Public Interest. 11. It is in the public interest that the Executive Director issue orders under section 161 of the Act. Undertaking
Public Interest. The second issue that needs to be addressed by the Commission in approving or rejecting a negotiated agreement under Section 252(e)(2)(A) is whether it is contrary to the public interest, convenience, and necessity. I recommend that the Commission examine the Amendment on the basis of economic efficiency, equity, past Commission orders, and state and federal law to determine if the Amendment is consistent with the public interest. Nothing in this Amendment leads me to the conclusion that the Amendment is inequitable, inconsistent with past Commission Orders, or in violation of state or federal law. Therefore, I recommend that the Commission approve this Amendment.
Public Interest. 10. Xxxxxx acted contrary to the public interest by engaging in the conduct set out above.
Public Interest. 3.7.1 If consent to share information has not been given, a professional must consider whether there is a pressing need to disclose the information. The rule of proportionality should be applied to ensure a fair balance is achieved between the public interests in safeguarding the Adult at Risk, the provision of confidential services, and the private rights and interests of the individual affected. The same overall test is applied whether the data subject is the Adult at Risk, the suspected perpetrator of abuse or a third party.
Public Interest. Lessor is obligated to act in the public interest and must operate the Airport and offer access to all users in a fair, reasonable and not unjustly discriminatory manner. Therefore, in executing this Agreement and its provisions and in any future amendments, or changes to it, Lessor is and will in the future act with the intent to carry out this provision.
Public Interest. The disclosure passes the first test only if it furthers the specific public interest of being likely to contribute significantly to public understanding of government operations or activities, regardless of any other public interest it may fur- ther. In analyzing this question, we will consider the following factors:
Public Interest. The second issue that needs to be addressed by the Commission in approving or rejecting a negotiated agreement under Section 252(e)(2)(A) is whether it is contrary to the public interest, convenience, and necessity. I recommend that the Commission examine the agreement on the basis of economic efficiency, equity, past Commission orders, and state and federal law to determine if the agreement is consistent with the public interest. In previous dockets, Staff took the position that negotiated agreements should be considered economically efficient if the services are priced at or above their Long Run Service Incremental Costs (“LRSICs”). Requiring that a service be priced at or above its LRSIC ensures that the service is not being subsidized and complies with the Commission’s pricing policy. All of the services in this agreement are priced at or above their respective LRSICs. Therefore, this agreement should not be considered economically inefficient. Nothing in this agreement leads me to the conclusion that the agreement is inequitable, inconsistent with past Commission Orders, or in violation of state or federal law. Therefore, I recommend that the Commission approve this agreement.
Public Interest. The Project is in public interest.
Public Interest. The second issue that must be addressed by the Commission in approving or rejecting a negotiated agreement under Section 252(e)(2)(A) is whether it is contrary to the public interest, convenience, and necessity. I recommend that the Commission examine the agreement on the basis of economic efficiency, equity, past Commission orders, and state and federal law to determine if the agreement is consistent with the public interest. In previous dockets, Staff took the position that negotiated agreements should be considered economically efficient if the services are priced at or above their Long Run Service Incremental Costs (“LRSICs”). Requiring that a service be priced at or above its LRSIC ensures that the service is not being subsidized and complies with the Commission’s pricing policy. All of the services in this agreement are priced at or above their respective LRSICs. Therefore, this agreement should not be considered economically inefficient. I have no reason to conclude that this agreement is contrary to the public interest and nothing in this agreement leads me to the conclusion that the agreement is inequitable, inconsistent with past Commission Orders, or in violation of state or federal law. Therefore, I recommend that the Commission approve the agreement subject to the implementation requirements of the next section. IMPLEMENTATION In order to implement the AMERITECH ILLINOIS -PREMIERE agreement, the Commission should require AMERITECH ILLINOIS to, within five (5) days from the date the agreement is approved, modify its tariffs to reference the negotiated agreement for each service. Such a requirement is consistent with the Commission’s Orders in previous negotiated agreement dockets and allows interested parties access to the agreement. The following section of AMERITECH ILLINOIS’ tariffs should reference the AMERITECH ILLINOIS-PREMIERE agreement: Agreements with Telecommunications Carriers (ICC No. 21 Section 19.15). Furthermore, in order to assure that the implementation of the Agreement is in the public interest, AMERITECH ILLINOIS should implement the agreement by filing a verified statement with the Chief Clerk of the Commission, within five (5) days of approval by the Commission, that the approved Agreement is the same as the Agreement filed in this docket with the verified petition; the Chief Clerk should place the Agreement on the Commission’s web site under Interconnection Agreements. Such a requirement is also consistent with the Commiss...
Public Interest. 9. Xxxxx’s conduct described in this Settlement Agreement is contrary to the public interest.
