Federal Communications Commission DA 15-92
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of
Gray Publishing, Inc.
Petition for Exemption from the 
Closed Captioning Requirements
)
)
)
)
)
)
CGB-CC-0287
CG Docket No. 06-181
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Adopted:  January 22, 2015 Released:  January 22, 2015
By the Acting Chief, Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau:
I. INTRODUCTION
1. In this Memorandum Opinion and Order (Order), we address a petition filed by Gray 
Publishing, Inc. (Gray) for an exemption from the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC’s or 
Commission’s) closed captioning requirements for its program, Exploring Alaska Native Voices. Because 
we conclude that Gray has demonstrated that its compliance with the Commission’s closed captioning 
requirements would be economically burdensome to it, we grant it a temporary exemption for its 
program, Exploring Alaska Native Voices, for a period of two years from the date of the release of this 
Order.  Exploring Alaska Native Voices must be closed captioned no later than the end of the two year
temporary exemption, which is Monday, January 23, 2017.
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 15-92
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 15-92
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. Gray initially filed an undated petition for exemption, which the Commission received on
January 9, 2006 (hereinafter Petition).
12
  On November 7, 2006, the Consumer and Governmental Affairs 
Bureau (CGB or Bureau) invited comment on the Petition.
13
Certain consumer organizations jointly filed 
an opposition to the Petition.
14
  In 2012, the Bureau notified Gray of the need to file updated information 
                                                          
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 Petition for Full Exemption From Closed Captioning Requirements (filed Jan. 9, 2006) (Petition).  
13
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, 13158 (Appendix A) (CGB 2006).
14
See CGB-CC-0287 – Opposition to the Petition for Exemption from Closed Captioning Requirements Filed by 
Paul Gray, 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).
Federal Communications Commission DA 15-92
4
with respect to its pending petition.
15
  In response, in a letter dated June 27, 2012, Gray affirmed that its 
Petition was accurate and up-to-date.
16
  By letter dated September 19, 2012, the Bureau requested 
additional and updated information from Gray, in which it explained the need for such information to 
determine whether the programming at issue should be exempt from the Commission’s closed captioning 
obligations.
17
  In response to this letter, Gray again supplemented the Petition.
18
  On November 30, 2012, 
the Bureau again invited comment on the Petition,
19
and certain consumer organizations jointly filed an 
opposition to the Petition.
20
  The Bureau subsequently determined that it again required additional and 
updated information to enable it to determine the merits of a closed captioning exemption for Gray and 
requested such information in a letter dated September 27, 2013.
21
  In response, Gray further 
supplemented the Petition in a filing dated October 22, 2013.
22
  The Bureau again placed the Petition on 
Public Notice for comment on December 26, 2013.
23
  Again, several consumer groups jointly filed an 
opposition to the Petition.
24
  In a letter dated February 26, 2014, Gray filed a reply to the Consumer 
Groups Opposition.
25
III. DISCUSSION
7. Gray produces Exploring Alaska Native Voices, a half-hour program that is produced in 
Soldotna, Alaska and broadcast weekly on Sundays at 4:30 p.m. local time on Station KYUR(TV)
(KYUR).
26
  Gray describes Exploring Alaska Native Voices as an independent, local television program 
                                                          
