Federal Communications Commission DA 14-1095
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of
First Lutheran Church of Albert Lea
Petition for Exemption from the
Closed Captioning Requirements
)
)
)
)
)
)
CGB-CC-0143
CG Docket No. 06-181
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Adopted:  July 30, 2014 Released:  July 30, 2014
By the Deputy Chief, Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau:
I. INTRODUCTION
1. In this Memorandum Opinion and Order (Order), we address a petition filed by First 
Lutheran Church of Albert Lea (FLC) for an exemption from the Federal Communications Commission’s
(FCC’s or Commission’s) closed captioning requirements for its program, Peace & Power. Because we 
conclude that FLC has not demonstrated that its compliance with the Commission’s closed captioning 
requirements would be economically burdensome to it, we deny the Petition.  In light of our action, Peace 
& Power must be closed captioned no later than October 28, 2014, which is 90 days from the date of the 
release of this Order.
II. BACKGROUND
2. In 1996, Congress added section 713 to the Communications Act of 1934, as amended 
(Communications Act), establishing requirements for closed captioning of video programming to ensure 
access to such programming by people who are deaf or hard of hearing,
1
and directing the Commission to 
prescribe rules to carry out this mandate.
2
  In 1997, the Commission adopted rules and implementation 
schedules for closed captioning, which became effective on January 1, 1998.
3
  The Commission’s closed
                                                          
1
Section 305 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-104, 110 Stat. 56 (codified at 47 U.S.C. § 
613).  As recognized by Congress, the goal in captioning video programming is “to ensure that all Americans 
ultimately have access to video services and programs, particularly as video programming becomes an increasingly 
important part of the home, school and workplace.”  H.R. Rep. 104-458 (Conf. Rep.) at 183-184, 104
th
Cong., 2d 
Sess. (1996).  “Video programming” means “programming by, or generally considered comparable to programming 
provided by a television broadcast station.”  47 U.S.C. § 613(h)(2).
2
47 U.S.C. §§ 613(b), (c).
3
See 47 C.F.R. § 79.1; Closed Captioning and Video Description of Video Programming, Implementation of Section 
305 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Video Programming Accessibility,  Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 
3272 (1997) (Closed Captioning Report and Order); Closed Captioning and Video Description of Video 
Programming, Implementation of Section 305 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Video Programming 
Accessibility, Order on Reconsideration, 13 FCC Rcd 19973 (1998) (Closed Captioning Reconsideration Order).  
Federal Communications Commission DA 14-1095 
2
captioning rules currently require video programming distributors, absent an exemption, to caption 100% 
of all new, English and Spanish language programming.
4
  
3. Section 713(d)(3) of the Communications Act authorizes the Commission to grant 
individual exemptions from the television closed captioning requirements upon a showing that the 
requirements would be economically burdensome, defined as imposing on the petitioner a “significant 
difficulty or expense.”
5
  Any entity in the programming distribution chain, including the owner, provider, 
or distributor of the programming, may petition the Commission for such an exemption under section 
79.1(f) of the Commission’s rules.
6
  When making its determination as to whether a petitioner has made 
the required showing, the Commission, in accordance with section 713(e) of the Communications Act and 
section 79.1(f)(2) of the Commission’s rules, considers the following factors on a case-by-case basis:  (1) 
the nature and cost of the closed captions for the programming; (2) the impact on the operation of the 
provider or program owner; (3) the financial resources of the provider or program owner; and (4) the type 
of operations of the provider or program owner.
7
4. The Commission requires the following information and documentation to be submitted 
with closed captioning exemption petitions to enable its consideration of the above factors:  
                                                          
