCUMENTS.

11 MEMORANDUM ITEM 4 TO: Management & Operations Committee FROM: Dave Ruch Director, Information Systems ( ) SUBJECT: I.T. SECURITY FIREWALLS ANNUAL MAINTENANCE DATE: April 11, 2013 This is a request to approve payment of the annual maintenance and support costs for the firewall hardware and software that protect MAC networks. Good computer security requires methods to block the entry and exit of harmful data to the MAC s networks, especially for connections to the Internet or other outside links. The MAC s firewalls provide that defense. A Firewall is a combination of hardware and software that sits in line on the network. It examines the data traffic flowing through it and blocks or allows traffic based upon a set of rules that have been programmed into the firewall by MAC IS staff. The MAC uses firewalls on connections internally as well. For example, the parking Revenue Control System that processes credit cards is isolated from other, internal network traffic to meet the PCI credit card security requirements. Some of the Public Safety systems are similarly isolated from other MAC network activity. There are presently thirty-five firewalls deployed at the MAC. There are seven clusters of two firewalls each for redundancy as well twenty-one individual units. All of them were manufactured by CheckPoint and purchased under State of Minnesota contract from the then authorized reseller, FishNet Security. At the time of this renewal FishNet is no longer on the State of Minnesota contract, so staff selected Insight Public Sector, the only other CheckPoint reseller available under State contract. The total cost with tax for the annual maintenance and support is $99, This is a reduction from the 2012 cost of $120, This expense is included in the approved 2013 operating budget. COMMITTEE ACTION REQUESTED: RECOMMEND THAT THE FULL COMMISSION APPROVE THE PURCHASE OF CHECKPOINT FIREWALL SUPPORT FROM INSIGHT PUBLIC SECTOR FOR $99,280.46, AND THAT THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR/CEO OR HIS DESIGNEE BE AUTHORIZED TO SIGN THE NECESSARY DOCUMENTS.

12 MEMORANDUM ITEM 5 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Management & Operations Committee Eric L. Johnson, Director, Commercial Management & Airline Affairs ( ) REAL ESTATE MARKETING AND BROKERAGE SERVICES CONTINUING CONSULTANT RECOMMENDATION DATE: April 25, 2013 This memo provides details regarding the review team s recommendation for selection of a real estate marketing and brokerage services continuing consultant. MINNESOTA GOVERNMENT DATA PRACTICES ACT Under state law, information submitted by proposers to MAC and information created or maintained by MAC as part of the evaluation process remains not public until MAC has completed negotiating the contract with the selected proposer(s). The names of the proposers, however, are public once the proposals are opened. Information contained in the proposals (and the Not Public Memorandum) is not public and should not be disclosed to anyone other than MAC Commissioners and staff. However, Commissioners may discuss the information contained in the proposal(s) (or the Not Public Memorandum) at the Committee and Commission meetings to the extent reasonably necessary to conduct the business at hand. The information contained in this memorandum is public data. BACKGROUND INFORMATION MAC will utilize a consultant in conjunction with its effort to develop non-aeronautical property located at the Flying Cloud and Anoka County Blaine airports, and potentially other airports, including MSP in the future. This consultant will assist staff with the following activities: 1. Market analysis and land research 2. Strategic planning related to parcel development 3. Developing marketing packages for each of the available sites 4. Notify industry contacts of the available land opportunities 5. Meet with City officials to discuss potential development ideas 6. Generating interest and potential competition for the leasing of the sites 7. Assist in the negotiation and final signing of lease or sales documents. THE SELECTION PROCESS In February 2013, the Commission authorized staff to issue a request for qualifications (RFQ) for real estate marketing and brokerage continuing consultant services. Staff issued the RFQ on February 20, 2013 and received five qualifications statements by the due date, March 8, The firms that submitted statements were Cassidy Turley, CBRE, CGC, Colliers, and DTZ.

13 Each of the five qualifications statements was reviewed by a three-person review team consisting of MAC Commissioner Tammy Mencel, Commercial Management & Airline Affairs Director Eric Johnson, and Assistant Director of Reliever Airports Kelly Gerads. Tom Anderson and Ed Podnieks provided legal and financial support. The review team scored the qualifications statements based on the following criteria and point values: 1. Organization, size and structure of firm, relating ability to perform the required services, including the availability of necessary resources, and staffing (100 pts.) 2. Proposed fees and expenses (200 pts.) 3. Qualifications and experience of staff designated for MAC projects (200 pts.) 4. Overview and approach to the scope of work (100 pts.) The review team met on April 2, 2013 to discuss the statements and report their individual scores. The review team then invited the two top scoring firms Cassidy Turley, and CBRE to interview on April 15, The two firms were allowed 15 minutes for presentation followed by a 30-minute question and answer period. Following the interviews, each review team member submitted final scores for each firm. Based on those scores, the review team recommends that CBRE be designated to provide continuing consultant services for real estate marketing and brokerage. COMMITTEE ACTION REQUESTED: RECOMMEND TO THE FULL COMMISSION APPROVAL OF CBRE TO PROVIDE CONTINUING CONSULTANT SERVICES FOR REAL ESTATE MARKETING AND BROKERAGE AND THAT THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR/CEO OR HIS DESIGNEE BE AUTHORIZED TO EXECUTE THE NECESSARY DOCUMENTS.

14 MEMORANDUM ITEM 6 TO: Management and Operations Committee FROM: John Kedrowski, Attorney ( ) Mike Everson, Commander Airport Police Department ( ) SUBJECT: AIRPORT SECURITY REGULATIONS ORDINANCE PROPOSED FINDING OF FACTS, CONCLUSIONS, AND ORDER DATE: April 25, 2013 The Management and Operations Committee served as Hearing Officers for a public hearing conducted on April 1, 2013 to receive testimony regarding the proposed adoption of a revised Airport Security Regulations Ordinance. The proposed Ordinance would replace Ordinance No. 91. Comments were received at the public hearing and in writing. After the hearing record closed, staff reviewed the comments and prepared the attached draft report. After consideration of all of the testimony, staff has made some minor revisions to the ordinance. Four revisions to highlight are: a) Section 2.4 Escort was changed to exempt tour groups and minors from the requirement to have government-issued identification; b) Section 2.4 a provision was added to prohibit people badged for a particular area from being escorted in the area; c) Section 5.4(d) The requirement for airlines to use transparent garbage bags was removed; and, d) The effective date for the ordinance was established as July 1, As its May 6, 2013 meeting, the M&O Committee will be asked to adopt the attached Hearing Officers Report which includes the hearing transcript, the proposed Ordinance which shows the revisions since the public hearing and the submitted written comments. In addition, the Hearing Officers will consider making a recommendation to the Full Commission to approve the attached proposed Findings, Conclusions and Order and to adopt the proposed Ordinance. If adopted by the Full Commission, the Ordinance will take effect on July 1, COMMITTEE ACTION REQUESTED 1. ADOPT THE HEARING OFFICERS REPORT; 2. RECOMMEND THAT THE FULL COMMISSION: A. APPROVE THE PROPOSED FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER; B. ADOPT THE ORDINANCE ON AIRPORT SECURITY REGULATIONS; AND, C. AUTHORIZE THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR/CEO OR HIS DESIGNEE TO EXECUTE THE NECESSARY DOCUMENTS.

15 AIRPORT SECURITY REGULATIONSORDINANCE INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE Metropolitan Airports Commission ("MAC") Ordinance No. 91 provides local security regulations and rules at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport ("MSP Airport"). Ordinance No. 91 was adopted by the Commission in An update of Ordinance No. 91 was needed to address changed federal regulations, the role of the Transportation Security Administration and new security features. The new ordinance would replace MAC Ordinance No. 91 II. PUBLIC HEARING 1. Time and Place A public hearing to consider adopting a revised Airport Security Regulations Ordinance was conducted by the Management and Operations Committee at 1:00 p.m. on April 1, 2013 in Room 3048A, Mezzanine Level of Terminal 1 - Lindbergh at the MSP Airport. The Management and Operations Committee was appointed the Hearing Officer by the Chair of the Commission. The hearing was held pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 473 with public notice of the hearing provided as set forth in the Exhibits and the opportunity for public testimony was given. 2. Presentations Information and exhibit evidence was presented by Commander Mike Everson, Airport Police Department - MSP's Airport Security Coordinator and John Kedrowski, MAC Attorney. 3. Exhibits The following exhibits were entered into the record at the hearing. The exhibits are available upon request. A. Notice of Public Hearing, dated March 11, B. Affidavit of Publication of the Notice of Public Hearing in the Minnesota State Register on March 11, C. Public Hearing Draft of the Proposed Airport Security Ordinance - Redlined, dated March 8, D. Summary of Proposed Security Ordinance Changes, dated March 22, E. Affidavit of Mailing to lnterested Parties the Notice of Public Hearing, dated March 13, F. Affidavit of ing to lnterested Parties the Notice of Public Hearing, dated March 12, G. Affidavit of Webposting of the Notice of Public Hearing, Draft Airport Security Ordinance-Cleaned and the Draft Airport Security Ordinance-Redlined to the Metropolitan Airports Commission website under Public Notices section, dated March 8,

16 H. Memorandum regarding Public Hearing to Revise Ordinance No Airport Security Regulations, dated March 22, Hearing Officer's Questions/Discussions The Hearing Officers were given the opportunity to ask questions or comment about the proposed ordinance. Commissioner Madigan noted the TSA's recent decision to allow certain knives through the screening checkpoint. He asked about how the TSA's decision affects the ordinance, specifically Section 6.5; the overall prohibited items list; and, potential penalties for violations of the ordinance. Commander Everson responded that generally TSA handles the minimal TSA-prohibited item problems. The Airport Police Department becomes involved when the prohibited item is particularly dangerous or the situation appears to be concerning. Commander Everson noted that violations of the ordinance as a criminal manner are misdemeanor, but for MSP-badged individuals, administrative sanctions can also be taken against their badge. Commission Chair Boivin asked about the origins for Section 6.9, Interference with Screening Personnel. Commander Everson stated that while MSP has only a few instances of people causing problems for screening personnel, the provision was added to provide greater clarity for police officers in those few situations. 5. Public Testimonv All persons in attendance and wishing to do so were given the opportunity to testify and to introduce evidence regarding the proposed ordinance. Comments received during the public hearing are incorporated into the Comments and Responses section of this report. The following members of the public provided comments: 5. Transcript David Budge - Delta Airlines Airport Customer Service Security Room; and, Pady Regnier - Retailer associated with Uptown Minnesota store. The proceedings of the public hearing were transcribed by a qualified court reporter. A copy of the transcript is attached. 6. Record The hearing record was kept open until 4:00 p.m. on April 5, Three written comments were received prior to the hearing. They were from John Chaussee of Southwest Airlines, Jeff Hart of Delta Airlines and David Budge of Delta Airlines. Ill. COMMENTS AND RESPONSES This section lists and responds to questions, comments and concerns expressed in the public hearing or through the written comments. While the below comments are described in a summary fashion, all questions, comments and concerns were specifically reviewed and considered. Comment: On the definitions section, the following comments were received:

