Before the

**Federal Communications Commission**

**Washington, D.C. 20554**

)

In the Matter of )

)

Bell Atlantic )

Petition for Modification of LATA )

Boundaries ) File No. NSD-L-98-116

)

**MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER**

**Adopted: March 16, 2000** **Released: March 16, 2000**

By the Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau:

**I. INTRODUCTION**

1\. On September 1, 1998, Bell Atlantic-Massachusetts, Inc. (Bell
Atlantic), pursuant to Section 3(25) of the Communications Act of 1934,
as amended (the Act),[^1] filed a petition requesting that the
Commission approve Bell Atlantic\'s plan to modify local access and
transport area (LATA)[^2] boundaries so that the town of Erving,
Massachusetts could be included in a single LATA. Currently, Erving
falls within two LATAs served by two different area codes. The petition
was placed on public notice,[^3] and no comments were received.
Subsequent to the close of the comment period, however, letters of
support were submitted by Stephen M. Brewer, State Senator,[^4] and the
five commissioners of the Massachusetts Department of Telecommunications
& Energy.[^5] For the reasons stated below, we deny Bell Atlantic\'s
request.

**II. BACKGROUND**

2\. According to the record, the residents of Erving seek unification
under a single area code and exchange for the following principal
reasons: (1) misdirected emergency calls; (2) a desire to be recognized
as a separate town as are other towns in Franklin County; (3)
misdirected mail and zip code issues; (4) directory assistance problems;
and (5) inaccurate maps showing all of Erving as being served by the 413
area code.[^6] Erving sought to resolve these problems by
petitioning[^7] the Massachusetts Department of Telecommunications and
Energy (MDTE). In its petition, Erving requested that it be unified
entirely in the 413 area code and be assigned a unique local exchange
code. Subsequent to the filing of the petition, a public hearing was
held by MDTE in which Erving residents and officials, Bell Atlantic
representatives, and others provided sworn statements regarding
Erving\'s difficulties.[^8]

3\. In response to the petition and public hearing, Bell Atlantic
submitted an analysis of how to accommodate the concerns of Erving\'s
residents.[^9] Under option 1, Bell Atlantic proposed to move Erving
customers served by the Orange exchange in the 978 area code to the
Millers Falls exchange in the 413 area code. Under this proposal, there
would be no change in LATA or exchange boundaries; instead, the 413 area
code would be assigned in both the eastern and western Massachusetts
LATAs for \"the limited purpose of serving these approximately 300-400
Erving customers.\"[^10] Additionally, Bell Atlantic stated that it
would request a second 413 NXX code to serve Erving customers in the
Millers Falls exchange if the customers agreed to change their telephone
numbers.[^11] Bell Atlantic also stated that such a proposal has never
been implemented before and would require additional study regarding the
reassignment of customers from the 978 to 413 area code to determine the
impact on information, provisioning, billing and maintenance systems.
Bell Atlantic also stated that it was \"extremely concerned that the
unique serving arrangement for Erving would directly affect \[its\]
ability to effectively and efficiently maintain the network on an
ongoing basis \...\[i\]n particular, that \'area code\' exception for
Erving may interfere with network integrity and the speed with which
troubles can be identified and remedied, thereby raising public safety
issues.\"[^12] Absent geographic number portability beyond a LATA, Bell
Atlantic states that \"a single 413 code in the eastern Massachusetts
LATA will need to be maintained as an exception to the logic of the way
the network is configured and will be counter-intuitive for anyone whose
job it is to analyze and fix troubles as well as those who make ongoing
programming changes to the network.\"[^13]

4\. In a follow-up study,[^14] Bell Atlantic presented a second option
to the one stated above that would unify Erving under the 413 area code
and a unique exchange number. Under this option, Bell Atlantic proposes
that it petition the Commission so that the LATA boundary be moved. This
approach would allow all Erving customers to be in the 413 area code and
in the western LATA. The exchange boundary between the Millers Falls and
Orange exchanges would be realigned so that all Erving customers would
reside in Millers Falls exchange.

