Federal Communications Commission DA 15-902
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of
Lima Baptist Temple
Petition for Exemption from the
Closed Captioning Requirements
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CGB-CC-0218
CG Docket No 06-181
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Adopted:  August 7, 2015 Released: August 7, 2015
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 Lima 
Baptist Temple (LBT) for an exemption from the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC’s or 
Commission’s) closed captioning requirements for LBT’s weekly worship service broadcast on Sunday 
mornings. Because we conclude that LBT has not demonstrated that its compliance with the 
Commission’s closed captioning requirements for this program would be economically burdensome to it, 
we deny the Petition.  In light of our action, LBT’s program must be captioned no later than November 5, 
2015, 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
Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-104, § 305, 110 Stat. 56 (1996 Act) (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, MM Docket No. 95-176, 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, MM Docket No. 95-176, Order on Reconsideration, 13 FCC Rcd 19973 (1998) (Closed Captioning 
Reconsideration Order).  
Federal Communications Commission DA 15-902
2
captioning rules currently require video programming distributors, absent an exemption, to caption 100
percent 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 has also determined that the following information and documentation 
must 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)(11).  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, CG Docket 
No. 05-231, 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.”  1996 Act, § 305.  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, CG Docket No. 11-175, 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 15-902
3
? documentation of the petitioner’s financial status, including detailed information regarding 
finances and assets;
? verification that the petitioner has obtained information about the costs it would incur to 
provide closed captioning of the programming; 
? verification that the petitioner has sought closed captioning assistance from its video 
programming distributor(s), noting the extent to which such assistance has been provided or 
rejected; 
? verification as to whether the petitioner has sought additional sponsorships (other than from 
its video programming distributor(s)) or other sources of revenue for captioning; and
? a showing that the petitioner does not have the means to provide captioning for the 
programming.
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. LBT initially filed a petition for exemption by letter dated December 27, 2005, which the 
Commission received on January 3, 2006.
12
The Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau (CGB or 
Bureau) requested more information about the petition on February 24, 2006.
13
  After requesting 
                                                     
8
Anglers for Christ Ministries, Inc., et al.; Amendment of Section 79.1(f) of the Commission’s Rules; Video 
Programming Accessibility, CG Docket Nos. 06-181 and 11-175, Memorandum Opinion and Order, Order, and 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 26 FCC Rcd 14941, 14955-56, ¶ 28 & nn. 100-04 (2011) (Anglers Reversal 
MO&O).  The Bureau has provided additional guidance for petitioners regarding these requirements in the document 
“Required Information to Provide in Filing a New Petition to be Exempt from the Closed Captioning 
Requirements,” which is provided by the staff to captioning exemption petitioners and is available at 
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-323421A1.pdf (Bureau Information Guidance).
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 T. Blain Brock, II, Counsel to Lima Baptist Temple, to FCC (Dec. 27, 2005) (filed Jan. 3, 2006).  
In its initial petition, in addition to requesting an exemption based on economic burden, LBT claimed to be exempt 
from the Commission’s closed captioning rules under section 79.1(d)(8) of the Commission’s rules.  Id. at 1.
13
See Letter from Amelia Brown, Disability Rights Office, CGB, to T. Blain Brock II (Feb. 24, 2006).  This letter 
also clarified that LBT does not qualify for an exemption under section 79.1(d)(8) of the Commission’s rules, 
because LBT is not a video programming distributor.  Id. at 1-2.  Section 79.1(d)(8) of the Commission’s rules 
exempts “[p]rogramming that is locally produced by the video programming distributor, has no repeat value, is of 
local public interest, is not news programming, and for which the ‘electronic news room’ technique of captioning is 
unavailable.”  47 C.F.R. § 79.1(d)(8).  Section 79.1(a)(2) of the Commission’s rules defines “video programming 
distributor,” in part, as “[a]ny television broadcast station licensed by the Commission and any multichannel video 
programming distributor.”  Id. § 79.1(a)(2).  
Federal Communications Commission DA 15-902
4
additional time to respond,
14
LBT supplemented the petition by letter dated July 17, 2006.
15
  The Bureau
granted the petition and issued an exemption to LBT by letter order dated September 12, 2006.
16
  On 
November 7, 2006, the Bureau issued a Public Notice holding in abeyance various letter orders granting 
exemptions, including that to LBT, and inviting comments on certain exemption petitions, including 
LBT’s.
17
  On March 2, 2007, certain consumer organizations jointly filed an opposition to LBT’s 
petition.
