APPENDIX TO AMICUS CURIAEBRIEF TABLE OF CONTENTS N.H. Admin. Rule 203.27 1 RSA541-A:33 2 RSA541:13 3 Report ofthe Science, Technology & Energy Committee 4 2A Sutherland Statutory Construction § 46:6 ed.) 8 (7th 2A Sutherland Statutory Construction § 45:2 (7th ed.) 36 2A Sutherland Statutory Construction § 47:23 (7th ed.) 54 2A Sutherland Statutory Construction § 46:5 (7t1~ ed.) 82 Rangolan v. County ofNassau, 96 N.Y.2d 42, 725 N.Y.S.2d 611, 749N.E.2d 178 (2001) 131 -2- NEW HAMPSHIRE CODE OF ADMINISTRATIVE RULES Puc 203.25 Burden and Standard ofProof. Unless otherwise specified by law, the party seeking relief through a petition, application, motion or complaint shall bear the burden ofproving the truth ofany factual proposition by a preponderance ofthe evidence. Source. #8657-A, eff6-10-06 Puc 203.26 Order of Procedure. In hearings on petitions, the petitioner shall have the opportunity to open and close any part ofthe presentation. Source. #8657-A, eff6-10-06 Puc 203.27 Administrative Notice. (a) The commission shall take administrative notice when a party presents one or more of the following: (1) Any fact which could bejudicially noticed in the courts ofNew Hampshire; (2) The relevant portion ofthe record ofother proceedings before the commission; (3) Generally recognized technical or scientific facts within the commission’s specialized knowledge; and (4) Codes or standards that have been adopted by an agency of the United States, of New l-Iampshire or ofanotherstate, or by a nationally recognized organization or association. (b) The commission shall notif~v parties either before or during the hearing or by reference in preliminary reports or otherwise ofthe material noticed. (c) The commission shall afford parties an opportunity to contest the material so noticed. Source. #8657-A, eff6-10-06 Puc 203.28 Views and Inspections. The commission shall take a view or conduct an inspection ofany property which is the subject ofa hearing before the commission ifrequested by a party, or on its own motion, ifthe commission shall have determined that the view or inspection will assist the commission in reaching a determination in the hearing. Source. #8657-A, eff6-10-06 Puc 203.29 Recess and Adjournment. The commission shall recess, adjourn or continue any hearing ifto do so will promote the orderly and efficient conduct ofthe proceeding. Source. #8657-A, eff6-10-06 Puc 203.30 Reopening the Record. (a) The commission shall, on its own motion or at the request ofa party, authorize filing ofexhibits after the close ofa hearing ifthe commission finds that late submission ofadditional evidence will enhance its ability to resolve the matter in dispute. (b) Any party requesting authorization to file an exhibit after the close of a hearing shall make its request: (1) Orally before the close ofthe hearing; or (2) Ifthe hearing has concluded, by motion, pursuant to Puc 203.06. 23 Puc 200 1 Section 541-A:33 Evidence; Official Notice in Contested Cases. Page 1 of I TITLE LV PROCEEDINGS IN SPECIAL CASES CHAPTER 541-A ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT Section 541-A:33 541-A:33 Evidence; Official Notice in Contested Cases. — I. All testimony ofparties and witnesses shall be made under oath or affirmation administered by the presiding officer. II. The rules ofevidence shall not apply in adjudicative proceedings. Any oral or documentary evidence may be received; but the presiding officer may exclude irrelevant, immaterial or unduly repetitious evidence. Agencies shall give effect to the rules ofprivilege recognized by law. Objections to evidence offered may be made and shall be noted in the record. Subject to the foregoing requirements, any part ofthe evidence may be received in written form ifthe interests ofthe parties will not thereby be prejudiced substantially. III. Documentary evidence may be received in the form ofcopies or excerpts ifthe original is not readily available. Upon request, parties shall be given an