WPCC 2;BPZ;Courier 10cpi3|x>x6X@8;X@HP LaserJet IIISi (Additional)HPLAIIAD.PRSx  @Hy!kX@ IF#6X@DQ>@#2m Z}3|xHP LaserJet IIISi (Additional)HPLAIIAD.PRS6X@DQHy!k@"Sh5^;C]ddCCCdCCCCddddddddddCCȲY~~vCN~sk~CCCddCYdYdYCdd88d8ddddJN8ddddYYdYddddddCddddddddd8YYYYYY~Y~Y~Y~YC8C8C8C8ddddddddddYdddddsdddddddd~d~d~d~ddddddddd8ddddoddd~d~d<|8tddddddlLkdkd~d~d~ddddddXCddCCCWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNdddCYQQddddddFddddFCChhd44ddzzdddvooChdF"Ȑdhd岲dCCȐzȲxCddodȐȅdCdYdsȐ]ȐȐȧzȐUvŐdȐYYCCCCŐz~ozoY~NYdYC8YooYdYzsdzdd~YYzozzz~CdzYzzzzCCdddddddzCsdYC2i > W"Sh5^;C]ddCCCdCCCCddddddddddCCȲdxN`xoȐCCCddCdoYoYFdo8Co8odooYNCodddYdddddddddCddddddddo8dddddϐYYYYYN8N8N8N8oddddooooddoddddxoddddddodddddddddood8doddrddoddN8ooddddoNododdddooooȐdYCddCCCWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNdddCdUUddddddFddddFCCssd44ddzzddd~ooCsdF"Ȑdsd岲dCCȐzȲxCddodȐȅdCdYdsȐ`ȐȐȮzȐUvŐdȐddCCCCŐzozoYNYYYN8YooYdYzzdzddYYzozzzNdzYzzzzCCdddddddzCzdYC"Sh5^$(8<><q*"xxxxWWxxxWWkkxxx> 9> w'0 > e5"`H2 : ^Yd ddd dddddd, , dudddddSSSouS,dS dSdSdSdSSZT rddddW,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNdzz  i idd NN,,,, dii",,,,,,,,,  ,,,  ,,,' dd,,,,,, xd, ,,d,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,ddddudSddddd,"`H2 : ^Yd ddd dddddd, , u,ddddiSdSud,dS7uSuSuSuSSuSSu,ddddW,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNd%  i idd NN,,,, d^i",,,,,,,,,  ,,,  ,,,' dd,,,,,, xd, ,,d,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,dddduuSudddd,"Sh5^5^@?F`CCourier 10cpiCG Times (Scalable)CG Times Bold (Scalable)CG Times Italic (Scalable)Courier 10cpi (Bold)?xxx,^x6X@8;X@ 8wC;,[AXw P7XP7zC;,"ZXz_ p^7XANE, P7PV"G($,hG P7hP& 6uC;,;/Xu&_ x$&7XXTdY,+S P7P SdY,"AL_ p^73k<5,K_k P7P&QdY,;&_ x$&7X?xxx,Vx `B;X             X-    )!. X<W  #Xw P7[AXP#FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSIONxx- FCC 9721  yxdddy)#X PjQ[AXP# (J Before the W FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20554  Y-  Y-In re Applications of hh,V) #6X@DQ^@##X PjQ[AXP#MM Docket No. 9410 ` `  hh,V)  Y_-#X PjQ[AXP#The Lutheran Church/hh,V) File Nos. BR890929VC  YH-Missouri Synod hh,V ) BRH890929VB X(#(#` `  hh,V) ` `  hh,V)  Y -For Renewal of Licenses ofhh,V)  Y -Stations KFUO/KFUOFMhh,V)  Y -Clayton, Missouri hh,V)  Y -}  MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ă  Yz-Adopted: January 28, 1997V;ppReleased: January 31, 1997 By the Commission: " Y- "#X PjQ[AXP## PjQP##X PjQ[AXP#1. This memorandum opinion and order affirms, with modifications, the decision of the   Review Board to renew the licenses of The Lutheran Church/Missouri Synod ("Church" or  Y-  K"licensee") for Stations KFUO(AM) and KFUOFM. The Lutheran Church/Missouri Synod,  Y-  11 FCC Rcd 5275 (Rev. Bd. 1996).p( YR-  #X PjQ[AXP#эIn addition to denying the applications for review filed June 3, 1996 by the Church and the   xMissouri State Conference of Branches of the NAACP, the St. Louis Branch of the NAACP,   and the St. Louis County Branch of the NAACP ("NAACP"), we also deny the NAACP's   request for oral argument, filed June 18, 1996. Argument would not materially assist resolution of this proceeding. The Board imposed reporting conditions on the renewals   as a result of the Church's violation of the affirmative action provisions of 47 C.F.R. 73.2080,   and a $50,000 forfeiture for misleading statements made in violation of 47 C.F.R. 73.1015.   In addition, the Board granted the renewals for a short term ending January 1, 1997, one month   earlier than the expiration of the current license term. We reduce the forfeiture to $25,000 and renew for a full term with reporting conditions.  Y8-c+ I. INTRODUCTION Ã  Y -  2. KFUO(AM) has been broadcasting since 1924. It is a daytimeonly station operating   noncommercially with a religious programming format. KFUOFM went on the air in 1948 and   ;is a fulltime commercial station broadcasting classical music and some religious programming. The license term at issue for both stations ran from February 1, 1983 to February 1, 1990." 0*o(o(qq!"Ԍ Y-ԙ- II. BACKGROUND ă  Y- 3. This proceeding was initiated by Hearing Designation Order and Notice of Opportunity  Y-  for Hearing for Forfeiture, 9 FCC Rcd 914 (1994) ("HDO"). Following a request for additional   information from the licensee, the filing of a petition to deny by the NAACP, the issuance of   four additional letters of inquiry, and the receipt of the licensee's responses, the Commission   Yspecified an issue to examine the licensee's compliance with the equal employment opportunity   ,(EEO) requirements set forth in 47 C.F.R. 73.2080. Specifically, the Commission questioned   the licensee's affirmative recruitment efforts and noted in particular that its reasons for failing   to recruit among them, that it required "classical music expertise" and "Lutheran training" for   Mcertain positions were unacceptable because they had a direct adverse impact on the   recruitment of Blacks. The bona fides of the classical music criterion were suspect, the   Commission stated, because not all persons hired for the specified positions had such expertise  Y -  hand the licensee did not attempt to recruit minorities who did have this training. 9 FCC Rcd at   923. The Commission further stated that the licensee's representations in its renewal   Yapplications and in its responses to inquiries regarding the specifics of its EEO outreach efforts   raised a question as to whether it misrepresented or lacked candor in providing information to   the Commission concerning its recruitment and employment history and practices in violation  Yc-of 47 C.F.R. 73.1015. Id. at 92425.  Y5- 4. In an Initial Decision, 10 FCC Rcd 9880 (ALJ 1995) ("I.D."), Administrative Law   Judge Arthur I. Steinberg found, with respect to the EEO issue, that, although the stations did   not discriminate against any person on the basis of race or color, they violated the Commission's   EEO rules and policies by improperly giving preferential hiring treatment to individuals with   knowledge of Lutheran doctrine and to active members of Lutheran congregations for positions  Y-  which were not reasonably connected with espousal of the Church's religious views.D$6 Y;-  #X PjQ[AXP#эThe Church believed during the license term that many of the positions at KFUO(AM), as   + well as positions that served functions at both stations, required knowledge of Lutheran doctrine. 10 FCC Rcd at 9886 50.D These  Y-  hiring practices, the ALJ held, were contrary to the holding in King's Garden, Inc. v. FCC, 498  Y-  KF.2d 51 (D.C. Cir.), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 496 (1974) ("King's Garden"), which upheld the   exemption of only those positions substantially connected with religious programming from the  Yf-  ;Commission's affirmative action rule. 10 FCC Rcd at 990708 1945; id. at 990809 200 YO-  01. He further concluded that, for the first four and a half years of its license term (February   K1, 1983 to August 3, 1987), the Church's overall affirmative action efforts were flawed but  Y!-  ;acceptable, id. at 990911 20512, whereas, for the remainder of the license term (August 3,  Y -  1987 to February 1, 1990), its efforts were unsatisfactory and not in substantial compliance with" K0*&&qq"  Y-  47 C.F.R. 73.2080. $6 Yy-  #X PjQ[AXP#ЍThe ALJ divided his analysis of the license term in order to take account of changes in   Commission policy. That is, until August 3, 1987, the Commission's processing standards were   ;resultoriented and focused on the number of minority hires. Stations were subject to program  Y4-  review if their overall minority and female representation was less than 50% of parity. See  Y-  EEO Processing Guidelines for Broadcast Renewal Applicants, 46 RR 2d 1693 (1980), recon.  