57450 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 162 / Wednesday, August 23, 2023 / Notices 

simultaneously with sound but whose 

essential utility is derived from other 

purposes. The Commission will address 

any requests for a purpose-based waiver 

on a case-by-case basis, and waivers will 

be available prospectively for 

manufacturers seeking certainty prior to 

the sale of a device. 

(f) Submission and review of 

consumer eligibility to receive an 

accessible set-top box. 

The Commission granted DIRECTV a 

waiver with respect to the set-top box 

models on which it is not able to 

implement audio functionality for 

emergency information, but conditioned 

such relief by requiring DIRECTV to 

provide, upon request and at no 

additional cost to customers who are 

blind or visually impaired, a set-top box 

model that is capable of providing aural 

emergency information. DIRECTV may 

require customers who are blind or 

visually impaired to submit reasonable 

documentation of disability to DIRECTV 

as a condition to providing the box at 

no additional cost. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Marlene Dortch, 

Secretary, Office of the Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2023–18091 Filed 8–22–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

[MB Docket No. 23–267; DA 23–678; FR ID 

165332] 

Designating Applications To Renew 

Low Power Television Stations 

Licensed to Jennifer Juarez 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice; Hearing Designation 

Order/Order to Show Cause 

SUMMARY: In this document, the Media 

Bureau of the Federal Communications 

Commission commences a hearing 

proceeding to determine, among other 

things, if the named licensee, Jennifer 

Juarez, and Antonio Cesar Guel, former 

licensee through his ownership of 

Hispanic Christian Community 

Network, Inc. (HCCN): lacked candor 

and misrepresented material facts to the 

Commission; abused FCC processes by 

engaging in a sham assignment of 

stations that apparently allowed Guel’s 

improper and continued control of 

them; possess the requisite character 

qualifications to be a Commission 

licensee and, as a result, whether the 

stations’ renewal applications should be 

denied/dismissed and the stations 

cancelled or revoked, whether to impose 

forfeitures against the parties, and 

whether to issue an order directing 

Guel/HCCN to cease and desist from 

violating provisions of Commission 

rules and the Communications Act of 

1934, as amended. 

DATES: Each party to the proceeding 

(except for the Chief, Enforcement 

Bureau), in person or by counsel, shall 

file with the Commission, by August 31, 

2023, a written appearance stating the 

party will appear on the date fixed for 

hearing and present evidence on the 

issues specified herein. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Dana E. Leavitt, Video Division, Media 

Bureau at (202) 418–1317 or 

Dana.Leavitt@fcc.gov. For additional 

information concerning the Paperwork 

Reduction Act (PRA) information 

collection requirements contained in 

this document, contact Cathy Williams 

at 202–418–2918, or Cathy.Williams@

fcc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

synopsis of the Bureau’s HDO in MB 

Docket No. 23–267, DA 23–678, adopted 

and released on August 10, 2023. The 

full text of this document is available for 

download at https://docs.fcc.gov/public/ 

attachments/DA-23-678A1.pdf. To 

request materials in accessible formats 

(braille, large print, computer diskettes, 

or audio recordings), please send an 

email to FCC504@fcc.gov or call the 

Consumer & Government Affairs Bureau 

at (202) 418–0530 (VOICE), (202) 418– 

0432 (TTY). 

Synopsis 

Hearing Designation Order to 

Determine, Inter Alia, Whether HCCN 

and/or Antonio Cesar Guel are Real 

Parties in Interest in Pending 

Applications to Renew Authorizations 

for Low-Power Television Stations 

Licensed to Jennifer Juarez; Whether the 

Parties Engaged in a Sham Transaction 

to Allow HCCN/Guel Continued Control 

of the Stations and Abused Commission 

Processes; Whether the Parties Engaged 

in Misrepresentation and/or Lack of 

Candor Before the Commission; 

Whether the Parties Possess the 

Requisite Character Qualifications to be 

Licensees; and Whether Forfeitures 

Should be Imposed and a Cease and 

Desist Order Should be Issued Against 

HCCN and/or Guel 

In this Order to Show Cause Why A 

Cease and Desist Order Should Not Be 

Issued, Order to Show Cause Why an 

Order of Revocation Should Not Be 

Issued, Hearing Designation Order, 

Notice of Opportunity for Hearing, and 

Notice of Apparent Liability for 

Forfeiture (HDO), the Media Bureau 

(Bureau) of the Federal Communications 

Commission (Commission or FCC) asks 

the ALJ to determine the character 

qualifications of the three designated 

entities, Hispanic Christian Community 

Network, Inc., Antonio Cesar Guel, and 

Jennifer Juarez and whether they 

possess the requisite character 

qualifications to hold broadcast 

licenses, whether to cancel or revoke 7 

low power TV (LPTV) stations, and 

whether to issue a cease and desist 

order against HCCN and Antonio Cesar 

Guel to stop violating the Act and our 

rules. The HDO is the result of an 

investigation that began in 2018 to 

explore the extent to which Hispanic 

Christian Community Network, Inc. 

(HCCN), Antonio Cesar Guel (Guel), and 

Jennifer Juarez (Juarez) may have 

violated provisions of the 

Communications Act of 1934, as 

amended (the Act), and our rules 

pertaining to foreign ownership limits, 

unauthorized transfers of control/realparty-in-interest issues, and truthful 

statements made to the FCC. The HDO 

also provides notice of apparent liability 

against the entities for their respective 

violations and failures to disclose 

material information in their assignment 

application, and lack of candor and 

misrepresentation of material facts in 

responding to Bureau inquiries. 

1. Background 

The Parties: Jennifer Juarez, aka 

‘‘Jenifer’’ Juarez, is the named licensee 

of the Stations. Juarez states she had no 

broadcast experience when she agreed 

in 2010 to acquire the stations from 

HCCN, which was 100% directly owned 

by Antonio Cesar Guel, her uncle. She 

avers that ‘‘Antonio Cesar Guel helps us 

with keeping the stations on air. He 

provides programming from some of the 

churches or pastors that he knows and 

is also our representative with some 

advertising agencies.’’ Juarez further 

avers she has no personnel but that Guel 

‘‘provides a lot of the technical 

assistance and advice I need’’ and she 

receives ‘‘a great deal of help from my 

uncle in getting help with contacts in 

the industry, contracts, programming, 

building the stations, moving the 

stations, etc.’’ Juarez also states that she 

relies on and receives a great deal of 

help from her cousin Maria and some 

help from her cousin Ana (Antonio 

Guel’s daughters), ‘‘as they also are in 

the broadcast business. As a result, I 

have not really had to put much time 

into the stations.’’ Juarez further avers 

she receives ‘‘a great deal of help from 

my attorney and outside engineer,’’ 

neither of whom she names. 

Guel has been a broadcast licensee 

since 2005. He was the 100% owner of 

HCCN, which applied for and bought 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 162 / Wednesday, August 23, 2023 / Notices 57451 

and sold dozens of LPTV and LPFM 

construction permits and stations since 

2005. In addition to purchasing stations, 

Guel has also served as a consultant to 

several other LPTV and LPFM licensees, 

particularly those involving Hispanic 

religious broadcasters. Guel and HCCN 

were defendants in at least two civil law 

suits involving the sale of broadcast 

construction permits and promising to 

build the stations but failing to do so. 