18
  In 2011, the Commission reversed certain Bureau grants of exemption, including the 
exemption granted to LBT.
19
  By letter dated October 25, 2011, the Bureau notified LBT of this reversal 
and explained that LBT 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.
20
  In response, LBT filed a new petition by letter received on 
January 18, 2012 (hereinafter Petition).
21
By letter dated April 4, 2012, the Bureau notified LBT that the 
Bureau 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.
22
  In response, LBT supplemented its Petition three times.
23
  The Bureau placed the Petition 
                                                     
14
See Letter from T. Blain Brock II, to Amelia Brown, Disability Rights Office, FCC (Apr. 20, 2006) (filed Apr. 25, 
2006).  We have included the dates on which the Commission received LBT’s letters in those instances where the 
date noted on the LBT’s submission was different from the date the submission was received by the Commission.
15
See Letter from The Lima Baptist Temple, to Amelia Brown, Disability Rights Office, FCC (July 17, 2006).  LBT 
again claimed it is exempt from the Commission’s closed captioning rules under section 79.1(d)(8) of the 
Commission’s rules.  Id. at 4.  For the reasons stated previously, see n.13, supra, we conclude that section 79.1(d)(8) 
of the Commission’s rules does not apply to LBT because it is not a “video programming distributor,” as defined in 
the Commission’s rules.
16
See Letter from Thomas E. Chandler, Chief, Disability Rights Office, CGB, to T. Blain Brock II (Sept. 12, 2006).  
17
Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau Action Request for Exemption from Commission’s Closed 
Captioning Rules, CG Docket No. 06-181, Public Notice, 21 FCC Rcd 13142 (CGB 2006).
18
CGB-CC-0218 – Opposition to the Petition for Exemption from Closed Captioning Requirements Filed by Lima 
Baptist Temple, filed by Telecommunications for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing, Inc. (TDI), National Association of 
the Deaf (NAD), Deaf and Hard of Hearing Consumer Advocacy Network (DHHCAN), Hearing Loss Association 
of America (HLAA), Association of Late-Deafened Adults, Inc. (ALDA), American Association of People with 
Disabilities (AAPD), and California Coalition of Agencies Serving the Deaf and Hard of Hearing (CCASDHH)
(Mar. 2, 2007).
19
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 
required under the Communications Act and the Commission’s rules.  Id. 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.
20
See Letter from Joel Gurin, Chief, CGB, to Lima Baptist Temple (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.   
21
Letter from T. Blain Brock, II, to FCC (Jan. 11, 2012) (filed Jan. 18, 2012) (Petition).  In its Petition, LBT again 
claimed to be exempt from the Commission’s closed captioning rules under section 79.1(d)(8) of the Commission’s 
rules.  Id. at 2-3.  For the reasons stated in n.13, supra, we conclude that section 79.1(d)(8) of the Commission’s 
rules does not apply to LBT because it is not a “video programming distributor,” as defined in the Commission’s 
rules.
22
See Letter from Roger Holberg, Disability Rights Office, CGB, to Huffman, Kelley, Brock & Gottschalk, LLC 
(Apr. 4, 2012).  This letter repeated the determination that LBT does not qualify for an exemption under section 
79.1(d)(8) of the Commission’s rules, because LBT is not a video programming distributor.  Id. at 1.  
23
See Letter from T. Blain Brock, II, to Roger Holberg, Office of the Secretary, FCC (Apr. 25, 2012) (filed Apr. 26, 
2012) (April 2012 Petition Supplement); Letter from T. Blain Brock, II, to Roger Holberg, Office of the Secretary, 
FCC (July 3, 2012) (filed July 6, 2012) (July 3, 2012 Petition Supplement); Letter from T. Blain Brock, II, to Roger 
Holberg, Office of the Secretary, FCC (July 16, 2012) (filed July 18, 2012) (July 16, 2012 Petition Supplement).
Federal Communications Commission DA 15-902
5
on Public Notice for comment on September 6, 2012.
24
  Again, several consumer groups jointly opposed 
the Petition.
25
  After reviewing the public’s comments, the Bureau again wrote to LBT requesting 
additional and updated information to make a determination as to whether LBT’s programming merited 
an exemption from the Commission’s closed captioning obligations.
26
  In response, LBT twice 
supplemented its Petition.
27
  The Bureau again placed the Petition on Public Notice for comment on 
January 14, 2015.
28
  Again, several consumer groups jointly filed an opposition to the Petition.