opportunity to compare the copy with the original. IV. A party may conduct cross-examinations required for a full and true disclosure ofthe facts. V. Official notice may be taken ofany one or more ofthe following: (a) Any fact which could bejudicially noticed in the courts ofthis state. (b) The record ofother proceedings before the agency. (c) Generally recognized technical or scientific facts within the agency’s specialized knowledge. (d) Codes or standards that have been adopted by an agency ofthe United States, ofthis state or of another state, or by a nationally recognized organization or association. VI. Parties shall be notified either before or during the hearing or by reference in preliminary reports or otherwise ofthe material noticed, including any staffmemoranda or data, and they shall be afforded an opportunity to contest the material so noticed. The agency’s experience, technical competence, and specialized knowledge may be utilized in the evaluation ofthe evidence. Source. 1994, 412:1, eff. Aug. 9, 1994. 2 http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/LV/54I-A/541-A-33.htm 10/14/2009 Section 541:13 Burden ofProof. Page 1 ofl TITLE LV PROCEEDINGS IN SPECIAL CASES CHAPTER 541 REHEARINGS AND APPEALS IN CERTAIN CASES Section 541:13 541:13 Burden ofProof. Upon the hearing the burden ofproofshall be upon the party seeking to — set aside any order or decision ofthe commission to show that the same is clearly unreasonable or unlawful, and all findings ofthe commission upon all questions offact properly before it shall be deemed to be prima facie lawful and reasonable; and the order or decision appealed from shall not be set aside or vacated except for errors oflaw, unless the court is satisfied, by a clear preponderance ofthe evidence before it, that such order is unjust or unreasonable. Source. 1913, 145:18.PL239:11. 1937, 107:24; 133:85.RL414:13. 3 http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/htmI/LV/541/541-13.htm 10/14/2009 COMMITTEE REPORT COMMITTEE: SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGy AND ENERGY BILL NUMBER: SB 106—EN TITLE: relative to competition among telecommw-ljcatjons providers. DATE: April 13, 1995 CONSENT CALENDAR YES NO X * OUGHT TO PASS OUGHT TO PASS WITH AMENDMENT INEXPEDIENT TO LEGISLATE RE—REFER REFER TO COMMITTEE FOR INTERIM STUDY (AVAILABLE ONLY IN SECOND YEAR OF BIENNIUM) STATEMENT OF INTENT (Include Committee Vote) This bill allows increased competition for local telecommunications services. New Hampshire will be better positioned to move for-ward with the national trend toward additional competition in the telecomn]urijcations industry. The Public Utilities Commission will still have to find each proposed change to have public benefit. All affected telecommunications providers supported this bill. Vote 14—0. Reps. Jeffrey C. MacGillivray and Jeb E. Bradley FOR THE COMMITTEE Original: House Clerk cc: Committee Bill file USE ANOTHER REPORT FOR MINORITY REPORT 4-.- SCIENCE, TECRNOLOGY AND ENERGY SB 106—FN, relative to competition among telecommunications providers. OUGHT TO PASS This bill allows increased competition for local telecommunications services. New Hampshire will be better positioned to move forward with the national trend toward additional competition in the telecommunications industry. The Public Utilities Commission will still have to find each proposed change to have public benefit. All affected telecommunications providers supported this bill. Vote 14—0. Reps. Jeffrey C. MacCillivray and Jeb E. Bradley FOR THE COMMITTEE 5 fl~ L p d~ .n~., >~—~ ~ \- - ON _) Y___ -. — ~- ~- __ 2~\— :~ff S çJ\ (t) CC2INITTEE REPORT COMMITTEE: SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGy AND ENERGY / BILL NUMBER: ~5 0 (Z0~~~L TITLE: ~ ~ DATE: CONSENT CALENDAR YES NO _~L OUGHT TO PASS OUGHT TO PASS WITH AMENL~1ENT INEXPEDIENT TO LEGISLATE RE—REFER REFER TO COMMITTEE FOR INTERIM STUDY (AVAILABLE ONLY IN SECOND YEAR OF BIENNIUM) STATEMENT OF