17 1. For Section airline personnel can be interpreted to include both airline employees and its contractors. 2. In Section 1.5b, AOA and SlDA are not compatible. 3. The definition of a sterile area in Section 1.5~ is inconsistent with aircraft operator security regulations under TSA requirements. 4. In Section 1.8, authorized persons could include individuals who have access through another TSA-approved method. 5. A concourse pass in Section 1.I 1 is not an industry term for aircraft operators. 6. Passengers as defined in Section 1.I 9 could include persons with a gate pass. 7. Are MAC-Approved identification badges included in Section 1.25? Response: Some confusion appears to exist in defined terms. This proposed ordinance defines terms consistent with terms used by MAC andlor TSA regulations for airport operators. Specific responses to comments on the definitions are: 1. Airline Personnel in Section 1.2 is meant to cover both employees of an airline and the airline's contractors. 2. At MSP, there are two types of SlDA areas. One area is the secured area SlDA and the other is the AOA SIDA. 3. The sterile area definition is consistent with the area used at the Minneapolis- St. Paul International Airport for airport operator regulations. 4. The language in Section 1.8 does not limit, nor attempts to be exhaustive, of the many different means that people may be authorized to be enter into airport security areas. 5. A concourse pass in Section 1.I 1 is a MAC specific method of allowing persons into a sterile area. 6. Comment noted. 7. Yes, MAC-Approved identification badges are included and a change to the proposed ordinance has been made. Comment: Under Section Escort, how many people can one person escort and what if the Person does not have government-issued photo identification, like a minor? Res~onse: A limit on the number of persons to be escorted was considered; but, because of tours and other events, the ability to control people who are being escorted was decided as a better measure. As to a government-issued photo identification, an exception for tour groups was added. Comment: In Section 2.5(b), documents issued by airlines can allow people to enter the sterile area through a security screening area. Response: Comment noted and a change made to Section 2.5(b). Comment: Are there particular reasons that a concourse pass will be issued? What are those reasons? Response: Because TSA restrictions may change as to who can enter the sterile area, the reason(s) that a person may be granted entry to the sterile area is not limited in the ordinance. When MAC issues a concourse pass, they follow TSA restrictions and guidelines. Comment: Is section Concourse Pass meant to restrict airlines' ability to issue gate passes?

18 Response: Concourse passes are only issued by MAC. The section is not meant to replace or prohibit the gate passes issued by airlines. Comment: How can a person who is convicted for a disqualifying crime and subsequently incarcerated notify the badging office? Response: Individuals are responsible for their MAC-Issued identification badges. If an individual is convicted of a disqualifying crime and incarcerated, they will need to make arrangements to surrender their badge. Comment: One comment expressed concern about individuals who are simply charged with a disqualifying crime rather than convicted. Response: Sections 3.8 (e) and (f) were examined in detail. While being "arrested" for a disqualifying crime is not a conviction, the action of being "charged" with a disqualifying crime is significant. A careful balance must be considered between the individual's charges and the security of the airport and the traveling public. For applicants, they must resolve their charges before receiving an MSP-Issued Identification Badge. For a current badge holder, the "charge" will be reviewed, and any decision to suspend or revoke their badge can be appealed. Comment: Can Section 4.3 include other authorized identifications? Response: Section 4.3 allows for challenges to all individuals who are not displaying appropriate identification badges which would include individuals who are not displaying any identification. Comment: Section 4.4 should allow for agents working a gate to open a passenger boarding bridge door to load or unload people from an aircraft. Response: Agents can open passenger boarding bridge doors. But, the agents must be able to control the access point so that non-authorized persons do not gain entry into areas that they are not allowed to enter. Comment: Section timed doors is not always feasible during enplaning or deplaning operations. Response: Security doors are set by a timer so that if the door remains open for a longer than allowed time period, an alarm will activate. Security devices on boarding bridge doors can be temporarily programmed by agents to remain open during enplaning and deplaning operations. Comment: Aircraft security provisions are clearly outlined in TSA regulations. Sections 5.4 (a), (b) and (c) are not necessary given the TSA regulations. Or, the section should be rewritten to match TSA regulations. Response: TSA regulations are very detailed. However, the airport operator does not enforce TSA regulations. Section 5.4 provides for greater accountability and better security for the airport and its security. Comment: The restrictions on bags and backpacks in Section 5.4(c) is troublesome and does not allow for some personnel who must carry their bag onto an aircraft.

19 Response: Section 5.4(c) prohibits personal bags and personal backpacks. These are items not owned by the company or used in the performance of a job. Personal bags and backpacks may not have been examined at a checkpoint. The bags and backpacks can be used to conceal items and introduce these items to the sterile area of an aircraft. Comment: The requirement in Section 5.4(d) of using transparent plastic bags is difficult for an airline system and a switch cannot be easily made. Response: Section 5.4 is being dropped from the proposed ordinance. Comment: Does MAC recognize that TSA has regulations on "tools of the trade" items and that the items can be brought into the sterile area? Response: MAC does recognize that TSA regulations allow for prohibited items to be brought into the sterile area as "tools of the trade". Section allows for "tools of the trade" to be brought into airport security areas. Comment: Can pilots and mechanics access secured areas around the footprint of an aircraft to perform walk-arounds or maintenance? Response: If a pilot or mechanic has a MAC-Issued ldentification Badge, they must display the badge while performing their duties in the secured area. For pilots and mechanics without badges, they would need a MAC-Approved ldentification Badge or would need to be escorted. Please contact the Airport Security Coordinator to inquire about MAC-Approved ldentification Badges. Comment: Will the changes be included in the SlDA training? Response: Yes, any changes to security and a new ordinance would be included in SlDA training. IV. POST-HEARING REVISIONS TO THE ORDINANCE Besides minor word changes and formatting, revisions to the proposed ordinance since the public hearing are: 1. In Section Concourse Pass, the words "by MAC" were added to clarify that the Concourse Pass is issued by MAC. Airlines issue other similar documents which allow persons to access the Sterile Area. The ordinance does not impact those documents. 2. In Section Security ldentification Display Area, "or MAC-Approved" was added. 3. In Section Escort, language was added to the end of paragraph d to exempt tour groups and minors from the requirement to have possession of a government-issued photo identification. 4. Also in Section Escort, paragraph e was added to prohibit a person from escorting another person who is badged for that area.

20 5. In Section 5.4(c), the word "personal" was added in front of backpacks to further clarify that the prohibition is on personal items. 6. Section 5.4(d) was deleted. 7. In Section Presenting a Prohibited Item, the word "knife" was deleted. Because the TSA is considering whether to allow small knives, the ordinance will depend upon the TSAprohibited item list. The ordinance would support any TSA change to this regulation. 8. In Section Effective Date, the effective date of the ordinance was made July 1, IV. SUMMARY Attached are proposed Findings, Conclusions and Order regarding the Airport Security Regulations Ordinance. It is the recommendation of the Hearing Officers that the Commission adopt the Findings, Conclusions and Order and proceed with the adoption of the proposed Ordinance. Mike Landy, Chair Management & Operations Committee

21 MAC Public Hearing - Ordinance No. 91,4/1/2013 Page MAC Public Hearing - Ordinance No. 91, Page: l METROPOLITAN AIRPORTS COMMISSION APPEARANCES PUBLIC HEARING RE: REVISING ORDINANCE NO AIRPORT SECURITY ORDINANCE MANAGEMENT & OPERATIONS COMMITTEE: Rick King, Acting Chair Dan Boivin, Commission Chair Timothy Geisler Michael Madigan Don Monaco Lisa Lebedoff Peilen HELD ON APRIL 1, :OO PM GRIEVE CONFERENCE CENTER ROOM LT-3048A, MEZZANINE LEVEL TERMINAL 1 - LINDBERGH MINNEAPOLIS-ST. PAUL INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT METROPOLITAN AIRPORTS COMMISSION STAFF PRESENT: Thomas Anderson, General Counsel John R. Kedrowski, Attorney - Legal Department Anne Irish, Secretary Dennis Probst, Executive Vice President Roy Fuhrmann, Vice President - Management & Operations Jeffrey Hamiel. Executive Director/CEO Gary warren, vice President: - Planning Development & Environment REPORTED BY: Elizabeth J. Gang1 Registered Professional Reporter Paradigm Reporling & Cqliorring ~~~pradi&mnponing.com MAC Public Hearing -0rdinanceNo. 91,UlnOl3 Page: MAC Pablic Hearing - Ordi~nce Na 91, 4/1/2013 Page: 4 ACTING CHAIR KING: Next on today's agenda is the public hearing to revise MAC Ordinance No. 91 on Airport Security Regulations. The purpose of todayls hearing is to receive testimony and comments on a proposed ordinance which would revise and replace MAC Ordinance No. 91. The Management & Operations Committee has been appointed the hearing officers for this public hearing. Ae the hearing officers, we will not be answering questions today. We will also not be taking any official action. The process for this hearing will be first for the staff to enter exhibits into the record and then make a presentation about the proposed ordinance. After that, the Committee members will have a chance to conment and ask questions, then the floor will be open for members of the public to provide any comments. When the public comments have concluded, the public hearing will then be closed. If someone does not wish to make comments during this public hearing, then written comments can be submitted until 4:00 p.m. on Friday, April 5th. 2013, at which time the hearing record will close. The court reporter is here today taking down all the testimony, so everyone who speaks is asked to first state their name, spell it out slowly, and then identify any company or organization if you are representing one. I Paradigm Reporhng & C~Lior*ng &lo.s45-96&8 W70902 wwly.pandigmmpor(ing.~o~ If you have a business card, please leave that with the court reporter, and that will make it simpler. Now I turn the hearing over to MAC staff. I MR. KEDROWSKI: Mr. Chair, Commissioners. My name is John Kedrowski, I am one of the attorneys in the Legal Department, and to my right is Commander Mike Everson of the Police Department. Commander Everson is MSP's designated security coordinator, and in that role he oversees all security matters for MSP and is the responsible official to the TSA. The purpose of today's hearing is for a proposed new security ordinance. The proposed ordinance will be a replacement for Ordinance 91. The MAC Ordinance 91 was adopted by the Commission in It regulates the 1 various security matters here at MSP. While still effective, the ordinance needs to be updated. The proposed ordinance will provide general updates, but it I will also better synchronize the new federal regulations and rules that have been applicable since The proposed ordinance will also establish some of the standards and the processes that we have for security I matters. While it may appear there are many changes to this ordinance, there are very few major changes that are 'being adopted by today's security ordinance. Staff has been working on this proposed ordinance for a couple of I Paradigm Rcpr(in6 & CqU&nIng* U70902 WYWparadigmmponing.con