15
See Notice of Need to File Updated Information with Respect to Pending Petitions for Exemption from 
Commission’s Closed Captioning Rules, Which Were Filed Prior to October 2010, CG Docket No. 06-181, Public 
Notice, 27 FCC Rcd 3106 (CGB 2012) (alerting various petitioners of the need to affirm that information previously 
provided is still accurate and up-to-date; to update that information; or to withdraw their petitions).  See also Letter 
from Kris Anne Monteith, Acting Chief, CGB, to Exploring Alaska (Apr. 5, 2012).
16
See Letter from Paul Gray, Producer, Exploring Alaska TV Show, to FCC (June 27, 2012) (filed June 29, 2012).
17
See Letter from Roger Holberg, Disability Rights Office, CGB, to Exploring Alaska TV Show (Sept. 19, 2012).
18
See Affidavit of Paul Gray (Oct. 16, 2012) (filed Oct. 18, 2012) (October 2012 Petition Supplement). 
19
Request for Comment/Request for Exemption from Commission’s Closed Captioning Rules, CG Docket No. 06-
181, Public Notice, 27 FCC Rcd 14921 (CGB 2012).  
20
See Re:  Opposition to Petitions for Exemption from the Commission’s Closed Captioning Rules, CG Docket No. 
06-181, CGB-CC-0203, CGB-CC-0287, CGB-CC-0572, CGB-CC-0923, CGB-CC-1019, CGB-CC-1032, CGB-CC-
1170, CGB-CC-1240, CGB-CC-1252, CGB-CC-1253, CGB-CC-1256, TDI, NAD, DHHCAN, ALDA, and Cerebral 
Palsy and Deaf Organization (CPADO) (Jan. 14, 2013).
21
See Letter from Cheryl J. King, Disability Rights Office, CGB, to “Exploring Alaska” (Sept. 27, 2013).
22
See Affidavit of Paul Gray (with attachments, including 2011 and 2012 income tax returns for Gray Publishing, 
Inc., and closed captioning quotes) (Oct. 22, 2013) (filed Oct. 24, 2013) (October 2013 Petition Supplement).
23
Request for Comment/Request for Exemption from Commission’s Closed Captioning Rules, Public Notice, 28 
FCC Rcd 17100 (CGB 2013) (2013 Public Notice).  
24
See Re: Opposition to Petitions for Exemption from the Commission’s Closed Captioning Rules, CG Docket No. 
06-181, CGB-CC-0001, CGB-CC-0024, CGB-CC-0143, CGB-CC-0144, CGB-CC-0287, CGB-CC-0303, TDI, 
DHHCAN, CPADO, CCASDHH, NAD, and ALDA (collectively, Consumer Groups) at 2, 13-14 (Jan. 27, 2014) 
(Consumer Groups Opposition).
25
See Letter from Paul Gray, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Office of the Secretary, FCC (Feb. 26, 2014) (filed 
Mar. 7, 2014) (Reply to Opposition).
26
October 2012 Petition Supplement at 1; October 2013 Petition Supplement at 1.  In its Petition, Gray states that it 
produces 26 shows a year.  Petition at 1.  However, in its October 2013 Petition Supplement, Gray states that the 
program airs “weekly” and provides an estimate of the annual cost to provide closed captioning for 52 programs per 
(continued....)
Federal Communications Commission DA 15-92
5
that provides historical and educational information.
27
  According to Gray, the program is produced in 
“rural Alaska,” and the owner of the company, Paul Gray, single-handedly films, edits, and produces the 
show and has “no employees.”
28
  Gray maintains that requiring its program to comply with the 
Commission’s closed captioning requirements would be economically burdensome.
29
8. Gray submitted two recent quotes to caption its program.
30
  The first quote, from Caption 
Associates, LLC, is for $270.00 per show, or $14,040.00 per year (i.e., for 52 programs).
31
The second 
“quote,” from Caption Depot, is actually a range of quotes depending on the number of videos for which 
captioning is requested and the turnaround time required.
32
  The lowest quote from Caption Depot, with a 
turnaround time of ten business days, is $330.00 for the first five videos and $280.50 for any subsequent 
videos, or $14,833.50 per year (i.e., for 52 programs).
33
  