Y-  denied, 79 FCC 2d 922 (1980). Effective August 3, 1987, the Commission amended its rules   and deemphasized the use of statistics to evaluate a licensee's EEO program in favor of  Y-  examining the licensee's overall efforts to operate in a nondiscriminatory manner. See   ;Amendment of Part 73 of the Commission's Rules Concerning Equal Employment Opportunity  Y -  Kin the Broadcast Radio and Television Services, 2 FCC Rcd 3967 (1987), petition for recon.  Y -  -pending. The Commission now focuses on the station's EEO program, its efforts to contact   sources likely to refer qualified minority and female applicants, and its selfanalysis of its  Ye -  outreach program. Streamlining Broadcast EEO Rule and Policies (Order and Notice of Proposed RuleMaking), 11 FCC Rcd 5154, 5158 (1996). Id. at 991112 21322. The ALJ held that these deficiencies were   xsufficiently serious as to warrant the imposition of EEO reporting conditions, but not severe  Y-  enough to warrant nonrenewal. Id. at 991617 25356. With regard to the   Ymisrepresentation/lack of candor issue, the ALJ concluded that the Church lacked candor, first,  Y-  hin describing the stations' minority recruitment program in its 1989 renewal applications (id. at   991314 23038) and, second, in informing the Commission that knowledge of classical music  Yv-  was a requirement for the position of salesperson at the FM station. Id. at 991516 24651.   hThe ALJ further held that because the misconduct was largely the product of the actions of one   Yindividual without the involvement of top management officials, including the President of the   Church and the CEO of the stations, and because the licensee had an overall exemplary record   Yof compliance for many years, nonrenewal was not called for. Accordingly, the ALJ imposed  Y -  a forfeiture of $50,000 for willful and repeated violation of 47 C.F.R. 73.1015. Id. at 9918 25961.  Y - 5. The Board concluded that the I.D. was fully supported by the record and Commission   precedent. 11 FCC Rcd at 5275 1. On the EEO issue, the Board agreed that reporting   iconditions were appropriate because of the licensee's noncompliance with the Commission's   EEO requirements during the latter part of the license term, and for its preferential hiring   htreatment afforded Lutherans for the positions of receptionist, secretary, engineer, and business   manager, positions not reasonably connected with the espousal of the Church's religious views.  Y4-  Id. at 528081 2829, 33. Adopting the ALJ's undisputed factual findings, the Board   ,concluded that, with the exception of Thomas M. Lauher during his tenure as general manager   ;of the FM station from May 1987 to July 1989, no management employee made any attempt to   <implement a consistent EEO program at the stations. Thus, the Board found that neither the   Reverend Paul Devantier, the Executive Director of the Church's Board for Communications   Services, CEO of the stations, and acting general manager of the FM station, nor Dennis Stortz,"N0*&&qq"   ;the Operations Manager for the stations from 1978 to 1991 and acting general manager for the   stations from July 1986 to May 1987, took steps to carry out the EEO program, even though   yStortz, who was in charge of daytoday operations, had been informed by counsel of the   Commission's EEO requirements and the need to carefully review the stations' EEO efforts, and   had received memoranda from Lauher pointing out the stations' deficiencies; that, until corrected   by Lauher, the employment application in use at the time gave no notice of the stations' EEO   hpolicies, did not state that discrimination was prohibited, and did state that preference could be   .given to Lutherans; that the licensee's efforts to solicit the assistance of likely sources of  YH-  ,qualified minority applicants were irregular and generally unsuccessful, e.g., on one occasion,   in July 1989, Lauher sent letters to university and personnel agency sources indicating a general   Yinterest in minority referrals but the letters did not mention specific openings and these sources   were not subsequently contacted when positions were filled; that the stations did not evaluate   their employment profile and job turnover against the availability of minorities and females in   Jtheir recruitment area; and that, following Lauher's departure, there was no continuing review  Y -  <of the stations' job structure or analysis of their efforts to recruit and hire minorities. Id. at 5277 13, 5280 30.  6. A much more serious matter, the Board held, was the licensee's lack of candor  Yb-  Jregarding its EEO program. Id. at 5280 31. Specifically, the Board agreed with the ALJ that   =the following statement by the licensee describing its recruitment program in its renewal applications was grossly misleading:  XWhen vacancies occur, it is the policy of KFUO and KFUOFM to seek out  oqualified minority and female applicants. We deal only with employment  !services, including state employment agencies, which refer job candidates without  regard to their race, color, religion, national origin or sex. We contact the  various employment services and actively seek female and minority referrals and  we specifically request them to provide us with qualified female and minority referrals. See sample reply form attached.    The Board found that, instead of responding specifically in the renewal applications to the   Kquestions on FCC Form 396 pertaining to the licensee's hiring practices, the licensee, under   Stortz's supervision, substituted its own narrative statement which conveyed the impression that   the stations had adopted a model EEO program whereas the record established that the licensee's  Y-  program had fallen into noncompliance. Id. at 527879 2024. The Board, however, declined   to resolve the second instance of lack of candor found by the ALJ involving the licensee's   response that knowledge of classical music was a requirement for sales positions at the FM   -station, concluding that the lack of candor it affirmed was sufficiently serious to justify the  Y"-  ALJ's imposition of a $50,000 forfeiture. Id. at 527980 2527. Noting the ALJ's finding   that the licensee's witnesses, including Stortz, the individual responsible for the daytoday   operation of the stations and the person to whom the misconduct was largely attributable,   testified truthfully and could be expected to deal candidly with the Commission in the future,"Q%0*&&qqp&"  Y-  the Board concluded that denial of renewal would not be appropriate. Id. at 528081 31.  Y-  hFinally, the Board stated that the Commission has issued shortterm renewals in cases involving  Y-  Jsimilar EEO rule violations, and that it would impose a comparable sanction here. Id. at 5281 34.  