Sec. 22.940  Criteria for comparative cellular renewal proceedings.

    This section sets forth criteria to be used in comparative cellular 
renewal proceedings. The ultimate issue in comparative renewal 
proceedings will be to determine, in light of the evidence adduced in 
the proceeding, what disposition of the applications would best serve 
the public interest, convenience and necessity.
    (a) Renewal expectancies. The most important comparative factor to 
be considered in a comparative cellular renewal proceeding is a major 
preference, commonly referred to as a ``renewal expectancy.''
    (1) The cellular renewal applicant involved in a comparative renewal 
proceeding will receive a renewal expectancy, if its past record for the 
relevant license period demonstrates that:
    (i) The renewal applicant has provided ``substantial'' service 
during its past license term. ``Substantial'' service is defined as 
service which is sound, favorable, and substantially above a level of 
mediocre service which just might minimally warrant renewal; and
    (ii) The renewal applicant has substantially compiled with 
applicable FCC rules, policies and the Communications Act of 1934, as 
amended.
    (2) In order to establish its right to a renewal expectancy, a 
cellular renewal applicant involved in a comparative renewal proceeding 
must submit a showing explaining why it should receive a renewal 
expectancy. At a minimum, this showing must include.
    (i) A description of its current service in terms of geographic 
coverage and population served, as well as the system's ability to 
accommodate the needs of roamers;
    (ii) An explanation of its record of expansion, including a 
timetable of the construction of new cell sites to meet changes in 
demand for cellular service;
    (iii) A description of its investments in its cellular system; and
    (iv) Copies of all FCC orders finding the licensee to have violated 
the Communications Act or any FCC rule or policy; and a list of any 
pending proceedings that relate to any matter described in this 
paragraph.
    (3) In making its showing of entitlement to a renewal expectancy, a 
renewal applicant may claim credit for any system modification 
applications that were pending on the date it filed its renewal 
application. Such credit will not be allowed if the modification 
application is dismissed or denied.
    (b) Additional comparative issues. The following additional 
comparative issues will be included in comparative cellular renewal 
proceedings, if a full comparative hearing is conducted pursuant to 
Sec. 22.935(c).
    (1) To determine on a comparative basis the geographic areas and 
population that each applicant proposes to serve; to determine and 
compare the relative demand for the services proposed in said areas; and 
to determine and compare the ability of each applicant's cellular system 
to accommodate the anticipated demand for both local and roamer service;
    (2) To determine on a comparative basis each applicant's proposal 
for expanding its system capacity in a coordinated manner in order to 
meet anticipated increasing demand for both local and roamer service;
    (3) To determine on a comparative basis the nature and extent of the 
service proposed by each applicant, including each applicant's proposed 
rates, charges, maintenance, personnel, practices, classifications, 
regulations and facilities (including switching capabilities); and
    (4) To determine on a comparative basis each applicant's past 
performance in the cellular industry or another business of comparable 
type and size.
    (c) Additional showings for competing applications. With respect to 
evidence introduced pursuant to paragraph (b)(3) of this section, any 
applicant filing a competing application against a cellular renewal 
application (competing applicant) who claims a preference for offering 
any service not currently offered by the incumbent licensee must 
demonstrate that there is demand for

[[Page 202]]

that new service and also present a business plan showing that the 
competing applicant can operate the system economically. Any competing 
applicant who proposes to replace analog technology with digital 
technology will receive no credit for its proposal unless it submits a 
business plan showing how it will operate its system economically and 
how it will provide more comprehensive service than does the incumbent 
licensee with existing and implemented cellular technology.