WPC 2BJZ Courier3|xBx6X@`7X@HP LaserJet 4_230_1HPLAS4.PRS 4x  @\_)^X@26 ZF 3|xHP LaserJet 4_230_1HPLAS4.PRS 4x  @\_)^X@CourierCG Times2Xf EFZ<?xxx,2x6X@`7X@8wC;,Xw PE37XP8wC;,=Xw PE37XPV"G($,hG PE37hP",tB^ f ^;C]ddCCCdCCCCddddddddddCCY~~vCN~sk~CCCddCYdYdYCdd88d8ddddJN8ddddYYdYd4dddddCddddddddd8YYYYYY~Y~Y~Y~YC8C8C8C8ddddddddddYdddddsdXdXXXddx|X~d~d|XdddddddC8ddddCdoddd|8|H~d<|8dtddddHHdlLlLlLkd|H|8~ddddddddXXXd~ddkd~ddxCddCCCWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNdddCYQQddddddFddddFCChhd44ddzzdddvooChdF"dhd9dCCzCddoddCdYds]zUvdYYCCCCz~ozoY~NYdYC8YooYdYzsdzdd~YYzozzz~CdzYzzzzCCdddddddzCsdYC\   pxtll\tll@\@\`L Y- #Xw PE37XP#$// MO&O, John H. White, Hearing Fee, FCC 9511 //$ $/ 1.1107 Payment of charge /$ $/ 1.1110 Conditionality of Commission on staff authorzations /$  Yv-x ` `  hhBefore the x` `  Federal Communications Commission FCC 9511 x` `  Washington, D.C. 20554  Y -In the Matter of hh ) x` `  hh )  Y -John H. White hh )h File No. BPH910122MB x` `  hh )  Y -For a Construction Permit for a hh )  Y -New FM Station hh )  Y-La Crosse, Wisconsinhh )  Yb-x ` `  MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER xAdopted: January 6, 1995 ; Released: February 3, 1995 By the Commission:  Y-1. On March 1,1994, the Commission denied the Application for Review filed on behalf of Mr. White, a former applicant for a new FM station at La Crosse, Wisconsin, which sought  Y-reinstatement of his application and acceptance of his late filed hearing fee nunc pro tunc.  Y-John H. White, 9 FCC Rcd 1016 (1994). The Commission, however, did not address Mr. White's Supplement to Application for Review therein. Mr. White's appeal of the Order denying his Application for Review was remanded to the Commission at our request in order  YN-to address the issue raised in the Supplement to Application for Review. See White v.  Y7-FCC, No. 921279 (D.C.Cir., filed March 30, 1994)(Order filed July 5, 1994). Thus, the Commission is now considering Mr. White's Supplement to Application for Review.  Y-2. In his Supplement to Application for Review, Mr. White cited Martin W. Hoffman, Esq. ("Astroline")(Man. Dir. April 23, 1993), as support for his argument that the Commission should have waived the July 15, 1991 hearing fee deadline and reinstated his application.  Y!-Martin W. Hoffman, Esq. is easily distinguishable from the instant case.  Martin W.  Y"-Hoffman, Esq. involved a comparative renewal proceeding, in which the license was being held by a trustee in bankruptcy. The decision waived the hearing fee deadline, in recognition of the fact that as a trustee in bankruptcy the applicant's position before the Commission is somewhat unique, that strict adherence to the Commission's procedural rules would have frustrated the trustee's statutory mission under the bankruptcy laws, and that the underlying purpose of the hearing fee deadlines was to "expedite the comparative process for  Y (-new broadcast facilities by   encouraging more and/or earlier settlement" (emphasis added)(citation omitted) and thus was not as applicable in a comparative renewal context. In"(0*0*0*0*" the instant case, Mr. White was an applicant for a new FM station, and none of the  Y-countervailing considerations which warranted waiver in Martin W. Hoffman, Esq. are  Y-present here. Thus,  Mr. White's reliance upon Martin W. Hoffman, Esq. is unavailing.  3. The dismissal of Mr. White's FM application was consistent with the Commission's treatment of a similarly situated applicant for a new FM station that failed to file its fee in  Yv-accordance with the applicable July 15, 1991 hearing fee deadline. See Gerald E. Davis and  Y_-Jo Ann Dunn d/b/a Piketon Communications, 9 FCC Rcd 3016 (1994), appeal pending,  YH-Davis v. FCC, No. 941525 (D.C. Cir., filed July 26, 1994). Moreover, the dismissal of Mr. White's application was consistent with the Commission's pronouncements that absent  Y -timely tendered fee payments, applications are subject to immediate dismissal. See Proposals to Reform the Commission's Comparative Hearing Process to Expedite the Resolution of  Y -Cases, 6 FCC Rcd 157, 158 (1990); Establishment of a Fee Collection Program, 2 FCC Rcd  Y -947, 95657 (1987); see also 47 U.S.C. Section 158(c)(2); 47 C.F.R. Sections 1.1107,  Y -1.1110.  4. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, that the Supplement to the Application for Review, filed by Mr. White, IS DENIED. x` `  FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION x` `  hhWilliam F. Caton x` `  hhSecretary