Y-  7. The Church argues that the decisions below holding it did not comply with the   Commission's EEO requirements violate its constitutional right to religious freedom. It contends  Y_-  Zthat the I.D. improperly evaluated its recruitment efforts and employment criteria in light of   whether particular jobs were reasonably connected to the espousal of the Church's views. It   kstates that the Church had the right to give preference to Lutherans for all positions in   accordance with Section 702 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e1(a). Insofar  Y -  as the ALJ relied on King's Garden, in holding to the contrary, the Church submits, that  Y -  <decision has been overruled by Corporation of the Presiding Bishop v. Amos, 483 U.S. 327  Y -  (1987) ("Amos"). The decisions below also violate the First and Fifth Amendments, the  Y -  ;Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, 42 U.S.C. 2000bb1, and Adarand Constructors,  Y -  >Inc. v. Pena, 115 S. Ct. 2097 (1995) ("Adarand"), the Church maintains, because they   substantially burden the free exercise of religion without a compelling justification. The Church   [also disputes the Board's lack of candor finding and states that the description of its EEO   X policies in the renewal applications was generally accurate at the time the applications were filed.   Moreover, the Church claims, there is no evidence that Stortz, who supervised the preparation   of the EEO statement, had the requisite intent to mislead. Finally, the Church argues that the   Kforfeiture assessed by the Board was excessive and that, in any case, the Commission lacked  Y-  ystatutory authority in the HDO under 47 U.S.C. 503(b) to impose a fine for activity that occurred more than three years earlier.  8. The NAACP argues broadly that, as a result of the ALJ's procedural and evidentiary   rulings, the hearing was hopelessly onesided and unfairly favored the licensee. It maintains that   the ALJ did not understand the nature of discrimination, was incapable of fairly trying a civil   rights case, and that his mishandling of the proceeding requires remand to a different ALJ if the   -case is not otherwise reversed. Moreover, it contends that the ALJ improperly reversed the  YN-  HDO's finding that the licensee's EEO policies were inherently discriminatory and that he   disregarded numerous additional misrepresentations by the licensee. The NAACP concludes that   the penalty for the discrimination and misrepresentations shown on this record must be nonrenewal. The Mass Media Bureau simply urges that the decisions below should be affirmed.  Y-3 III. DISCUSSION ă  Y!-A. EEO Issue.  Y#-` ` 1. Responses to the Church's Arguments  M9. We turn first to the Church's constitutional arguments. It contends principally that"R%0*&&qqp&"  Y-  the court's holding in King's Garden, relied on in the HDO and the I.D., is no longer good  Y-  law.H$6 Yb-  #X PjQ[AXP#эCuriously, at the predesignation stage, the Church initially invoked King's Garden in its  YK-  idefense, much to the later consternation of the Board. See Oral Arg. Tr. 1135; 11 FCC Rcd  Y4-  at 5281  35, 37; id. at 5282 (Additional Views of Board Chairman). Despite its misgivings   in this regard, the Board did not resolve the constitutional issue because it deemed the matter  Y-  yto be outside its jurisdiction. See Frank H. Yemm, 39 RR 2d 1657 (1977). We share the  Y-  Board's concern about the Church's change of position. Nevertheless, in view of the seriousness   Ywe accord any constitutional challenge, we will deal with the Church's argument in its current form. That case upheld the Commission's policy limiting its exemption of religious broadcasters  Y-  from the EEO rules to those individuals hired to espouse religious views over the air. See  Y-  ZComplaint by Anderson, 34 F.C.C. 2d 937, 938 (1972), aff'd sub nom. King's Garden, Inc.,  Y-  38 F.C.C. 2d 339 (1972); accord, National Religious Broadcasters, Inc., 43 F.C.C. 2d 451   (1973). "Where a job position has no substantial connection with program content, or where   the connection is with a program having no religious dimension," the court held, enforcement   ,of the Commission's EEO rules does not violate a licensee's First Amendment right to freedom  YH-  Yof religious expression. King's Garden, 498 F.2d at 61. The court rejected the contention that   <the Commission's limited exemption for religious broadcasters is inconsistent with the 1972   amendment to Section 702 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which exempted all "activities" of   + religious organizations from the ban on religious discrimination in employment contained in Title   VII of that law. (Prior to 1972, the exemption covered only "religious activities.") The   Commission's EEO rules, the court found, were independently promulgated under the public   interest standard of the Communications Act, and Congress did not indicate an intent in 1972   that the broader exemption in the Civil Rights Act should be engrafted onto the Commission's  Y-rules. Id. at 5354, 57.  Yb- 010. We do not agree with the Church that Amos has effectively overturned King's  YK-  Garden. Amos, which was not a broadcast case and did not discuss or review the Commission's  Y4-  =EEO requirements,%_4$6 Y-  #X PjQ[AXP#эIn NAACP v. Federal Power Commission, 425 U.S. 662 (1976), the Supreme Court   endorsed the Commission's jurisdiction to adopt its EEO rule by favorably contrasting it to a   Federal Power Commission rule which exceeded that agency's statutory mandate. The Court   stated that the Commission's EEO rule "can be justified as necessary to enable the FCC to   satisfy its obligation under the Communications Act . . . to ensure that its licensees'   programming fairly reflects the tastes and viewpoints of minority groups." 425 U.S. at 670 n.7.  Y3"-Nothing in Amos contradicts this observation. % upheld the constitutionality under the First Amendment of the broad   exemption for religious institutions enacted in Section 702 "as applied to the nonprofit activities  Y-  of religious employers." 483 U.S. at 339. The Court held that the Section 702 exemption,   which was intended to alleviate significant government interference with the ability of religious  Y-  hinstitutions to define and carry out their missions, did not violate the Establishment Clause. Id."0*&&qq"  Y-  at 3356. King's Garden expressed serious doubt as to the constitutionality under the  Y-  Establishment Clause of the 1972 Section 702 exemption, 498 F.2d at 567, and Amos laid to  Y-  rest any such concerns. Nevertheless, King's Garden based its conclusion upholding the   Commission's policy on an independent ground, namely, that the broader exemption of all   activities of religious organizations in Section 702 was simply not relevant to the Commission's   ,regulation of the EEO practices of broadcast licensees under the public interest standard of the   Communications Act. 498 F.2d at 58. Had Congress exempted religious organizations from  Y_-  the Commission's public interest requirements in 1972, or if the Commission independently  YH-  promulgated such an exemption, Amos indicates that such an exemption would be constitutional.   But Congress has not enacted such an exemption and the Commission has not itself adopted such   an exemption. Since the Commission's EEO policies are not founded on the Civil Rights Act,  Y -  wthere is nothing in Amos that supports a conclusion that the Commission's lack of a comparable exemption in its EEO rules and cases is unconstitutional.  