## Facts

- WAIT Radio operated an AM station in Chicago on 820 kHz, a frequency subject to FCC “clear channel” rules designed to protect nighttime service to sparsely populated “white areas.”
- Because nighttime skywave propagation could cause interference, stations like WAIT were required to cease operations at night; WAIT broadcast only from sunrise to sunset.
- WAIT applied to the FCC for authority to operate at night and requested a waiver of the clear-channel restrictions.
- WAIT proposed a directional antenna system intended to beam its signal away from the protected service areas of designated clear-channel stations (including WBAP and WFAA in Texas) to prevent interference.
- WAIT asserted that nighttime operation would serve the public interest, including by expanding access to its programming in the Chicago market.
- The FCC issued an order rejecting the application as “unacceptable,” and later denied WAIT’s petition for reconsideration.
- WAIT sought judicial review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

## Issues

1. Whether the FCC lawfully rejected WAIT’s application as unacceptable and refused to grant a hearing on its waiver request.
2. Whether the FCC’s stated reasons for denying the waiver satisfied the requirement of reasoned decision-making and adequate explanation.
3. Whether the FCC could effectively deny an individualized waiver request by treating the underlying clear-channel policy as dispositive without addressing the applicant’s specific technical and public-interest showing.

## Decision

- The D.C. Circuit held that the FCC erred by failing to provide adequate reasons for denying the waiver and refusing to hold a hearing on the request.
- The court did not decide the technical merits of WAIT’s proposal or the validity of the clear-channel system.
- The court remanded to the FCC for further consideration of the application and waiver request, requiring a more complete, reasoned explanation and further proceedings if needed.

## Legal Principles

- Agency rules of general applicability cannot be treated as rigid commands in waiver proceedings; an agency must consider whether applying the rule in the specific case serves the rule’s purposes and the public interest.
- When an applicant makes a non-frivolous, record-based showing that a waiver may be consistent with the governing policy, the agency must address the material contentions and explain its reasoning.
- Judicial review of technical and policy judgments is deferential, but an agency decision is reviewable for inadequate explanation and failure to connect the facts found with the choice made.
- Where regulatory action affects access to broadcasting and related public-interest values, the agency must give a clear justification for refusing individualized relief.

## Conclusion

The D.C. Circuit remanded because the FCC denied a waiver request through conclusory reasoning rather than a reasoned, case-specific explanation addressing the applicant’s technical proposal and asserted public-interest benefits, reaffirming that waiver decisions must reflect rational consideration of relevant factors.


WAIT Radio v. FCC, 418 F.2d 1153 (D.C. Cir. 1969)