22 MAC Public Hearing - Ordinance No. 91,4/1/2013 Page: 5 I I I ( 1 ( years through the seemingly ever-changing security world. I On February 20th of this year, staff met with a I consortium of MsP entities, including all the major carriers, the sterile air tenants, cargo carriers and the TSA. Eighty-six people attended that meeting. The written comments received from that meeting will be entered into the hearing record later today. The ( 8 1 proposed ordinance will impact all 18,000 badged people I and the 700-some companies here at MSP, but for the vast majority of those people and the companies the impact of 1 11 ( the proposed ordinance is going to be very minor. I I l2 1 At this point I'm going to identify and enter I the staff's hearing exhibits into the record. Our first exhibit is Exhibit A, the Notice of Public Hearing, which is dated March 11, 2013; Exhibit B is the Affidavit of Publication and Notice of Public Hearing in the Mi~esota State Register on March llth, 2013; Exhibit C is the Public Hearing Draft of the Proposed Airport Security Ordinance - Redlined, which is dated March 8, 2013; Exhibit D is a Summary of Proposed Security Ordinance Changes dated March 22nd. 2013; Exhibit E is an ~ffidavit Of Mailing to the interested parties about the Notice of Public Hearing dated March 13th of 2013; Exhibit F is the I 1 24 I Affidavit of ing to the interested parties about the I Notice of Public Hearing dated March 12, 2013; Exhibit G I I MAC Public Hearing -Ordinance No. 91,4/1/1013 Page: is an Affidavit of Webposting of the Notice of Public Hearing, Draft Airport Security Ordinance, the clean version, and the Draft Airport Security Ordinance-Redlined, which was posted to the Metropolitan Airports Commission website under the Public Notices section, which was dated March 8, 2013; and the last exhibit is Exhibit H, which is a memorandum regarding Public Hearing to Revise Ordinance 91 - Airport Security Regulations. That was dated March 22nd, At this point I'll have Commander Everson talk about the ordinance and some of the changes. COMMANDER EVERSON: Chair King, Commissioners, good afternoon. My presentation is going to highlight the significant changes of the proposed Security Ordinance. If you have a copy of the summary or the ordinance, it will be easy to follow because I'm going to go through each section in order. Section No. 1 - Definitions. All definitions were evaluated. Some existing definitions were changed to provide more clarity. Some terms were no longer valid or necessary and thus deleted. New definitions were added to reflect the changes of the federal regulations as well as our Airport Security Program. Section 2 - Airport Security Areas. This section regulates the activities associated with or MAC Publk Hurlng - Ordinance No. 91,4/liZ013 Page: MAC PuMk Hearing-Odlnaore No. 91, Uli2013 Page: within the different security areas of the airport. The previous ordinance defined how to properly enter or exit security areas as well as who was authorized to be in those different areas. Notable changes to this section include: Section 2.3, persons entering into or within security areas are subject to inspections of their person, belongings and vehicles; Section 2.3.c.. persons may be removed from or denied entry into security areas for refusal to comply with those inspections; Section 2.4, escort procedures have become more formalized in the proposed ordinance. Also the proposed ordinance requires person under escort to have on their person a government-issued photo ID; Section 2.9, tampering has been included to include aircraft and critical infrastructure of the airport; Section 2.11, procedures are established for the issuance of concourse passes by MAC. Section 3 is Identification Badges. Section 3 continues the provisions of how and when to use a MAC-issued ID badge and limits the use to the direct performance of one's job duties. Notable changes of this section include a new section, Section 3.8, which is disqualifying crimes. Prior to the establishment of TSA and 49 C.F.R. 1542, the list of disqualifying crimes did not exist established a requirement for fingerprint-based criminal history record checks and a list of 37 disqualifying crimes for which a criminal conviction prohibits the airport operator from issuing a badge with unescorted access rights to security areas. The proposed ordinance will adopt those TSA-disqualifying crimes and they will expand on this new standard. We will require 12 months of time between release from imprisonment for a disqualifying offense and the issuance of a security badge. We'll provide for people who are convicted of nondisqualifying crimes on airport property to potentially be denied a security badge for a period of time. We'll prohibit people from receiving a security badge until pending charges for disqualifying crimes have received a final judicial disposition. Subject people with security badges and pending charges for disqualifying crimes to potential suspensions or revocations until they have received a final judicial disposition, and it authorizes the airport security coordinator to conduct criminal history record checks each time a person applies for or renews their security badge. Section 3.9 also makes employers formally responsible for the return of their employees' security badges and allows a fee to be assessed for failure to do so. Section 3.10 also adds prohibition on providing false information in the application for a security badge s ' Pandip Rcpodng & Cqnbning #70R mmpandigmn~ng..con

23 MAC Public Hearing- Ordinance No. 91.4lli2013 and requires companies' authorized signers to check the identity and eligibility of those badge applicants. Section 4 is Duties of Authorized Persons. There is very little change to this section. One change is there's a clarification for duties of authorized persons, and Section 4.2 prohibits disclosing security codes to nonauthorized persons. Page: Section 5 is Responsibility of Airport Tenants. There are two new provisions in this proposed ordinance. The first one deals with aircraft security. Section 5.4 states airline personnel will be responsible for securing aircraft and controlling access to that aircraft. Airline personnel, except flight crews, would be prohibited from bringing personal bags or backpacks onto an aircraft while servicing that aircraft. This would not include company-owned bags or bags for mechanics with their tools. Airline personnel would also be required to use transparent trash bags when servicing aircraft. The second provision, Section 5.5, adds a requirement for tenants to secure and control TSA-prohibited items. Examples of this include knives used in kitchens, scissors, corkscrews, box cutters and other items needed to perform official duties. Section 6 is Other Prohibited Acts. In Section 6.1, language was changed to clarify that the TSA Pv&m Repr4ng & Cmplionlng it7096 wwup#rndigmrcpo~.com MAC Public Herring - Ordimance No. 9l,4/ P*: l requires travelers and many employees to enter the sterile area through a TSA check point. In Section 6.5, specific language has been added to make the violation of presenting a prohibited item at a security check point a strict liability offense. By making this violation a strict liability offense, the proposed ordinance eliminates any questions or issues about a person's intent. If a person has a TSA-prohibited item, specifically a firearm, the person would be subject to the penalties under this ordinance. Sections 6.6 through 6.11 are new provisions being added to address security violations we've encountered since the last revision of this ordinance in Examples of the new provisions include: Unlawful or entry into a hangar or building, presenting false ID to gain entry to a security area, no parking or unattended vehicles within a thousand feet of a runway, and interfering with security personnel. Section 7 is Enforcement. Section 7 is the administrative process of the ordinance. Similar to the taxicab or electric cart ordinances, Ordinance 91 has an administrative process to address violations of its regulations. This process allows MAC to take actions against a person's mc-issued security badge for serious or repeated violations of the ordinance. There is also a slight increase in the range of days for suspension, and Pdlgm Rcp0r4ng & CwUoning #70# ~~~p~~npomrng.cmll MAC ~ublic ~ u h g0rdinmnee - ~o.91,4lli2013 Page: 1 MAC Public Hearing- Ordinance No. 91,4/y2013 Psge: l clear language on the types of conduct for which a person can have their badge revoked. Sectlons 8 and 9 only have small changes related to the effective date of the new ordinance and repealing of Ordinance 91. That concludes the presentation on the update of the new ordinance and will stand for questions. ACTING CHAIR KING: NOW that the staff presentation is finished, I would like to first invite any questions or comments from hearing officers regarding the proposed ordinance. Mr. Madigan. COMMISSIONER MADIGAN: Thank you, Chair. All these changes certainly make sense to me, and the one issue I wanted to raise for you both, and I apologize for not doing it before the meeting, concerned 6.5, the strict liability provision. And I can understand eliminating the intent requirement with a firearm or an explosive device makes a lot of sense but, one, I understand TSA has now changed the requirement for knives, and if that's the case, should we reflect that change in this ordinance so it's consistent with that? And then, two, my understandilry ut ul11rr prulrililrd ilea~s could include things like baseball bats, lacrosse sticks, you know, and other items, which theoretically could he used as weapons, but I'm wondering, you know, they're the kind of things where I could see passengers making honest mistakes that those types of items were in their bag, and I'm really wondering whether or not we would want to draft an ordinance that would eliminate intent in those circumstances. On the other hand you may say that, you know, we need to err on the side of safety. So that's the concern I wanted to articulate for both of you and have you address that. And then, finally, it wasn't clear to me what the consequence would be of a violation of this particular section. COMMANDER EVERSON; Sure. Commissioner Madigan. Commissioners. I think there was actually three questions in there, so I'll start in the reverse and go back, and then I might have to have you refresh my memory on the first. Violation of the ordinance is a misdemeanor and it's -- they could receive a criminal citation. In cases where it's employees, they could also receive an administrative citation, which would have action against their badge. Typically, and now I'll move into the second question, typically the TSA does not call us for pruhibiled ilenw like bdls. Tlrry jusl racerltly revised their list. They reduced the length of a blade or knife to 2.36 inches, and they specified the width and they PO543 *Pandigm Reporting & Ccrglioning #TO90 vmv.pnmdfgmreponfng.com