INTENT (Include Co~ioittee Vote) Vote Rep. FOR THE Original: Houae Clerk cc: Committee Bill file USE ANOTHER REPORT FOR MINORITY REPORT 7 WestLaw. SUTHERLAND § 46:6 Page 1 2A Sutherland StatutoryConstruction § 46:6 (7th ed.) Sutherland Statutes and Statutory Construction Database updated September2009 NormanJ. Singer and J.D. Shambie Singer Part V. StatutoryInterpretation Subpart A. Principles and Policies Chapter 46. Literal Interpretation § 46:6. Each word given effect “It is an elementary rule ofconstruction that effect must be given, ifpossible, to every word, clause and sen tence ofa statute.”[l] A statute should be construed so that effect is given to all its provisions,[l.5] so that no part will be inoperative or superfluous,[2] void or insignificant,[3] and so that one section will not destroy anotherunless the provision is the result ofobvious mistake or error.[4] No clause, sentence or word shall be construed as superflu ous, void or insignificant ifa construction can be found which will give force to and preserve all the words ofthe statute.[5] While every word ofa statute must be presumed to have been used for a purpose, it is also the case that every word excluded from a statute must be presumed to have been excluded for a purpose.[6] But it has been said that words and clauses which arepresent in a statute only through inadvertence canbe disregarded ifthey are repug nant to what is found, on the basis ofother indicia, to be the legislative intent.[7] The same words used twice in the same act are presumed to have the same meaning.[8] Likewise, courts do not construe different terms within a stat ute to embody the same meaning.[8.5] However, it is possible to interpret an imprecise term differently in two sepa rate sections ofa statute which have differentpurposes.[9] Yet when the legislature uses certainlanguage in one part of the statute and different language in another, the court assumes different meanings were intended.[10] In like manner, where the legislature has employed a term in one place and excluded it in another, it should not be implied where excluded.[11] The use of different terms within similar statutes generally implies that different meanings were intended.[12] FFN1] United States. Plaut v. Spendthrift Farm, Inc., 514 U.S. 211, 115 5. Ct. 1447, 131 L. Ed. 2d 328. Fed. Sec. L. Rep. (CCH) P 98,681 (1995); United States v. Menasche, 348 U.S. 528, 75 5. Ct. 513, 99 L. Ed. 615 (1955); Helton v. Fauver, 930 F.2d 1040 (3d Cir. 1991); U.S. Army Engineer Center v. Federal Labor Relations Authority, 762 F.2d 409. 119 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2854 (4th Cir. 1985); Arredondo v. U.S., 120 F.3d 639, 1997 FED App. 0239P (6th Cir. 1997)); Lyons v. Ohio Adult Parole Authority, 105 F.3d 1063, 1997 FED App. 0025P (6th Cir. 1997) and (implied overruling on other grounds recognized by,Lake Cumberland Trust, Inc. v. U.S. E.P.A., 954 F.2d 1218, 22 Envtl. L. Rep. 20558 (6th Cir. l99~, opinion modified on reh’g, (Apr. 10, 1992); Director, Office ofWorkers’ Compensation Programs, U.S. Dept. ofLaborv. Goudy, 777 F.2d 1122 (6th Cir. 1985); U.S. v. Talley, 16 F.3d 972 (8th Cir. 1994); Northwest Forest Resource Council v. Glick man, 82 F.3d 825, 34 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 1243, 26 Envtl. L. Rep. 20983 (9th Cir. 1996), as amended on denial of reh’g, (May 30, 1996); Spiegel v. Ryan, 946 F.2d 1435 (9th Cir. 1991); Boise Cascade Corp. v. U.S. 8 © 2009 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. SUTHERLAND § 46:6 Page 2 2A Sutherland Statutory Construction § 46:6 (7th ed.) ~,f~.942 F.2d1427,33Env’t Rep. Cas. (BNAU693, 22 Envtl. L.Rep. 20007 (9thCir. 