Y - L11. As in King's Garden, the courts have consistently recognized the distinction between  Y -  xthe Commission's EEO requirements and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. See Florida State  Y-  Conference of NAACP v, FCC, 24 F.3d 271, 274 n. 4 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (statistical analysis  Yy-  employed in Title VII cases is irrelevant in determining compliance with EEO rule); Bilingual  Yb-  Bicultural Coalition on Mass Media, Inc. v. FCC, 595 F.2d 621, 628 (D.C. Cir. 1978) ("[T]he   ,FCC is not the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and a license renewal proceeding   ;is not a Title VII suit.") As we have stated, "[t]he EEO rule is not intended to replicate federal   jand state antidiscrimination laws but rather to advance the Commission's unique program  Y-  diversityrelated mandate." Streamlining Broadcast EEO Rule and Policies (Order and Notice  Y-  of Proposed RuleMaking), 11 FCC Rcd 5154, 5158 (1996); accord, Implementation of  Y-  Commission's Equal Employment Opportunity Rules (Notice of Inquiry), 9 FCC Rcd 2047  Y-  (1994); see also San Mountain Broadcasting, Inc., 9 FCC Rcd 2124, 2126 n. 11 (1994).   Indeed, the Church concedes as much when it contends that, if this were a Title VII suit, it   would clearly be covered by the Section 702 exemption, immediately after asserting that a   license renewal proceeding, such as this one, is not a Title VII suit. (Opposition to NAACP's  Ye-  [Application for Review at 9 n. 8.) Additionally, insofar as the Church argues that Amos  YN-  ?overturned King's Garden by holding that the government may not interfere in job  Y7-  Ydeterminations without "chilling" religious freedom (Application for Review at 4 n. 6), we are   Junpersuaded by this argument in light of the Supreme Court's statement that it had no occasion   to pass on the argument that the Section 702 exemption is required by the Free Exercise Clause.  Y-  483 U.S. at 339 n. 17. As noted, King's Garden found no conflict between the Commission's  Y-  limited EEO exemption and the Free Exercise Clause, whereas Amos found no conflict between the broader Section 702 exemption and the Estabishment Clause.  Y"- 12. Thus, the teaching of King's Garden remains valid and applies to the licensee in this case:  XA religious group, like any other, may buy and operate a licensed radio or"Q%0*&&qqp&"  Btelevision station . . . . But, like any other group, a religious sect takes its franchise "burdened by enforceable public obligations."  ]* * *  X[A religious group] confronts the FCC's rules only because the sect has sought  out the temporary privilege of holding a broadcasting license, [which is] "a limited and valuable part of the public domain."   Y1-498 F.2d at 60 (citations omitted).   Y -  xSee also Scott v. Rosenberg, 702 F.2d 1263, 1272 (9th Cir. 1983) ("The FCC grants licenses   and regulates the public airwaves without differentiating between religious and secular  Y -  broadcasters"), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1078 (1984). Finally, we point out that, because Amos   literally applies only to the "nonprofit activities" of religious employers, and the record here   establishes that KFUOFM operated commercially beginning in July 1983 and for the remainder  Y-  hof the license term in issue, Amos would not appear to insulate that station's hiring practices in any case.  YK-  13. The Church's Fifth Amendment argument is premised on the holding in Adarand,  Y4-  but we find that this case too is unsupportive of the Church's position. In Adarand, the Supreme   Court held that where there may be a violation of the personal right to equal protection of the   xlaws as the result of a racebased preference program under federal law, courts must employ   strict scrutiny to determine whether a racial classification is narrowly tailored to further a   xcompelling government interest. 115 S. Ct. at 2113. Contrary to the Church's position, our   EEO rule does not use racial classifications, nor does it require that any person be hired or be   given a hiring preference based on race. Rather, it requires that licensees make efforts to recruit   Yminority and women applicants so that they will be assured access to the hiring process. Thus,   the EEO rule, applied to the Church here, does not result in the deprivation of a constitutional   right on the basis of race, and the Church has not even identified any person who arguably  YN-  suffered any such injury. See Benchmark Radio Acquisition Fund IV Limited Partnership, 11  Y7-  FCC Rcd 8547, 854850 35 (1996); Tidewater Communications, Inc., 11 FCC Rcd 7814,  Y -  w781416 38 (1996); Streamlining Broadcast EEO Rule and Policies, 11 FCC Rcd at 516162  Y -1315.< $6 Y -  #X PjQ[AXP#эNor has the Church substantiated its bald assertion (Application for Review at 6 n. 9) that   K"invasive questions" at the hearing caused it to discontinue its onair internship program for seminary students.<  y14. The Church's subsidiary reliance on enactment of the Religious Freedom Restoration  Y -  ]Act ("RFRA") is also unpersuasive. The RFRA states that the government may not" K0*&&qq!"   "substantially burden" the free exercise of religion absent a compelling interest. The Church  Y-  Jacknowledges that the RFRA codified the holding in Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963),  Y-  an unemployment compensation case which predated King's Garden. It thus does not provide  Y-  support for the Church's contention that later legal developments invalidated the King's Garden   rationale. More importantly, we do not believe it is a substantial burden on a religious entity   that holds broadcast stations to comply with the Commission's EEO rules for those employees   Ynot involved with espousing its religious views over the air. "Cases abound in which the First   YAmendment right to free exercise of religion has been held to not be absolute, and indirect and  YH-  incidental burdens thereon were found to be constitutionally proper. See, e.g., . . . King's  Y1-  xGarden . . . ." Coomes v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 572 F.2d 554 (6th Cir. 1978).   And, contrary to the Church's allegation (Opposition to NAACP's Application for Review, at  Y -  ,6), there is certainly nothing in Amos which indicates that the Commission's policy constitutes   an improper burden on the Church under the RFRA. Finally, the Church states that the National  Y -  Religious Broadcasters ("NRB") has raised in the pending Streamlining Broadcast EEO Rule and  Y -  YPolicies rulemaking proceeding "the same concerns the Church has raised in this case" and has   asked the Commission to modify its EEO rule to permit religious organizations to establish   religious belief as a qualification for all station employees. In addition, the Church has cited  Yy-  the NRB's comments in the EEO rulemaking in support of its arguments about King's Garden   Yand Section 702. The NRB's specific contentions, however, which remain under consideration  YK-  in the rulemaking proceeding,K$6 Y-  w#X PjQ[AXP#эThe Commission's view that Adarand does not implicate our EEO program is also a subject  Y-  of the rulemaking proceeding referred to in the text. See Streamlining Broadcast EEO Rule and  Y-Policies, 11 FCC Rcd at 516162 1315. have no bearing on the question of the Church's compliance with   the current EEO rule. In sum, we perceive no constitutional or other basis for declining to apply our EEO requirements to the licensee before us.  Y-` ` 2. Responses to the NAACP's Arguments   15. In addressing the NAACP's contentions, we point out initially that its pleading is  Y-  \largely directed at the I.D. and reiterates the arguments in its Exceptions to the Board.  Y-  <Moreover, its application contains twentyeight singlespaced footnotes, including one with   eleven subparts. We will deal only with its principal contentions without repeating the analysis  Ye-  of the Board with which we substantially agree. See Capitol Radiotelephone, Inc., 11 FCC Rcd   8232 (1996) (Commission limits consideration of arguments where applicant did not concisely and plainly state the questions for review as required by 47 C.F.R. 1.115(b)).  