24 MAC Publk Hearing - Ordinance No. 91, specified things like it can't be a locking blade and whatnot. They also allow for baseball bats under a certain length to now be allowable, and other sports equipment, like no more than two golf clubs at a time. Page We typically do not get called for those. The only time that the TSA would call law enforcement to respond to those would be if, say, a knife or, you know, a prohibited item, knife, was hidden within somebody's backpack and it was, you know, specifically somebody went through the trouble to make sure they wouldn't be caught. Occasionally somebody will go to one check point, get turned away for it, they will go to another check point and they111 try, so then they'll call us for those and then we take action against those. And then I think I'm going to ask you to repeat the first part of the question. COMMISSIONER MADIGAN: I think you answered them all. I appreciate it. Thanks. Chairman Boivin? ACTING CHAIR KING: Other questions? COMMISSION CHAIR BOIVIN: I just had a question about 6.9, the harassment, intimidation, assault, or interference with screening personnel. I imagine that was a result of some incidents which we've had, or I know there's been some times with people being Pudigm Repning & Cqrioning OR wwn.pandigmnporiing.com MAC Public Hearing- Ordinance No. 91,4/Ii2013 Page: I4 difficult in security lines, and I'm wondering if you could just comment what the necessity was for that. There was no where else that you could use, or no other law we could use to remove them or? COMMANDER EVGRSON: Chair Boivin, Commissioners. Typically we don't have a large problem with that at MSP. We did feel it was necessary and the right thing to do to take actions with our ordinance to protect our screening personnel, who at this time are Transportation Security Administration officers. Prior to this, the proposed new ordinance, we used to categorize everything into kind of a lump sum, just failure to obey security directives. It kind of became the disorderly conduct of the ordinance. Nothing else fit so I put it in there. So we took the history over the last 11 years and tried to find things that we had problems with, and we tried to specifically address them through the ordinance. Although there's not a lot of problem, we do have occasional problems and it just makes it easier for us. COMMISSION CHAIR BOIVIN: I had another question. In the definition section, this is the old lawyer in me, when we refer to Federal C. F.R. s and, you know, definitions that the federal government uses, how do we as a commission then, when the federal government * Pandip R e g & Cqrioning W #70902 w m ~ ~ ~ ' n g. c o r n MAC Public Hearing-Ordinance No. 91,4/1L?013 Page: I MAC Publk Emring-Ordhance No. 91, UlflOl3 Page: 11 does change a definition, how do we -- do we have a commitment from the Police Department to come back and let us know to see if we agree or disagree? I mean I could see circumstances where the federal government could say this should be defined this way and we may not agree with it, and so I'm trying to find that balance such that we would have the opportunity to comment or revise our ordinance if we wanted to. COWER EVERSON: Simply put, yes. COMMISSION CHAIR BOIVIN: Okay. ACTING CHAIR KING: Other questions? (No response. ) ACTING CHAIR KING: At this point of the public hearing I would like to invite any members of the public to come forward to comment on the proposed Security Ordinance. Please remember to state your name, spelling it slowly, and then identifying the company or organization that you represent. Also please remember that this is a public hearing so we may not respond to your comments or questions during today's hearing. Come forward, please. Welcome. MR. BUDDE: My name is David Budge, last name is spelled B-U-D-0-E, and I'm with Delta Airlines with the Airport Customer Service Security Room, and we've made some comments through some of the local *Pmzdigm Reporting & Caprioning #70# Minneapolis management, but I'm up here representing Delta today. Couple questions. Section 2.11 about the concourse pass? Currently we as a carrier are required to meet certain criteria before we allow people into the sterile area based on their ability to not have a ticket for an aircraft flight. Primarily they're people meeting military personnel, people meeting unaccompanied minors and people assisting elderly. Allowing access to the sterile area has to go through a secured flight piocess of passengers presenting their IDS and being checked against the secure flight system that the TSA has. We're wondering how you, as an airport entity, will be allowing people to gather, either gain that information or get that access to a security check point, and what happens if someone who is not supposed to gain access does gain access and could be meeting somebody on a Delta flight or any other carriers' flight and what would that consequence be? And also Section 5.4.c.. which deals primarily with aircraft security and airline personnel gaining access to aircraft with their own personal bags. We have a lot of vendors who perform aircraft security, cleaning and security searches for us, and also don't necessarily have access to a locker in their area or leaving their Purulgm Reportin8 & CqMoning #7091 wmpndisl.nponing.com

25 MAC Public Hearing - Ordinance No. 91, Page: l MAC Public Hearing -0rdiaamce No. 91, UlnOl3 Pagc: materials within their vehicle before they gain access to a jetway and ultimately to an aircraft. Would it be the airlines' responslbility to search those people or to make sure that those personnel don't bring their bags on? It talked about also in this section transparent, clear plastic bags used for garbage. Would it be anticipated, if there could be a compromise where people could bring their own personal items on board as well, would they be able to do so in a clear plastic bag? Thank you. ACTING CHAIR KING: Thank you. Do we have any other members of the public? Welcome. MS. REGNIER: Thank you. My name 1s Pady Regnier. The first name is spelled P-A-D-Y, and the last name is R-E-G-N-I-E-R. I'm a retailer here at MSP, and just opened our new Uptown store in G Concourse; you'll have to check it out. I'm here basically because -- I'm not sure exactly which areas of this ordinance to specify -- but I'm here kind of representing our employees and what happens when we go through getting into security. I was a llttle bit late here today because I was checked for explosives on my hands. So I just wanted to make sure that we are always looking at how we are making this the best place to work, the most welcoming place to work, and I get concerned if we're tightening down even more on some of those things. I'm *Paradigm Reparring & Csprionimg % w.par.pigmrrpodng.com sure there's a lot going on that we, as business owners out here, don't know about, but I know I've had a couple of employees who have not been able to be badged even though they've had some problems maybe when they were young and, again, it looks like it's becoming even more restrictive, and these are people that have second chances and want to continue to grow in their career with us. SO I just want to make sure that this Commission is always considering how we are reacting on these new ordinances to make this a very welcoming place for employees, because that's what make our airport a great customer service location for all of our visitors here. So, again, I just want to make sure that someone is voicing the concerns for the employees and how it is to get in here and get to work. Thanks. ACTING CHAIR KING: Thank you for your comments. Anyhdy else wishing to speak today to the ordinance? (No response. I ACTING CHAIR KING: Seeing none, we will now close the public hearing. As I indicated earlier, the hearing record will remain open until 4:00 p.m. on Friday, April 5th for written comments, which should be submitted to the ~etropolitan Airports commission, Attention: Tammy Rader. Legal Department ' Paradigm Rrpohg d Caprioning U709 ~ipn,wmmng.com MAC ~ublic Hearing - Oldi~nce NO. 91, th Avenue South, Minneapolis, Minnesota Once the hearing record is closed, MAC staff will prepare a Hearing Officers' Report for this Committee to consider. The report will include all comments from this public hearing, any written comments Pap: I' received, any answers from staff on the comments, and any changes to the Public Hearing Draft of the proposed ordinance. The Hearing Officers' Report is scheduled to be considered at the May 6, 2013 Management & Operations meeting. The public hearing is now closed. Thank you. COMMISSIONER PEILEN: Excuse me, forgive me, I had a question that has kind of come and gone. didn't get -- ACTING CHAIR KING: My apologies if I COMMISSIONER PEILEN: NO, no. Thank you. As I recall, in the beginning of the presentation you indicated that there were a number of written comments, I think it was 80, if I'm correct, and I'm just wondering if it's possible just to know what the gist of those comments were; if they were positive or negative or any brief summary you could share with us. Thank you, Mr. Chair. COMMANDER EVERSON: Commissioner Peilen, Commissioners. There was 86 attendees at the consortium * PnnnlI#m Rep0ni.b & Captioning Y MAC Public Huring - Ordinance No. 91, UMOl3 Page: 21 meeting where we presented and there was, each one of the airlines gave comments, and the large comment at that meeting was the concern for the clear, transparent bags for servicing aircraft. I did receive comments formally from two different persons, one of which was Mr. Budge, who spoke a few minutes ago from Delta Airlines, and I also received a one-and-a-half-page list of comments from Southwest Airlines, and the TSA has provided MAC Legal with a few comments that they had. The majority of the comments, a lot of them were maybe some definition changes, suggestions maybe to align things with the aircraft operators' SOP. Some of the other comments were just simply not understanding exactly what the intent was for the concourse passes, like Mr. Budge spoke. Concourse passes issued by MAC and issued by the air carrier, this ordinance would have no effect on any way that the air carriers issue concourse passes. follow-up? COMMISSIONER PEILEN: May I ask one ACTING CHAIR KING: Sure, Of course. COMMISSIONER PEILEN: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I didn't think of it until actually I heard Ms. Regnier's comments, and I read this but, as you can see, I can't remember my own question from five minutes ago. You might have to just refresh me on this. Are there ' Pannligm Rw&g d Cqlkmiw ' X709L mmprmugm~*.com

26 MAC Public Hearing -Ordinance No. PI, 4lIR013 Page: 21 criteria that have been defined for what constitutes a previous criminal offense that would disallow you from having a badge? COMMANDER EVERSON: Commissioner Peilen, yes. That list of 37 disqualifying crimes, you have a ten-year -- from the time of conviction, from that date there's ten years that has to pass before you're allowed to be badged. COMMISSIONER PEILEN: Thank you, Mr. Chair. ACTING CHAIR KING: Okay. We're in overtime on the public hearing, so now the overtime is over and the public hearing is now closed. Thank you. (Proceedings concluded at 1:29 p.m.) I MAC Public Hearing -Ordinance No. 91,411RO13 Page: 22 REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE I, Elizabeth J. Gangl, a Registered Professional I Reporter in the State of Minnesota, do hereby certify that the foregoing pages of typewritten material constitutes an accurate verbatim record transcribed from the stenotype notes taken by me of the proceedings aforementioned on the 1st day of April 2013, at the times and place specified. DATED: April Elizabeth J. Gangl Registered Professional Reporter Puodip Reporling C C#pIiening #7090Z

27 MAC Ordinance No. 91 REPLACEMENT Draft Date April 23, 2013 HEARING OFFICER'S MEETING DRAFT METROPOLITAN AIRPORTS COMMISSION ORDINANCE NO. An Ordinance relating to the management and operation of the Minneapolis-Saint Paul International Airport (MSP Airport); to promote the public safety and welfare of MSP Airport; to establish rules of conduct for the public, badge holders and airport tenants while at the Airport, in furtherance of airport security regulations required of the Commission by laws of the United States and regulations of the Federal Aviation Administration and the Transportation Security Administration; prescribing the penalty for violations thereof; and repealing Ordinance No. 91. The Metropolitan Airports Commission does ordain: SECTION 1 - DEFINITIONS 1.1 Air O~erations Areas (AOA). A portion of the Airport, specified in the Airport Security Program, in which security measures specified in 49 C.F.R. Part 1500 are carried out. This area includes aircraft moving areas, aircraft parking areas, loading ramps, and safety areas for use by aircraft regulated under 49 C.F.R. Parts 1544 and 1546, and any adjacent areas (such as general aviation areas) that are not separated by adequate security systems, measures or procedures. This area does not include the secured area. 1.2 Airline Personnel. Those Persons employed or contracted by an airline operating at the Airport. 1.3 Air~ort. Minneapolis-Saint Paul lnternational Airport, Wold-Chamberlain Field, a public airport under the supervision and control of the Metropolitan Airports Commission and located in the County of Hennepin and State of Minnesota. 1.4 AirDort Securitv Program. The Security Program which is the responsibility of an airport operator pursuant to 49 C.F.R. S AirDort Securitv Area(s1 (Securitv Areas). Air Operations Areas, roadways, and common air carrier areas within terminal facilities (i.e. baggage makeup areas), excluding exclusive leasehold structural areas, to which public access is limited or denied under the Airport Security Program. Signs limiting or forbidding public access are posted at the entrances to Security Areas. Security Areas are surrounded by walls, fencing or other means. Security Areas include: a. Secured Area SlDA (Securitv Identification Dis~lav Area). The area immediately surrounding Terminal 1 (Lindbergh) extending out to the nearest taxiway. The area immediately surrounding Terminal 2 (Humphrey) extending out to the perimeter roadway. These areas are considered the Secured Area SIDA. The Secured Area SlDA includes the baggage makeup areas. Only Secured Area SlDA badge holders or those under proper escort are permitted to be in the area.