                                                          
(...continued from previous page)
year.  October 2013 Petition Supplement at 1.  For the purposes of this exemption order, we assume that Gray 
presently produces 52 programs per year.
27
October 2012 Petition Supplement at 1; October 2013 Petition Supplement at 1.
28
October 2013 Petition Supplement at 1; Petition at 1.
29
October 2013 Petition Supplement at 1.
30
Id. at 21-22.  In addition to providing documentation for two recent quotes to caption its program, Gray states that 
closed captioning will “increase the cost per week” for producing the show by $300.00, resulting in an increased 
production cost of $15,600.00 per year.  Id. at 1.  It is not clear how Gray reaches this figure, given the documented 
captioning quotes of $270.00 per show and $330.00 for the first five shows and $280.50 for any subsequent shows 
that it provides, id. at 21-22, so we do not consider the estimate of $15,600.00 per year in making our determination 
as to whether providing closed captioning would be economically burdensome to Gray.
31
Id. at 22.  The annual cost of closed captioning based on the quote from Caption Associates, LLC, is calculated by 
multiplying the cost per show ($270.00) by the number of shows per year (52). 
32
Id. at 21 (providing quotes for videos mailed to Caption Depot for captioning of $505.00 for the first five videos 
and $429.25 for any subsequent videos with a turnaround time of two business days; $360.00 for the first five videos 
and $306.00 for any subsequent videos with a turnaround time of five business days; and $330.00 for the first five 
videos and $280.50 for any subsequent videos with a turnaround time of ten business days).  Gray did not specify 
the turnaround time needed to caption its program.  Caption Depot also provided quotes for captioning videos that 
are uploaded and sent to Caption Depot via the Internet.  Because Gray states that it produces the program in rural 
Alaska and “do[es] not have fast internet service,” id. at 1, and includes an estimate of the cost to ship tapes of the 
program via FedEx to and from the captioning agency, October 2012 Petition Supplement at 1, it seems that Gray 
may be unable to electronically transmit its program to Caption Depot for captioning.  Thus, we do not consider 
these quotes.
33
See October 2013 Petition Supplement at 21.  The annual cost of closed captioning based on the lowest quote 
from Caption Depot is calculated by adding $1650.00 ($330.00 – the cost of captioning each show for the first five 
shows – multiplied by five) and $13,183.50 ($280.50 – the cost of captioning each subsequent show – multiplied by 
47).  Although, in a previous submission, Gray asserted that it would incur an additional cost of $84.00 per week, or 
$4,368.00 per year, to ship tapes of its program back and forth between the captioning provider and itself, October 
2012 Petition Supplement at 1, Gray did not include these shipping costs in its October 2013 Petition Supplement.  
Thus, we have not included these costs in our calculations of Gray’s total costs of captioning.  However, even with 
the lower captioning estimates, we have determined, as discussed more fully below, that Gray warrants a captioning 
exemption.
Federal Communications Commission DA 15-92
6
9. With its Petition, as supplemented, Gray submitted United States Income Tax Returns for 
an S Corporation, Form 1120S, for 2011 and 2012.
34
  For 2011, Gray reports income of $94,250.00, 
expenses of $58,063.00, and net income of $36,187.00.
35
  For 2012, Gray reports income of $87,935.00,
expenses of $54,731.00, and net income of $33,204.00.
36
  
10. Gray’s 2011 and 2012 income tax returns also report its current assets and current 
liabilities.
37
  Gray reports total current assets as of December 2011 of $1,385.00 and no current 
liabilities.
38
  Gray also reports total current assets as of December 2012 of $6,121.00 and no current 
liabilities.
39
11. Gray reports that it requested captioning assistance from its video programming 
distributor, KYUR; however, KYUR was unable to offer captioning assistance.
40
Gray further indicates
that it has sought additional sponsorship sources for closed captioning.
41
Gray asserts that, absent an 
exemption from the captioning requirements, it would have to “cease production” of Exploring Alaska 
Native Voices.
42
12. Consumer Groups, which were the only parties to comment on the Petition in response to 
the 2013 Public Notice, contend that Gray failed to satisfy the statutory and regulatory requirements to 
demonstrate that captioning would be economically burdensome on several grounds.
43
  First, Consumer 
Groups acknowledge that Gray obtained captioning quotes from multiple providers but argue that Gray 
did not provide documentation that it negotiated with those providers for lower costs.
44
Second, 
Consumer Groups acknowledge that Gray sought closed captioning assistance from the broadcast station 
that airs its program but argue that Gray did not describe and provide documentation of its efforts to seek 
other sources of sponsorships for closed captioning.
45
  Third, with regard to Gray’s financial resources, 
Consumer Groups argue that, because Gray provided only its annual tax returns, it did not provide 
sufficiently detailed information about its organization’s finances and assets to enable the public to 
evaluate whether Gray’s program would qualify for an exemption.
46
Consumer Groups also argue that
the financial information that Gray did supply shows that requiring Gray to provide closed captioning for 
its program would not be economically burdensome.
47
  Specifically, Consumer Groups claim that because 
                                                          