Those cases appear to have served as 

triggers for Guel’s/HCCN’s actions 

regarding the sale of the stations to 

Juarez. 

For example, in the earlier case, 

Unidad, Guel, HCCN, et al., were 

alleged to have defrauded a church 

regarding the sale of broadcast stations. 

See Unidad de Fe y Amor Corporation 

v. Iglesia Jesucristo Es Mi Refugio, Inc., 

Robert Gomez, HCCN, Inc., Antonio 

Cesar Guel, No. C 08–4910 RS, 2009 WL 

1813998 (N.D. Cal. June 25, 2009) 

(Unidad). The parties in that case 

ultimately settled the suit in 2009 and 

required Guel/HCCN, et al., to make 

monthly payments. In February 2010, 

however, the plaintiffs grew concerned 

that Guel/HCCN and the other 

defendants might default on payments, 

so the plaintiffs petitioned the court to 

enforce the settlement. This lawsuit 

appears to have spurred Guel/HCCN to 

sell LPTV stations to Juarez, because the 

very next month, Guel and Juarez 

executed an agreement for her to buy 17 

stations from Guel/HCCN. Although 

Juarez claims that Guel told her he was 

struggling financially due to the 

economy and ‘‘offered to sell us some 

television channels [sic] and also 

offered us financing [sic] the channels 

through his company,’’ it is unclear how 

Guel would have financed Juarez’s 

purchase of the stations if he were 

struggling financially. 

The HCCN-Juarez Transaction: On 

March 12, 2010, Guel, as president of 

HCCN, and Juarez executed an asset 

purchase agreement (APA) whereby she 

agreed to pay HCCN $320,000 to 

purchase 16 of its LPTV stations 

(including the 7 at issue in the HDO) 

pursuant to a payment plan identified at 

Schedule 2.1. It was later discovered 

that Juarez apparently was a minor in 

March 2010. (Under Texas law, a minor 

is typically ineligible to enter into such 

a contract.) 

On March 15, 2010, HCCN filed with 

the Commission an application to assign 

16 of its LPTV stations to ‘‘Jenifer’’ 

Juarez (which is not the legal spelling of 

her first name). Guel/HCCN and Juarez 

(Parties) attached the APA to the 

assignment application (Application) as 

an exhibit. 

The Application required each Party 

to certify to the FCC that ‘‘the 

statements in this application are true, 

complete, and correct to the best of my 

knowledge and belief, and are made in 

good faith. I acknowledge that all 

certifications and attached Exhibits are 

considered material representations.’’ It 

also cautioned them that willful false 

statements are ‘‘punishable by fine and/ 

or imprisonment (U.S. Code, title 18, 

section 1001), and/or revocation of any 

station license or construction permit 

(U.S. Code, title 47, section 312(a)(1)), 

and/or forfeiture (U.S. code, title 47, 

section 503).’’ Guel’s signature on the 

Application affirmatively represented 

that the Parties’ agreements complied 

fully with FCC rules and policies; that 

the documents provided ‘‘embody the 

complete and final understanding 

between’’ the Parties; and that HCCN 

had provided copies of all agreements 

for the sale/transfer of the stations, 

except for Schedule 2.1, which he 

represented contained ‘‘private financial 

information, and was properly redacted 

pursuant to Commission policy 

established in LUJ, Inc.’’ Juarez made a 

similar certification. 

The Parties further agreed to comply 

with any condition imposed on it by the 

FCC with respect to its consent to the 

transaction. Guel, as 100% stockholder 

and president of HCCN, was apparently 

represented by attorney Dan Alpert. It 

does not appear that Juarez was 

represented by counsel in this 

transaction. 

The Commission consented to the 

assignment based on the Parties’ 

certifications that the transaction 

complied with FCC rules and policies 

(Grant). This Grant informed the Parties, 

in relevant part, that consummation of 

their transaction ‘‘shall be completed 

within 90 days from the date’’ of the 

Grant (i.e., no later than July 25, 2010) 

and that ‘‘notice in letter form thereof 

shall promptly be furnished to the 

Commission by the seller or buyer 

showing the date the acts necessary to 

effect the transaction were completed.’’ 

The Grant further informed the Parties 

that the FCC would consider the sale 

complete upon the filing of the notice, 

at which point Juarez could begin 

operating the stations as the licensee. As 

specified in the APA, the closing was 

scheduled to take place no later than 

June 25, 2010. 

In granting the assignment, however, 

the FCC was unaware of several material 

facts that the Parties had failed to 

disclose. For example, Juarez certified 

she had ‘‘sufficient net liquid assets [] 

on hand or are available from 

committed sources to consummate the 

transaction and operate the station(s) for 

three months.’’ It is unclear how an 

apparent teenager with no broadcast 

experience could finance that purchase, 

and the Parties did not disclose that 

Guel purportedly was financing Juarez’s 

purchase of all the stations on a 

payment plan described in Schedule 2.1 

of the APA, which they withheld by 

characterizing it as private financial 

information that could be excluded from 

the Application pursuant to FCC 

precedent. (To this day, Guel/HCCN and 

Juarez have not produced a copy of 

Schedule 2.1, and it is not clear if such 

a document ever existed or if the claim 

in the Application about Schedule 2.1 

was false.) In fact, this type of seller 

financing of a broadcast transaction is 

not ‘‘private financial information,’’ but 

rather was required to be included in 

the Application because it was directly 

relevant to the issue of whether the 

transaction complies with the Rules, 

particularly the Rule prohibiting a seller 

from having a reversionary interest in a 

broadcast station. The Parties also did 

not disclose the terms of an unwritten 

side agreement, whereby payments for 

the Stations would be made after 

‘‘consummating’’ the sale, and Guel 

would hold the closing papers and not 

file the requisite consummation notice 

until some unspecified time after 

‘‘payments were made.’’ 

The Parties did not file the requisite 

notice (or the requisite ownership 

report) within 30 days of purportedly 

consummating the transaction. They 

instead waited four years, when HCCN’s 

counsel, Alpert, filed the notice on 

November 10, 2014, certifying that 

HCCN and Juarez had closed the sale on 

July 25, 2010, the deadline indicated in 

the Grant. The same counsel obtained 

an FCC Registration Number (FRN), 

required to conduct business with the 

FCC, for Juarez on December 1, 2014. In 

the spring of 2016, Juarez filed 

applications to renew the licenses of 

three of the captioned stations, two of 

which remain pending. In 2021, Juarez 

filed applications to renew the licenses 

of four of the captioned stations, and in 

2022 she filed an application to renew 

the seventh station; these applications 

are likewise pending. 

HCCN Continued Filing Applications 

Post-Consummation. If the Parties had 

in fact closed the sale in July 2010, as 

required by their agreement and 

specified in the Grant, Juarez should 

have assumed control of the stations on 

July 25, 2010, and the Parties should 

have notified the Commission no later 

than August 24, 2010, via the requisite 

consummation notice. Yet actions taken 

by HCCN between July 2010 and 

November 2014 suggest that HCCN, not 

Juarez, continued to control and operate 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
57452 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 162 / Wednesday, August 23, 2023 / Notices 

the stations. Specifically, HCCN 

continued to hold itself out to the public 

as the licensee of the stations by filing 

with the FCC scores of applications or 

reports between July 25, 2010 and 

November 10, 2014, to wit: two biennial 

ownership reports; one change-ofaddress notice; and over 30 applications 

affecting the stations purportedly 

assigned to Juarez in July 2010. For 

example: 

• On April 1, 2013, HCCN filed a 

renewal application for WESL–LP, one 

of the stations Juarez was presumably 

operating. That application was signed 

by ‘‘Cesar A. Guel,’’ president of HCCN, 

and certified that HCCN complied with 

statutory limits on foreign ownership. 