28 MAC Ordinance No. 91 REPLACEMENT Draft Date: April 23, HEARING OFFICER'S MEETING DRAFT b. AOA SlDA (Securitv Identification Dis~lav Area). Any area of the Airport designed and used for landing, taking off, or surface maneuvering of aircraft. This is the entire area within the Security Barrier except for the Secured Area SIDA. c. Sterile Area. An area inside the terminals to which access is controlled by inspection of Persons and property in accordance with TSA requirements. d. Restricted Non-Public Area. Areas controlled by the Secured Area Access Control System (SAACS) that are not sterile, secured SIDA, or AOA areas and are restricted from public access. These areas affect security and, in some cases, may give access to the Sterile or SlDA areas which are also controlled by the SAACS. Examples include, but are not limited to: the C Loading Dock at Terminal 1, Fire Stations, the corridor behind the ticket counters at Terminal 2, and the MAC Energy Management Center (EMC). 1.6 Airport Securitv Coordinator. An employee of the Commission charged with the authority and responsibility to implement and enforce the Airport's Security Program or such employee's designated representative. 1.7 Airport Tenants or Tenants. Individuals, partnerships, corporations or other business entities, and their agents, employees and subtenants, that occupy or control part or all of areas, buildings or other facilities at the Airport which they lease from the Commission. 1.8 Authorized Persons. Persons who are authorized to access designated Airport Security Areas in accordance with the Airport Security Program. This includes, but is not limited to, Passengers with a valid boarding pass, Persons with a MAC- Issued or MAC-Approved ldentification Badge, and Persons issued a Concourse Pass. 1.9 Clear Zone. The area extending six feet out from the Security Barrier. This includes both the SlDA and public side of the Security Barrier Commission (MAC). The Metropolitan Airports Commission, a public corporation organized and operating pursuant to Chapter 500, Laws of Minnesota 1943 and amendments thereto. I 1.11 Concourse Pass. A pass issued by MAC for purposes of allowing a Person access into the Sterile Area of the Airport through the Security Screening Area Critical Infrastructure. Any equipment or system that, if disabled, would have a substantial effect on the Airport's ability to operate. This includes, but is not limited to, control rooms, mechanical rooms, electronic equipment, junction boxes, -2-

29 MAC Ordinance No. 91 REPLACEMENT Draft Date: April 23, 2013 HEARING OFFICER'S MEETING DRAFT electrical cables, security equipment, venting, aviation and aircraft navigation equipment, etc. I 1.I3 Disaualifvinq Crimek). Those crimes identified within 49 U.S.C (b)(l)(B), or as amended, for which a conviction precludes the issuance andlor possession of a MAC-Issued ldentification Badge. L14 - Escort. Authorized Person@) displaying valid MAC-Issued Identification Badge(s) accompanying, monitoring, directing and controlling the actions of a Person(s) within Airport Security Areas who does not have unescorted access authority into or within an Airport Security Area Executive DirectorICEO. The Commission's chief executive officer, executive director or a designated representative. 1.I6 FAA. The Federal Aviation Administration of the United States Government or any federal agencies succeeding to its jurisdiction Hearinn Officer. The Executive DirectorICEO of the Commission or a designee who shall conduct hearings pursuant to the provisions of this Ordinance ldentification Badqek). ldentification for Authorized Persons containing the individual's name, company name and photograph. There are two types of ldentification Badges: a. MAC-Issued Identification Badqe. Identification that is issued by the Commission to an Authorized Person for performance of the Person's job duties within Airport Security Areas. b. MAC-Approved Identification Badge. Other types of identification that have approval from the Airport Security Coordinator for use by a specific Person for performance of his or her job duties within Airport Security Areas. This type of identification ismav be limited as to areas of operation, cannot open electronic control access doors and cannot be used to Escort Persons into Airport Security Areas. 1.I9 Passenner. A Person who has access to Airport Security Areas because he or she has a valid boarding pass in their possession Personb). Every natural Person, firm, partnership, association, corporation or other entity Revocation. The discontinuance of a Person's ability to access Airport Security Areas. This includes, but is not limited to, revoking or restricting the Person's MAC-Issued ldentification Badge

30 MAC Ordinance No. 91 REPLACEMENT Draft Date: April 23, 2013 HEARING OFFICER'S MEETING DRAFT 1.22 Screeninq Personnel. Individuals designated to inspect persons, belongings, baggage and vehicles Securitv Barrier. The fence, wall or other such barrier or markings that separate the SIDA area from the public area Securitv Devices. Equipment installed or placed by or under the direction of the Commission, or designated representative, to monitor or control entrances to and exits from Airport Security Areas. Security Devices include, but are not limited to, bells, sirens, communication equipment, locks and corresponding keys, emergency exits, electronic access control and other security equipment. I 1.25 Securitv ldentification Displav Area or SIDA. An area which requires persons to display a MAC-Issued or MAC-Approved Identification Badge on the outermost garment above the waist Securitv Screeninq Area. An area in which Persons or baggage are inspected. This area includes a checkpoint leading to a Sterile Area and baggage screening rooms Sus~ension. Temporary discontinuance of a Person's ability to access Airport Security Areas. This includes, but is not limited to, suspending or restricting the Person's MAC-Issued ldentification Badge m. The Transportation Security Administration of the United States - Department of Homeland Security, or any agency succeeding in jurisdiction. SECTION 2 - AIRPORT SECURITY AREAS 2.1 Desiqnated Entrances and Exits No Person shall enter, exit or attempt to enter or exit Airport Security Areas except through designated entrances and exits. 2.2 Access bv Authorized Personnel Only Authorized Persons, or those under authorized Escort, shall have access to Airport Security Areas. 2.3 Airport Securitv Inspection a. All persons, vehicles and belongings that are entering an Airport Security Area are subject to inspection by designated MAC employees or TSA officials.

31 MAC Ordinance No. 91 REPLACEMENT Draft Date: April 23,201 3 HEARING OFFICER'S MEETING DRAFT 2.4 Escort b. The Airport Security Coordinator, or the TSA, may develop as part of federal requirements or the Airport Security Program, a plan for inspection of persons, vehicles and belongings within Airport Security Areas. c. Refusal to comply with airport security inspections shall result in immediate removal from the Airport Security Areas; and, denial of access to the area until the Airport Security Coordinator or designee determines that access should be granted. a. Maintaining an Escort. A Person performing as an Escort must, at all times, be in a position to actively monitor, direct and control the movements and actions of the accompanied Person@). A Person being accompanied by an Escort must be in a position to be actively monitored, directed and controlled in their movements and actions. b. Compliance with Escort Procedures. All Persons must follow the escorting procedures as directed by the Airport Security Coordinator. c. Escortinq Vehicles. A Person may not escort more than four vehicles at one time, unless specifically authorized by the Airport Security Coordinator or designee. d. Identification Requirements. All Persons under Escort must possess a valid government-issued photo identification similar, but not limited to, a passport, state-issued driver's license, or military identification card. Touring groups lead bv a Person holding a MSP-Issued ldentification Badge and minors do not need to have a government-issued phot~ identification in their possession, e. Prohibition on Escorting. A Personk) granted a valid MAC-Issued ldentification Badge mav not be escorted into Airoort Secu ritv Areas where... their MSP-Issued ldent~f~cat~on Badae allows them to be present without a n escort Enterina an Airport Securitv Area bv Followina Another (Pinavbackinq) a. No Person shall enter, or allow another to enter, into an Airport Security Area except by using his or her MAC-Issued ldentification Badge. b. No Person shall follow another into an Airport Security Area without first using his or her own MAC-Issued ldentification Badge through any electronic access installed at the entry point. This provision does not apply -5-

32 MAC Ordinance No. 91 REPLACEMENT Draft Date: April 23, 2013 HEARING OFFICER'S MEETING DRAFT to a Person under Escort, a Passenger with a valid boarding pass entering a Sterile Area through a Security Screening Area, or a Person issued a valid Concourse Pass or other document entering the Sterile Area through a Security Screening Area. Vehicle Access Vehicles must have authorization from the Airport Security Coordinator in order to be driven, parked or stationed in an Airport security Area. Unauthorized drivers andlor vehicles will be removed from the Airport Security Area. Drivinq into an Airport Securitv Area Behind Another (Tailgatind a. No Person shall drive a vehicle into an Airport Security Areas unless the Person enters through a designated access point and has used his or her own MAC-Issued Identification Badge. b. No Person shall allow other vehicles to follow or tailgate into Airport Security Areas. This provision does not apply to vehicles under Escort. 2.8 Adherence to Airport Securitv Directions All Persons shall obey the lawful orders or directions of Airport Police Officers or other Persons responsible for enforcement of this Ordinance. a. Tamperinq with a Securitv Device. No Person shall tamper with or in any way hamper the effective operation of Security Devices. b. Tampering with Aircraft or Airline Eaui~ment. No Person shall enter, climb upon, or tamper with any aircraft or airline equipment without authorization. c. Tampering with Operation of an Aircraft No Person shall commit any act which would endanger or hinder the effective operation of an aircraft. d. Tamperina with Critical Infrastructure. No Person shall tamper with, alter or adjust Critical Infrastructure at the Airport Clear Zone Maintained No Person shall loiter, park, store or place an item within six (6) feet of either side of a Security Barrier. For this section only, the term "loiter" shall mean to remain within six (6) feet of the Security Barrier with no obvious purpose for being in that zone