5\. Bell Atlantic states that there are two ways to implement this
second option. Under option 2A, as it is numbered in the record, Bell
Atlantic would build new facilities so that Erving customers in the
Orange exchange would be served from the Millers Falls switch instead of
the Orange switch. Under this option, a new NXX code would be opened in
the Millers Falls exchange to serve either the Erving customers from the
Orange exchange or all Erving customers. Under option 2B, Bell Atlantic
would open a new 413 NXX code in the Orange switch to serve the
Erving/Orange customers; the new code, however, would be assigned to the
Millers Falls rate center. Bell Atlantic stated that another NXX code
could be opened in the Millers Falls switch to serve Erving customers
whose service is provided by Millers Falls if those customers agree to a
number change.

6\. In this follow-up study, Bell Atlantic explained that it favored
option 2B over options 1 and 2A.[^15] The network exception created by
option 1 and the need for the construction of new facilities in option
2A are difficulties and expenses that would not result from the
implementation of option 2B.[^16]

7\. After reviewing the record, MDTE released an order granting in part
and denying in part Erving\'s petition.[^17] 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 a
western LATA community; (2) whole or partial omission from maps and
potential grant programs due to confusion by public and private
institutions; (3) to avoid directory assistance problems; and (4) to be
in the 413 area code. Similarly, MDTE stated that Erving desires a
municipally-distinct NXX 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 is the desire of
the residents. In its analysis and finding, 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.

**III. DISCUSSION**

8\. Matters previously subject to the AT&T Consent Decree are now
governed by the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (Act).[^18] Section
601(a)(1) of the Act states that \"\[a\]ny conduct or activity that was,
before the date of enactment of this Act, subject to any restriction or
obligation imposed by the AT&T Consent Decree shall, on and after such
date, be subject to the restrictions and obligations imposed by the
Communications Act of 1934 as amended by this Act and shall not be
subject to the restrictions and obligations imposed by such Consent
Decree.\"[^19] Congress, in adopting the 1996 amendments to the Act,
shifted the D.C. District Court\'s exclusive authority over LATA
boundaries to the Commission. Under section 3(25)(B) of the Act, BOCs
may modify LATA boundaries, if such modifications are approved by the
Commission,[^20] and the Act gives the Commission sole authority to
approve any BOC request to establish or to modify LATA[^21] boundaries
as they existed on February 8, 1996.

9\. The language of section 3(25)(B) is clear and unambiguous in that it
vests sole authority to approve LATA boundaries with the Commission, and
contains no limiting language whatsoever.[^22] The Commission is not
limited, for example, to only authorizing LATA modifications where
expanded local calling service is requested,[^23] and neither does the
text of the Act or the legislative history address the limits of our
authority to approve LATA modifications. Certainly, this does not mean
that the Commission\'s authority to modify LATAs is without limit.
Section 271 of the Act, for example, prohibits a BOC from providing
interLATA services until such time as certain enumerated conditions are
satisfied, and section 10(d) prohibits the Commission from forbearing
from applying the requirements of Section 271. Short of violating
section 10(d), however, the Commission has broad authority where LATA
modifications are concerned.

10\. Although the Commission has broad authority to modify LATA
boundaries, it clearly should do so where problems or difficulties would
be resolved by modification of the LATA, or where the public interest
would otherwise be served. Crucial to our decision today is the fact
that none of Erving\'s difficulties result from the location of the LATA
boundary. Omission from maps that might be used to make public or
private grants, directory assistance problems, misdirected mail, and 911
problems do not arise as a result of the LATA boundary. These 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. These
problems result because parties outside of Erving simply assume that any
non-413 telephone number is not associated with an Erving resident. The
record of the public hearing held in Erving illustrates the point that
Erving\'s problems are not a result of the location of the LATA
boundary. Selectman Daniel Hammock stated that for years Erving lived
with the inconvenience of having two area codes, getting all Erving
numbers included in local telephone books, and misdirected 911
calls.[^24] Robert Watkinson, executive director of the State 911
Agency, made it clear that 911 is address-driven and not telephone
number driven.[^25] John Nestor of Bell Atlantic made clear that neither
area nor LATAs have a relationship with enhanced 911,[^26] and that
there are 261 telephone exchanges in Massachusetts and 351 cities and
towns; thus, according to Mr. Nestor, it is very common that exchanges
overlap towns and towns have two different area codes.[^27] Mr. Nestor
further added that there are 90 towns that do not have an exchange named
after them,[^28] and that there are only 64 areas in Massachusetts where
towns and exchanges are the same. Mr. Nestor states that what makes
Erving unique is that there is a different area code for parts of
Erving.[^29] Erving residents have made it clear that they desire a
single area code and a distinct exchange so that they would not have to
dial 11 digits to call a neighbor, or not have to dial 11 digits to get
the number of an Erving resident who lived across the LATA.[^30] Mr.
Nestor explained that directory assistance across a LATA boundary is
not, as it once was, completely Bell Atlantic\'s responsibility.[^31] As
a result of competition, Mr. Nestor explained,[^32] anyone can put out a
telephone book; thus, there needs to be coordination amongst telephone
carriers who have telephone numbers.

