**Released: May 4, 2000**

REQUEST OF MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND ENERGY FOR
REVIEW OF COMMON CARRIER BUREAU'S DENIAL OF BELL ATLANTIC'S REQUEST FOR
LATA BOUNDARY MODIFICATION

FOR ERVING, MASSACHUSETTS

File No. NSD-L-98-116

**Pleading Cycle Established**

**Comments Due: May 24, 2000 Reply Comments Due: June 8, 2000**

On March 16, 2000, the Common Carrier Bureau (Bureau) denied a request
from Bell Atlantic-Massachusetts, Inc. (Bell Atlantic), pursuant to
Section 3(25) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, that local
access and transport area (LATA) boundaries be modified so that the town
of Erving, Massachusetts could be included in a single LATA. *See* Bell
Atlantic Petition for Modification of LATA Boundaries, *Memorandum
Opinion and Order*, NSD-L-98-116, rel. Mar. 16, 2000 (*Erving LATA
Order*).

On April 14, 2000, the Massachusetts Department of Telecommunications
and Energy (MDTE) filed an Application for Review of the *Erving LATA
Order*. The Commission seeks comment on the MDTE Application for Review.

**Background**

According to the record in this proceeding, Erving falls within two
LATAs. Erving also is served by two different area codes and two
different local exchange (NXX) codes. Erving residents currently have
two-way local calling across the LATA boundary. In a petition to the
MDTE, the town of Erving requested that it be unified entirely in the
413 area code and be assigned one NXX code that would be identified with
Erving. According to MDTE, Erving's petition listed the following
reasons for its efforts to be unified under the 413 area code: (1) a
desire to be recognized as part of the western Massachusetts LATA; (2)
whole or partial omission from maps and potential grant programs due to
confusion by public and private institutions; (3) and to avoid receiving
inaccurate directory assistance information. *See* Bell Atlantic
Petition, attachment of MDTE Order at 2. Similarly, MDTE stated that
Erving desires a municipally-distinct NXX code because: (1) it wants to
prevent misdirected 911 responses; (2) it wants to prevent future
corruption of Bell Atlantic's 911 address database; (3) it seeks to
crystallize and support a sense of community; and (4) a distinct NXX
code is the desire of the residents. *Id* at 3.

In its analysis and findings, MDTE found that Erving had demonstrated
that "the continuing division of the municipality by a LATA boundary has
created significant problems" concerning directory assistance, omission
from maps, potential loss of state and federal education money for
Erving's residents. MDTE concluded that Bell Atlantic's current service
was "inadequate" and directed it to seek a "re-alignment" of the LATA
boundary. Specifically, MDTE directed Bell Atlantic to petition the FCC
for a LATA modification.

In its petition to the Commission, Bell Atlantic requested a LATA
boundary modification, asking that the LATA boundary be moved so that
the residents in the town of Erving could all be included in the 413
area code. A transcript of a meeting between Bell Atlantic and Erving
residents and correspondence between MDTE and Bell Atlantic was also
included in the Bell Atlantic submissions to the Commission.

In the *Erving LATA Order*, the Bureau noted that the Commission has
broad authority to modify LATA boundaries, but that it should do so
where problems or difficulties would be resolved by modification of the
LATA, or where the public interest would otherwise be served. *Erving
LATA Order* at para. 10. The Bureau concluded that none of Erving's
difficulties result from the location of the LATA boundary. *Id*. The
Bureau concluded that Erving's problems have more to do with Erving
being served by two distinct NXX codes and area codes than they do with
the location of the LATA boundary. *Id*. The Bureau concluded that
directory assistance misidentification of certain Erving residents is
exacerbated by the area code and NXX code identification, not the LATA.
*Id*. The Bureau also concluded that 911 is address-driven rather than
LATA-driven; that community identity in the form of an area code unique
to Erving has no relation to the location of a LATA boundary; and that
inaccurate directory assistance services and postal services are not
inaccurate because of the location of the LATA boundary. *Id*. at para.
11.

The Bureau also expressed concern that approval of Bell Atlantic's LATA
modification request could invite numerous other communities to file
petitions seeking LATA relief for problems neither created by nor
capable of being resolved by changes in the LATA boundary. *Id.*

On April 14, 2000, MDTE filed an Application for Review of the Bureau's
decision. MDTE states that: the Bureau decision "effectively overrules"
MDTE's decision; that the LATA boundary has created significant problems
and results in inadequate service to Erving residents; that the Bureau
revealed no basis for second-guessing MDTE; that the Bureau failed to
identify any harm that would be done to any individual or carrier by
granting the LATA modification; that the Bureau's concern regarding
receiving similar requests is no basis for denial; that MDTE's
determinations were not accorded proper weight; and, finally, that no
parties filed comments objecting to the petition. MDTE Application for
Review at 2-6.

**Discussion**

We seek comment on MDTE's application for review. We ask that interested
parties comment on what the competitive implications are of re-drawing
current LATA boundaries where two-way, flat-rated local calling service
is in place; whether community identify alone is sufficient reason to
redraw a LATA boundary; whether the location of a LATA boundary has any
relevance to and can affect the delivery of 911 and directory assistance
services and, if so, how. We seek comment on whether area code
considerations are affected by LATA boundaries and, if so, whether such
considerations are sufficient reason to redraw a LATA boundary. We note
that in the Deployment of Wireline Services Offering Advanced
Telecommunications Capability, Request by Bell Atlantic-West Virginia
for Interim Relief Under Section 706, or, in the Alternative, a LATA
Boundary Modification, CC Docket No. 98-147, *Fourth Report & Order &
Memorandum Opinion & Order*, FCC 00-26 (rel. Feb. 11, 2000), we adopted
a two-part test for determining whether we may grant LATA boundary
modifications. We thus seek comment on the application of the two-part
test to Bell Atlantic's petition. Parties are also asked to address
other questions they deem relevant to MDTE's application for review.

Interested parties may file comments concerning this matter on or before
**May 24, 2000** and reply comments on or before **June 8, 2000**. All
filings must reference **File No. NSD-L-98-116** and should be sent to
Magalie Roman Salas, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission,
TW-A325, 445 12th Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20554. Two copies
should also be sent to Al McCloud, Network Services Division, 445 12th
Street, S.W., Suite 6-A207, Washington, D.C., 20554. Copies of documents
filed with the Commission may be obtained from the International
Transcription Service (ITS), 445 12th Street, S.W., Suite CY-B400,
Washington, D.C. 20554, (202) 314-3070. Documents are also available for
review and copying at the FCC Reference Room, 445 12th Street, S.W.,
CY-A257, Washington, D.C., (202) 418-0270.

For further information contact Alan Thomas or Al McCloud of the Common
Carrier Bureau, Network Services Division, at (202) 418-2320, TTY (202)
418-0484.

**FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION**