Common use of GROUNDS FOR REJECTION Clause in Contracts

GROUNDS FOR REJECTION. The State commission may only reject -- (A) an agreement (or any portion thereof) adopted by negotiation if it finds that -- (i) the agreement (or portion thereof) discriminates against a telecommunications carrier not a party to the agreement; or (ii) the implementation of such agreement or portion is not consistent with the public interest, convenience, and necessity; . . . Accordingly, the Board may not reject the proposed Resale Agreement in whole or in part unless it finds that the agreement or any material portion thereof discriminates against a non-party carrier or is inconsistent with the public interest. The Board may also establish and enforce other requirements of State law in its review of the agreement under Section 252(e)(3). The federal Act also mandates that the State commission make available to the public each agreement approved by it. Id. at § 252(h). Finally, Section 252(i) of the Act requires that the LEC, Bell Atlantic, make available "any interconnection, service, or network element provided under an agreement approved under this section to which it is a party to any other requesting telecommunications carrier upon the same terms and conditions as those provided in the agreement." This provision helps ensure that the LEC will not agree to terms and conditions that are discriminatory. As the Board found in Docket 5905, Section 252(e)(1) of this Act requires that the Board "approve or reject the agreement with written findings as to any deficiencies." Thus, the Board cannot condition approval. Instead, the Board must either approve the agreement or reject it, specifying the changes the parties must make to render the agreement approvable. Based upon the record in this proceeding, I hereby report the following findings of fact in accordance with the provisions of 30 V.S.A. § 8.

GROUNDS FOR REJECTION. The State commission may only reject -- (A) an agreement (or any portion thereof) adopted by negotiation if it finds that -- (i) the agreement (or portion thereof) discriminates against a telecommunications carrier not a party to the agreement; or (ii) the implementation of such agreement or portion is not consistent with the public interest, convenience, pub and necessity; . . . Accordingly, the Board may not reject the proposed Resale Agreement in whole or in part unless it finds that the agreement or any u material portion thereof discriminates against a non-party carrier or is inconsistent with the public interest. The Board may also establish and i enforce other requirements of State law in its review of the agreement under Section 252(e)(3). The federal Act also mandates that the State commission make available to the public each agreement approved by it. Id. at § 252(h). Finally, Section 252(i) of the Act requires that the LEC, Bell Atlantic, make available "any interconnection, service, or network element intercon provided under an agreement approved under this section to which it is a party to any other requesting telecommunications carrier upon the request same terms and conditions as those provided in the agreement." This provision helps ensure that the LEC will not agree to terms and th conditions that are discriminatory. As the Board found in Docket 5905, Section 252(e)(1) of this Act requires that the Board "approve or reject the agreement with a written findings as to any deficiencies." Thus, the Board cannot condition approval. Instead, the Board must either approve the agreement or B reject it, specifying the changes the parties must make to render the agreement approvable. Based upon the record in this proceeding, I hereby report the following findings of fact in accordance with the provisions of 30 V.S.A. § 8.a