33 MAC Ordinance No. 91 REPLACEMENT Draft Date: April 23, 2013 HEARING OFFICER'S MEETING DRAFT Concourse Pass a. In their sole discretion, the Airport Security Coordinator may issue a Concourse Pass to Person(s) needing access to the Sterile Area. Such Concourse Pass shall only be valid for the date of issue. A Person(s) needing a Concourse Pass shall state the reason for requesting access. b. Person(s) applying for a Concourse Pass must present a valid governmentissued photo identification and shall be subject to a computerized background check comparable to passenger identification screening required by the TSA before issuance of a Concourse Pass. c. Misconduct at the Airport may be grounds for denial or revocation of a Concourse Pass. d. Person(s) issued a Concourse Pass must maintain the Concourse Pass in his or her possession at all times while within the Sterile Area. SECTION 3 - IDENTIFICATION BADGES 3.1 Dis~laving ldentification Badse Authorized Persons shall display their valid MAC-Issued or MAC-Approved ldentification Badge whenever they are within Airport Security Areas by displaying the ldentification Badge on the Person's outermost garment above the waist with the photograph side showing for public view. 3.2 Altering of Badge No Person shall falsify, forge, counterfeit, alter, tamper or deface any ldentification Badge. 3.3 Usina the Badne of Another No Person shall use or attempt to use another's ldentification Badge. 3.4 Allowing Another to Use Badne No Person shall allow or permit another Person to use or attempt to use his or her ldentification Badge. 3.5 Ex~ired Badne No Person shall use or attempt to use an expired ldentification Badge. -7-

34 MAC Ordinance No. 91 REPLACEMENT Draft Date: April 23, 2013 HEARING OFFICER'S MEETING DRAFT 3.6 Performance of Job Duties MAC-Issued or MAC-Approved ldentification Badges shall be used only in direct performance of an Authorized Person's official job duties. 3.7 Notify of Changes Each Person with a MAC-Issued ldentification Badge shall notify the MAC Badging Office within ten (10) days of a change in the Person's name, home address and/or phone number. 3.8 Disaualifying Crime a. Persons convicted of a Disqualifying Crime within the previous ten (10) years shall be ineligible to apply for a MAC-Issued ldentification Badge. b. Persons with a conviction of a Disqualifying Crime shall be ineligible to apply for a MAC-Issued ldentification Badge for at least twelve (12) months from the date of release from imprisonment for a Disqualifying Crime. c. Persons with a MAC-Issued Identification Badge shall notify the badging office within twenty-four (24) hours of a conviction of a Disqualifying Crime. d. The Airport Security Coordinator or designee may deny issuance of a MAC-Issued ldentification Badge based on an applicant's conviction for a non-disqualifying crime if the offense occurred on Airport property and the offense interfered with or threatened the property, safety, comfort, efficiency or security of Passengers, employees, tenants or Airport operations. A Person denied a MAC-Issued ldentification Badge under this provision shall have the right to a hearing under the procedures of Paragraph 7.5. The maximum period of denial under this provision shall be: (1) for a misdemeanor conviction, one year from the date of conviction; (2) for a gross misdemeanor conviction, three years from the date of conviction; or, (3) for a felony conviction, ten years from the date of conviction. e. Any Person applying for a MAC-Issued ldentification Badge who is charged with a Disqualifying Crime and awaiting a final judicial disposition will be denied issuance of a MAC-Issued ldentification Badge until a final judicial -8-

35 MAC Ordinance No. 91 REPLACEMENT Draft Date: April 23, 2013 HEARING OFFICER'S MEETING DRAFT disposition is made. f. Any Person already possessing a MAC-Issued Identification Badge who is charged with a Disqualifying Crime and awaiting a final judicial disposition is subject to potential Suspension or Revocation provisions under this Ordinance. The Airport Security Coordinator or designee is authorized to conduct a computerized criminal history record check of a Person when the Person is either applying for or renewing their MAC-Issued ldentification Badge. The criminal history record check shall include data maintained by the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension including the computerized criminal history data. After receiving the Person's authorization to perform the criminal history record check, the Airport Security Coordinator shall review the criminal history data to determine if that Person does not have a conviction for a Disqualifying Crime; a conviction for a nondisqualifying crime as indicated in the section d. above; or, has been charged with a Disqualifying Crime and is awaiting judicial disposition. If the Person is going to be denied a MAC-Issued ldentification Badge as a result of the record check, the Airport Security Coordinator will provide written notification of the reason for denial, any applicable grievance procedure, and that a Person may submit competent evidence of rehabilitation to be considered. 3.9 Badge Return Required MAC-Issued ldentification Badges are the property of the Commission. They must be returned to the MAC Badging Office upon Revocation, Suspension, expiration, termination of employment at the Airport, or upon demand of the Commission. Employers shall be responsible for returning MAC-Issued ldentification Badges of their employees, and the Airport Security Coordinator may assess the employer with a fee if its employee fails to return a MAC-Issued ldentification Badge False Information No Person shall provide false information or false documentation to the Commission in an attempt to obtain a MAC-Issued ldentification Badge Signature on Badqe ADDlication An Authorized Signer shall not sign a badge application form without verifying the identity and eligibility of the applicant to the best of his or her knowledge. For this section only, an Authorized Signer is a person, identified by the Airport Security Coordinator, who may authorize a person to apply for a MAC-Issued ldentification Badge. -9-

36 MAC Ordinance No. 91 REPLACEMENT Draft Date: April 23, 2013 HEARING OFFICER'S MEETING DRAFT SECTION 4 - DUTIES OF AUTHORIZED PERSONS. 4.1 Custodv of Kevs or Other Means of Access Authorized Persons shall maintain custody of all keys to which they are assigned. Authorized Persons who have custody of, access to or use of keys or other means of access used to lock and secure Airport Security Areas shall not duplicate or turn over keys or other means used for access to Airport Security Areas to anyone without approval from the Airport Security Coordinator. 4.2 Prohibited Disclosure of Securitv Codes No Person shall disclose security codes or combinations which allow access to Airport Security Areas to non-authorized Persons. 4.3 Challenge and Re~ortinn of non-authorized Persons Authorized Persons must challenge or report Persons not displaying an appropriate ldentification Badge inside an Airport Security Area. For purposes of this section only, challenge means to (a) ask the Persons to show their ldentification Badge or (b) to immediately notify the Airport Police Department with a description of the Persons not displaying an ldentification Badge. 4.4 Securitv of Access Points No Person shall leave open, propped or unsecured any door, gate or access point leading to or allowing access to Airport Security Areas unless he or she personally attends to such door, gate, or access point to ensure no access by non-authorized Persons. 4.5 Timed Doors No Person shall hold, prop or cause a door, gate or access point to be open beyond the period of time allowed by a Security Device unless an Authorized Person attends the door. When an Authorized Person is attending a security door, he or she must be physically present at the door and must use the Person's MAC- Issued ldentification Badge to activate additional time for the door to be open. 4.6 Report Violations Authorized Persons shall promptly report to the Airport Police Department any violation of this Ordinance that they observe or of which they have knowledge. SECTION 5 - RESPONSIBILITY OF AIRPORT TENANTS

37 MAC Ordinance No. 91 REPLACEMENT Draft Date: April 23, 2013 HEARING OFFICER'S MEETING DRAFT 5.1 Adherence to the Securitv Ordinance Airport Tenants with access leading to Airport Security Areas shall follow this Ordinance by posting signs approved by the Commission, which notifies Persons about restricted access leading into Airport Security Areas. 5.2 Preventins Unauthorized Access to Airport Security Areas Airport Tenants with access to Airport Security Areas shall at all times keep the access secured or staffed in a manner that prevents non-authorized Persons from accessing Airport Security Areas. Tenants shall retain keys or other means of access to Airport Security Areas under their control and issue such access only to Authorized Persons. 5.3 Aw~oint Securitv Contact Airport Tenants with access to Airport Security Areas shall appoint at least one employee of the Airport Tenant as the security contact primarily responsible for the Airport Tenant's leased area which accesses Airport Security Areas. Airport Tenants shall advise the Airport Security Coordinator in writing of the Person or Persons at all times having such responsibility. 5.4 Aircraft Securitv a. Airline Personnel shall be responsible for the safety and security of aircraft per FAA and TSA regulations. b. Airline Personnel shall not allow non-authorized Persons onboard an aircraft or access to a jetway bridge connected to an aircraft. c. Airline Personnel, excluding flight crew personnel, shall be prohibited from bringing personal bags or personal backpacks onto aircraft. 5.5 Securing of TSA-Prohibited Items a Airport Tenants are responsible for the security and control of all TSA-prohibited items that they bring into Airport Security Areas. Only such items required for direct performance of official work duties shall be authorized, and shall be subject to inspection in accordance with the Airport Security Program.

38 MAC Ordinance No. 91 REPLACEMENT Draft Date: April 23, 2013 HEARING OFFICER'S MEETING DRAFT SECTION 6- OTHER PROHIBITED ACTS 6.1 Bvpassina Securitv Screening Area No Person who is required to undergo screening at a Security Screening Area shall bypass such Security Screening Area and gain access to an Airport Security Area. Armed federal and local law enforcement officers on official duties at the Airport and others exempted by the TSA do not have to undergo screening at a Security Screening Area, provided they follow TSA regulations. 6.2 Statements or Conduct Against Aviation Safety or Security No Person shall make a statement to another or engage in conduct so as to indicate that the Person or another may have or had possession of a firearm, bomb or explosive device while at the Airport. 6.3 Interference with Flight Operations No Person shall intimidate, threaten, hinder, interfere with or obstruct Airline Personnel in the performance of his or her official job duties or lessen the ability of such Airline Personnel to perform his or her duties. 6.4 Unattended Baaqaae No Person shall leave any bag, luggage, box or container unattended in any area of the Airport accessible by the public. 6.5 Presenting a Prohibited Item at a Securitv Screenina Area No Person shall place a firearm, explosive device, kftiie-or other TSA prohibited item that could be used as a weapon onto inspection equipment at a Security Screening Area without first declaring such item to the Screening Personnel at the Security Screening Area. To comply with federal regulations regarding prohibited items in the Sterile Area; to make screening operations more efficient and transient; and, to further promote the public safety and welfare of the Airport and its travelers, this provision is to be a strict liability offense. This provision is violated whether or not the Person had intent or knowledge that the item placed on the inspection equipment contained a firearm, explosive device, knife or other TSA-prohibited item. It is the responsibility of the Person being screened at a Security Screening Area to have knowledge of the contents contained in any item the Person places onto inspection equipment at a Security Screening Area.

