Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-105
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of 
Application of CAAM Partnership, LLC for a New 
AM Broadcast Station in Snohomish, Washington 
)
)
)
)
)
File No. BNP-20071010ABZ
Facility ID No. 160891
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Adopted:  September 7, 2012 Released:  September 10, 2012
By the Commission:
1. The Commission has before it an April 14, 2011, Application for Review filed by the Citizens 
to Preserve the Upper Snohomish River Valley (“CPUSRV”), seeking reversal of the March 16, 2011, 
decision of the Media Bureau, Audio Division (“Bureau”) 1 granting the captioned application 
(“Application”) of CAAM Partnership, LLC (“CAAM”) for a new AM broadcast station in Snohomish, 
Washington.2 The Bureau found that the proposed station would have no significant environmental 
impact, and denied the informal objection of CPUSRV.
2. We have carefully reviewed the Staff Decision and the full record of this application 
proceeding. We conclude that the Bureau has correctly resolved all issues before it.  As the Bureau 
explained in the Staff Decision, the EA submitted by CAAM in this case, as supplemented, contained 
current and complete information that both satisfied the requirements specified in Sections 1.1307 and 
1.1311 of the Commission’s rules and provided a reasoned basis for a finding of no significant impact for 
all listed categories of action not categorically excluded from environmental processing.3  
  
1CAAM Partnership, LLC., Letter, 26 FCC Rcd 3883 (MB 2008) (“Staff Decision”).  CAAM subsequently chose the 
call sign KKXA(AM) for the Station.
2 CAAM filed a “Petition for Ruling, Dismissal of Unauthorized Pleading and Finality of Staff Action” on May 13, 
2011.  We treat this filing as an opposition to the CPUSRV Application for Review.  
3 CPUSRV argues for the first time that the Bureau failed to adequately consider the impact on birds of the proposed 
construction in accordance with American Bird Conservancy v. FCC, 516 F.3d 1027 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (“American 
Bird Conservancy”).  Section 1.115(c) prohibits parties from raising new arguments on review.  See 47 C.F.R. § 
1.115(c).  Accordingly, we dismiss the new argument as procedurally barred.  As an alternative and independent 
basis for our decision, we deny the argument on the merits.  There is no inconsistency between the American Bird 
Conservancy decision and the Bureau’s decision here:  the Bureau properly determined that no EIS was required 
under the particular circumstances of this case and did not, for example, fail to follow the Commission’s rules 
implementing NEPA, to require the preparation of an EA, to consult with the Fish and Wildlife Service, or to give 
public notice before acting on the license approvals.  Cf. American Bird Conservancy, 516 F.3d at 1032-35.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-105
2
3. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that: (1) the Application for Review of Citizens to 
Preserve the Upper Snohomish River Valley IS DISMISSED, pursuant to 47 C.F.R. § 1.115(c), to the 
extent that it relies on questions of fact or law not previously presented to the Bureau; and (2) the
Application for Review otherwise IS DENIED, pursuant to section 5(c)(5) of the Communications Act of 
1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 155(c)(5), and section 1.115(g) of the Commission’s rules, 47 C.F.R. § 
1.115(g).
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Marlene H. Dortch
Secretary