Document vBdL6o57LmY9MRRKd2y4vRn9R

March 26, 2018 The Honorable Scott Pruitt Administrator Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. Washington, D.C. 20460 Dear Administrator Pruitt, A *SA !N S PO PROSPERITY In 2013, organizations from Coast to Coast cAIcA olMEA Administrator Gina McCarthy to reject an unprecedented decision on Pebble and warned a preemptive veto, "would have a dramatic chilling effect on investment in America." Unfortunately, diis call went unheeded as the Obam a EP A promulgated the `Proposed Determination. ' This action was essentially a preemptive veto on the development o f a copper mine in Southwest Alaska (AKA Pebble Mine) before the project had the chance to go through the permitting process. The veto was based on incomplete, shoddy analysis and agency collusion with liberal environmental activists and other project opponents. * * * %X n/ru NMi&mi Txpms Unan This action undertaken by the Obam a E P A killed the opportunity for thousands o f well-paying, private sector jobs, many o f which would be held by native Alaskans, in an economic sector and region starved for gainful employment to sustain families. The pre-permit project veto by the previous Administration (and post permit veto in the case o f the Spruce Mine) sent a chilling message to the international investment community that banana republics have a more reliable and rational permitting process than the largest economy in the world. COMPETITIVE INTER PRISE INSTITUTE One does not have to be a mining proponent to oppose the unprecedented action taken by the Obam a ET A with their preemptive veto o f the Pebble Aline-- before it even submitted a permit application. The harmful effects o f continuing with E P A 's veto process go well beyond the mining industry. The need to secure 404 permits touches every state and all areas o f our economy. The conduct o f ET A over the last forty years confirms that its issuance o f a preemptive veto in this particular case was unprecedented. E P A has only exercised its authority under Section 404(c) thirteen times. In each previous instance, ETA invoked Section 404(c) only after receipt o f a permit THE application describing the scope and details o f the project proposed, the Am e r ic a n anticipated environmental impact, and the techniques employed to mitigate, 5" A1IVE which is normal for all applicants under the well-established N E T A process. Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA Tier 5 ED 002061 00073024-00001 The Honorable Scott Pruitt 404c Preemptive Veto Letter Page 2 The permit process should not be a popularity contest determined by liberal environmental groups. We cannot change the past, but we can change the future. Y ou have the ability to right the wrongs o f the past and close the book on the use o f a preemptive 404(c) veto. We are disappointed with your action to suspend the withdrawal o f the Obam a Administration's `Proposed Determination' against mining in Southwest Alaska and urge you to move forward with overturning the " veto" as soon as possible. This action would be important step in returning fair and due process to the EPA. Rescinding the preemptive " 404(c) veto" will signal to the rest o f the world that the United States will re-institutionalize a traditional, rational permitting process-- a basis businesses use to make sound investment decisions based on acumen-- that would enhance the overall economic growth in the United States. We appreciate your leadership on reducing the burdensome EPA regulations implemented by the Obam a EP A , and we look forward to your action on this issue as well. Sincerely, Myron Ebell Director, Center for Energy & the Environment Competitive Enterprise Institute Brent Gardner Chief Government Affairs Officer Americans for Prosperity Grover Norquist President Americans for Tax Reform Pete Sepp President National Taxpayers Union Daniel Schneider Executive Director American Conservative Union Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA Tier 5 ED 002061 00073024-00002