DEAR EDITOR:

Many of those who support the “Don’t Tread on Me” doctrine, especially those in the business sector, are celebrating the Supreme Court’s decision striking down the Chevron Doctrine.

The doctrine was a ruling that gave power to many regulatory agencies when interpreting set statutes, how EPA, OSHA or FCC applied their rules and regulations, and more importantly how compliance was met.

When some of those mandates were somewhat ambiguous, the courts referred to the agencies themselves for interpretation.

Based on the court’s ruling, the agency’s experts have been removed for such interpretations. Now the power to interpret has been handed over to judges, lobbyists and consultants.

As one of those consultants, you would think that I also support and cheer the ruling, but not so quickly.

I have often referred to the many standard interpretations for clarity and how they are applied, and have used those agency interpretations to explain the application, and more so what needs to be done to ensure compliance and meet the intent.

Now, with the ruling, those interpretations are going to be handed over to judges and lobbyists who may have very little knowledge of the statute, its intent, its reasoning and other reasoning behind their “interpretation.”

To better explain the impact of this ruling, allow me to reflect on when many suggested that the change in our health care system — the introduction to the Affordable Care Act — was going to establish a board that would determine whether one can receive medical care. Remember the cry of the “Death Panel.”

The argument was the government or other appointed individuals, not having any medical or reproductive education, would be in charge of making determinations as to how and when one would need or obtain medical treatment and care. By the way, it never happened.

Well, with the court’s ruling, we now can expect such a board, only this time the board will consist of appointed judges, lobbyists and others who now can challenge the many statutes out there that ensure clean air, clean water and a safe and healthy working environment.

I personally, during my 45-plus years in the field of occupational safety and health, have relied on the agencies’ interpretations and directives. They have been thought out, provide detailed explanations and guidance when it comes to compliance and have proven to be both useful in application and delineation when challenged.

With the court ruling removing any regulatory agency power to explain, I fear we are going to see a lot of confusion; each state will have a different opinion on how a mandate is set and needs to be followed. What ABC Company does in Ohio may not be what they need to do in Pennsylvania.

JOHN R. LESEGANICH SR.

Canfield