39 MAC Ordinance No. 91 REPLACEMENT Draft Date: April 23,2013 HEARING OFFICER'S MEETING DRAFT For this provision only, firearm means any item from which a shot may be fired by the force of an explosion including, but not limited to, starter pistols, compressed air guns, BB guns, cap guns and flare pistols. 6.6 Unlawful Entrv of Hanaars or Other Buildings No Person shall enter any hangar or portion of any building occupied by a Tenant or licensee of the Commission without consent of such Tenant or licensee False ldentification No Person shall present false information, false identification, or false documentation for purposes of gaining access to an Airport Security Area Parkinn or Unattended Vehicles in the Runwav Safetv Zone No Person shall park a vehicle or leave a vehicle unattended within 1000 feet of the end of a runway unless authorized to do so. This includes vehicles left abandoned on the side of the highway. Commission representatives shall have authority to remove all unauthorized vehicles. 6.9 Harassment, Intimidation, Assault, or Interference with Screeninn Personnel No Person shall harass, intimidate, assault, or interfere with Screening Personnel in the performance of their duties Testinu a Security Screening Area Only those Persons designated by the TSA or by the Airport Security Coordinator shall test a Security Screening Area TSA-Prohibited Items No TSA-Prohibited items shall be permitted in Airport Security Areas except as "tools of the trade," which are used for direct performance of an employee's or contractor's job within the Airport Security Area. SECTION 7 - ENFORCEMENT 7.1 Administrative Citation This section shall be applicable to all Persons holding a MAC-Issued ldentification Badge

40 MAC Ordinance No. 91 REPLACEMENT Draft Date: April 23, 2013 HEARING OFFICER'S MEETING DRAFT b. Conduct When any Airport Police Officer or designated representative of the Executive DirectorICEO has reasonable grounds to believe that a Person has violated or is not in compliance with this Ordinance, an administrative citation may be issued to such Person. When an administrative citation is issued, a letter indicating as such may be sent to the Person's employer, advising the employer of the violation. c. Review Upon written request, the Airport Security Coordinator may review or modify any administrative citation. a. Conduct A Person's authorization to use a MAC-Issued Identification Badge may be suspended for any one of the following reasons: (1) Violation of this Ordinance. (2) Violation of any Ordinance of the Commission for which a criminal penalty may be imposed. (3) Violation while on Airport property of any law of the State of Minnesota or the United States for which a criminal penalty may be imposed. (4) Conduct which interferes with or threatens the property, safety, comfort, efficiency, or security of Passengers, employees, Tenants, or Airport operations; or otherwise constitute just cause for Suspension. b. Duration The Suspension may be for up to 120 days as determined by the Airport Security Coordinator and based on the severity of the violation. The Suspension shall begin immediately if the Airport Security Coordinator deems that the Person constitutes an immediate safety threat to the security of the Airport. All other Suspensions shall begin not earlier than 7 days from the date the notice of Suspension is issued, or when a hearing - 14-

41 MAC Ordinance No. 91 REPLACEMENT Draft Date: April 23, 2013 HEARING OFFICER'S MEETING DRAFT is requested, the final action of the Commission sustaining the Suspension. The period of suspension may be extended by 60 days if the Airport Security Coordinator can demonstrate that the Person has been charged in state or federal court with a Disqualifying Crime, the proceedings of such crime are ongoing in state or federal court, and removal of the suspension would interfere with or threaten the safety, comfort, efficiency, or convenience of passengers, employees, tenants, or airport operations. Each Person shall be entitled to a hearing regarding such extension, in accordance with Paragraph 7.5 below. c. Notice 7.3 Revocation The Airport Security Coordinator shall issue written notice of the Suspension, which shall state the nature and date of the violation, the length of the Suspension, the date the Suspension shall begin and the right to a hearing. When an immediate Suspension is deemed necessary, the Person will receive oral notice at the time of the offense with written notice to be accomplished as soon as practical. a. Conduct A Person's authorization to use a MAC-Issued Identification Badge may be revoked for any one of the following reasons: (1) Any conduct that seriously endangers; indicates a willful or reckless disregard for; or, has an immediate impact on the health, safety or welfare of the public, a Person or property of another. (2) Any conduct that poses a serious danger to the security of the Airport. (3) A violation warranting Suspension where the Person has had a previous Suspension for the same or a similar offense. (4) A pattern of incidents or misconduct for which a Person may be suspended under this ordinance. (5) A criminal conviction for a non-disqualifying Crime occurring on airport property, in accordance with Section 3.8(d)

42 MAC Ordinance No. 91 REPLACEMENT Draft Date: April 23, HEARING OFFICER'S MEETING DRAFT b. Duration The Revocation shall be for 2 years. Person(s) who have had their MAC- Issued ldentification Badge revoked shall not be eligible to reapply during that time. The duration of a revocation for a non-disqualifying Crime per Section 7.3(a)(5) shall be in accordance with Section 3.8(d). The Revocation shall begin immediately if the Airport Security Coordinator deems that the Person constitutes an immediate safety threat to the security of the Airport. All other Revocations shall begin not earlier than 7 days from the date the notice of Revocation is issued, or when a hearing is requested, the final action of the Commission sustaining the Revocation. c. Notice 7.4 Reduction of Penalty The Airport Security Coordinator shall issue a written notice of Revocation, which shall state the nature and date of violation, the date the Revocation shall begin, and the right to a hearing. When an immediate Revocation is deemed necessary, the Person will receive oral notice at the time of the offense with written notice to be accomplished as soon as practical. During the term of a Suspension or Revocation, the Person may request in writing to the Airport Security Coordinator that the length of the penalty be reduced. The Person shall explain the conduct involved in the violation and any actions taken, such as a company policy, to correct the situation and prevent future incidents. The Airport Security Coordinator in his or her sole discretion may reduce the penalty. 7.5 Suspension, Revocation and Denial Procedures These procedures shall apply to Persons receiving a notice of Suspension, Revocation or Denial of MAC-Issued ldentification Badge. a. The Airport Security Coordinator shall review any report brought to his or her attention and may conduct additional investigation into such facts as deemed necessary to determine whether there are grounds to issue a notice of Suspension, Revocation or Denial of a MAC-Issued ldentification Badge.

43 MAC Ordinance No. 91 REPLACEMENT Draft Date: April 23, 2013 HEARING OFFICER'S MEETING DRAFT b. Any Person receiving a notice of Suspension, Revocation or Denial may request a hearing before a Hearing Officer. Requests must be written and received by the Airport Security Coordinator within 7 days after the notice was issued. If the Person demands a hearing, the Airport Security Coordinator shall so advise the Hearing Officer of the Commission and the Hearing Officer shall set a time for such hearing, to be held as soon as practical. The Airport Security Coordinator shall notify the Person of the time and place of the hearing not less than 5 days before the time set for the hearing. c. The hearing shall be conducted by.a Hearing Officer, shall be recorded by electrical or mechanical recorder or by a qualified reporter, and shall proceed as follows: (1) The Airport Security Coordinator shall present evidence which supports the facts constituting grounds for the proposed Suspension, Revocation, or Denial. (2) The Person requesting the hearing may appear in Person, may be represented by counsel, may cross-examine the Airport Security Coordinator's witnesses who are present, and may present any relevant evidence relating to the facts constituting grounds for the proposed Suspension, Revocation, or Denial. Any witnesses providing testimony may be cross-examined by the other party. (3) All testimony shall be taken under oath, but both the Airport Security Coordinator and Person requesting the hearing may introduce testimony under oath in the form of sworn statements if witnesses are unavailable or refuse to appear in Person whether or not a party has the opportunity to confront or cross-examine those witnesses. (4) The Hearing Officer shall hear the evidence and shall make findings concerning the facts and penalty recommended by the Airport Security Coordinator. (5) The Hearing Officer shall issue a report in writing, stating the findings as soon as practical following the hearing. (6) The decision of the Hearing Officer constitutes the final administrative action of the Commission. 7.6 Other Enforcement Action

44 MAC Ordinance No. 91 REPLACEMENT Draft Date: April 23, 2013 HEARING OFFICER'S MEETING DRAFT In addition to or in place of the other penalties specified in this Ordinance, the Airport Security Coordinator, in his or her discretion according to the severity of the violation, may issue a warning letter, restrict the Person's access to the Airport Security Areas, andlor require the Person and the Person's immediate supervisor to complete additional security training. SECTION 8 - PENALTIES 8.1 Misdemeanor Any Person violating any of the provisions of this Ordinance shall upon conviction be punished by a sentence within the parameters of the maximum penalty for misdemeanors set forth in Minn. Stat or as amended. 8.2 Removal from Air~ort Premises In addition, the Executive DirectorICEO, or designated representative, may order removal of anyone from the Airport who knowingly and willfully violates any provisions of this Ordinance. 8.3 Recourse under Tenant's Lease The Commission may take action against Tenants under their lease agreements, irrespective of any other penalties under this Ordinance. SECTION 9 - GENERAL PROVISIONS 9.1 Notice of Violations Notice as required by Section 7, or any other notice required by this Ordinance to be given to an individual, is sufficient if delivered in Person, sent by U.S. mail to the last address on file with the Commission, transmitted by fax or . Time of "issuance" means when the notice is hand delivered, placed in the mail, or faxed. 9.2 Provisions Severable If any part of this Ordinance is declared unconstitutional or invalid, this does not affect the validity of the remaining parts of this Ordinance. The Commission declares it would have passed the remaining parts of this Ordinance without the unenforceable provisions. 9.3 Effective Date

45 MAC Ordinance No. 91 REPLACEMENT Draft Date: April 23, 2013 HEARING OFFICER'S MEETING DRAFT This Ordinance is effective July 1! Repealer On of the effective date of this Ordinance, Ordinance No. 91 is revoked. This Ordinance supersedes any provisions of other Ordinances or special regulations that may be inconsistent.