4
47 C.F.R. §§ 79.1(b)(1)(iv), (b)(3)(iv).  A “video programming distributor” is defined as (1) any television 
broadcast station licensed by the Commission; (2) any multichannel video programming distributor (MVPD) as 
defined in section 76.1000(e); and (3) any other distributor of video programming for residential reception that 
delivers such programming directly to the home and is subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission.  47 C.F.R. § 
79.1(a)(2).  The Commission’s rules also require closed captioning of 75% of a programming distributor’s pre-rule, 
nonexempt English and Spanish language programming that is distributed and exhibited on each channel during 
each calendar quarter.  47 C.F.R. §§ 79.1(b)(2)(ii), (b)(4)(ii).  “Pre-rule” programming refers to analog video 
programming first published or exhibited before January 1, 1998, or digital video programing first published or 
exhibited before July 1, 2002.  47 C.F.R. § 79.1(a)(6).  Bilingual English-Spanish language programming is subject 
to the same closed captioning requirements for new and pre-rule programming.  See Closed Captioning of Video 
Programming; Telecommunications for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing, Inc., Petition for Rulemaking, Report and 
Order, Declaratory Ruling, and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 29 FCC Rcd 2221, 2288-89, ¶ 115 (2014).
5
See 47 U.S.C. §§ 613(d)(3),(e); see also 47 C.F.R. § 79.1(f)(2).  As originally enacted in 1996, section 713 of the 
Communications Act authorized the Commission to grant individual closed captioning exemptions upon a showing 
that providing closed captioning would “result in an undue burden.”  Pub. L. No. 104-104, § 305, 110 Stat. 126 
(1996).  Section 202(c) of the Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010 (CVAA) 
replaced the term “undue burden” with the term “economically burdensome.”  Pub. L. No. 111-260, § 202(c), 124 
Stat. 2771, amending 47 U.S.C. § 613(d)(3).  For purposes of evaluating individual exemptions, the Commission has 
determined that Congress intended the term “economically burdensome” to be synonymous with the term “undue 
burden” as defined by section 713(e) of the Communications Act and section 79.1(f)(2) of the Commission’s rules.  
See Interpretation of Economically Burdensome Standard, Amendment of Section 79.1(f) of the Commission’s Rules, 
Video Programming Accessibility, Report and Order, 27 FCC Rcd 8831, 8834, ¶ 7 (2012) (Economically 
Burdensome Standard Order).
6
47 C.F.R. § 79.1(f)(1).  A “video programming provider” is defined as “[a]ny video programming distributor and 
any other entity that provides video programming that is intended for distribution to residential households 
including, but not limited to broadcast or nonbroadcast television network and the owners of such programming.”  
47 C.F.R. § 79.1(a)(3).  See also n.4, supra (for definition of “video programming distributor”).  A petitioner may 
seek an exemption for “a channel of video programming, a category or type of video programming, an individual 
video service, a specific video program or a video programming provider.”  47 C.F.R. § 79.1(f)(1).  
7
47 U.S.C. § 613(e); 47 C.F.R. § 79.1(f)(2).  A petitioner may also present for the Commission’s consideration “any 
other factors the petitioner deems relevant to the Commission’s final determination,” including alternatives that 
might constitute a reasonable substitute for closed captioning.  47 C.F.R. § 79.1(f)(3).  The Commission has 
delegated the responsibility for evaluating and ruling on these petitions to the Consumer and Governmental Affairs 
Bureau.  Economically Burdensome Standard Order, 27 FCC Rcd at 8834-35, ¶ 8.  
Federal Communications Commission DA 14-1095 
3
? the name of the programming (or channel of programming) for which an exemption is 
requested;
? information and documentation about the petitioner’s costs associated with closed captioning 
each program and efforts to find companies that can provide captioning at a reasonable cost; 
? an explanation of the impact that having to provide closed captioning will have on the 
petitioner’s programming activities; 
? information and documentation of the petitioner’s financial resources, including its income, 
expenses, current assets, and current liabilities for the two most recent completed calendar or 
fiscal years;
? verification that the petitioner has sought closed captioning assistance from its video 
programming distributor(s); and
? verification that the petitioner has sought additional sponsorships (other than from its video 
programming distributor(s)), or other sources of revenue for captioning.
8
  
5. Each petition must contain a detailed, full showing of any facts or considerations relied 
upon, supported by affidavit.
9
  Failure to support an exemption request with adequate explanation and 
evidence may result in the dismissal of the request.
10
  While a petition is pending, the programming 
subject to the request for exemption is considered exempt from the closed captioning requirements.
11
6. FLC initially filed a petition for exemption in 2005.
12
  The Consumer and Governmental 
Affairs Bureau (CGB or Bureau) granted the petition and issued an exemption to FLC by letter order 
dated September 12, 2006.
13
  On November 7, 2006, the Bureau issued a Public Notice holding in 
abeyance various letter orders granting exemptions, including that to FLC, and inviting comments on 
certain exemption petitions, including FLC’s.
14
  In 2011, the Commission reversed certain Bureau grants
of exemption, including that to FLC.
15
  By letter dated October 25, 2011, the Bureau notified FLC of this 
                                                          
