Date: 201208
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: E10.TRACON, CA
Light: Night
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E E10
ATC / advisory: TRACON E10
Second aircraft: A319
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach; Departure
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Different CPC/FPL's at ZLA-D (Sector 16) have differing levels of acceptance for how they choose to accept a standard interpretation of Letter of Agreement's (LOA'S) governing aircraft landing LAS (LTA airports) from ZOA across E10 airspace. Yes; we have an LOA that states we will provide aircraft to ZLA-16 at or above (AOB) FL290. But; we can not comply with such a requirement when airspace configuration is a standard/normal altitude of FL310 and above. Therefore; ZOA will submit a request with ZLA for their approval to route aircraft landing LAS over E10 airspace direct BTY at FL330; sometimes the caveat of ZLA requesting us to hand these aircraft off to them at FL310 is included. If ZOA does not get approval; then all aircraft are routed to avoid our airspace - except that ZOA-33 will then 'point out' such aircraft to us regularly direct BTY from over BIH left at FL330 and ZLA-16 accepts them regularly. But this situation (last night) became absurd. The ZLA-16 Controller would not accept the hand offs on a B737 and an A319 at FL330 unless we descended them to FL290. It's understandable that we might need to do such if there was a high level of traffic in ZLA-16 airspace; but there was only one aircraft climbing to FL320 they were handing off to us! The fact that we had one military aircraft working at low altitude away from the air carrier traffic they could not possibly know and it does not take into account the matter of us not always knowing where fighter jet traffic is when they go non-RADAR; low-level; and pop up in various locations - climbing to altitudes cleared to (i.e.; as high as FL290 was a possibility; in this case - but laterally positioned 50 miles south at the time. A 'Sage 2' clearance allows 'participating aircraft' to fly in R2508's MOAs and ATCAAs AOB FL290 in VFR conditions). I was already unhappy with other issues of the day that I did correct; and my correction in this instance was not desired. My concern is that we descended aircraft through the altitude of oncoming traffic for no good reason; into airspace used for MOA/ATCAA purposes all the time; that's not smart! I consider it unsafe; because it desensitizes the importance of what we do and the procedures used to keep aircraft safe. Worse; the attitude was; 'Unable hand off if you can't comply.' Why? There was no traffic to avoid! Typically; if ZLA-16 'shuts the door' on overflights; they would absorb what is already transitioning across/through our airspace and tell ZOA to cease and desists any further aircraft cutting across our airspace; if they told us unable (for valid reasons; which are obvious to all); we would then vector the aircraft north toward LIDAT; most likely make a manual hand off - automated; if able - to ZOA-33 and explain to them the reason why and shut off LTA Airport overflights ourselves. But this was highly improper; unnecessary; and rude to the users (air carriers; passengers) - take your pick. Reviewing the LOA's for all parties involved today; via CEDAR; concerning E10 with ZOA and ZLA; vice-versa. It appears that LOA's have changed and there is no longer a provision between ZOA and ZLA for route and altitude of LTA aircraft.




Synopsis: E10 TRACON Controller describes an unsafe event where ZLA failed to accept hand offs on aircraft that were normally accepted. The reporter noted that too much ZLA Controller interpretation currently exists regarding what should be an accepted standard.