29
III. DISCUSSION
7. LBT produces a one-hour program of a religious nature that is broadcast weekly on 
Station WLIO(TV), Lima, Ohio (WLIO), on Sunday mornings at 11 a.m.
30
  LBT states that it was 
founded in 1956 and describes itself as a nonprofit religious organization “providing traditional, spiritual, 
emotional, and physical support to a diverse economic, ethnic, and social population.”
31
  According to 
LBT, its program is “completely operated by volunteers.”
32
8. LBT submitted two recent quotes to caption its program.
33
  The first quote, from Video 
Caption Corporation, is for $300.00 per show, or $15,600.00 per year (i.e., for 52 programs).
34
  The 
                                                     
24
Request for Comment, Request for Exemption from Commission’s Closed Captioning Rules, CG Docket No. 06-
181, Public Notice, 27 FCC Rcd 10895 (CGB 2013).  
25
See Re:  Lima Baptist Temple Petition for Exemption from the Commission’s Closed Captioning Rules; Case No. 
CGB-CC-0218; CG Docket No. 06-181, filed by TDI, NAD, DHHCAN, ALDA, CCASDHH, and Cerebral Palsy 
and Deaf Organization (CPADO) (Oct. 9, 2012).
26
See Letter from Cheryl J. King, Disability Rights Office, CGB, to Lima Baptist Temple (Sept. 27, 2013); Letter 
from E. Elaine Gardner, Disability Rights Office, CGB, to Lima Baptist Temple (May 30, 2014).
27
See Letter from T. Blain Brock, II, to Cheryl J. King, Office of the Secretary, FCC (Oct. 23, 2013) (filed Oct. 25, 
2013) (October 2013 Petition Supplement); Letter from Gary E. Hohman, Assistant Pastor, Lima Baptist Temple 
(filed June 24, 2014) (June 2014 Petition Supplement).  LBT again claimed to be exempt from the Commission’s 
closed captioning rules under section 79.1(d)(8) of the Commission’s rules, notwithstanding the Bureau’s prior 
determination that LBT did not qualify for this exemption.  October 2013 Petition Supplement at 4; see also n.13, 
supra.
28
Request for Comment on Request for Exemption from Commission’s Closed Captioning Rules, CG Docket No. 
06-181, Public Notice, 30 FCC Rcd 176 (CGB 2015) (2015 Public Notice).
29
Re:  Opposition to Petition for Undue Burden Exemption from the Commission’s Closed Captioning Rules, CGB 
Dkt. No. 06-181, Lima Baptist Temple, CGB-CC-0213, filed by TDI, NAD, CPADO, and Deaf Seniors of America 
(DSA) (collectively, Consumer Groups) (Feb. 13, 2015) (Consumer Groups Opposition).
30
October 2013 Petition Supplement at 2.  The exact program running time is 58:26.  Id.
31
Id. at 1, 4.
32
April 2012 Petition Supplement at 2; June 2014 Petition Supplement at 1.
33
October 2013 Petition Supplement at 35-36.  LBT submitted other quotes to caption its program and other pricing 
information in its Petition and April 2012 Petition Supplement.  See Petition at 5-6 (Exhibits A and B) (providing
quotes from Video Caption Corporation and Computer Prompting & Captioning Co.); April 2012 Petition 
Supplement at 5 (providing what appears to be an advertisement from CaptionSync), 6 (providing a quote from 
Computer Prompting & Captioning Co.).  Because these quotes are not recent, we do not consider them in making 
our determination as to whether providing closed captioning would be economically burdensome for LBT.  We also 
do not consider the information from CaptionSync provided in LBT’s April 2012 Petition Supplement because it 
appears not to be specific to LBT’s program.
34
October 2013 Petition Supplement at 35.  The annual cost of closed captioning based on the quote from Video 
Caption Corporation is calculated by multiplying the cost per show ($300.00) by the number of shows per year (52).
Federal Communications Commission DA 15-902
6
second quote, from Impact Media, is for $325.00 per show, or $16,900.00 per year.
35
  LBT also reports 
that it has rejected the use of “[i]n-house voice recognition software for transcribing the program . . . due 
to its expensive startup costs” and impracticality, because LBT’s program features “many and various 
speakers on a regular basis.”
36
  In addition, LBT states that it has ruled out “prepared scrolls and 
subtitles,” as speakers on the program “regularly speak in an extemporaneous and expositional style.”