34
See October 2013 Petition Supplement at 3-11 (2012 United States Income Tax Return for an S Corporation), 12-
20 (2011 United States Income Tax Return for an S Corporation). Gray explains that “the great majority” of Gray’s 
income comes from “non broadcast video production.”  Reply to Opposition at 1. 
35
October 2013 Petition Supplement at 12.
36
Id. at 3.
37
See id. at 6, 10, 15, 18.
38
Id. at 15, 18.
39
Id. at 6, 10.  
40
Id. at 1.
41
Id.  
42
Id.
43
Consumer Groups Opposition at 13-14.
44
Id. at 13.
45
Id.
46
Id. at 13-14.
47
Id. at 14.
Federal Communications Commission DA 15-92
7
Gray’s 2012 tax return indicates gross revenues of $88,000.00 and a profit distribution of $27,284.00, 
Gray’s financial resources are sufficient to cover the estimated cost of $15,600.00 for closed captioning.
48
  
13. Determination.  After a careful review of the record, the Bureau finds that Gray has
demonstrated that the provision of closed captioning for Exploring Alaska Native Voices would be 
economically burdensome.  Our conclusion is supported by the information and documentation Gray has 
provided, which shows that Gray had net income of $36,187.00 in 2011 and $33,204.00 in 2012, with 
only minimal net current assets of $1,385.00 as of December 2011 and $6,121.00 as of December 2012.
49
  
If Gray were required to provide closed captioning for its program at an annual cost of $14,040.00 (the 
lower of the two estimates provided by Gray),
50
it would have had to spend as much as 38.8% of its 2011 
net income and 42.3% of its 2012 net income on closed captioning.
51
  In addition, Gray’s net current 
assets of $1,385.00 and $6,121.00 as of 2011 and 2012, respectively, were insufficient to cover these
captioning costs.
52
  We are persuaded, based on this information, that having to caption Exploring Alaska 
Native Voices would have a significant detrimental impact on Gray’s financial resources and possibly lead 
to the termination of the program.
53
  
14. We are not persuaded by Consumer Groups’ arguments in opposition to the Petition.  
Contrary to suggestions by Consumer Groups,
54
we do not require petitioners to demonstrate that they 
negotiated with closed captioning service providers for captioning costs that are lower than the quotes 
                                                          