• On December 20, 2013, HCCN filed 

a biennial ownership report for 40 

stations, including those purportedly 

sold to Juarez. This report certified that, 

as of October 1, 2013, Antonio Guel was 

no longer an officer or director of HCCN 

but retained 100% direct ownership of 

the voting and equity rights for HCCN’s 

outstanding stock. Cesar certified that 

he was HCCN’s sole officer and director 

and that Guel was a U.S. citizen. Cesar 

also certified that he and Guel were not 

related as parent/child. The 

Commission subsequently learned that 

Cesar Antonio Guel is the son of 

Antonio Cesar Guel. 

• On April 1, 2014, HCCN filed 

applications to renew the licenses of 

stations KZAB–LP and KJTN–LP. Cesar 

signed the applications, certifying that 

HCCN complied with statutory foreign 

ownership limits. HCCN, however, did 

not timely withdraw or amend these 

applications that remained pending 

after the purported May 19, 2014 

realization that Guel, as a non-U.S. 

citizen, could not hold a direct interest 

greater than 20% in a corporate FCC 

licensee such as HCCN. 

Most notably, in August 2014, HCCN 

filed applications to transfer all of the 

stations purportedly sold to Juarez in 

2010 to another entity; HCCN described 

the sale as a ‘‘corporate reorganization 

to another corporation’’ for which no 

consideration was being paid. Guel/ 

HCCN planned to sell the stations to 

Hispanic Family Christian Network, Inc. 

(HFCN), a company that Guel founded 

in 2007. Guel at some later date 

apparently transferred ownership of 

HFCN to family members, including 

Juarez. Documents submitted to the FCC 

indicate that Maria C. Guel, HFCN’s 

president, notified the Texas Secretary 

of State that Juarez had been named a 

director as of February 5, 2010, and 

would serve as HFCN’s treasurer. 

Juarez’s term as a member of HFCN’s 

board of directors would run through 

May 5, 2013. Various documents filed 

with the FCC echo this, with HFCN 

reporting that Juarez held a one-third 

voting interest in HFCN in 2010 

continuing through at least 2021. 

In June and September 2014, the FCC 

received petitions objecting to the 

renewal and assignment of the stations 

that HCCN had purportedly sold to 

Juarez in 2010. The petitions were filed 

by Michael Couzens, an attorney who 

represented pastors a 2014 civil case in 

which Guel and HCCN were eventually 

adjudged to have defrauded the plaintiff 

pastors based on Guel/HCCN’s and 

other defendants’ false promises to sell 

and construct LPTV stations in 

California. See Jose Gonzalez et al. v. 

Iglesia Jesucristo Es Mi Refugio, Inc., 

HCCN, and Antonio Cesar Guel, No. BC 

501688, Los Angeles County Superior 

Court) (default judgment issued Feb. 26, 

2016). As a result of that litigation, 

petitioner Couzens learned that Guel 

was not a natural born citizen of the 

United States, had not become a 

naturalized U.S. citizen and, therefore, 

was not, at that time, a U.S. citizen. The 

petitioner shared that information with 

the FCC and argued that, as a non-U.S. 

citizen and 100% owner of HCCN, Guel 

had falsely certified compliance with 

statutory limits on foreign ownership in 

dozen of filings with the FCC and had 

no legal right to hold or assign the 

stations. After that disclosure to the 

FCC, Guel/HCCN filed the four-years’ 

delinquent notice that the Parties had 

closed the sale of stations to Juarez on 

July 25, 2010. On the following day, 

November 11, 2014, HCCN filed for 

bankruptcy protection. 

The Investigation. As a result of 

allegations raised in the petitions, 

coupled with HCCN’s conflicting filings 

and the fact that the Parties hadn’t filed 

a timely consummation notice, the 

Media Bureau issued a pre-hearing 

designation letter (1.88 Letter) advising 

Juarez that the Bureau needed to 

evaluate potential statutory and/or FCC 

rule violations. Accordingly, the Bureau 

instructed Juarez to provide a written 

response, under penalty of perjury, to 

nine inquiries and explain, inter alia, 

the delay in filing the consummation 

notice and why HCCN had continued 

filing applications if Juarez had 

assumed control of the stations in July 

2010. It instructed her to provide 

evidence that she controlled the policies 

governing the Stations’ programming, 

personnel, and finances. It also 

instructed Juarez to provide 

documentary evidence supporting her 

responses and an affidavit, signed under 

penalty of perjury, stating that since July 

25, 2010, she had been ‘‘the licensee 

and in control of the day-to-day 

operations of the stations in a manner 

that is consistent with Commission 

rules and precedent; each station has 

operated pursuant to the parameters 

authorized in its license; and at no time 

has any station been silent for a 

consecutive twelve month period. To 

the extent such statements cannot be 

provided, please provide a detailed 

explanation.’’ 

The 1.88 Response. Juarez filed a 

timely response on April 23, 2018 

(Response). To describe the closing and 

explain the delinquent consummation 

notice, Juarez avers that ‘‘the Closing 

papers were first prepared in May 2010 

and were signed July [sic] 2010. The 

understanding I had with HCCN was 

that it would hold onto the papers and 

that the consummation notice would be 

filed as soon as payments were made for 

the stations.’’ Juarez neither provides 

the date in July 2010 she claims to have 

signed the closing papers, nor explains 

why the closing certificates she 

provided were signed but undated and 

had retained the blank space to indicate 

when in May 2010 the Parties had 

signed the certificates. To explain why 

the Parties created this arrangement, 

Juarez referred the Bureau to a 

declaration from Guel that she included 

in her Response. Therein, Guel avers 

that HCCN’s assets were ‘‘under attack’’ 

due to a lawsuit against him and HCCN, 

which purportedly led to HCCN’s 

bankruptcy. He also averred that, as a 

result of the lawsuit, ‘‘it was realized for 

the first time’’ in 2014 that he was 

unqualified to be an FCC licensee as he 

was not a U.S. citizen. Guel further 

avers that one of his last acts before 

filing for HCCN’s bankruptcy was to 

complete the transactions to ensure that 

assignees such as Juarez became the 

‘‘officially recognized licensees at the 

FCC.’’ Guel adds that he had entered 

‘‘verbal arrangements’’ whereby the 

assignees such as Juarez ‘‘could run the 

stations, but HCCN would remain 

officially the named licensee with the 

FCC until such time as the majority of 

the amounts owed was paid.’’ 