8
This is a summary of the list of “Required Information to Provide in Filing a New Petition to be Exempt from the 
Closed Captioning Requirements,” provided by the staff to captioning exemption petitioners and available at 
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-323421A1.pdf, which the Bureau developed, based on the 
Communications Act, the Commission’s rules, and Commission history and experience evaluating such petitions.  
See Anglers for Christ Ministries, Inc., et al.; Amendment of Section 79.1(f) of the Commission’s Rules; Video 
Programming Accessibility, Memorandum Opinion and Order, Order, and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 26 FCC 
Rcd 14941, 14955-56, ¶ 28 (2011) (Anglers Reversal MO&O).
9
47 C.F.R. § 79.1(f)(9).  A petition for exemption may also be supported by an unsworn written statement signed by 
a declarant under penalty of perjury.  47 C.F.R. § 1.16.
10
Anglers Reversal MO&O, 26 FCC Rcd at 14955-56, ¶ 28 (citing The Wild Outdoors, Video Programming 
Accessibility, Petition for Waiver of Closed Captioning Requirements, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 16 FCC 
Rcd 13611, 13614, ¶ 12 (Cable Services Bureau, 2001) (Wild Outdoors 2001)).  
11
47 U.S.C. § 613(d)(3); 47 C.F.R. § 79.1(f)(11).
12
See Letter from Rev. John F. Holt, Lead Pastor, First Lutheran Church, to Office of the Secretary, Federal 
Communications Commission (Nov. 30, 2005).  
13
See Letter from Thomas E. Chandler, Chief, Disability Rights Office, Consumer and Governmental Affairs 
Bureau, to Rev. John F. Holt, Lead Pastor, First Lutheran Church (Sept. 12, 2006).  
14
Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau Action Request for Exemption from Commission’s Closed 
Captioning Rules, Public Notice, DA 06-2287 (Nov. 7, 2006).
15
Anglers Reversal MO&O, 26 FCC Rcd at 14949, ¶ 25.  The Commission reversed this and other Bureau letter 
orders that had failed to analyze the individual circumstances of the petitioners under the “undue burden” criteria, as 
(continued....)
Federal Communications Commission DA 14-1095 
4
reversal and explained that FLC would need to file a new exemption petition and supplement the record
with up-to-date information, supported by affidavit, about its inability to provide closed captioning if it 
wished to receive a closed captioning exemption.
16
  FLC filed a new petition on January 17, 2012
(hereinafter Petition).
17
On February 10, 2012, the Bureau invited comment on the Petition.
18
  Consumer 
Groups jointly filed an opposition to the Petition.
19
  Subsequently, the Bureau determined that it required 
additional and updated information to enable it to determine whether the programming that was the 
subject of the Petition should be exempt from the Commission’s closed captioning obligations.  In 
response to a Bureau letter dated September 27, 2013, FLC supplemented its Petition.
20
  The Bureau again 
placed the Petition on Public Notice for comment on December 26, 2013.
21
  Again, Consumer Groups 
jointly opposed the Petition.
22
III. DISCUSSION
7. FLC produces Peace & Power, a one-hour program that is broadcast weekly on Station 
KAAL(TV), Austin, Minnesota, on Sunday mornings.
23
  FLC records its worship service at 8:00 a.m. and 
sends the video and audio to KAAL(TV) by “microwave transmitter” to air at 10:00 a.m. the same day.
24
  
FLC indicates that its program is aimed at church members and others who are not otherwise able to 
attend local worship services.
25
  FLC reports that it displays the liturgy, words to hymns, sermon notes, 
                                                          