16. First, we reject the NAACP's assertion that the ALJ's hearing rulings demonstrated  Y-  "a curious neutralityinfavorofthelicensee," Office of Communication of the United Church  Y-  of Christ v. FCC, 425 F.2d 543, 547 (D.C. Cir. 1969), requiring his removal should there be   a need for further hearing. The NAACP never sought the ALJ's disqualification for bias and" K0*&&qq!"  Y-  it is too late to do so now. See 47 C.F.R. 1.245(b); Aspen FM, Inc., 5 FCC Rcd 3196 (Rev.  Y-  Bd. 1990), rev. denied, 6 FCC Rcd 1602 (1991). An ALJ's adverse rulings do not, in and of  Y-  themselves, establish a lack of neutrality, see WWORTV, Inc, 5 FCC Rcd 2845 (1990), and,   ;here, the ALJ's evidentiary rulings were wellsupported. For example, the NAACP complains   xthat the ALJ rejected certain of its hearing exhibits containing expert testimony, but the ALJ   properly based his rulings on grounds of competency, relevance, and the failure of the proffered   testimony to rebut anything in the Church's direct case. Tr. 35059, 399. Similarly, the   NAACP objects to the rejection of the testimony of a former station employee, but the ALJ   grounded his ruling on the fact that the evidence was untimely offered on the last day of the   hearing without adequate justification. Tr. 108185. In addition, although the NAACP   complains about the ALJ's rulings on document production, in fact, extensive document  Y -  production some 4,000 pages was permitted and the ALJ's rulings were wellreasoned. See   KFCC 94M282, released April 21, 1994; FCC 94M311, released May 2, 1994. Finally, the   iALJ thoroughly examined and properly rejected the NAACP's assertion that the Church had  Y -  iwrongly obtained access to its attorney work product and trial strategy. See 10 FCC Rcd at  Y -  Y99189920 263272. We affirm the Board's conclusion that, notwithstanding the NAACP's   allegations of erroneous procedural and evidentiary rulings, the ALJ did not abuse his discretion  Yy-or commit reversible error in conducting the hearing. See 11 FCC Rcd at 5281 32.  N17. We also disagree with the NAACP's contention that the ALJ misunderstood or   Yoverlooked discrimination in this case. First, the ALJ was precluded from making a finding of   discrimination since there is no evidence in the record that the licensee discriminated against any   Zminority member, nor is there evidence that any person complained of discriminatory hiring  Y-  practices by the licensee. Compare Applications of Certain Television Stations Serving  Y-  -Communities in the State of California, 6 FCC Rcd 2340, 2343 (1991) (no basis for finding   ,licensee engaged in discriminatory religious employment practices where no one claimed to be   adversely affected by the station's employment practices and no EEO complaints were filed  Y-  during the license term), with Catoctin Broadcasting Corp., 4 FCC Rcd 2553, 2556 (1989)   (licensee discriminated against Black applicant for secretarial position in initially refraining from   even considering her for employment because of her race). Moreover, the statistical record does   .not raise an inference of such discrimination. During the license term, the stations' staff   averaged twenty fulltime employees. The stations made fortythree fulltime hires, seven of   iwhich were minorities. Overall, 16.3% of fulltime hires were minorities. Excluding those   hires made after January 2, 1990, the date the NAACP filed its petition to deny, approximately   12% of the fulltime hires were minorities. Although the NAACP contends that the minority   ;hires were for lower level positions, thereby evidencing a discriminatory intent, in fact, of the   Zfive minority hires made prior to the filing of the NAACP's petition, one Hispanic, Caridad   [Perez, was hired for a Top Four category job position. Also, Lula Daniels, a Black, was   promoted from a secretarial position to a Top Four position, in which she served until her death;   and another Black employee, Ruth Clerkly, was recommended and considered for a management   ,position, but left the licensee's employ before she could be promoted. In this regard, although   the licensee's efforts to recruit from likely sources of minority applicants were sporadic, Ms."Q% 0*&&qqp&"   Daniels acted as part of a network of Lutherans in the community who by word of mouth   identified other likely candidates for employment, and she successfully referred two of the   minority individuals hired by the stations. As the ALJ observed, it is unlikely any of these  Y-  individuals would have been employed if the Church was bent on racial discrimination. See Act  Y-  III Broadcasting, 11 FCC Rcd 1172, 1173 7 (1995) (no employment discrimination found   where, despite deficiencies in recruitment, recordkeeping, and selfassessment, licensee consistently hired minorities).  18. Finally, we reject the NAACP's assertion that the ALJ improperly departed from a  Y1-  K"core preliminary finding" by the Commission in the HDO that the licensee's reasons for its   Jrecruitment practices at KFUOFM were inherently discriminatory. The licensee had defended   its failure to recruit by maintaining that its classical music format necessitated the hiring of sales   people with classical music expertise and that its small Black listening audience meant there were  Y -  few Blacks in the service area who had this training. Although, as the HDO found, this was an   unacceptable premise for failing to actively recruit minorities, the hearing record does not   support the inference the NAACP seeks to draw that the licensee's policies were therefore   discriminatory. First of all, the classical music requirement was not created by the licensee as   a pretext to excuse White hiring, but was originally the idea of Peter Cleary, the founder of a   sales representative firm hired by KFUOFM to act as its sales staff during the early years of   the license term, who advised the licensee that this experience was a desirable job qualification.   xMoreover, there is no evidence that any minority applicant was turned down or discouraged   ;from applying because of a lack of such training. 11 FCC Rcd at 5277 14. Furthermore, we   agree with the authorities below that the licensee's mere presentation of its predesignation   defense was not, in and of itself and without the development of substantiating record evidence,  Y-  ,sufficient to support a conclusion that KFUOFM intended to discriminate. See Pasco Pinellas  Y-  Broadcasting Co., 8 FCC Rcd 398, 399 (1993), aff'd sub nom. Florida State Conference of  Y-  NAACP v. FCC, 24 F.3d 271 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (licensee's argument in response to alleged   inference of discrimination is not indicative of discriminatory intent). Accordingly, the   NAACP's contention that the record establishes that the licensee practiced discrimination is rejected.  Y7-B. Misrepresentation/Lack of Candor Issue.  Y - .