37
9. LBT submitted financial statements for 2012 and 2011.
38
For 2012, LBT’s Statement of 
Activities reports total income of $1,249,441.00, total expenses of $1,179,233.00, and excess of revenue 
over expenses of $70,208.00.
39
  For 2011, LBT’s Statement of Activities reports total income of 
$1,121,684.00, total expenses of $1,052,574.00, and excess of revenue over expenses of $69,110.00.
40
     
10. LBT also submitted statements of financial position for 2012 and 2011.  LBT reports 
current assets as of December 31, 2012 of $321,596.00 and current liabilities of $559.00, resulting in net 
current assets of $321,037.00.
41
  LBT also reports current assets as of December 31, 2011 of $250,902.00
and current liabilities of $73.00, resulting in net current assets of $250,829.00.
42  
11. LBT reports that it requested captioning assistance from its video programming 
distributor WLIO; however, WLIO was unable to offer captioning assistance.
43
  LBT further indicates 
that it was unsuccessful in its efforts to secure additional sponsorship sources for closed captioning.
44
  
                                                     
35
Id. at 36. The annual cost of closed captioning based on the quote from Video Caption Corporation is calculated 
by multiplying the cost per show ($325.00) by the number of shows per year (52).  LBT states that, “[i]n addition to 
the transcribing cost, subtitling and dubbing expense, there would be additional expense in hiring a local editing 
professional in order to meet the shipping receipt deadline requirement of the transcribing vendor and return 
shipping deadline requirement to meet the WLIO on air deadlines.”  Id. at 2-3.  Because LBT does not provide an 
estimate of these costs despite our specific request for clarification by our letter dated May 30, 2014, we do not 
consider these costs in making our determination of economic burden.
36
Id. at 3.
37
Id.
38
See id. at 11-28.  In addition to its financial statements, FBC submitted an “Income/Expense Report” for 2012 and 
2011.  Id. at 9-10.  The amounts stated for total income, total expenses, and excess of revenues over expenses in the 
Income/Expense Report varies slightly from the same information provided in the financial statements submitted by 
LBT.  Cf. id. at 9-10 and id. at 15, 24.  Because the financial information in LBT’s financial statements has 
undergone an independent accountants’ review, we find that this information is more reliable than the financial 
information contained in the Income/Expense Report, and we therefore rely on the information contained in the 
financial statements in determining whether providing closed captioning would be economically burdensome for 
LBT.  LBT also submitted financial information for nine months of 2013.  See id. at 8 (Lima Baptist Temple, Profit 
& Loss Prev Year Comparison – General Fund Only, January through September 2013).  Because this statement 
does not provide financial information for a complete calendar or fiscal year, and because LBT did not submit an 
audited financial statement, accountant’s compilation, or complete federal tax returns covering 2013, we do not 
consider LBT’s partial 2013 financial information in our economic burden determination.   
39
See id. at 24. LBT’s 2012 total income is calculated by adding its “Total Unrestricted Support And 
Reclassification” of $1,254,754.00 plus its “Decrease In Temporarily Restricted Net Assets” of ($5,313.00) = 
$1,249,441.00.
40
See id. at 15.  LBT’s 2011 total income is calculated by adding its “Total Unrestricted Support And 
Reclassification” of $1,083,190.00 plus its “Increase In Temporarily Restricted Net Assets” of $38,494.00 = 
$1,121,684.00.  
41
Id. at 23.
42
Id. at 14.
43
Petition at 3; July 16, 2012 Petition Supplement at 2; October 2013 Petition Supplement at 3.
44
July 3, 2012 Petition Supplement at 2; October 2013 Petition Supplement at 7.
Federal Communications Commission DA 15-902
7
LBT states that its program “is funded through the church’s general fund budget” and that monies in 
LBT’s “designated fund,” which consists of donations made to LBT for specific purposes “can only be 
expended for the purpose for which they were given.”
45
  In addition, LBT asserts that, absent an 
exemption from the captioning requirements, it may have to divert funds from other church ministries or 
discontinue its broadcast of its program.
46
  
12. Consumer Groups, which were the only parties to comment on the Petition in response to 
the 2015 Public Notice, contend that LBT failed to satisfy the statutory and regulatory requirements to 
demonstrate that captioning would be economically burdensome on several grounds.
47
  First, Consumer 
Groups states that the Bureau should reject what Consumer Groups describe as LBT’s argument that the 
Commission should “limit its analysis to the program’s ‘designated funds’” when determining whether 
providing closed captioning would be economically burdensome to LBT,
48
because the Commission 
should “concentrate its analysis on [LBT’s] overall financial resources.”