(...continued from previous page)
required under the Communications Act and the Commission’s rules.  Id., 26 FCC Rcd at 14949, ¶ 26.  As explained 
earlier, the economically burdensome criteria now used by the Commission to evaluate closed captioning exemption 
requests are identical to the undue burden criteria.  See n.5, supra.
16
See Letter from Joel Gurin, Chief, Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, to First Lutheran Church (Oct. 
25, 2011).  See also 47 C.F.R. § 79.1(f)(11); Anglers Reversal MO&O, 26 FCC Rcd at 14949, ¶ 16, n.60.   
17
Letter from Rev. John F. Holt, Lead Pastor, and David L. Van Fossen, Congregation Treasurer, First Lutheran 
Church, to Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commissions, Attention:  Disability Rights Office (Jan. 
17, 2012) (Petition).
18
Request for Comment, Request for Exemption from Commission’s Closed Captioning Rules CGB-CC-0143, Public 
Notice, DA 12-180 (Feb. 10, 2012).
19
See Opposition of Telecommunications for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing, Inc., National Association of the Deaf, 
Deaf and Hard of Hearing Consumer Advocacy Network, the Association of Late-Deafened Adults, and Cerebral 
Palsy and Deaf Organization (collectively, Consumer Groups) (Mar. 9, 2012).
20
See Letter from Rev. John F. Holt, Lead Pastor, and David L. Van Fossen, Congregation Treasurer, First Lutheran 
Church, to Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commissions, Attention:  Disability Rights Office 
(Oct. 26, 2013) (Petition Supplement).
21
Request for Comment/Request for Exemption from Commission’s Closed Captioning Rules, Public Notice, 28 
FCC Rcd 17100 (2013) (2013 Public Notice).  
22
See Opposition to Petitions for Exemption from the Commission’s Closed Captioning Rules, Telecommunications 
for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing, Inc., Deaf and Hard of Hearing Consumer Advocacy Network, Cerebral Palsy and 
Deaf Organization, California Coalition of Agencies Serving the Deaf and Hard of Hearing, National Association of 
the Deaf, and the Association of Late-Deafened Adults (collectively, Consumer Groups) at 2, 8-10 (Jan. 27, 2014) 
(Consumer Groups Comments).
23
Petition Supplement at 1, 3, 24.
24
Id. at 1.
25
Id. at 2.
Federal Communications Commission DA 14-1095 
5
and references to Bible passages on the television screen as part of its program, but contends that it is 
unable to afford closed captioning for the entire hour of its program.
26
  
8. Recurring Captioning Costs.  FLC obtained two quotes to caption its program in real-
time, one for $105.00 per hour from Dynamic Captioning LLC, and another for $175.00 per hour from 
Caption Associates LLC.
27
  Based on these quotes, FLC states that the cost of real-time captioning
services for a full year of Peace & Power (i.e., 52 programs) would be $5,460.00 and $9,100.00, 
respectively.
28
  In addition to the cost of real-time captioning services, FLC also indicates that it would 
incur costs of $83.00 a month, or $996.00 per year, for two telephone lines necessary to provide real-time 
closed captioning.
29
  Accordingly, the cost of real-time captioning services combined with the cost of 
telephone lines results in an ongoing annual cost of $6,456.00 and $10,096.00, respectively.
30
  
9. Start-Up Captioning Costs.  In addition, FLC provides information about its projected 
start-up costs associated with captioning its program.  First, FLC estimates a cost of $2,347.00 to 
purchase an “Analog CC Encoder/Decoder.”
31
  Second, FLC estimates a cost of $80.00 for the installation 
of the two telephone lines at KAAL(TV) that are needed to provide real-time closed captioning services.
32
  
Accordingly, FLC would incur a one-time startup cost of $2,427.00 to caption its program.
33
  In total, the 
cost of the encoder and telephone installation, plus the cost to provide closed captioning services and two 
telephone lines would be $8,883.00 or $12,523.00, respectively, in the first year.
34
10. With its Petition, as supplemented, FLC submitted separate income and expense 
statements for itself and for the Peace & Power Broadcast Ministry, apparently an FLC broadcast-related 
activity, for 2011 and 2012.
35
  For 2011, FLC reports income of $774,130.43, expenses of $765,283.34, 
and a net profit of $8,847.09.
36
  For 2012, FLC reports income of $785,791.88, expenses of $754,227.18, 
and a net profit of $31,564.70.
37
  With respect to the Peace & Power Broadcast Ministry, FLC reports 
2011 income of $45,207.10, expenses of $35,554.47, and a net profit of $9,652.63.
38
  FLC also reports 
                                                          