11\. We are not unsympathetic to the problems experienced by the
residents of Erving. We do not believe, however, that modification of
the LATA boundary would address Erving\'s problems unlike, for example,
our limited LATA modifications in the context of expanded local calling
service which do address certain problems experienced by communities
that frequently make calls across a LATA boundary.[^33] Erving\'s
problems \-- misdirected emergency calls; directory assistance errors;
inaccurate mail and maps; and the desire to be recognized as a western
Massachusetts town \-- were not created by the location of the LATA
boundary. The misidentification of those Erving residents served by the
Orange exchange and resulting problems are, it seems, exacerbated by the
area code and NXX identification, not the LATA. To reiterate what was
stated above, 911 is address-driven rather than LATA-driven; community
identity in the form of an area code unique to Erving has no relation to
the location of a LATA boundary; inaccurate directory assistance
services and postal services are not inaccurate because of the location
of the LATA. Were we to approve Bell Atlantic\'s LATA modification
request, we could be inviting numerous other communities to file
petitions to seek \"LATA relief\" from problems that were neither
created nor can be solved by changes in of the LATA boundary. Again, we
are not unsympathetic to the problems experienced by the residents of
Erving. We encourage them to continue to explore with Bell Atlantic
other options that might meet their needs.

**VI. CONCLUSION**

12\. We conclude that, in this request, the problems raised by the
residents of Erving, while real and substantial, do not result from the
presence of the LATA boundary. Accordingly, we deny Bell Atlantic\'s
LATA modification request.

**VII. ORDERING CLAUSES**

13\. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 3(25) and 4(i) of
the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 153(25), 154(i),
and 47 C.F.R. 0.91 and 0.291 of the Commission\'s rules, that the
request of Bell Atlantic for LATA modification to unify the town of
Erving, Massachusetts identified in File No. NSD-L-98-116 **IS DENIED**.

14\. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to section 416(a) of the Act,
47 U.S.C. 416(a), the Secretary SHALL SERVE a copy of this order upon
the petitioner, Bell Atlantic.

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

Yog R. Varma

Deputy Chief

Common Carrier Bureau

[^1]: ^?^ *See* 47 U.S.C. 153(25).

[^2]: ^?^ Section 3(25) of the Act defines LATAs as those areas
    established prior to enactment of the 1996 Act or established or
    modified by a Bell Operating Company (BOC) after such date of
    enactment and approved by the Commission.

[^3]: ^?^ *See* Public Notice, \"Request by Bell Atlantic for Limited
    Modification of LATA Boundaries to provide ELCS,\" rel. Oct. 1,
    1998; and \"Common Carrier Bureau Seeks Comments on requests to
    redraw LATA Boundaries in Massachusetts and along the Pennsylvania
    and Ohio Borders,\" rel. Oct. 16, 1998.

[^4]: ^?^ Submitted on Aug. 4, 1999.

[^5]: ^?^ Submitted on Aug. 9, 1999.

[^6]: ^?^ Letter from Town of Erving, Area/Zip Code Committee, July 28,
    1997. Erving is served by two exchanges in two area codes: the
    majority of Erving\'s residents are in the Millers Falls exchange
    with the balance being served by the Orange exchange. Millers Falls
    is in the 413 area code and LATA 126 (western LATA). Millers Falls
    has 854 telephone exchange lines. Orange is in the 978 area code and
    LATA 128 (eastern LATA). Approximately 650 of Oranges\'s 4,804
    telephone exchange lines serve Erving customers; this amounts to
    approximately 400 customers.

[^7]: ^?^ Erving\'s petition was filed on December 12, 1997.

[^8]: ^?^ Department of Telecommunications & Energy 97-109, Area Code
    Investigation Transcript - Erving, Massachusetts (January 26, 1998)
    (\"Hearing\").

