the merits. Qwest Opening Br. at 29-30. In Qwest’s view, it “met all preexisting standards for forbearance,” and the Commission denied its petition, not because it failed to meet those standards, but because the Commission “wished to suspend judgment on whether those standards are in fact the right ones.” Id. at 28. Qwest argues that “the legal consequence of such bureaucratic indecision is to ‘deem[]’ the petition ‘granted’ by operation of law.” Id. at 29 (quoting 47 U.S.C. § 160(c)). The Commission counters that Qwest is improperly attempting to reverse the burden of proof in forbearance proceedings. See Aplee. Br. at 28-29. In the Commission’s view, section . § 1101(a)(42); Panhandle Producers & Royalty Owners Ass’n v. Econ. Regulatory Admin., 847 F.2d 1168, 1175-76 (5th Cir.1988) (<HOLDING>). Even so, a plain reading of section 10 makes
holding that an agencys policy shift reallocating the burden of proof from natural gas importers to parties opposing importation was based on a reasonable interpretation of the natural gas act holding plaintiffs were properly enjoined from using excessive amounts of gas not contemplated by the free gas clause in the lease recognizing the need for natural gas supply as a substantial public interest holding that injury caused by criminal fleeing after stealing gas from gas station was not foreseeable result of stations policy of not requiring customers to prepay for gas holding that although the ngpa authorizes certain price ceilings for natural gas it is the gas sales contract not federal law that creates the right to receive any price at all