******************************************************** 
                      NOTICE
********************************************************

This document was converted from Microsoft Word.

Content from the original version of the document such as
headers, footers, footnotes, endnotes, graphics, and page numbers
will not show up in this text version.

All text attributes such as bold, italic, underlining, etc. from the
original document will not show up in this text version.

Features of the original document layout such as
columns, tables, line and letter spacing, pagination, and margins
will not be preserved in the text version.

If you need the complete document, download the
Microsoft Word or Adobe Acrobat version.

*****************************************************************



                                   Before the

                       Federal Communications Commission

                             Washington, D.C. 20554

   )

   In the Matter of )

   )

   Kimberly Clark Corporation ) File No. EB-06-SE-340

   )

   )

   )

                                     ORDER

   Adopted: February 21, 2007  Released: February 23, 2007

   By the Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division, Enforcement Bureau:

   I. INTRODUCTION

    1. In this Order, we deny in its entirety a request for confidential
       treatment of material submitted by Kimberly Clark Corporation
       ("Kimberly Clark") in response to a letter of inquiry ("LOI") from the
       Spectrum Enforcement Division of the Enforcement Bureau.

   II. BACKGROUND

    2. On November 2, 2006, the Spectrum Enforcement Division of the
       Enforcement Bureau sent Kimberly Clark an LOI  seeking information and
       documents concerning the company's operation of a Private Land Mobile
       Radio Service station, call sign WPKW900, after expiration of its
       authorization for the station. Kimberly Clark submitted a response to
       the LOI on December 18, 2006, which included a Request for
       Confidentiality seeking "confidential treatment of this Response."
       According to Kimberly Clark, the LOI response "contains confidential
       commercial information concerning how Kimberly Clark manages its
       Federal Communications Commission licenses and factual information
       about internal operations that could result in substantial competitive
       harm" if such information is made publicly available.

   III. DISCUSSION

    3. Section 0.459 of the Commission's Rules ("Rules") establishes a
       procedure by which parties may request that information or materials
       that they have submitted to the Commission not be routinely available
       for public inspection. The rule requires that each such request shall
       contain a statement of the reasons for withholding the materials from
       inspection as described in Section 0.457 of the Rules, and of the
       facts upon which those records are based, including in part (1)
       identification of the specific information for which confidential
       treatment is requested, (2) an explanation of the degree to which the
       information is commercial or financial, or contains a trade secret or
       is privileged, (3) an explanation of the degree to which the
       information concerns a service that is subject to competition, (4) an
       explanation of how disclosure of the information could result in
       substantial competitive harm, and (5) justification of the time period
       during which the submitting party asserts that material should not be
       available for public disclosure.

    4. We conclude that Kimberly Clark's request for confidential treatment
       of its response to the LOI fails to comply with the standards set
       forth in Section 0.459 of the Rules. Kimberly Clark did not identify
       the specific information for which confidential treatment is sought.
       Rather, it simply requested "confidential treatment of this Response."
       Kimberly Clark also did not provide an analysis of the degree to which
       any information in its response is commercial or financial. Moreover,
       Kimberly Clark provided no discussion of the degree to which
       information pertaining to its internal operations could result in
       substantial competitive injury if disclosed. Further, Kimberly Clark
       did not identify, or justify, a time period during which the
       information in its response should not be disclosed.

    5. In addition, we find that Kimberly Clark's confidentiality request is
       overbroad. In this regard, Kimberly Clark's response includes
       information that is clearly not commercial, financial or trade secret
       information. For example, Kimberly Clark's response references and
       discusses a Special Temporary Authority ("STA") and waiver request
       filed with the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau. We note, however,
       that this STA and waiver request is publicly available on the Wireless
       Telecommunications Bureau's internet site.

    6. Section 0.459(c) of the Rules states that casual requests for
       confidentiality that do not comply with Sections 0.459(a) and (b) of
       the Rules will not be considered. The LOI issued to Kimberly Clark by
       the Spectrum Enforcement Division explicitly warned Kimberly Clark
       that any requests to treat materials responsive to the LOI as
       confidential must comply with Section 0.459, including the standards
       of specificity mandated by Section 0.459(b). As discussed above,
       Kimberly Clark made a blanket request for confidentiality of all the
       information it provided. We conclude that Kimberly Clark failed to
       demonstrate that its LOI response warrants confidential treatment and,
       therefore, deny its request.

   IV. ORDERING CLAUSES

    7. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 0.111, 0.311, and
       0.459(c) of the Rules, that the Request for Confidentiality filed on
       December 18, 2006 by Kimberly Clark IS DENIED.

    8. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 0.459(g) of the Rules,
       that Kimberly Clark may file an application for review of this denial
       with the Commission within five (5) working days of the release date
       of this Order.

   9. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be sent via
   facsimile, first class mail and certified mail, return receipt requested,
   to Michelle W. Cohen, Esq., counsel for Kimberly Clark Corporation,
   Thompson Hine LLP, 1920 N Street N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036.

   FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

   Kathryn S. Berthot

   Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division

   Enforcement Bureau

   See Letter from Kathryn S. Berthot, Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division,
   Enforcement Bureau, to Terence N. Assink, Vice President, Management
   Information Systems, Kimberly Clark Corporation (November 2, 2006)
   ("LOI").

   See Letter from Michelle W. Cohen, Esq., counsel for Kimberly Clark, to
   Karen Mercer, Spectrum Enforcement Division, Enforcement Bureau (December
   18, 2006) ("Response").

   47 C.F.R. S 0.459.

   47 C.F.R. S 0.457.

   47 C.F.R. S 0.459.

   LOI at 2.

   47 C.F.R. S S 0.111, 0.311 and 0.459(c).

   Federal Communications Commission DA 07-787

   3

   Federal Communications Commission DA 07-787