# PjQP##X PjQ[AXP#19. We agree with the ALJ and the Board that the licensee's composite description of its   jrecruitment program submitted in its renewal applications was seriously misleading. The   statement, volunteered by the licensee, and not made in response to specific questions in FCC   kForm 396, created a false impression that the licensee's program fully comported with   Commission requirements. In fact, the licensee's EEO recruitment program had fallen into  Y"-  noncompliance. See 56, supra. The licensee maintains that its narrative description of its   xEEO program was substantially true at the time it was made because it reflected the stations'   practice when the renewal applications were filed. This is not an acceptable justification for   submitting misleading and incomplete information to the Commission. The essence of lack of"Q% 0*&&qqp&"  Y-  {candor is concealment, evasion, or other failure to be fully informative. Fox River  Y-  Broadcasting, Inc., 93 F.C.C. 2d 127, 129 (1983). The duty of candor requires applicants to   wbe fully forthcoming as to all facts and information that may be decisionally significant to their  Y-  applications. Swan Creek Communications v. FCC, 39 F.3d 1217, 1222 (D.C. Cir. 1994);  Y-  KRKO General, Inc. v. FCC, 670 F.2d 215, 229 (D.C. Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 927   and 457 U.S. 1119 (1982). Broadcasters are held to "high standards of punctilio" and must be  Yv-  Z"scrupulous in providing complete and meaningful information" to the Commission. Lorain  Y_-Journal Co. v. FCC, 351 F.2d 824, 830 (D.C. Cir. 1965).  L20. We also disagree with the Church that the record is devoid of evidence of any intent  Y -  ,to deceive. Such an intent is essential to a finding of lack of candor. Fox Television Stations,  Y -  iInc., 10 FCC Rcd 8452, 8478 (1995), recon. denied, 11 FCC Rcd 7773 (1996). In this case,   Stortz, who was Operations Manager for the stations throughout the license term, general   manager of the stations for about a year, and the individual responsible for EEO matters after   Lauher's departure, was familiar with the licensee's hiring practices and had to know that its   statement in the renewal applications describing its EEO program was not fully reflective of the   Zfacts. In view of this knowledge, we agree with the ALJ and the Board that a conclusion is   warranted that Stortz and the licensee wished not to provide the Commission with a detailed and   <accurate picture of the stations' EEO efforts because of the likelihood that serious questions  YK-  wwould be raised about their renewal applications. See Black Television Workshop, 8 FCC Rcd   4192, 4198 n. 41 (1993) (subsequent history omitted) ("Intent is a factual question that can be   inferred if other evidence shows that a motive or logical desire to deceive exists, as is the case   here."). At the very least, as was concluded below, the record establishes an indifference and   wanton disregard for the accuracy of the licensee's EEO representations that is "equivalent to  Y-  -an affirmative and deliberate intent." RKO General, Inc. v. FCC, 670 F.2d at 225, quoting  Y-Golden Broadcasting Systems, Inc., 68 FCC 2d 1099, 1106 (1978).  Y- # PjQP##X PjQ[AXP## PjQP##X PjQ[AXP#21. Lastly, we will reinstate the ALJ's lack of candor finding pertaining to the classical  Y|-  music requirement at the FM station, which the Board declined to resolve. Id. at 991516   24649. We reach this issue because the ALJ considered the matter serious enough to provide   wa basis for imposition of a substantial forfeiture, and whereas the Board ultimately affirmed the   full amount of the forfeiture imposed by the ALJ for lack of candor, it did so because it believed   the misleading description of the Church's recruitment efforts in the renewal applications was   in itself sufficient to warrant this sanction. Twice, in predesignation pleadings, the licensee   Mrepresented that knowledge of classical music was a "requirement" for the position of  Y-  salesperson at KFUOFM. See Opposition to NAACP Petition to Deny, filed February 23,   1990; Motion to Strike and Reply to Comments, filed September 21, 1992. The Opposition was   Yreviewed by Stortz and supported by his affidavit. The language in the Opposition was drafted   Zafter a series of oral and written communications between Stortz and counsel, during which   counsel had inquired whether there were any positions at the stations requiring specialized skills   Kor background. Stortz had replied that there were. In a memorandum to counsel, he stated:   "KFUOFM's format is 'Classical,' with many of its positions requiring a knowledge of classical"Q% 0*&&qqp&"   music . . . ." Counsel used the representation concerning specialized skills in arguing that the   Commission should not rely on general labor force statistics in evaluating the licensee's EEO   program, but should consider instead the licensee's showing that few minorities in the area  Y-  hpossessed the requisite background. See 3, 18, supra. The record established, however, that   classical music knowledge, though highly desirable, was not a requirement for salespersons at   KFUOFM; that only eight of the fifteen individuals employed in sales positions at the station   during the license term actually had some classical music background or experience; and that,   toward the end of the license term, station management began to believe that general sales   experience was equally valuable. 10 FCC Rcd at 9900, 9901 136, 145. Stortz stated that the   licensee did not intend to mislead the Commission by its representation concerning the hiring   "requirement," but that, as a nonlawyer, he was "not accustomed to providing the level of detail  Y -  and precision" with which attorneys are familiar. Id. at 9916 249. Although it did not finally   resolve the matter, the Board acknowledged the "blackletter law" that an applicant's misleading  Y -  Kstatements may not be shielded by its reliance on advice of counsel, Hillerand Broadcasting,  Y -  Inc., 1 FCC Rcd 419 (1986); James C. Sliger, 70 FCC 2d 1565, 157273 (Rev. Bd. 1979), but  Y -  stated, citing Fox Television Stations, Inc., 10 FCC Rcd at 8501 119 n. 68, that because the   "critical word" was contained in a legal argument crafted by counsel, a layman may not have fully appreciated its importance. 11 FCC Rcd at 5280 27.  L22. From the beginning of this proceeding, the Commission has been concerned with the   licensee's representation that it restricted its recruitment efforts at KFUOFM because of its  Y-  /classical music criterion. See 9 FCC Rcd at 922, 923 25, 30. Stortz, as previously   xexplained, was familiar with the stations' EEO activities and hiring practices. He knew that   classical music knowledge was not a prerequisite at KFUOFM and that only half of the persons   -hired for sales positions had such experience. Yet he acquiesced in the filing of misleading   ;information with the Commission. Once again, the record shows that Stortz was motivated by   his knowledge of the licensee's inadequate recruitment efforts and, in this instance, by the   xspecific desire to justify the deficient practices at the FM station. We cannot agree with the   Board that the issue may be merely the misuse of a single critical word since the licensee's   ,Opposition also stated that the sales positions "can only be filled" by persons with expertise in   ;classical music and that certain employees "must have" specialized skills. 