Reg. H-99-3 § 6(A)(4). ¶ 11. CVMC’s argument that the Commissioner has improperly applied an “absolute need” standard relies on a single sentence of a twenty-two page decision. M ions to demonstrate that the Commissioner created a new standard is also not persuasive. Indeed, the CON statute suggests that a degree of flexibility should be allowed from one CON application to another: “[ejriteria applied to a particular review may vary according to the purpose for which that particular review is being conducted or the type of health facility or service which is being reviewed.” 18 V.S.A § 9436(b). So long as the Commissioner’s interpretation is not arbitrary or capricious, we will allow it to stand. See Lilly v. Vt. Headmasters Ass’n, 160 Vt. 603, 605, 648 A.2d 810, 812 (1993) (mem.) (<HOLDING>). ¶ 13. Moreover, the previous CON application
holding that even where rule in question admits of two interpreta tions agency is entitled to interpret its rule as it sees fit holding that case law interpreting rule 11 may be use to interpret rule 9011 recognizing rule holding that a testator is generally entitled to place such conditions and limitations on a bequest as she sees fit holding that as a general rule the prosecution is entitled to prove its case by evidence of its own choice