With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". of the Commissioner's decision offers extensive reasoning as to why CVMC’s CON application does not demonstrate that the proposed service is needed within the meaning of Reg. H-99-3 § 6(A)(4). For instance, immediately following the “absolutely necessary” language, the decision lists nine examples that demonstrate the Hospital’s infrastructure is operating well. Taken in its entirety, the Commissioner’s decision highlights significant evidence that many of the project’s infrastructure enhancements are not needed, despite the age of the facility. It is within the Commissioner’s discretion to determine how she should interpret “need,” absent any express direction by the Legislature or any compelling indication of error. Cf. In re AssureCare of Vt., Inc., 165 Vt. at 539, 686 A.2d at 962 (<HOLDING>). ¶ 12. CVMC’s use of prior CON application

A: holding that a party who had demonstrated an injury sufficient to confer standing to appeal from an agency decision could raise  any relevant question of law in respect of the order of the agency
B: holding that when congress has implicitly delegated legislative authority to an agency a court may not substitute its own construction of a statutory provision for a reasonable interpretation made by the administrator of an agency
C: holding that agency did not create new criterion but within its statutory authority merely explained existing criterion where agency rejected con based on applicants lack of demonstrated ability to operate statewide hmo
D: holding court of common pleas lacked subject matter jurisdiction to grant injunction against agency with statewide authority
C.