49
  Additionally, Consumer 
Groups argue that LBT’s claim that it may have to divert funds from other areas in order to provide 
closed captioning “is irrelevant to the Commission’s analysis,” which, Consumer Groups urge, “‘must 
focus on the impact that captioning will have on the petitioner’s programming activities . . . not other 
activities missions that are unrelated to that programming.’”
50
  
13. Next, Consumer Groups argue that LBT’s financial resources are adequate to cover even 
the higher estimated annual cost of closed captioning of “approximately $16,000.00 and $17,000.00.”
51
In this regard, Consumer Groups claim that LBT reported excess revenues of $68,885.35 in 2011 and 
$70,531.87 in 2012.
52
  Consumer Groups argue that, even with an annual cost of $16,000.00 to provide 
closed captioning, LBT could have provided closed captioning in 2011 and 2012 and still have operated 
with excess revenues of $52,885.35 and $54,531.87, respectively.
53
  Consumer Groups also note that LBT 
reported current net assets of $250,829.00 in 2011 and $321,037.00 in 2012.
54
  Consumer Groups argue 
that LBT’s “ample net current assets,” together with its “annual excess profits,” suggest that LBT “can 
afford to provide captioning.”
55
  Thus, Consumer Groups conclude, requiring LBT to caption its program 
                                                     
45
October 2013 Petition Supplement at 3.
46
Petition at 3; April 2012 Petition Supplement at 2; October 2013 Petition Supplement at 3; June 2014 Petition 
Supplement at 1.
47
Consumer Groups Opposition at 4-7.
48
Id. at 4 (citing October 2013 Petition Supplement at 3 (stating that “[t]he designated fund is comprised of 
donations made to [LBT] for specific purposes.  These monies can only be expended for the purpose for which they 
were given” and that “the television ministry is funded through the church’s general fund budget”)).
49
Id.
50
Id. (quoting Anglers Reversal MO&O, 26 FCC Rcd at 14951-52, ¶ 20).
51
Id. at 5.  Consumer Groups also argue that, in the first instance, the Bureau should base its analysis on an 
estimated annual cost of $7,300.80 for closed captioning, based on the price information from CaptionSync 
submitted by LBT in 2012.  Id. at 5.  For the reasons stated above, see n.33, supra, we do not consider the price 
information from CaptionSync in determining whether providing closed captioning would be economically 
burdensome for LBT.  Because we determine that providing closed captioning would not be economically 
burdensome for LBT even using a higher estimate of the annual cost of closed captioning, see ¶¶ 14-15, infra, we 
need not consider this lower estimate of the annual cost of closed captioning.  
52
Consumer Groups Opposition at 5.
53
Id.
54
Id.
55
Id.  Consumer Groups also argue that “the limited, unaudited financial information [LBT] provided for 2013 does 
not alter the conclusion that captioning would not be economically burdensome” because LBT’s “multi-year 
financial records suggest that it receives a significant increase in revenue toward the end of each calendar year,” 
(continued….)
Federal Communications Commission DA 15-902
8
cannot be considered economically burdensome.
56
  
14. Determination.  After a careful review of the record, the Bureau finds that LBT has not 
demonstrated that the provision of closed captioning for its program would be economically burdensome.  
As an initial matter, we agree with Consumer Groups that the Commission has previously determined 
that, when conducting an economically burdensome analysis, “all of the petitioners’ available resources” 
must be 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
  Thus, consistent with prior Commission orders, we consider 
the overall financial resources available to LBT 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, LBT operated at an 
excess of revenue over expenses of $70,208.00 in 2012.
59
  When we compare the annual cost of closed 
captioning of $15,600.00,
60
to LBT’s excess of revenue over expenses in 2012, we conclude that such 
revenue was sufficient to cover the cost of captioning LBT’s program.  Specifically, LBT could have 
provided closed captioning and still operated at an excess of revenue over expenses of $54,608.00 in 
2012.  In addition, LBT had net current assets of $321,037.00 as of December 31, 2012, which provides 
further evidence that the provision of closed captioning would not be economically burdensome.
61
  Based 
on our review and analysis, we conclude that closed captioning would not be economically burdensome 
for LBT.  
16. LBT asserts that, if not granted a captioning exemption, it would have to divert funds 
from other church ministries.
62
  We agree with Consumer Groups that this argument cannot justify a 
finding that providing closed captioning would be economically burdensome.
