Federal Communications Commission                     DA 11-452
1
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of
State of Indiana
and
Sprint Nextel Corporation
Mediation No. TAM-12005
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
WT Docket No. 02-55
ORDER
Adopted:  March 10, 2011 Released:  March 10, 2011
By the Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau:
I. INTRODUCTION
1. On February 22, 2011, the State of Indiana (Indiana) filed a motion to stay the effect 
of the Public Safety and Homeland Security’s (Bureau) Memorandum Opinion and Order which 
resolved a dispute between Indiana (Indiana) and Sprint Nextel Corporation (Sprint).1 The 
dispute involved a Change Notice request submitted by Indiana, and was resolved in Sprint’s 
favor.2 Following release of the Bureau’s decision, Indiana filed a timely Petition for 
Reconsideration (Petition).3 In a separate and contemporaneous pleading, Indiana filed the 
instant motion requesting a stay of the Bureau’s decision pending disposition of Indiana’s 
Petition.4 For the reasons discussed below, we deny Indiana’s motion for failure to meet 
established Commission criteria for issuance of a stay.5  
II. BACKGROUND
2. The sole reason advanced by Indiana in support of its stay motion is “[t]o allow the 
State and Nextel to avoid needless further negotiation that relies on those issues under 
  
1 State of Indiana, WT Docket 02-55, Memorandum Opinion and Order, DA 11-191 (PSHSB Feb. 2, 2011) 
(MO&O).
2 Id.
3 Petition for Reconsideration filed by the State of Indiana at 1 (received Feb. 22, 2011).
4 Motion for Stay filed by the State of Indiana (received Feb. 22, 2011).
5 We will address Indiana’s Petition in a separate order.
Federal Communications Commission                     DA 11-452
2
reconsideration and since the parties cannot enter into a final amendment to the subject 
Frequency Reconfiguration Agreement until a decision on the State’s petition is rendered […]”6
III. DISCUSSION
3. To qualify for the extraordinary remedy of a stay, Indiana has the burden of 
demonstrating: (i) it is likely to prevail on the merits; (ii) it will suffer irreparable harm, absent a 
stay; (iii) other interested parties will not be harmed if the stay is granted; and (iv) the public 
interest favors a grant of the stay.7 Indiana has not addressed these criteria, much less satisfied 
them.8  
IV. DECISION
4. Indiana has failed to meet the fundamental pleading requirements for obtaining a 
stay.9 Accordingly, we are denying its motion.  
V.  ORDERING CLAUSE
5. Accordingly, pursuant to the authority of Sections 0.191, 0.392, 1.43 and 1.298(a) of 
the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.191, 0.392, 1.43 and 1.298(a); Section 4(i) of the 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 154(i) IT IS ORDERED that the Motion 
for Stay filed by the State of Indiana IS DENIED.
6. This action is taken under delegated authority pursuant to Sections 0.191 and 0.392 
of the Commission’s rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.191, 0.392.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Michael J. Wilhelm
Deputy Chief - Policy Division
Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau
  
6 Motion at 1.
7 See, e.g., Cincinnati Bell Telephone Company, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 8 FCC Rcd 6709 (1993), citing
Virginia Petroleum Jobbers Association v. Federal Power Commission, 259 F. 2d 921 (D.C. 1958); modified by
Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Commission v. Holiday Tours, Inc., 559 F.2d 841, 843 (D.C. Cir. 1977).
8 See Phone Depots Inc. d/b/a Mobilefone Radio System, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 91 FCC 2d 1244, ¶6 
(1982) (stay motion summarily denied because movant’s “request failed to discuss and does not satisfy the criteria 
for a stay”).
9 Id.