***FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI`I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER***



CONCURRING OPINION BY ACOBA, J.

I concur in the result but on the ground that Hawai`i Revised Statutes (HRS) § 91-7 (1993) on its face is specific and thus plainly and unambiguously controls as to Plaintiff-Appellant Hawaii Home Infusion Associates' particular "petition" for declaratory review of an agency rule. See Richardson v. City and County of Honolulu, 76 Hawai`i 46, 55, 868 P.2d 1193, 1202 (1994) (stating that, "'where there is a 'plainly irreconcilable' conflict between a general and a specific statute concerning the same subject matter, the specific will be favored'" (quoting Mahiai v. Suwa, 69 Haw. 349, 356-57, 742 P.2d 359, 366 (1987) (citations omitted)). Because HRS § 91-7 is the applicable statute, "may" must be construed as compulsory, i.e., allowing a judicial declaration upon the filing of a petition in the circuit court of the affected county, rather than as indicating an alternative basis for jurisdiction. See Kepoo v. Kane, 106 Hawai`i 270, 288 n.30, 103 P.3d 939, 957 n.30 (2005) (stating that "'[m]ay' is also defined as 'shall, must -- used especially in deeds, contracts, and statutes'" (brackets and citation omitted)); cf. Lingle v. Hawai`i Gov't Employees Ass'n, AFSCME, Local 152, 107 Hawai`i 178, 187 & n.1, 111 P.3d 587, 596 & n.1 (2005) (Acoba, J., concurring) (stating that HRS § 91-8 (1993), which provides that "'[a]ny interested person may petition an agency for a declaratory order as to the applicability of any statutory provision or of any rule or order of the agency[,]'" must be construed as "authoriz[ing] interested persons to petition agencies for declaratory rulings" (emphases added)).