48
Id.
49
See ¶¶ 9-10, supra.  We do not base our determination that providing closed captioning would be economically 
burdensome on a comparison of the cost of closed captioning to the production budget for Exploring Alaska Native 
Voices, as Gray suggests.  See October 2013 Petition Supplement at 2.  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.  See 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”).  Thus, we consider the overall financial resources of Gray in 
determining whether it would be economically burdensome for Gray to comply with the Commission’s closed 
captioning requirements.
50
As noted above, see n.30, supra, we are unable to determine the basis for Gray’s claim that closed captioning its
program (without including shipping costs) would cost $15,600.00 annually and, accordingly, we do not consider 
this estimate in determining whether providing closed captioning would be economically burdensome for Gray.  Id.  
51
See ¶ 9, supra (stating Gray’s net income in 2011 and 2012).  We note that the 2011 and 2012 tax returns 
submitted by Gray do not list any salaries or wages, October 2013 Petition Supplement at 3, 12, suggesting that Mr. 
Gray did not receive a salary for his work on the program.  
52
See ¶ 10, supra (stating Gray’s net current assets in 2011 and 2012).
53
We do not agree with Consumer Groups that the financial information that Gray submitted shows that providing 
closed captioning would not be economically burdensome.  See Consumer Groups Opposition at 14.  Consumer 
Groups argue that because Gray Publishing’s 2012 gross revenue and profit distribution are “significantly more” 
than Gray’s quoted annual captioning cost of $15,600.00 and indicate that Gray is “financially solvent,” providing 
closed captions would not be economically burdensome.  Id.  The amount of a petitioner’s gross revenues and profit 
distributions alone are not sufficient to determine whether providing closed captioning would be economically 
burdensome.   See ¶ 3, supra; 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”) (emphasis added).
54
See ¶ 12, supra.
Federal Communications Commission DA 15-92
8
they provide to the Commission.
55
  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.
56
  We also reject Consumer Groups’ assertion that Gray failed to provide 
sufficient description or documentation of its efforts to obtain outside sponsorships for closed 
captioning.
57
  Gray verified that it unsuccessfully sought additional sponsorships for closed captioning.
58
We do not require petitioners to provide documentation of their efforts to obtain additional 
sponsorships.
59
  Accordingly, Gray’s statement verifying that it sought additional sponsorships satisfies 
the Commission’s requirement to seek outside sponsorships for closed captioning.  
15. Additionally, we do not agree that the Petition should be denied because Gray failed to 
provide sufficiently detailed financial information.
60
Although Gray did not submit “traditional 
accounting balance sheets” with the Petition,
61
it did submit United States Income Tax Returns for an S 
Corporation for 2011 and 2012.
62
  As noted above, we consider certain factors when making a
determination as to whether a petitioner has made the required showing that providing closed captioning 
would be economically burdensome.
63
  For the most part, our analysis considers the ability of a petitioner 
to afford closed captioning costs in light of its financial resources and the impact that providing captions 
would have on the programming that is the subject of its petition.
64
  From the tax returns that Gray 
provided, the Bureau is able to determine Gray’s 2011 and 2012 income, expenses, and net income, as 
well as its current assets and current liabilities as of December 2011 and December 2012.
65
  This 
information is sufficiently detailed to enable the Bureau to conduct an analysis regarding Gray’s ability to 
afford closed captioning costs and the impact that providing captions would have on its program and to 
reach a determination regarding the economic burden of providing closed captioning.  Thus, we conclude 
that the financial information that Gray submitted met our requirements at the time the Petition was 
submitted and supplemented.  Finally, for the reasons stated above,
66
we do not agree with Consumer 
Groups that the financial information that Gray submitted shows that providing captions would not be 
economically burdensome.
16. Gray does not specify a timeframe for the exemption that it requests.  As the Commission has 
previously noted, an exemption from the captioning rules is “not designed to perpetually relieve a 
                                                          