26
Id. at 1-2.
27
Id. at 8-9.  
28
Id.
29
Id. at 15.
30
See id. at 4.
31
Id.  See also id. at 14 (stating the cost of an “Analog CC Encoder/Decoder & Data Recovery Decoder,” “Optional 
Internal Telephone Modem for PDR-885” and “AUDIO AUTOCOUPLER/DUPLEX HYBRID RA4 RACK 
ADAPTER OPTIONAL” as $2,347.25).
32
Id. at 15.  See also id. at 7.
33
Id. at 4, 15.
34
See id. at 4, 15.  FLC also states, without explanation, that it “project[s] closed captioning would cost about 
$8,596 annually.”  Id. at 2.
35
See id. at 20 (“Stmt. of Activity (Income Statement) for 01/2012 thru 12/2012” for Peace & Power Broadcast 
Ministry), 21 (“Stmt. of Activity (Income Statement) for 01/2012 thru 12/2012”), 22 (“Stmt. of Activity (Income 
Statement) for 01/2011 thru 12/2011” for Peace & Power Broadcast Ministry), 23 (“Stmt. of Activity (Income 
Statement) for 01/2011 thru 12/2011”).
36
Id. at 23.
37
Id. at 21.  FLC further reports a deficit of $43,793.00 as of September 30, 2013, an increase of $9,033.00 over the 
$34,760 deficit it had at the same time in 2012.  Id. at 3.  
38
Id. at 22.
Federal Communications Commission DA 14-1095 
6
2012 income for the Peace & Power Broadcast Ministry of $41,778.05, expenses of $31,203.05, and a net 
profit of $10,575.00.
39
  Given the facts, FLC’s net profit must be combined with that of its Peace & 
Power Broadcast Ministry to accurately reflect FLC’s financial situation: an aggregate net profit of 
$18,499.72 for 2011; and $42,139.70 for 2012.
40
11. FLC also submitted separate balance sheets for itself and for the Peace & Power 
Broadcast Ministry.
41
  FLC reports current assets as of December 2011 of $146,123.45, current liabilities 
of $542.48, and net current assets of $145,580.97.
42
  FLC reports current assets as of December 2012 of 
$185,606.37, current liabilities of $1,659.84, and net current assets of $183,946.53.
43
  With respect to the 
Peace & Power Broadcast Ministry, FLC reports current assets as of December 2011 of $21,382.64 and 
current liabilities of $33,767.00, resulting in net current liabilities of $12,384.36.
44
  FLC also reports 
current assets as of December 2012 for the Peace & Power Broadcast Ministry of $31,957.64 and current 
liabilities of $28,435.00, resulting in net current assets of $3,522.64.
45
  FLC’s net current assets,
combined with the net current liabilities of its Peace & Power Broadcast Ministry, result in $133,196.61 
total net current assets for FLC as of December 2011, and FLC’s net current assets combined with the net 
current assets of its Peace & Power Broadcast Ministry result in $187,469.17 total net current assets for 
FLC as of December 2012.
46
                                                          