10 FCC Rcd at 9902   152. Nor can we accept the Board's view that Stortz's lay status or reliance on counsel negated   iany intent to mislead. What was involved here was not the use of formal legal terms which  Y -  hrequired the understanding of legal concepts. Thus, this case is unlike Fox Television Stations,  Y-  Inc., where the foreign ownership question involved a technical issue in a complex area of law,  Y-  ;making reliance on counsel particularly appropriate, see 10 FCC Rcd at 8500. Rather, at issue   here were commonly understood words which Stortz himself had used. Moreover, Stortz was   not unsophisticated in his understanding of the careful use of words. Thus, he testified that it   was not misleading for the licensee to represent in its renewal applications that its policy was   to recruit "qualified minority and female applicants," without also revealing that the stations had   certain job qualifications, such as theological and classical music training, because the use of the   Jadjective "qualified" was consistent with the stations' use of these job criteria. 10 FCC Rcd at"Q% 0*&&qqp&"   9888 64. In sum, it must be concluded that, here, too, the licensee, through Stortz, was  Y-  lacking in candor. Cf. Voice of Reason, Inc., 37 FCC 2d 686, 692 15 (Rev. Bd. 1972), recon.  Y-  idenied, 39 FCC 2d 847 (Rev. Bd. 1973) (principal's claimed innocence inconsistent with his  Y-sophistication as a businessman). $6 Y4-  #X PjQ[AXP#эWe do not agree with the NAACP, however, that the ALJ erred by ignoring as many as   xseventyone additional misrepresentations made by the licensee. (The Board did not address   xthis point.) Nor is it necessary, as the NAACP urges (Application for Review at 3 n. 8), for   us to review the record to determine "the most palpable ones." As the ALJ found, all of these   alleged false statements, many of which appear to involve insignificant semantical disputes or  Y -  to be cumulative or de minimis, were raised for the first time in the NAACP's Proposed   Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. The NAACP did not crossexamine on these matters   + and the licensee was afforded no opportunity to respond to them. Moreover, they do not involve   the kind of candorless testimony or glaring behavior in the face of the tribunal which may be  Ye -  Jexplored in the absence of a specific issue. See RKO General, Inc. v. FCC, 670 F.2d at 2346.   In these circumstances, we affirm the ALJ's ruling that it would be patently unfair to draw  Y7-adverse conclusions on any of these matters. See 10 FCC Rcd at 9912 223 n. 23.  Y-5 IV. SANCTIONS ă  23. We will affirm the decisions below granting the Church's license renewal applications   subject to reporting conditions as a consequence of the EEO infractions demonstrated on this   /record. The imposition of reporting conditions is supported by Commission action in  Y -  comparable cases, see, e.g., Radio Seaway, Inc., 7 FCC Rcd 5965, 5968 (1992) (reporting   : conditions imposed where licensee failed to contact outside referral sources for 20 of 31 fulltime   positions and did not begin affirmative recruitment for job vacancies until the reporting year);  Y -  Stations WPNT(AM)/WPNTFM, 6 FCC Rcd 7246 (1991) (reporting conditions imposed where   licensee failed to affirmatively recruit for 29 of 39 positions and relied instead on resumes on  Y -  file and employee referrals); Winfax, Inc., 5 FCC Rcd 4902, 490203 (1990) (reporting   ;conditions imposed on licensee with specialized format which employed minorities but did not   Kuse recruitment sources likely to produce qualified minorities until shortly before it filed its   renewal application, and did not engage in selfassessment). Reporting conditions are also   warranted in this case because, despite receiving advice during the license term from counsel   and Lauher, the former general manager of the FM station, regarding the seriousness of the   Commission's requirements, the licensee did not comply with the Commission's EEO rule.   Thus, a formal mechanism to monitor compliance is appropriate. Although the Church would  Y-  ,limit its obligation to a single report on how it will comply with the King's Garden guidelines   in the future (Opposition to NAACP's Application for Review at 6), we believe the Church's   recruitment deficiencies mandate a broader reporting requirement. Accordingly, the Church will  Y-  be required to submit reports annually over a three year period and, inter alia, to list all persons   Zhired as well as all persons who applied for each position filled, including their recruitment"| 0*&&qq_"   Jsources, job titles, and sex and race; to list all current employees by job title, sex and race; and   ;to describe in detail the stations' efforts to recruit minorities for each position filled, including   ;the identification of sources used, and indicating whether any of the applicants declined offers  Y-  of employment.r $6 Y4-  #X PjQ[AXP#эOf course, positions exempted under King's Garden because they involve the espousal of   religious views over the air would require no recruitment, and the Church should indicate in its reports any positions for which it engaged in no recruitment efforts.r This will ensure that the Church implements an EEO program in the future   \that fully comports with Commission requirements, and will allow the Commission to  Y-periodically review the Church's efforts. See, e.g., Radio Seaway, Inc., 7 FCC Rcd at 5970.  24. On the other hand, we do not believe that denial of license renewal is warranted in   this case. Although the NAACP relies on the proposition that "intentional discrimination almost  Y1-  invariably would disqualify a broadcaster from a position of public trusteeship," citing Bilingual  Y -  Bicultural Coalition on Mass Media, Inc. v. FCC, 595 F.2d 621, 629 (D.C. Cir. 1978), we have   Zno occasion to apply this principle here because there is simply no evidence in the record of   jintentional discrimination against any person. Moreover, a review of recent Commission   precedent reveals no instances where nonrenewal was imposed for EEO infractions similar to  Y -  Jthose disclosed in this proceeding. See 10 FCC Rcd at 9917 256 and cases cited therein. We   also find it unnecessary to impose a shortterm renewal in this case and will delete the Board's   action to this effect. In the context of the stations' existing licenses, the Board's action would   have reduced the full term by only one month, which would be too brief a period to have any meaningful impact as a sanction.  25. The two episodes of lack of candor, involving the licensee's description of its   recruitment program in its renewal applications, and its statements informing the Commission   that classical music knowledge was a requirement for sales positions at KFUOFM, normally   Kwould fully warrant the imposition of the substantial forfeiture assessed by the ALJ and the   JBoard. For the reasons stated here which relate to the relevant statute of limitations, however,   -we will reduce the $50,000 amount assessed below to $25,000. Nonrenewal, on the other   hand, as urged by the NAACP, is not called for. In determining the weight to be accorded   Mspecific acts of misconduct, the Commission considers the willfulness, frequency, and   currentness of the behavior, as well as its seriousness, the participation of station owners and  Ye-  managers, and other relevant factors. Policy Regarding Character Qualifications in Broadcast  YN-  Licensing, 102 FCC 2d 1179, 12271228 (1986) (subsequent history omitted) ("Character Policy  Y7-  hStatement"). Though the misconduct here was serious, willful, and repeated, the submission of   the misleading statements was largely due to the actions of one individual, Stortz. Although   Stortz was not disciplined for his actions, there is no evidence of involvement or prior  Y-  ;knowledge on the part of higher station officials. See The Petroleum v. Nasby Corp., 10 FCC  Y-  LRcd 6029 (Rev. Bd. 1995), recon. granted in part, 10 FCC Rcd 9964, remanded on other  Y -  grounds, 11 FCC Rcd 3494 (1996) (nonrenewal not required where other station officials were" K 0*&&qq!"  