In the Response, Juarez and Guel both 

disclose that they had an oral agreement 

to delay filing the consummation notice 

until Juarez paid for the stations, but she 

could operate them in the interim. The 

Parties had not revealed this 

arrangement in the Application or APA, 

despite their respective certifications 

that the APA embodied the parties full 

agreement and complied with FCC rules 

and the Act. Additionally, neither Guel 

nor Juarez provided details explaining 

exactly how Guel ‘‘financed’’ her 

purchase of the stations, which the 

Parties also had failed to disclose in the 

APA. Juarez did not provide any 

evidence of payments or terms of such 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 162 / Wednesday, August 23, 2023 / Notices 57453 

financing. Further, Juarez does not 

provide any contemporaneous evidence 

to support her claim that she controlled 

the stations’ personnel, finances, or 

programming since July 25, 2010, and 

the evidence she did provide of her 

purported control of the stations since 

November 2014 does not sufficiently 

support her claim. 

Juarez further averred she held no 

stations other than those she 

purportedly acquired from Guel/HCCN 

in 2010. 

2. Applicable Statutes and Rules 

License Renewal Standard. Juarez’s 

applications to renew the stations are 

currently pending before the 

Commission. Section 309(k) of the Act 

provides that the FCC is to grant a 

license renewal application if it finds, 

with respect to that station, during the 

previous license term (a) the station has 

served the public interest, convenience, 

and necessity, (b) there have been no 

serious violations by the licensee of the 

Act or the Rules, and (c) there have been 

no other violations of the Act or Rules 

which, taken together, would constitute 

a pattern of abuse. If the Commission is 

unable to make such a determination, it 

may deny the renewal application or 

grant it on such terms and conditions as 

are appropriate, including a short-term 

renewal. Prior to denying a renewal 

application, the Commission must 

provide notice and opportunity for a 

hearing conducted in accordance with 

section 309(e) of the Act and consider 

whether any mitigating factors justify 

the imposition of lesser sanctions. 

Allegations of misrepresentation are 

material considerations in a license 

renewal review. 

Character Qualifications. The 

character of an applicant is among those 

factors that the FCC considers in 

determining whether an applicant has 

the requisite qualifications to be a 

Commission licensee. Section 312(a)(2) 

of the Act provides that the FCC may 

revoke any license if ‘‘conditions com[e] 

to the attention of the Commission 

which would warrant it in refusing to 

grant a license or permit on the original 

application.’’ Because the character of 

the applicant is among those factors the 

FCC considers in its review of 

applications to determine whether the 

applicant has the requisite 

qualifications to operate the station for 

which authority is sought, a character 

defect that would warrant the 

Commission’s refusal to grant a license 

in the original application would 

likewise support a Commission 

determination to revoke a license or 

permit. 

Misrepresentation and Lack of 

Candor. As court’s have noted, 

‘‘applicants before the FCC are held to 

a high standard of candor and 

forthrightness.’’ The Commission 

licenses tens of thousands of radio and 

television stations in the public interest, 

and therefore relies heavily on the 

completeness and accuracy of the 

submissions made to it. Thus, 

‘‘applicants . . . have an affirmative 

duty to inform the Commission of the 

facts it needs in order to fulfill its 

statutory mandate.’’ The FCC ‘‘refuse[s] 

to tolerate deliberate 

misrepresentations’’ and may also 

premise a finding of lack of candor on 

omissions, the core of which is ‘‘a 

failure to be completely forthcoming in 

the provision of information which 

could illuminate a decisional matter.’’ 

Misrepresentation is a false statement 

of fact made with intent to deceive the 

Commission and is proscribed by our 

Rules. Section 1.17(a)(1) of the Rules 

states that no person shall, in any 

written or oral statement of fact, 

intentionally provide material factual 

information that is incorrect or 

intentionally omit material information 

that is necessary to prevent any material 

factual statement that is made from 

being incorrect or misleading. Similarly, 

lack of candor (a concealment, evasion, 

or other failure to be fully informative, 

accompanied by an intent to deceive the 

Commission) is within the scope of the 

rule. A necessary element of both 

misrepresentation and lack of candor is 

intent to deceive. Fraudulent intent can 

be found from ‘‘the fact of 

misrepresentation coupled with proof 

that the party making it had knowledge 

of its falsity.’’ Intent can also be found 

from motive or a logical desire to 

deceive. False statements knowingly 

made to the Commission can be a basis 

for revocation of a license or 

construction permit. 

Section 1.17(a)(2) of the Rules further 

requires that no person may provide, in 

any written statement of fact, ‘‘material 

factual information that is incorrect or 

omit material information that is 

necessary to prevent any material 

factual statement that is made from 

being incorrect or misleading without a 

reasonable basis for believing that any 

such material factual statement is 

correct and not misleading.’’ Thus, even 

absent an intent to deceive, a false 

statement may constitute an actionable 

violation of § 1.17 of the Rules if 

provided without a reasonable basis for 

believing that the material factual 

information it contains is correct and 

not misleading. 

When reviewing FCC-related 

misconduct in the licensing context, the 

Commission evaluates whether the 

licensee will likely be forthright in 

future dealings with the Commission 

and will operate its station consistent 

with the requirements of the Act, the 

Rules and FCC policies. Indeed, the 

FCC’s Character Qualifications Policy 

Statement acknowledges that, in 

assessing character qualifications in 

broadcasting matters, the relevant 

character traits the Commission is 

concerned with ‘‘are those of 

‘truthfulness’ and ‘reliability.’ ’’ Thus, 

misrepresentation would also 

demonstrate a lack of candor under the 

FCC’s character qualifications policy. 

Because the FCC relies heavily on the 

honesty and probity of its licensees in 

a regulatory system that is largely selfpolicing, courts have recognized that an 

applicant who deliberately makes 

misrepresentations or lacks candor may 

engage in disqualifying conduct. The 

FCC also has recognized that ‘‘any 

violations of the Communications Act, 

Commission rules or Commission 

policies can be said to have a potential 

bearing on character qualifications.’’ It 

therefore is appropriate to consider ‘‘any 

violation of any provision of the Act, or 

of our Rules or policies, as possibly 

predictive of future conduct and, thus, 

as possibly raising concerns over the 

licensee’s future truthfulness and 

reliability.’’ Such violations also can be 

a basis for revocation of a license or 

construction permit. 

Unauthorized Transfer of Control. 

Section 310(d) of the Act states that no 

‘‘station license, or any rights 

thereunder, shall be transferred, 

assigned, or disposed of in any manner, 

voluntarily or involuntarily, directly or 

indirectly, or by transfer of control . . . 

to any person except upon application 

to the Commission and a Commission 

finding that the public interest, 

convenience, and necessity will be 

served thereby.’’ Thus, under section 

310(d) of the Act, the FCC prohibits de 

facto, as well as de jure, transfers of 

control of a station license, or any rights 

thereunder, without prior Commission 

consent. 

In determining whether an entity has 

de facto control of a broadcast applicant 

or licensee, we have traditionally looked 

beyond legal title and financial interests 

to determine who holds operational 

control of the station. The FCC, in 

particular, looks to whether the entity in 

question establishes the policies 

governing station programming, 

personnel, and finances, and has long 

held that a licensee may delegate dayto-day operations regarding those three 

areas without surrendering de facto 

control, so long as the licensee 

continues to set the policies governing 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
57454 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 162 / Wednesday, August 23, 2023 / Notices 

those operations. The FCC will consider 

other factors, such as whether someone 

other than the licensee holds themselves 

out to station staff and/or the public as 

one who controls station affairs. 