39
Id. at 20.  FLC reports that the Peace & Power Broadcast Ministry income is derived from “viewer donations, 
memorial & special gifts from First Lutheran Church members and others, along with some donations from area 
churches whose homebound members are also viewers . . . [and] a modest endowment fund that has provided $3,900 
for 2013.”  Id. at 2.
40
As discussed more fully in paragraph 14 infra, the Commission has held that, in conducting an economically 
burdensome analysis, “all of the petitioners’ available resources” must be taken into consideration.  Accordingly, for 
purposes of this analysis, we consider the financial information submitted by FLC, both for itself and for Peace & 
Power Broadcast Ministry.  Confirming the appropriateness of this approach, in its Petition filed in 2012, FLC 
reported the combined income and expenses for itself and the Peace & Power Broadcast Ministry for 2011.  See 
Petition at 20-21 (“Stmt. of Activity (Income Statement) for 12/2011” showing FLC total income of $818,185.90 
and total expenses of $808,057.34, which includes Peace & Power income totaling $45,207.10 and expenses totaling 
$35,554.47).  In its Petition Supplement filed in 2013, FLC reported the income and expenses for itself and the 
Peace & Power Broadcast Ministry separately for 2011.  See Petition Supplement at 20-23 (reporting FLC total 
income of $774,130.43 and total expenses of $765,283.34, and Peace & Power total income of $45,207.10 and total 
expenses of $35,554.47).  We are able to reconcile the information and documentation provided in the Petition and 
Petition Supplement sufficiently to conclude that FLC’s income and expenses, as reported in the Petition 
Supplement, do not include the income and expenses of its Peace & Power Broadcast Ministry.  As a result, the 
separate reports of income and expenses for FLC and its Peace & Power Broadcast Ministry must be combined to 
accurately reflect FLC’s total net profit.  Therefore, FLC’s total net profit for 2011 is computed as follows:  
$8,847.09 (FLC) plus $9,652.63 (Peace & Power Broadcast Ministry) = $18,499.72.  FLC’s total net profit for 2012 
is computed as follows:  $31,564.70 (FLC) plus $10,575.00 (Peace & Power Broadcast Ministry) = $42,139.70.  
41
Petition Supplement at 6 (“Stmt. of Financial Position (Bal. Sheet) for 12/2012 [and 12/2011]”), 24 (“2012, 2011, 
2010 Peace & Power Balance Sheet”).
42
Id. at 6.
43
Id.
44
Id. at 6, 24.
45
Id.
46
FLC’s total net current assets as of December 2011 are computed as follows:  $145,580.97 (FLC net current 
assets) minus$12,384.36 (Peace & Power Broadcast Ministry net current liabilities) = $133,196.61 (FLC total net 
current assets).  FLC’s total net current assets as of December 2012 are computed as follows:  $183,946.53 (FLC net 
(continued....)
Federal Communications Commission DA 14-1095 
7
12. FLC reports that it requested captioning assistance from its video programming 
distributor KAAL(TV); however, KAAL(TV) was unable to offer captioning assistance.
47
  FLC asserts 
that, absent an exemption from the captioning requirements, it would have to discontinue its broadcast of 
Peace & Power.
48
13. Consumer Groups, which were the only parties to comment on the Petition in response to 
the 2013 Public Notice, contend that FLC failed to satisfy the statutory and regulatory requirements to 
demonstrate that captioning would be economically burdensome on several grounds. First, Consumer 
Groups acknowledge that FLC obtained captioning quotes from multiple providers, but argue that it did 
not provide documentation that it bargained with those providers for lower costs or to identify the most 
affordable provider or most reasonable rates.
49
  Second, Consumer Groups acknowledge that FLC sought 
closed captioning assistance from the broadcast station that airs its program, but argue that FLC’s 
“unwillingness to engage [other] sponsors cannot be used to avoid its captioning obligations.”
50
Third, 
with regard to FLC’s financial resources, Consumer Groups argue that FLC’s ability to provide closed
captions on its program must be assessed with respect to its overall finances, not “the budget allocated for 
or expenses incurred by the specific program at issue.”
51
  Consumer Groups assert that if one considers 
FLC’s overall budget, its estimated closed captioning costs of $6,456.00 represents less than 1% of its 
annual budget of $804,000.00 in 2012 and $780,000.00 in 2011.
52
  Thus, Consumer Groups conclude, 
requiring FLC to caption its program cannot be considered economically burdensome.
53
Finally, 
Consumer Groups assert that FLC’s request for a permanent exemption to the captioning requirement 
should be denied.
54
  They argue that FLC has not had to caption its program since the filing of its initial 
petition eight years ago and has made no measureable progress toward providing captioning in that time.
55
  
In addition, they argue that waivers of the Commission’s closed captioning requirements are intended to 
be temporary.
56
14. Determination.  After a careful review of the record, the Bureau finds that FLC has not
demonstrated that the provision of closed captioning for Peace & Power would be economically 
burdensome.  As an initial matter, as noted above, the Commission has previously determined that, when
conducting an economically burdensome analysis, “all of the petitioners’ available resources” must be 
                                                          