Y-  not involved in or aware of individual principal's wrongdoing); accord, MidFlorida Television  Y-  Corp., 69 FCC 2d 607, 653 (Rev. Bd. 1978), set aside on settlement, 87 FCC 2d 203 (1981).   JIndeed, the stations' CEO, Reverend Devantier, was found by the ALJ to be genuinely contrite  Y-  and embarrassed by the misconduct shown in the record. See 10 FCC Rcd at 9918 259. In   addition, there is no evidence that during the Church's long history as a Commission licensee   Mthat it has ever engaged in, or even been accused of, any other acts in violation of the  Yv-  /Commission's rules or policies. See Character Policy Statement, 102 FCC 2d at 1228   (applicant's record of compliance with rules and policies should be taken into account). The   Commission has a range of sanctions short of nonrenewal and only the most egregious cases  Y1-  result in termination of all rights. Id.; KQED, Inc., 3 FCC Rcd 2821, 28282829 (Rev. Bd.  Y -  Y1988), and cases cited therein, rev. denied, 5 FCC Rcd 1784 (1990), recon. denied, 6 FCC Rcd  Y -  ,625 (1991), aff'd mem. sub nom. California Public Broadcasting Forum v. FCC, 947 F.2d 505  Y -  (D. C. Cir. 1991); accord, Gross Telecasting, Inc., 92 FCC 2d 204, 244245 (Rev. Bd. 1982).   On the record before us, we believe that the licensee can reasonably be expected to deal   truthfully with the Commission in the future and that a forfeiture is the appropriate sanction.  Y -  [See Character Policy Statement, 102 FCC 2d at 118891, 1232 (purpose of Commission's   Jcharacter inquiry is not to eliminate licensees from further activity in broadcasting but to make    predictive judgment as to licensee's propensity to deal truthfully with Commission and to comply with rules and policies).  26. In ordering a forfeiture, we acknowledge, as the licensee has urged, that prior to an   amendment enacted on October 27, 1992, the thenapplicable version of Section 503(b)(6) of the   Act, 47 U.S.C. 503(b)(6), which governs this case, contained a three year statute of limitations   provision. (The 1992 amendment extended the statute of limitations period to cover the entire  Y-  license term.) See Bloomington Twin Cities Broadcasting Corp., 11 FCC Rcd 9033 (1996).  Y-  .Nevertheless, a forfeiture is appropriate. The HDO in this case comprising the notice of   =forfeiture was released February 1, 1994, well within three years of the last evidence of   violations in the licensee's September 21, 1992 pleading representing that knowledge of classical   music was a job requirement at KFUOFM. Hence, there is no statutory bar to imposition of   ya forfeiture based on the lack of candor in that pleading. On the other hand, the renewal   iapplications containing the deceptive description of the licensee's EEO efforts were filed on  Y7-  September 29, 1989, more than three years prior to the HDO. The Board held that lack of   candor in a Commission filing is a "continuing violation" which does not end until it is   corrected, and that, because the truth about the licensee's misleading statement in its renewal   applications was not revealed until the hearing, the forfeiture notice was issued within the three  Y-  year statute of limitations. 11 FCC Rcd at 5281 36.  Contrary to the Board, we believe that   a false or misleading statement in violation of 47 C.F.R. 73.1015 made at one point in time   does not constitute a continuing violation for purposes of Section 503(b) simply because it is not   icorrected. That is, the violation occurred when the false or misleading statement was made.   jAccordingly, we will impose a forfeiture here based solely on the lack of candor finding  Yh$-  involving the classical music requirement at KFUOFM. Pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 503(b), each   ysingle violation of the Commission's rules may result in a forfeiture of up to $25,000. In"Q% 0*&&qqp&"   ,determining that the violation of 47 C.F.R. 73.1015 in representing to the Commission in the   YSeptember 21, 1992 pleading that classical music training was a job requirement independently   warrants the maximum forfeiture, we have taken into account, as described in the text, the  Y-  nature, circumstances, extent, and seriousness of the violation. See 47 U.S.C. 503(b)(2)(D);  Y-  ;see also Character Policy Statement, 102 FCC 2d at 121011 (Commission has broad discretion   ,in choice of sanctions when dealing with lack of candor, and its determination will depend on the record evidence).  YH-N V. ORDERING CLAUSES ă  27. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, That the Decision of the Review Board (11   FCC Rcd 5275) IS MODIFIED to the extent indicated above, that the application for review,   filed June 3, 1996, by The Lutheran Church/Missouri Synod, IS GRANTED in part and IS   DENIED in all other respects, and that the application for review, filed June 3, 1996, by the   xMissouri State Conference of Branches of the NAACP, the St. Louis Branch of the NAACP,   and the St, Louis County Branch of the NAACP, and the request for oral argument, filed June 18, 1996, by the NAACP, ARE DENIED; and  28. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, That the applications of The Lutheran   <Church/Missouri Synod for renewal of license of Stations KFUO(AM) and KFUOFM ARE   GRANTED effective upon adoption of this Order and subject to the EEO reporting conditions described herein.  m29. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, That the licensee submit to the Commission an   ,original and one copy of the following information on October 1, 1997, October 1, 1998, and October 1, 1999:  X(a) a list of all persons hired as well as all persons who applied for each vacancy  Nduring the twelve months preceding the respective reporting dates, indicating their  1referral or recruitment source, job title, parttime or fulltime status, FCC Form 395B classification, date of hire, sex and race or national origin;   X(b) a list of all employees as of the most recent payroll period prior to each  reporting date, by job title with parttime or fulltime status indicated (ranked from the highest paid classification), date of hire, sex and race or national origin;   X(c) a narrative statement detailing the Stations' efforts to recruit minorities for  each position filled during the specified periods, including identification of  sources used, and indicating whether any of the applicants declined actual offers of employment; and   QX(d) any additional information the licensee believes relevant regarding the"R% 0*&&qqp&" Stations' EEO performance and efforts.   {30. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, That pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 503(b), the Lutheran   Church/Missouri Synod SHALL FORFEIT to the United States the sum of twenty five thousand   dollars ($25,000) for willful violation of 47 C.F.R. 73.1015. Payment of the forfeiture may   be made by mailing a check or similar instrument, payable to the Federal Communications   Commission, within forty (40) days of the release date of this order, to Federal Communications Commission, P.O. Box 73482, Chicago, IL. 606737482. ` `  hh,FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION ` `  hh,William F. Caton ` `  hh,Acting Secretary