55
See First Lutheran Church of Albert Lea; Petition for Exemption from the Closed Captioning Requirements, 
CGB-CC-0143, CG Docket No. 06-181, Memorandum Option and Order, 29 FCC Rcd 9326, 9333, n.63 (CGB 
2014) (First Lutheran Church of Albert Lea).
56
See id. (citing Anglers Reversal MO&O, 26 FCC Rcd at 14955-56, ¶ 28, n.101).  
57
See ¶ 12, supra.
58
See ¶ 11, supra; October 2013 Petition Supplement at 1.
59
See Anglers Reversal MO&O, 26 FCC Rcd at 14951, ¶ 28 (requiring each petitioner to “indicate” whether it has 
sought additional sponsorship sources or other sources of revenue for captioning).
60
See ¶ 12, supra.
61
See Consumer Groups Opposition at 13.
62
See ¶ 9, supra.
63
See ¶ 3, supra.
64
See 47 C.F.R § 79.1(f)(2). 
65
See ¶¶ 9-10, supra.
66
See ¶ 13, supra.
Federal Communications Commission DA 15-92
9
petitioner of its captioning obligation.”
67
  The Commission has recognized that “changes in technology, 
the economics of captioning, or the financial resources of a video programming provider may affect the 
justification for an undue burden exemption” over time and, therefore, “it is better to maintain the 
flexibility to limit the duration of an undue burden exemption if the facts before us indicate that the 
particular circumstances of the petition warrant a limited exemption.”
68
  Similarly, the Commission has 
stated its intention to “consider time limits . . . when evaluating requests for undue burden exemptions on 
the basis of the information regarding individual circumstances.”
69
  The situation of a petitioner may 
change over time and may no longer warrant continuation of the exemption.  In the event that a petitioner 
does continue to need an exemption, it may submit a new petition to extend the exemption for additional 
time.  
17. As discussed above, in the instant case, we conclude that Gray has demonstrated that its
financial situation, as reflected in its submissions to the Commission, makes captioning costs 
economically burdensome for it.  Given the evolution of technology, potential drops in the cost of 
captioning over time, and the possibility that the financial status of Gray may change, we conclude that an 
exemption of two years is warranted in this case.  We further believe this period of time will give Gray
ample time to locate ways to comply with the closed captioning requirements.  
IV. ORDERING CLAUSES
18. 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,
70
IT IS ORDERED that the Petition filed by 
Gray, requesting an exemption from the Commission’s closed captioning rules, IS GRANTED, and it is 
granted such an exemption for a period of two years from the release of this Order or until January 23, 
2017.    
19. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Gray shall commence closed captioning of the 
programming that is the subject of its Petition no later than January 23, 2017.  
20. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Gray must inform the Commission of the date on 
which it commences closed captioning of its programming in accordance with this Order and the 
                                                          
67
The Wild Outdoors, Video Programming Accessibility, Petition for Waiver of Closed Captioning Requirements,
Memorandum Opinion and Order, 20 FCC Rcd 11873, 11874, ¶ 3 (MB 2005) (Wild Outdoors 2005); Awakening 
Ministries, Video Programming Accessibility, Petition for Waiver of Closed Captioning Requirements, 
Memorandum Opinion and Order, 20 FCC Rcd 10740, 10741, ¶ 4 (MB 2005).  See also Anglers Reversal MO&O, 
26 FCC Rcd at 14953, ¶ 23. 
68
Closed Captioning Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 3366, ¶ 205, quoted in Anglers Reversal MO&O, 26 FCC 
Rcd at 14952, ¶ 22.  See also, e.g., Outland Sports, Inc., Video Programming Accessibility, Petition for Waiver of 
Closed Captioning Requirements, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 16 FCC Rcd 13605, 13609, ¶ 12 (Cable 
Services Bureau 2001) (granting an exemption for one year); Wild Outdoors 2001, 16 FCC Rcd 13611 (one year); 
WDLP Broadcasting Co, LLC, Video Programming Accessibility, Petition for Waiver of Closed Captioning 
Requirements, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 20 FCC Rcd 13531 (MB 2005) (three years).  See also Anglers 
Reversal MO&O, 26 FCC Rcd at 14953, ¶ 23.
69
Closed Captioning Reconsideration Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 20022, ¶ 112 (stating also that “[w]hile a specific time 
limit may be appropriate for some cases, a longer or shorter period may be appropriate in others”), quoted in Anglers 
Reversal MO&O, 26 FCC Rcd at 14952, ¶ 22 n.78.  See also n.5, supra (confirming that the term “undue burden” is 
synonymous with the term “economically burdensome” for purposes of petitions for exemption from the 
Commission’s closed captioning rules).
70
47 U.S.C. § 613, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.141(f), 79.1(f).
Federal Communications Commission DA 15-92
10
Commission’s rules by e-mail to captioningexemption@fcc.gov, which the Commission will make 
available for public inspection.
71
  The e-mail attachment must reference Case Identifier CGB-CC-0287.  
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Karen Peltz Strauss
Deputy Chief
Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau
                                                          
71
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).