*[FOUNDATION COAL WEST, INC.]{.underline}*

*Belle Ayr & Eagle Butte Mines*

*P.O. Box 3039*

*Gillette, WY 82717-3039*

July 11, 2008

***[Via Electronic Mail to:]{.underline} <a-and-r-Docket@epa.gov>***

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency

EPA West (Air Docket)

Room 3334

1301 Constitution Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 2004

RE: Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0260: Standards of Performance for
Coal Preparation Plants

Dear Sir or Madam:

Foundation Coal West, Inc. (FCW) appreciates the opportunity to offer
the following comments regarding EPA's proposed rulemaking to amend
certain aspects of the rules found under 40CFR60, Subpart Y for coal
preparation plants. FCW operates two large surface coal mines with
attendant preparation facilities in the Powder River Basin (PRB) of
northeast Wyoming. FCW has several significant concerns with the
proposed rule changes and we respectfully request EPA re-consider the
issues described below.

First, we believe EPA's determination of best demonstrated technology
(BDT) is seriously flawed in that it both ignores and effectively
eliminates technologies we have successfully employed at operations in
the PRB. FCW has successfully permitted and operated (in compliance)
passive emission control (PEC), wet scrubbers and fogging devices (which
we, and the State of Wyoming believe to be at least
"baghouse-equivalent"). Not only do these technologies meet or exceed
the definition of state-level Best Available Control Technology (BACT),
they use less energy and are therefore less expensive to operate than
baghouses. Yet, it appears EPA failed to even consider these
technologies as BDT. We believe that omission must be corrected before
these rules can be finalized.

Moreover, if the requirement for enclosures and baghouses stand as
proposed, the use of these much improved technologies would be
precluded. Simply put, we believe EPA failed to carry out its
obligations under Section 111 of the Clean Air Act in not considering
these technologies as meeting BDT at least, because they are regarded as
meeting the even higher standard of BACT here in our State.

Second, FCW strongly disagrees with EPA's interpretation that truck
dumps are affected facilities under the Subpart. Our truck dumps
discharge coal through a grizzly into a hopper, neither of which
constitute "conveying equipment". We do not believe a piece of equipment
should be considered an affected facility simply because conveying may
take place further in the process.

This issue is critically important to FCW because we do not believe our
facilities can comply with EPA's proposed five percent (5%) opacity
requirement, notwithstanding the fact that our truck dumps are equipped
with state-of-the-art stilling sheds for dust control. So, we believe
EPA erred in its interpretation of truck dumps as affected facilities
and has imposed an unjustified and unattainable opacity limit. These
failings must be corrected in the final rule.

Finally, FCW believes that EPA failed to meet its obligations under the
Act by using data/information collected for another industry group
(non-metallic mineral processing plants regulated under 40CFR60, Subpart
OOO) in establishing limits for our industry. Moreover, it is apparent
that EPA used the same (yet inappropriate) data to come to very
different conclusions about standards-setting for the two respective
industries. We do not believe that EPA can rationalize different opacity
limits for crushers, opacity limits of other facilities, outlet grain
loading limits and differences in affected facilities using the same
data base. Where is the demonstration with supporting facts that EPA
used to justify more stringent limits for Subpart Y facilities? We
believe that Section 111 of the Act obligates EPA to make its
determinations based on sound information that is directly relevant to
the industry being affected. By using what are obviously flawed and
non-representative data from the non-metallic minerals industry, EPA has
not met its obligations under the Act, to the serious detriment of the
coal industry. We respectfully request that EPA remedy these
deficiencies before finalizing these rules. Additionally, the EPA should
consider changing the effective date of any ruling to the date of final
adoption of rules. Under the current scenario with a retroactive ruling
it jeopardizes and stymies any work that was in progress at of the time
of the proposed ruling as well as work planned in the near future.

FCW appreciates the opportunity to comment on this proposal and looks
forward to EPA addressing our concerns.

Sincerely,

William L. Boger

William L.Boger

Environmental Manager