Act and Rule Violations by Nonlicensees. With respect to HCCN and 

Guel (currently non-licensees), section 

312(b) of the Act authorizes the FCC to 

order a person who ‘‘has violated or 

failed to observe any of the provisions 

of this chapter,’’ or ‘‘has violated or 

failed to observe any rule or regulation 

of the Commission authorized by this 

chapter,’’ to cease and desist from such 

activity. The process is laid out in 

section 312(c), which specifies that, 

prior to issuing such a cease and desist 

order, the Commission ‘‘shall serve 

upon the licensee, permittee, or person 

involved an order to show cause why 

. . . a cease and desist order should not 

be issued. Any such order to show cause 

shall contain a statement of the matters 

with respect to which the Commission 

is inquiring and shall call upon said 

. . . person to appear before the 

Commission.’’ Courts have specifically 

rejected the argument that the FCC lacks 

authority to sanction non-licensees for 

violating the Act and Commission rules 

after notice and an opportunity for 

hearing, stating that ‘‘such a result 

would make little sense. If a person who 

should have a license but did not obtain 

one were to start doing what only a 

licensee can do, why should the 

Commission not be able to issue a cease 

and desist order against that person?’’ 

Moreover, the Act expressly authorizes 

the FCC to issue a monetary sanction 

‘‘against a person under this subsection 

after notice and an opportunity for a 

hearing before the Commission or an 

administrative law judge thereof’’ where 

a non-licensee engages in activities for 

which a license, permit, certificate, or 

other authorization is required. Thus, 

although HCCN and Guel do not 

currently hold licenses, they 

nevertheless are subject to the Act by 

virtue of the fact that both satisfy the 

definition of a ‘‘person’’ and have 

apparently violated and/or failed to 

observe the requirements of section 301 

of the Act. This is eminently sensible 

since, in the alternative, individuals 

could continue to violate FCC rules with 

impunity. 

Real Party in Interest and Abuse of 

Process. Because the FCC must 

determine whether a potential licensee 

meets statutory requirements to hold 

and operate broadcast stations, parties 

who intend to assign authorizations are 

required to disclose the ‘‘real party in 

interest’’ purchasing the stations at issue 

and must certify that they have 

disclosed all material information 

requested in the application. The 

Commission has noted that the phrase 

‘‘real party in interest’’ usually applies 

to parties to pending applications, while 

‘‘de facto’’ control is normally applied 

to persons controlling existing 

authorizations. The concern in either 

context is whether an applicant is, or 

will be, controlled in a manner that 

differs from the proposal before, or 

approved by, the Commission. Thus, a 

real party in interest is an undisclosed 

applicant that ‘‘has an ownership 

interest or is or will be in a position to 

actually or potentially control the 

operation of the station.’’ Given the 

concealment from the FCC of a party 

controlling an applicant, real parties in 

interest are deemed to exercise de facto 

control over a station in a manner that, 

‘‘by its very nature, is a basic qualifying 

issue in which the element of deception 

is necessarily subsumed.’’ 

Further, it is an abuse of Commission 

processes to attempt to achieve a result 

our licensing processes were not 

designed or intended to permit, or to 

attempt to subvert the underlying 

purpose of the licensing process. As the 

Commission has noted, ‘‘both the 

potential for deception and the failure to 

submit material information can 

undermine the Commission’s essential 

licensing functions.’’ Thus, false 

certifications subvert our licensing 

process. Moreover, filing an application 

in the name of a surrogate is deceptive 

and denies the Commission and the 

public the opportunity to review the 

qualifications of the real party who will 

control and operate a station; it also 

constitutes an abuse of process. Classic 

abuse-of-process cases involving 

surrogate applicants include sisters who 

served as fronts for their brother to 

claim a preference once available to 

female-owned businesses, or deceased 

relatives whose names were used by 

licensees that had reached the limit on 

the number of authorizations that could 

be issued in their names. 

Foreign Ownership Limitations. 

Section 310(b) of the Act limits foreign 

holdings of broadcast licenses. The 

statute limits direct foreign ownership 

of broadcast licensees to 20%, while 

allowing for certain indirect holdings of 

such interests by foreign persons or 

entities. Specifically, the statute states 

in relevant part: 

No broadcast . . . station license shall 

be granted to or held by— 

(1) any alien or the representative of 

any alien; 

(2) any corporation organized under 

the laws of any foreign government; 

(3) any corporation of which more 

than one-fifth of the capital stock is 

owned of record or voted by aliens or 

their representatives or by a foreign 

government or representative thereof or 

by any corporation organized under the 

laws of a foreign country. 

3. Discussion 

Guel avers he directly held 100% 

voting rights of HCCN until 2013. Guel 

was not a U.S. citizen during that time; 

he was—and apparently still is—a 

citizen of Mexico. There is nothing in 

the record to indicate that HCCN was 

owned by any other corporation. Thus, 

at the time of Guel’s direct ownership of 

HCCN, the company was subject to 

section 310(b)(3) of the Act, which 

limits direct foreign ownership by nonU.S. citizens to no more than one-fifth 

of the capital stock. The FCC therefore 

could not have granted a broadcast 

license to HCCN consistent with the Act 

because of Guel’s 100% direct stock 

ownership in HCCN. The record 

indicates that Guel, through HCCN, 

repeatedly falsely certified to the FCC 

his citizenship and/or HCCN’s 

compliance with statutory limits on 

foreign ownership. 

Guel, currently a non-licensee, does 

not appear to hold any broadcast 

licenses. Nevertheless, the record 

indicates that HCCN and/or Guel 

exercised, and may continue to exercise, 

improper de facto and unauthorized 

control over the stations, in apparent 

violation of statutory requirements. 

There are substantial and material 

questions of fact as to the duration and 

extent of such control, and whether it 

continues to the present. We also find 

that there are substantial and material 

questions of fact as to whether HCCN 

and Guel should be considered one and 

the same entity for purposes of this 

proceeding. 

There also are substantial and 

material questions of fact as to whether 

the Parties lacked candor or 

misrepresented material facts in the 

assignment Application, when they 

each certified their agreement complied 

with FCC rules and embodied the 

Parties full agreement. There are 

substantial and material questions of 

fact as to whether the Parties 

consummated the sale of stations from 

HCCN to Juarez in 2010 or ever. There 

are substantial and material questions of 

fact as to when and whether Juarez 

assumed legal control of the stations. 

Finally, there are material and 

substantial questions as to whether the 

Parties lacked candor or misrepresented 

facts in statements made in the 

Response filed with the Bureau in 2018. 

For example, Guel averred he only 

discovered in 2014 that his 100% 

ownership of HCCN precluded him/ 

HCCN from holding broadcast licenses, 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 162 / Wednesday, August 23, 2023 / Notices 57455 

and that he had relied on advice of 

counsel in certifying HCCN’s 

compliance with foreign ownership 

limits. Guel nowhere claims ignorance 

as to his actual citizenship, however, 

and his declaration offers no excuse for 

false certifications that he was a U.S. 

citizen. Moreover, licensees are 

responsible for the actions of their 

agents and shifting blame for a 

licensee’s statutory violations does not 

exculpate the licensee. Indeed, the 

record indicates that as early as 2005, 

Guel had filed applications with the 

Commission to acquire a station in 

Yuma, Arizona, wherein Guel falsely 

represented HCCN’s compliance with 

section 310(b)(3) of the Act, at a time 

when he stated he was not represented 

by counsel. It thus appears that Guel 

lacked candor and/or misrepresented 

facts in his declaration. As for Juarez, 

she averred in her Response that she 

controlled the stations since July 2010. 

