B767 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human-Machine Interface; Communication Breakdown
ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Airspace Structure
A B767 was level at flight level 300 four minutes from HEMLO; when pilot requested a climb to FL360. I put in the altitude and then called Oceanic to coordinate the altitude. The Oceanic Controller checked with ATOPS and said he would show him (the B767) at FL360. I did another check for my traffic and noticed another aircraft (a B737) coming inbound over HEMLO opposite direction at FL350. The B737 was still non-radar and was to close to HEMLO for me to do the climb. I called back to the Oceanic Sector to let them know I was going to climb the B767 to FL340 because of the inbound traffic; but he was still requesting higher. The Oceanic Controller said that ATOPS did not show the conflict. My FLM called the Oceanic FLM and asked if they had any other information. My FLM was then told that ATOPS only projects out to HEMLO and that if the B767 was at FL360 by HEMLO there would not be a problem. The aircraft passed head on at FL340; FL350 2-3 minutes after the B767 passed HEMLO. According to 7110.65 Chapter 8-5-3 the B767 would have had to have been level at FL360 15 minutes prior to the aircraft projected crossing time. Had I climbed the B767 I would have had a loss of separation; because I would have climbed the aircraft through the B737's protected 15 minute airspace. There was not a loss of separation in this case. ATOPS should protect for the fifteen minute push after the oceanic boundary fix. Just because there is radar at the OCB does not negate the OCB opposite direction rules.
ZSE ARTCC Controller reported that ZOA Oceanic was misapplying separation rules for operations at the Oceanic Control Boundary (OCB).