(...continued from previous page)
current assets) plus $3,522.64 (Peace & Power Broadcast Ministry net current assets) = $187,469.17 (FLC total net 
current assets).
47
Petition Supplement at 19.  FLC did not solicit captioning assistance from other sources.  Id. at 4.  It explains, “In 
keeping with our religious piety, it is our church policy to not solicit commercial sponsorship of support for our 
various ministries within the church, such as . . . Peace & Power.”  Id.
48
Id. at 1-2.
49
Consumer Groups Opposition at 6, 8-9.
50
Id. at 8-9.
51
Id. at 9.
52
Id.
53
Id.
54
Id.
55
Id.
56
Id. at 10.
Federal Communications Commission DA 14-1095 
8
taken into consideration.
57
  The Commission has rejected suggestions “to consider only the resources 
available for a specific program” in making the determination of whether provision of closed captioning 
is economically burdensome.
58
  Therefore, although FLC at times has reported income, expenses, current 
assets, and current liabilities for itself and the Peace & Power Broadcast Ministry separately,
59
we now
consider the overall financial resources available to FLC in determining whether it would be 
economically burdensome to comply with the Commission’s closed captioning requirements.
15. According to the information and documentation it has provided, FLC has been operating 
at a profit for at least the past two years:  $18,499.72 for 2011; and $42,139.70 in 2012.
60
  Compared to 
these net profits is the closed captioning estimate submitted by FLC of a one-time start-up cost of 
$2,427.00 and $6,456.00 in annual closed captioning costs, or a total cost of $8,883.00 for the first year.
61
  
Based on this estimate, in 2011 and 2012, FLC’s net profits were sufficient to cover to the cost to caption 
its program.  In other words, FLC could have begun providing closed captioning and still have operated at 
a profit of $9,616.72 in 2011 or $33,256.70 in 2012.  In addition, FLC had net current assets of 
$133,196.61 as of December 2011, and $187,469.17 as of December 2012,
62
which provides further 
evidence that the provision of closed captioning would not be economically burdensome.  Based on our 
review and analysis, we conclude that closed captioning would not be economically burdensome for FLC
at this time.
63
  
IV. ORDERING CLAUSES
16. Accordingly, pursuant to section 713 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,
and sections 0.141(f) and 79.1(f) of the Commission’s rules,
64
IT IS ORDERED that the Petition filed by 
FLC, requesting an exemption from the Commission’s closed captioning rules, IS DENIED.  
                                                          
57
Anglers Reversal MO&O, 26 FCC Rcd at 14950, ¶ 17 (explaining that consideration of a petitioner’s request for 
exemption must take into account “the overall financial resources of the provider or program owner”).
58
Id.
59
Petition Supplement at 6, 20-24.
60
See ¶ 10, supra.  
61
See ¶ 8-9, supra.
62
See ¶ 11, supra.  
63
Contrary to the suggestion by Consumer Groups, we do not require petitioners to demonstrate that they negotiated 
with closed captioning service providers for captioning costs that are lower than the quotes they provide to the 
Commission, or to identify the most affordable provider or most reasonable rates.  See ¶ 13, supra.  Consumer 
Groups do not cite to any authority in support of such a requirement, and generally information on captioning costs 
from multiple sources has been sufficient to aid the Bureau in its analysis of the impact that closed captioning 
obligations can have on a petitioner’s programming operations.  See Anglers Reversal Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 14955-
56, ¶ 28, n.101 (citing, e.g., Outland Sports, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 16 FCC Rcd 13605, 13607, ¶ 7 
(noting the importance of demonstrating efforts “to seek information from various sources on the cost of 
captioning”); Wild Outdoors 2001, 16 FCC Rcd at 13614, ¶ 7 (noting the need for “a listing of various prices 
quoted” as evidence of “their efforts to find companies that provide captioning at a reasonable cost”)).  Further, we 
do not reach the question of whether FLC can avoid its closed captioning obligations because it is unwilling to seek 
additional sponsorships (other than from its program distributor) or other sources of revenue to caption its program, 
because we conclude that providing closed captioning for its program, even without this effort, would not be 
economically burdensome to it.  Id.  In addition, because we deny FLC’s Petition, we do not need to address 
Consumer Groups’ opposition to our granting FLC a permanent exemption. 
64
47 U.S.C. § 613, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.141(f), 79.1(f).
Federal Communications Commission DA 14-1095 
9
17. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that FLC shall commence closed captioning of the 
programming that is the subject of its Petition no later than October 28, 2014, which is 90 days from the 
date of the release of this Order.
18. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that FLC must inform the Commission of the date on 
which it commences closed captioning of its programming in accordance with this Order and the 
Commission’s rules by e-mail to captioningexemption@fcc.gov.
65
  The e-mail must reference Case 
Identifier CGB-CC-0143.  
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Karen Peltz Strauss
Deputy Chief
Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau
                                                          
65
See Notice of New Electronic Filing Procedures for Television Closed Captioning Exemption Requests, Public 
Notice, 29 FCC Rcd 3960 (CGB 2014).