But she provided no contemporaneous 

documents to support that statement, 

and the historical record indicates that 

Guel/HCCN controlled the stations until 

at least August 2014. She also averred 

that ‘‘[t]here are no other stations owned 

or controlled by me.’’ Multiple 

documents, filed over many years, 

contradict this, as her cousin Maria Guel 

repeatedly certified in public FCC 

filings and other official documents that 

Juarez has held, since 2010, a 33% 

attributable interest in HFCN. 

Based on the totality of the record, 

there are substantial and material 

questions of fact as to: (1) whether 

Juarez abused Commission processes by 

filing a sham application to enable 

HCCN or Guel to continue operating and 

controlling the stations despite noncompliance with the foreign ownership 

limitations of section 310(b)(3), and by 

secretly agreeing to delay indefinitely 

filing the requisite consummation 

notice; (2) whether and when Juarez 

acquired control of and began operating 

the Stations consistent with the Act 

and/or the Rules and, based on that, 

whether Juarez engaged in an 

unauthorized transfer of control in 

violation of section 310 of the Act by 

either operating the stations without 

legitimate authority or by ceding control 

of the stations to HCCN; (3) whether 

Juarez lacked candor and/or 

misrepresented facts to the Commission, 

including in the Assignment 

Application and in her 1.88 Letter 

Response; and (4) whether Juarez has 

the qualifications to be and remain a 

licensee. As a result, we issue this Order 

to Show Cause Why an Order of 

Revocation Should Not Be Issued, 

Hearing Designation Order, Notice of 

Opportunity for Hearing, and Notice of 

Apparent Liability for Forfeiture to 

determine whether (a) the licenses of 

the stations should be revoked; (b) 

whether the captioned applications for 

renewal of the licenses of the stations 

should be granted, dismissed or denied; 

and/or (c) whether a forfeiture order 

should be issued to Juarez. 

With respect to HCCN and its former 

100% direct stockholder Guel, there are 

substantial and material questions of 

fact as to whether HCCN and Guel 

should be considered one and the same 

entity for purposes of this proceeding. 

There are also substantial and material 

questions of fact as to whether HCCN 

and/or Guel have exercised and 

continue to exercise de facto control 

over the stations. Accordingly, we issue 

an Order to Show Cause Why a Cease 

and Desist Order Should Not be Issued, 

Notice of Opportunity for Hearing, and 

Notice of Apparent Liability for 

Forfeiture against HCCN and Guel to 

cease and desist from violating 

Commission Rules and the Act, 

including making willfully inaccurate, 

incomplete, evasive, false, or misleading 

statements before the Commission in 

violation of § 1.17 of FCC rules and 

engaging in unauthorized control and 

operation of broadcast stations in 

violation of section 301, 308, and 310 of 

the Act and to determine and whether 

a forfeiture should be issued to HCCN 

and Guel. Moreover, we find that there 

are substantial and material questions of 

fact as to whether HCCN and/or Guel: 

(1) have misrepresented material 

information to the Commission and 

lacked candor; (2) have abused 

Commission processes first by filing an 

assignment application that lacked bona 

fides while maintaining de facto control 

of the stations, and then by 

impermissibly and intentionally 

bifurcating ownership of the stations for 

years by not timely filing the requisite 

consummation notice; and (3) are fit to 

be Commission licensees in light of 

these apparent violations, abuses, and 

lack of candor and/or misrepresentation 

of facts to the Commission. Accordingly, 

we issue an Order to Show Cause Why 

a Cease and Desist Order Should Not be 

Issued, Notice of Opportunity for 

Hearing, and Notice of Apparent 

Liability for Forfeiture against HCCN 

and Guel to cease and desist from 

operating, controlling, managing, or 

providing any assistance to any stations; 

from preparing and/or filing 

applications or other documents 

regarding HCCN with the Commission; 

and, to the extent HCCN or Guel is 

allowed to assist any other licensee/ 

permittee/applicant in any way with the 

operation or construction of any station, 

or to provide any assistance or input in 

any way in preparing or filing any 

application with the Commission, from 

doing so without also providing a copy 

of any order issued in this proceeding 

that finds he lacks the character to be a 

Commission licensee in any and all 

filings with the Commission in every 

matter in which he participates in any 

way. 

4. Ordering Clauses 

1. Accordingly, it is ordered that, 

pursuant to sections 308, 309(d), 309(e), 

309(k), and 312(a)–(c) of the Act, 47 

U.S.C. 308, 309(d), 309(e), 309(k), and 

312(a)–(c), the above-captioned 

applications and licenses are designated 

for hearing before an FCC 

administrative law judge, at a time and 

location specified in a subsequent 

Order, upon the following issues: 

(a) To determine whether Jennifer 

Juarez abused Commission processes by 

misrepresentation, concealment, or 

otherwise. 

(b) To determine whether Jennifer 

Juarez abused Commission processes by 

entering into an undisclosed agreement 

to delay indefinitely the filing notice of 

the Parties’ purported consummation. 

(c) To determine when and whether 

Jennifer Juarez is and/or has been 

exercising affirmative control of KHDELD, KJTN-LP, KZAB-LP, KZTE-LD, 

KTEQ-LP, KRPO-LD, and WESL-LP. 

(d) To determine whether Antonio 

Cesar Guel and Hispanic Christian 

Community Network, Inc. is (and/or has 

been, during the most recent license 

term) a real-party-in-interest to the 

captioned applications for Stations 

KHDE-LD, KJTN-LP, KZAB-LP, KZTELD, KTEQ-LP, KRPO-LD, and WESL-LP. 

(e) To determine whether there has 

been a de facto transfer of control of 

KHDE-LD, KJTN-LP, KZAB-LP, KZTELD, KTEQ-LP, KRPO-LD, and WESL-LP 

to Antonio Cesar Guel or Hispanic 

Christian Community Network, Inc. in 

violation of section 310(d) of the Act, 47 

U.S.C. 310(d) and §§ 73.1150(a), (b), and 

73.3540 of the Commission’s rules, 47 

CFR 73.1150(a), (b), and 73.3540. 

(f) To determine whether Jennifer 

Juarez engaged in misrepresentation 

and/or lack of candor in applications 

and communications with the 

Commission or otherwise violated 

§§ 1.17, 1.65, and 73.1015 of the 

Commission’s rules involving KHDE– 

LD, KJTN–LP, KZAB–LP, KZTE–LD, 

KTEQ–LP, KRPO–LD, and WESL–LP. 

(g) To determine, in light of the 

evidence adduced regarding issues (a)– 

(f) and (i)–(j), whether the captioned 

license renewal applications should be 

granted with such terms and conditions 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
57456 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 162 / Wednesday, August 23, 2023 / Notices 

as are appropriate, including renewal 

for a term less than the maximum 

otherwise permitted, or denied due to 

failure to satisfy the requirements of 

section 309(k)(1) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. 

309(k)(1), and the licenses cancelled. 