[^9]: ^?^ *See* March 1, 1999 Ex parte letter from Bell Atlantic to
    Magalie Roman Salas, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission,
    at 80.

[^10]: ^?^ *Id.* at 72.

[^11]: ^?^ Because the residents of Erving believe that some of their
    problems are caused by confusion over which NXX code applies to
    Erving and their desire to be in the 413 area code, Erving residents
    seek a distinct NXX code or codes of their own. A new NXX code is
    part of each of the options proposed by Bell Atlantic.

[^12]: ^?^ *Id.* at 72. Bell Atlantic further states: \"The time
    required \... to diagnose and repair network troubles would increase
    significantly under this proposal for Erving customers served by the
    Orange switch, since the logical assumptions used to quickly isolate
    troubles would no longer hold true. For instance, in the initial
    screening of troubles, BA and other carriers could mistakenly
    identify troubles from 978 numbers \... to 413 numbers in the Orange
    exchange as interexchange carrier interLATA troubles when they are
    actually intraLATA troubles \...\[or\] troubles originating from 413
    western LATA numbers to the 413 Orange exchange serving Erving could
    easily be mistaken for intraLATA troubles when they are actually
    interLATA interexchange-carrier troubles.\" *Id.* at 75.

[^13]: ^?^ No interexchange carriers or competitive local exchange
    companies filed comments in this proceeding; thus, we have no
    further understanding regarding what problems this \"exception\" in
    the network would present.

[^14]: ^?^ *Id.* at 76.

[^15]: ^?^ Option 2B has an estimated cost of \$520,000. Option 1 has an
    estimated cost of \$560,000. Option 2A has an estimated cost of
    between \$900,000 and \$1.15 million. *Id.* at 80.

[^16]: ^?^ With each of the options, however, certain work would need to
    be performed: *e.g.*, switch programming, trunking work, operator
    services training, modifications of billing and customer contact
    systems, service order methods, maintenance and dispatch work.

[^17]: ^?^ *See* Bell Atlantic Petition at 11.

[^18]: ^?^ On April 11, 1996, the D.C. District Court issued an order
    terminating the AT&T Consent Decree and dismissing all pending
    motions under the Consent Decree as moot, effective February 8,
    1996. *See United States v. Western Electric Company, Inc.*, No.
    82-0192, 1996 WL 255904 (D.D.C. Apr. 11, 1996).

[^19]: ^?^ 47 U.S.C. 152 nt.

[^20]: ^?^ *See* 47 U.S.C. 153(25)(B).

[^21]: ^?^ Application for Review and Petition for Reconsideration or
    Clarification of Declaratory Ruling Regarding US WEST Petitions to
    Consolidate LATAs in Minnesota and Arizona, *Memorandum Opinion and
    Order*, NSD-L-97-6, FCC 99-222 (rel. Sep. 1, 1999) (*Arizona Order*)
    at paras. 16-17. In turn, section 3(25) of the Act defines a LATA to
    mean a \"contiguous geographic area . . . established or modified by
    a Bell operating company after such date of enactment \[February 8,
    1996\] *and approved by the Commission*.\" 47 U.S.C. 153(25)
    (emphasis added).

[^22]: ^?^ *See Arizona Order* at paras. 15-16. 47 U. S. C. 153(25)(B).

[^23]: ^?^ *See* Petitions for Limited Modifications of LATA Boundaries
    to Provide Expanded Local Calling Service (ELCS) at Various
    Locations, *Memorandum Opinion and Order*, 12 FCC Rcd 10646 (1997).

[^24]: ^?^ Hearing at 13-15.

[^25]: ^?^ *Id.* at 22-23.

[^26]: ^?^ *Id.* at 16.

[^27]: ^?^ *Id.* at 17-18.

[^28]: ^?^ *Id.* at 84.

[^29]: ^?^ *Id.* at 109.

[^30]: ^?^ *Id.* at 31 (Comments of Jacquelyn Boyden).

[^31]: ^?^ *Id.* at 40.

[^32]: ^?^ *Id.* at 52-54.

[^33]: ^?^ *See* Petitions for Limited Modification of LATA Boundaries
    to Provide Expanded Local Calling Service (ELCS) at Various
    Locations, *Memorandum Opinion and Order*, 12 FCC 10646 (1997).