63
  The Commission may 
consider additional factors besides those set forth in section 713(e) of the Act when making a 
(Continued from previous page)                                                            
suggesting that LBT likely received an increase in revenue in late 2013 to avoid a net loss in that year.  Id. at 6.
Additionally, Consumer Groups argue that “[e]ven if [LBT] closed the year at a loss, the reviewed financial reports 
indicate that [LBT] would have had enough money in net current assets to cover both the deficit and the cost of 
captioning.”  Id. at 6-7. For the reasons stated above, see n.38, supra, we do not consider the financial information 
submitted by LBT for part of 2013 in determining whether providing closed captioning would be economically 
burdensome to LBT.
56
Consumer Groups Opposition at 7.
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
See ¶ 9, supra.  Consumer Groups state that FBC had net revenue of $70,531.87 in 2012.  See ¶ 13, supra.  
However, this figure is based on financial information provided in the “Income/Expense Report – 2012.”  See 
October 2013 Petition Supplement at 10.  For the reasons stated previously, see n.38, supra, we do not consider the 
information contained in the Income/Expense Report in determining whether providing closed captioning would be 
economically burdensome for LBT.  Rather, we rely on the financial information contained in the financial 
statements, which shows that FBC had an excess of revenue over expenses of $70,208.00 in 2012.  October 2013
Petition Supplement at 24; ¶ 9, supra.
60
See ¶ 8, supra.
61
See ¶ 10, supra.  
62
Petition at 3; April 2012 Petition Supplement at 2; October 2013 Petition Supplement at 3; June 2014 Petition 
Supplement at 1.
63
See ¶ 12, supra.
Federal Communications Commission DA 15-902
9
determination for an individual closed captioning exemption.
64
  However, the Commission has previously 
explained that any additional factors that it considers “must focus on the impact that captioning will have 
on the petitioner’s programming activities – for example the extent to which programming might not be 
shown if program owners or providers are required to provide captions – not other activities or missions 
that are unrelated to that programming.”
65
  Thus, LBT’s assertion that a denial of the Petition may result 
in the elimination of or reduction in existing ministries and programs is not relevant to our economically 
burdensome determination.
66
  Because we conclude, based on the information provided by LBT, that LBT 
has adequate financial resources to enable it to afford the costs of captioning its television program, we 
find that it would not be economically burdensome for LBT to caption its program within the meaning of 
the Communications Act and the Commission’s rules.
IV. ORDERING CLAUSES
17. 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,
67
IT IS ORDERED that the Petition filed by 
LBT, requesting an exemption from the Commission’s closed captioning rules, IS DENIED.  
18. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the programming that is the subject of its Petition must 
be captioned no later than November 5, 2015, which is 90 days from the date of the release of this Order.
19. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that FBC must inform the Commission of the date on 
which the programming is closed captioned in accordance with this Order and the Commission’s rules by 
e-mail to captioningexemption@fcc.gov.
68
  The e-mail attachment must reference Case Identifier CGB-
CC-0218 and will be posted on the docket to be publicly available.  
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Karen Peltz Strauss
Deputy Chief
Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau
                                                     
64
Anglers Reversal MO&O, 26 FCC Rcd at 14951-52, ¶ 20 (citing 47 C.F.R. § 79.1(f)(3)).
65
Id. at 14952, ¶ 20.
66
See Dawson Memorial Baptist Church; Petition for Exemption from the Closed Captioning Requirements, CGB-
CC-0144, CG Docket No. 06-181, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 29 FCC Rcd 15509, 15517, ¶ 17 (CGB 2014) 
(rejecting the petitioner’s argument that providing closed captioning would be an economic burden because it would 
require the petitioner to forgo other activities in order to afford the cost of closed captioning); First Baptist Church, 
Jonesboro, Arkansas; Request for Exemption from the Closed Captioning Requirements, CGB-CC-0303, CG 
Docket No. 06-181, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 29 FCC Rcd 12833, 12840, ¶ 14 (CGB 2014); First Baptist 
Church, Fort Smith, Arkansas; Request for Exemption from the Closed Captioning Requirements, CGB-CC-0203, 
CG Docket No. 06-181, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 30 FCC Rcd 7214, 7222 ¶ 16 (CGB 2015).
67
47 U.S.C. § 613; 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.141(f), 79.1(f).
68
See Notice of New Electronic Filing Procedures for Television Closed Captioning Exemption Requests, CG 
Docket Nos. 06-181 and 05-231, Public Notice, 29 FCC Rcd 3960 (CGB 2014).