(h) To determine, in light of evidence 

adduced regarding the foregoing issues 

(a)–(f) and (i)–(j) whether Jennifer Juarez 

possesses the character qualifications to 

be or remain a Commission licensee and 

whether the licenses for KHDE–LD, 

KJTN–LP, KZAB–LP, KZTE–LD, KTEQ– 

LP, KRPO–LD, and WESL–LP should be 

revoked. 

(i) To determine whether Antonio 

Cesar Guel and Hispanic Christian 

Community Network, Inc. should, for 

purposes of this proceeding, be 

considered one and the same entity. 

(j) To determine whether Antonio 

Cesar Guel and/or Hispanic Christian 

Community Network, Inc. have 

exercised and continue to exercise de 

facto control over KHDE–LD, KJTN–LP, 

KZAB–LP, KZTE–LD, KTEQ–LP, 

KRPO–LD, and WESL–LP. 

(k) To determine whether Antonio 

Cesar Guel and/or Hispanic Christian 

Community Network, Inc. have 

misrepresented material information to 

the Commission and/or lacked candor. 

(l) To determine whether Antonio 

Cesar Guel and/or Hispanic Christian 

Community Network, Inc. have abused 

Commission processes first by filing an 

assignment application that lacked bona 

fides while maintaining de facto control 

of the KHDE–LD, KJTN–LP, KZAB–LP, 

KZTE–LD, KTEQ–LP, KRPO–LD, and 

WESL–L, and then by impermissibly 

and intentionally bifurcating ownership 

of KHDE–LD, KJTN–LP, KZAB–LP, 

KZTE–LD, KTEQ–LP, KRPO–LD, and 

WESL–LP for years by not timely filing 

the requisite consummation notice. 

(m) To determine, in light of evidence 

adduced regarding issues (i), (k), and (l), 

whether Antonio Cesar Guel and/or 

Hispanic Christian Community 

Network, Inc. shall be ordered to cease 

and desist from violating Commission 

Rules and the Act, including making 

willfully inaccurate, incomplete, 

evasive, false, or misleading statements 

before the Commission in violation of 

§ 1.17 of the Commission’s rules, 47 

CFR 1.17, and engaging in unauthorized 

control and operation of broadcast 

stations in violation of sections 301, 

308, and 310 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. 301, 

308, and 310. 

(n) To determine, in light of evidence 

adduced regarding issues (i), (k), and (l), 

whether Antonio Cesar Guel and/or 

Hispanic Christian Community 

Network, Inc. shall be ordered to cease 

and desist from operating, controlling, 

managing or providing any assistance to 

any stations; 

(o) To determine, in light of evidence 

adduced regarding issues (i), (k), and (l), 

whether Antonio Cesar Guel and/or 

Hispanic Christian Community 

Network, Inc. shall be ordered to cease 

and desist from preparing and/or filing 

applications or other documents 

regarding Hispanic Christian 

Community Network, Inc. with the 

Commission; 

(p) To determine, in light of evidence 

adduced regarding issues (i), (k), and (l), 

whether Antonio Cesar Guel and/or 

Hispanic Christian Community 

Network, Inc., to the extent Antonio 

Cesar Guel or and/or Hispanic Christian 

Community Network, Inc. is allowed to 

assist any other licensee/permittee/ 

applicant in any way with the operation 

or construction of any station, or to 

provide any assistance or input in any 

way in preparing or filing any 

application with the Commission, shall 

be ordered to cease and desist from 

doing so without also providing a copy 

of any order issued in this proceeding 

that finds Hispanic Christian 

Community Network, Inc. or Antonio 

Cesar Guel lacks the character to be a 

Commission licensee in any and all 

filings with the Commission in every 

matter in which he participates in any 

way. 

(q) To determine, in light of evidence 

adduced regarding issues (i), (k), and (l), 

whether Antonio Cesar Guel and and/or 

Hispanic Christian Community 

Network, Inc. possesses the character 

qualifications to be Commission 

licensees. 

1. It is further ordered that, pursuant 

to sections 312(b) and (c) of the Act, 47 

U.S.C. 312 (b) and (c), and §§ 1.91 and 

1.92 of the Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 

1.91, 1.92, Antonio Cesar Guel and 

Hispanic Christian Community 

Network, Inc. are directed to show cause 

why they should not be ordered to cease 

and desist: 

(a) from violating Commission Rules 

and the Act, including making willfully 

inaccurate, incomplete, evasive, false, or 

misleading statements before the 

Commission in violation of § 1.17 of the 

Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 1.17, and 

engaging in unauthorized control and 

operation of broadcast stations in 

violation of sections 301, 308, and 310 

of the Act, 47 U.S.C. 301, 308, and 310; 

(b) from operating, controlling, 

managing or providing any assistance to 

any stations; 

(c) from preparing and/or filing 

applications or other documents 

regarding Hispanic Christian 

Community Network, Inc. with the 

Commission; and 

(d) to the extent Antonio Cesar Guel 

or Hispanic Christian Community 

Network, Inc. is allowed to assist any 

other licensee/permittee/applicant in 

any way with the operation or 

construction of any station, or to 

provide any assistance or input in any 

way in preparing or filing any 

application with the Commission, from 

doing so without also providing a copy 

of any order issued in this proceeding 

that finds Antonio Cesar Guel or 

Hispanic Christian Community 

Network, Inc., lacks the character to be 

a Commission licensee in any and all 

filings with the Commission in every 

matter in which he participates in any 

way. 

2. It is further ordered that, pursuant 

to section 312(c) of the Communications 

Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 

312(c), and §§ 1.91(b) and (c) of the 

Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 1.91(b) and 

(c), to avail themselves of the 

opportunity to be heard and to present 

evidence at a hearing in this proceeding, 

Antonio Cesar Guel and Hispanic 

Christian Community Network, Inc., in 

person or by an attorney, shall file with 

the Commission, within twenty (20) 

days of the mailing of this Order to 

Show Cause Why A Cease and Desist 

Order Should Not Be Issued, Order to 

Show Cause Why an Order of 

Revocation Should Not Be Issued, 

Hearing Designation Order, Notice of 

Opportunity for Hearing, and Notice of 

Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, a 

written appearance stating that he will 

appear at the hearing and present 

evidence on the issues specified above 

at a hearing. If Antonio Cesar Guel or 

Hispanic Christian Community 

Network, Inc. waive their rights to a 

hearing pursuant to § 1.92(a)(1) or (a)(3) 

of the Rules, 47 CFR 1.92(a)(1) or (a)(3), 

they may submit a timely written 

statement denying or seeking to mitigate 

or justify the circumstances or conduct 

complained of in the order to show 

cause. 

3. It is further ordered that, pursuant 

to §§ 1.91 and 1.92 of the Commission’s 

rules, 47 CFR 1.91 and 1.92, that if 

Antonio Cesar Guel or Hispanic 

Christian Community Network, Inc. fails 

to file a written appearance within the 

time specified above, or has not filed 

prior to the expiration of that time a 

petition to accept, for good cause 

shown, such written appearance beyond 

expiration of said 20 days, the right to 

a hearing shall be deemed waived. 