1991); ~pb~y. ~ [a] legislature is presumed to have used no superfluous words”); (“.. American Stores Co. v. American Stores Co. Retirement Plan, 928 F.2d 986, 13 Employee Benefits Gas. ~iA)j8.09(lOth Cir. 1991); Abourezk v. Reagan, 785 F.2d 1043 (DC. Cir. 1986) and judgment affd, 484 U.S. 1, iO8S. Ct. 252, 98 L. Ed. 2d 1 (1987); Central & Southern Mg~orTre~ght,TariffAss’n v.U.S., 757F.2d 301 (D.C. Cir. 1985); ~ Ass’n ofRecycling Industries, Inc. v.1. C. C., 660 ~ 212 ~~ir,j9~5jj; In re Permanent S~r~ceM~n. Regulation Litigation, 653 F.2d 514, 15 Env’t. Rep. Gas. (~]~ 1802, 11 Envtl. L.Rep. 20941 (D.C. Cir. 1~8fl; Texas State Com’n for the Blind v. U.S., 796 F.2d 4~0.(Fed,çjr, 1986; Masayesy~ for and on ~ehalf ofHopi Indian Tribe v. Zah, 792 F. S4pp. 1172 (P. A~j9~); In re Roxford Foods Litigation, 790 F. Supp. 987 (E.D.Cal. 199U; Rincon Band ofMission i~iausy,~anDiggQ County, 324 F. Supp. 371 (S.D. CaL 1971), judgment rev’d on other grounds, 495 F.2d 1 (9th Cir. 1974); Gary v. ~J.S., 7Q8 F. Supp. 1188, 89-i U.S. Tax Gas. (CCHLP 9269, 71A A~F.T.R.2d 93-5115 ~D. Cob. 1989); Arvin-Edison Water Storage Dist. v. Hodel, 610 F. Supp. 1206 fD,D.C. 19_~); Miller v. Callahan, 964 F. Supp. 939, 53 Soc. Sec. Rep. Serv. 563, Unempi. Ins. Re. LccI4)P15’7~5785B (D.Mcl. 1997); Thypnt v. BetterBusiness Bureau ofGreaterMaryland. Inc., 923 F. Supp. 720, 15A.D.D. 798, 5 A.D. Gas. (BNA) 625, 70 Fair ~mpl. ~rac. Cap. WNAJ 820 (D.Md. 1996); Allende y,Siiltz~05 F. Supp. 1220 (D. Mass. 1.985); Matter ofBell, 215 B.R. 266 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. 1997); Inre Pp~~pmin Corp., 215 B.R. 346, 31 Ban1~. Ct. Dec. (CRR) 954, 32 Collier Bankr. Cas. 2d (MB) 151 f~~i~cr,.7ED~. lviicIi h199.7 opinion supplemented, 215 B.R. 526, 31 Bankr. Ct. Dec. (CRR) 1144 (Bankr. , ~jcli~j997~; Hewlett-PackardCo. v. U.S.,41 FecL Cl. 99, 42Cont. Cas. Fed. (CCH) P77318 (1998). Wherever reasonable, the court will adopt the construction which gives effect to all provisions ofthe stat ute. Ferrara & DiMercurio, Inc. v. St. Paul Mercury Ins. Co., 169 ~,3d43, 2001 A.M.G. 1320 (1st Cir. 1999); State of Ala. ex rd. Baxley v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 467 F. Supp. 791 (N.D. Ala. j_979), judgment rev’d on other grounds, 636 F.2d 1061 (5th Gir. )95jJ; Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and ci~pp~~j~sv. J.S. Atty. for WesternDist. ofMich., 46 F. Sup~.2d 689, 51 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. l4J9 LW,P,_Mic1j992)~ Meirose Associates, L.P. v. U.S., 43 Fed. Cl. l24J1999), opinion supplemented on other grounds, 45 Fed. Cl. 56 (1999), affd, 4 Fed. Appx. 936 (Fed. Gir. 2001) and affd, 4Ec .Apx. 936 ~gjr,~O~jj; Abramsonv. U.S.,42 Fed. Cl, 621, 6 Wage & HourCas. 2d (BNA~ 8Q1 (1998). The text of the Bevill Amendment juxtaposes the terms “detennination” and “regulation” signifying that the two terms were intended to have distinct meanings; American Portland Cement Alliance v. E.P.A., 101 F.3d 772, 43 Env’t. Rep. Gas. (BNA) 1705, 27 Envtl. L. ~p. 20535 (D.C. Cir. 1996). Rosenberg v. XM Ventures, 274 F.3d 137, Fed. Sec. L. Rep. (GCH) P 91641 (3d Gir. 2QQJ); jc~o~gp, 259 F.3d 323, 38 l3ankr. Ct. Dec. (CRR~ 43, 2001-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (GCH)P 50527, 88 A.F.T.R.2d 2001- ~2f511Lc~199i. ~ 230 (1 ankr. Mass. 1999); lioshone Indian Tribe ofWind River Reservation, . Wyprninv.U.S., 51 Fed. Cl. 60, 163 O.G.R. 241 (2001), affd, 364 F.3d 1339, 163 O.G.R. 259 (Fed. Gir. ~4), cert. denied, 544 U.S. 973, 125 S. Ct. 1824, 161 L. Ed. 2d 723 (2005) and cert. denied, 544U~. 973,125 5. Ct. 1826, 161 L. Ed. 2d 723 (2Q05); Chancy v. U.S., 45 Fed. Cl. 309, 84 A.F.T.R.2d 99-7137 ft9_99); ~llg9linan v. Gutieffez, 2000 Guam 11, 2000 WL263216 (Guam 2000), decision affd, 276 F.3d 539 (9th Cir. 2002). U.S. Lillybla~, 56 M.J. 636 (N.M.G.C.A. 2001) ~i. A~oy~iQx,~shc~oft, 344 F.3d lust Gir. 2003); Shoshone Indian Tribe ofWind River Reservation v. U.S., ~i.~j339,i63O.G.R. 259 (Fed. Gir. 2004), cert. denied, 544 U.S. 973, 1255.Ct. 1824, 161 L. Ed. 2d ij7~0~) and cert. denied, 544 U.S. 973, 125 S. Ct. 1826, 161 L. Ed. 2d 723 (~QQ.5); Hamilton v. Werner c~~pp~2c’ 1085 (S.D. Iowa 2Q03); Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians v. 9 © 2009 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.