46 Budge comments.txt From: Everson, Mike Sent: Monday, April 01, :46 To: Kedrowski, John Subject: FW: ordinance changes These comments came from David Budge via Jeff Hart. Mike Everson Commander I ASC I Aviation Security Division MSP Airport Police Department 4300 Glumack Drive # St. Paul, MN P: C: mike.everson@mspmac.org Original Message----- From: Hart, Jeffrey D [mailto:jeffrey.hart@delta.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 13, :32 To: Everson, Mike Subject: Fwd: ordinance changes Mike, additional comments below from Delta corporate security. Sent from my iphone Begin forwarded message: From: "Budge, David M" <david.budge@delta.com<mailto:david.budge@delta.com~~ Date: March 13, 2013, 10:23:03 AM EDT To: "Hart, Jeffrey D" <jeffrey.hart@delta.com<mailto:jeffrey.hart@delta.com>> Subject: RE: ordinance changes Jeff some other questions I have: In their sole discretion, the Airport Security Coordinator may issue a Concourse Pass to Person(s) needing access to the Sterile Area. Such Concourse Pass shall only be valid for the date of issue. A Person(s) needing a Concourse Pass shall state the reason for requesting access. How does this differ from a carrier issuing a Gate Pass? There are specific regulatory instances when a Gate Pass can be issued. This sentence states only a reason needs to be given for a pass. What are those reasons? There is no defined number of people that can be escorted by any one escort at any one time. Page 1

47 Budge comrnents.txt Persons with a MAC-Issued Identification Badge shall notify the badging office within twenty-four (24) hours of a conviction of a Disqualifying Crime. How can this be done if someone is incarcerated and not able to communicate this information? Your note on personal backpacks is spot on TSA-Prohibited Items. No TSA-Prohibited items shall be permitted in Airport Security Areas except as "tools of the trade," which are used for direct performance of an employee's or contractor's job within the Airport Security Area. The TSA has specific regulations on tooling items. They can be brought into the Sterile Area but not through a security checkpoint. Does the MAC recognize this? training? Will all these changes be included as part of regular SIDA David From: Hart, Jeffrey D Sent: Tuesday, March 12, :21 PM To: Budge, David M Subject: FW: ordinance changes Dave, these are my comments back to MAC police on their proposed ordinance changes. Jeff Hart, GM Airport Customer Service, MSP jeffrey.hart@delta.com<mailto:jeffrey.hart@delta.com> (0) (c) From: Hart, Jeffrey D Sent: Tuesday, March 12, :19 PM To: Everson, Mike Cc: Moody, Hank; Hart, Jeffrey D Subject: ordinance changes Mike, Page 2

48 Budge comrnents.txt I read through your document with the changes (made it very easy, thank you). Here are my concerns: 1. Still concerned about all people under escort must have a government-issued ID. We have a fair number of school groups who will not. 2. Concourse pass. I assume that there is no plan to change how airlines issue what Delta calls "gate passes" which we do currently and frequently. 3. Disqualifying crimes. Concerned about people who are simply charged with a crime rather than convicted. I assume you are on solid legal footing on this. 4. Aircraft security. Personal bags or backpacks. First, it doesn't designate between personnel who are traveling and those performing functions onboard aircraft. Second, lots of our folks (a mechanic is a good example) carry what could be construed as a pack pack or bag, to be be used in their job function 5. Transparent plastic. This came up at the meeting. Thanks Mike Jeff Hart, GM Airport Customer Service, MSP jeffrey.hart@delta.com<mailto:jeffrey.hart~delta.com> (0) (c) Page 3

49 From: Everson, Mike Sent: Monday, April 0 1, :46 To: Kedrowski, John Subject: F W: ordinance changes Jeff Harts comments Page 1 of 1 Mike Everson Commander I ASC I Aviation Security Division MSP Airport Police Department 4300 Glumack Drive #3255 ( St. Paul, MN P: C: mike.everson@ms~mac.org - From: Hart, Jeffrey D [mailto:jeffrey.hart@delta.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 12, :19 To: Everson, Mike Cc: Moody, Hank; Hart, Jeffrey D Subject: ordinance changes Mike, I read through your document with the changes (made it very easy, thank you). Here are my concerns: 1. Still concerned about all people under escort must have a government-issued ID. We have a fair number of school groups who will not. 2. Concourse pass. I assume that there is no plan to change how airlines issue what Delta calls "gate passes" which we do currently and frequently. 3. Disqualifying crimes. Concerned about people who are simply charged with a crime rather than convicted. I assume you are on solid legal footing on this. 4. Aircraft security. Personal bags or backpacks. First, it doesn't designate between personnel who are traveling and those performing functions onboard aircraft. Second, lots of our folks (a mechanic is a good example) carry what could be construed as a pack pack or bag, to be be used in their job function 5. Transparent plastic. This came up at the meeting. Thanks Mike Jeff Hart, GM Airport Customer Service, MSP jeffrey.hart@delta.com (0) (c) file://c:\documents and Settings\john.kedrowski\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK68\Jeff H... 04/25/201 3

50 SOUTHWEST AIRLINES CO. John Chaussee Director Federal Alrport Security P.O. Box Dallas, TX (214) April 12,2013 Mike Everson Commander Airport Police - Aviation Security MSP International Airport 4300 Glumack Dr. Suite LT-3255 St. Paul, MN RE: Proposed Ordinance Change Dear Commander Everson: Southwest Airlines (Southwest) would like to take this opportunity to thank the Metropolitan Airport Commission (MSP) for the opportunity to comment on the proposed changes to Ordinance 91. Please find Southwest Airline's comments listed below. Proposed Section b 1.5.c I.8 Comments As written, the proposed change could be interpreted to mean that employees providing services (such a fuelers) are the equivalent of airline employees. We recommend the phrase Authorized Representative be used. TSA defines an authorized representative as: A person who is not a direct employee of the aircraft operator, but is authorized to act on the aircraft operator's behalf to perform measures required by the AOSSP The definitions of AOA and SlDA are not compatible. SlDAs require an additional security measure that is not required for an AOA. The current definition of a sterile area is inconsistent with the definition provided in the AOSSP which states: A portion of an airport, defined in the airport security program, that provides passengers access to boarding aircraft and to which the access generally is controlled by TSA or by an aircraft operator under 4 CFR 1544 or an air carrier under 49 CFR part 1546, through the screening of persons and property. Not all individuals accessing the sterile area will have a boarding pass, but will have a security document (ex: boarding pass, gate pass, non-passenger escort document, etc.). These other documents are industry standard. Please consider acknowledging

51 Comments to MAC Ordinance No. 91 Page b a 5.4.b 5.4.c 5.4.d the other TSA authorized/approved documents. Is this intended as an airport version of a gate pass or security document? If not, please see the comments for section 1.8. This is not an industry standard term. A passenger could be in possession of a boarding pass or a gate pass. Both will grant access to the sterile area. This also requires a CHRC. An individual could also be in possession of a gate pass or nonpassenger escort. Please include other authorized IDS (such as the FAA 110-A or the TSI credentials) Please specifically identify agents working gates may open passenger boarding bridge doors during enplaning and deplaning operations. This is not always feasible during enplaning and deplaning operations as proposed. Please consider wording that would allow an agent to have the door open and be in the passenger boarding bridge (which would allow the agent to monitor access to the security areas). Air carrier requirements regarding the security of the aircraft are specifically outlined in the TSA authored and issued AOSSP. Air Carriers must comply with these requirements, which are enforced by TSA. This is an unrealistic expectation, as Southwest does not dedicate a specific aircraft to fly in and out of MSP. This would require a system-wide change to current purchasing agreements, which is not feasible. Additional Comments Is there any allowance for Southwest pilots and mechanics to have unauthorized access to the secured area in the footprint of the aircraft to perform walk-arounds or maintenance? Southwest would like to remind the Metropolitan Airports Commission that as an aircraft operator, we are regulated under 49 CFR $1544 and the Aircraft Operator Standard Security Program (AOSSP). Unlike the Airport Security Program, this document is written and maintained by the Transportation Security Administration (TSA). Included in this document, are requirements for securing of our aircraft as well as controlling access to security areas or restricted areas. The proposed wording of section 5.4 of Ordinance 91 is inconsistent with the language in the AOSSP which has the potential to lead to confusion and

52 Comments to MAC Ordinance No. 91 Page 3 inconsistency. As an aircraft operator, we are constantly inspected and tested by TSA to ensure compliance with the aforementioned regulatory requirements. While we agree with the intent of section 5.4, we would encourage you to consider re-wording the language so it is consistent with the requirements of the AOSSP. Southwest Airlines appreciates the opportunity to partner with the Metropolitan Airports Commission through this comment process. If you find it valuable, we would be happy to discuss any portion of this ordinance. We look forward to working with you to ensure the safety and security of our passengers and aircraft. Sincerely, John Chaussee Cc: Kathleen Stewart, Senior Manager Federal Airport Security Jeff Cox, Station Director-Midwest Mike Gregory, Station Manager-MSP

53 METROPOLITAN AIRPORTS COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING THE ADOPTION OF AIRPORT SECURITY REGULATIONS ORDINANCE Pursuant to notice duly given, a public hearing was held on April 1, 2013 at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport ("MSP Airport"), in which testimony was taken and other evidence introduced on the issue of the proposed Airport Security Regulations Ordinance. The hearing was commenced at the place designated in the notice. The Management and Operations Committee, acting as the hearing officer, conducted the hearing. John Kedrowski, MAC Attorney and Commander Mike Everson, Airport Police Department, represented the Commission. Two members of the public provided comments during the public testimony portion of the hearing. Exhibits A-H were presented at the hearing and are made a part of the record. The hearing record was kept open until April 5, Three written comments were received. NOW, THEREFORE, having given due consideration to the testimony, exhibits, and other evidence submitted and made a part of the record, the Metropolitan Airports Commission makes the following Findings, Conclusions and Order: FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. That the Metropolitan Airports Commission is a public corporation operating under Minnesota Statutes Chapter 473 for the purpose of promoting the public welfare and national security; serving the public interest, convenience and necessity; promoting air navigation and transportation, international, national, state and local; promoting the efficient, safe and economical handling of air commerce; developing the full potentialities of the metropolitan area in this state as an aviation center; and assuring the residents of the metropolitan area of the minimum environmental impact from air navigation and transportation. 2. That the purpose of the adoption of the Airport Security Regulations Ordinance is to govern the safety and security of individuals at MSP Airport and for MAC to comply with Transportation Security Regulations. The new Ordinance will replace MAC Ordinance No That the Commission finds that adoption of the Airport Security Regulations Ordinance is reasonable and is a means of fulfilling the statutory mandate of the Commission to serve the public interest. 4. That notice and an opportunity for public review and comment on the proposed Airport Security Regulations Ordinance was provided to interested parties.