Where a hearing is waived, the 

Administrative Law Judge shall issue an 

order terminating the hearing 

proceeding and certifying the case to the 

Commission. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 162 / Wednesday, August 23, 2023 / Notices 57457 

4. It is further ordered that, in 

addition to the resolution of the 

foregoing issues, it shall be determined, 

pursuant to section 503(b)(1) of the Act, 

47 U.S.C. 503(b)(1), whether an order of 

forfeiture should be issued against 

Jennifer Juarez in an amount not to 

exceed the statutory limit for the willful 

and/or repeated violation of each rule 

section above, including §§ 1.17, 1.65, 

73.1015, 73.1150, and 73.3540 of the 

Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 1.17, 1.65, 

73.1015, 73.1150, and 73.3540, and each 

statutory provision noted above, 

including sections 310(b) and (d) of the 

Act, 47 U.S.C. 310(b) and (d), for which 

the statute of limitations in section 

503(b)(6) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. 503(b)(6), 

has not lapsed. 

5. It is further ordered that, 

irrespective of the resolution of the 

foregoing issues, it shall be determined, 

pursuant to sections 503(b)(1) of the 

Act, 47 U.S.C. 503(b)(1), whether an 

order of forfeiture should be issued 

against Antonio Cesar Guel and/or 

Hispanic Christian Community 

Network, Inc. in an amount not to 

exceed the statutory limit for the willful 

and/or repeated violation of each rule 

section above, including § 1.17 of the 

Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 1.17, and 

each statutory provision noted above, 

including sections 301 and 308 of the 

Act, 47 U.S.C. 301 and 308, for which 

the statute of limitations in section 

503(b)(6) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. 503(b)(6), 

has not lapsed. 

6. It is further ordered that, pursuant 

to sections 309(d) and 312(c) of the Act, 

47 U.S.C. 309(d), 312(c), and §§ 1.91(c), 

and 1.221(c) of the Commission’s rules, 

47 CFR 1.91(c) and 1.221(c), to avail 

herself of the opportunity to be heard 

and to present evidence at a hearing in 

this proceeding, Jennifer Juarez, in 

person or by an attorney, shall file with 

the Commission, within twenty (20) 

days of the mailing of this Order to 

Show Cause Why A Cease and Desist 

Order Should Not Be Issued, Order to 

Show Cause Why an Order of 

Revocation Should Not Be Issued, 

Hearing Designation Order, Notice of 

Opportunity for Hearing, and Notice of 

Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, a 

written appearance stating that she will 

appear at the hearing and present 

evidence on the issues specified above. 

7. It is further ordered that, pursuant 

to § 1.221(c) of the Commission’s rules, 

47 CFR 1.221(c), if Jennifer Juarez fails 

to file within the time specified above 

a written appearance, a petition to 

dismiss without prejudice, or a petition 

to accept for good cause shown an 

untimely written appearance, the 

captioned applications shall be 

dismissed with prejudice for failure to 

prosecute. 

8. It is further ordered, pursuant to 

§§ 1.91 and 1.92 of the Commission’s 

rules, 47 CFR 1.91 and 1.92, that if 

Jennifer Juarez fails to file a written 

appearance within the time specified 

above, or has not filed prior to the 

expiration of that time a petition to 

dismiss without prejudice, or a petition 

to accept, for good cause shown, such 

written appearance beyond expiration of 

said 20 days, the right to a hearing shall 

be deemed waived. Where a hearing is 

waived, the Administrative Law Judge 

shall issue an order terminating the 

hearing proceeding and certifying the 

case to the Commission. If Jennifer 

Juarez waives her right to a hearing 

pursuant to § 1.92(a)(1) or (a)(3), 47 CFR 

1.92(a)(1) or (a)(3), she may submit a 

timely written statement denying or 

seeking to mitigate or justify the 

circumstances or conduct complained of 

in the order to show cause. 

9. It is further ordered that the Chief, 

Enforcement Bureau, shall be made a 

party to this proceeding without the 

need to file a written appearance. 

10. It is further ordered that, in 

accordance with section 312(d) of the 

Act, 47 U.S.C. 312(d), and § 1.91(d) of 

the Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 1.91(d), 

the burden of proceeding with the 

introduction of evidence and the burden 

of proof with respect to the issues (h), 

(i), and (k)–(q) of Paragraph 113, above, 

shall be upon the Commission’s 

Enforcement Bureau. 

11. It is further ordered that, pursuant 

to section 309(e) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. 

309(e), and § 1.254 of the Commission’s 

rules, 47 CFR 1.254, the burden of 

proceeding with the introduction of 

evidence and the burden of proof shall 

be upon Jennifer Juarez as to issues (a)– 

(g) and (j) at Paragraph 113 above. 

12. It is further ordered that, in 

accordance with section 312(d) of the 

Act, 47 U.S.C. 312(d), and § 1.91(d) of 

the Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 1.91(d), 

the burden of proceeding with the 

introduction of evidence and the burden 

of proof shall be upon the Commission 

as to issues (a)–(d) at Paragraph 114 

above. 

13. It is further ordered that a copy of 

each document filed in this proceeding 

subsequent to the date of adoption of 

this document shall be served on the 

counsel of record appearing on behalf of 

the Chief, Enforcement Bureau. Parties 

may inquire as to the identity of such 

counsel by calling the Investigations & 

Hearings Division of the Enforcement 

Bureau at (202) 418–1420. Such service 

copy shall be addressed to the named 

counsel of record, Investigations & 

Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau, 

Federal Communications Commission, 

45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554. 

14. It is further ordered that the 

parties to the captioned application 

shall, pursuant to section 311(a)(2) of 

the Act, 47 U.S.C. 311(a)(2), and 

§ 73.3594 of the Commission’s rules, 47 

CFR 73.3594, GIVE NOTICE of the 

hearing within the time and in the 

manner prescribed in such Rule, and 

shall advise the Commission of the 

satisfaction of such requirements as 

mandated by § 73.3594 of the 

Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 73.3594. 

15. It is further ordered that copies of 

this Order to Show Cause Why A Cease 

and Desist Order Should Not Be Issued, 

Order to Show Cause Why an Order of 

Revocation Should Not Be Issued, 

Hearing Designation Order, Notice of 

Opportunity for Hearing, and Notice of 

Apparent Liability for Forfeiture shall 

be sent via Certified Mail, Return 

Receipt Requested, and by regular firstclass mail to: 

Antonio Cesar Guel, 2605 Hyacinth 

Drive, Mesquite, TX 75181; 

Hispanic Christian Community 

Network, Inc., 8500 N Stemmons 

Freeway, Suite 5050, Dallas, TX 75247; 

Jennifer Juarez, 1138 N Tillery 

Avenue, Dallas, TX 75211; and 

Dan J. Alpert, Esq., The Law Office of 

Dan J. Alpert, 2120 N. 21st Road, 

Arlington, VA 22201. 

16. It is further ordered that the 

Secretary of the Commission shall cause 

to have this Order to Show Cause Why 

A Cease and Desist Order Should Not Be 

Issued, Order to Show Cause Why an 

Order of Revocation Should Not Be 

Issued, Hearing Designation Order, and 

Notice of Opportunity for Hearing, and 

Notice of Apparent Liability for 

Forfeiture or a summary thereof 

published in the Federal Register. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Thomas Horan 

Chief of Staff, Media Bureau. 

[FR Doc. 2023–18230 Filed 8–22–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

[OMB 3060–1053; FR ID 164698] 

Information Collection Being Reviewed 

by the Federal Communications 

Commission 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice and request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: As part of its continuing effort 

to reduce paperwork burdens, and as 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1