April 22, 2005

Docket ID No. OAR-2004-0237

E-mail: <a-and-r-docket@epa.gov>

Fax: 202-566-1741

Kentucky Farm Bureau Federation

9201 Bunsen Parkway

P.O. Box 20700

Louisville, KY 40250-0700

Dear Sir/Madame:

The following comments are submitted on behalf of the Kentucky Farm
Bureau Federation regarding the Animal Feeding Operations Consent
Agreement and Final Order. The Consent Agreement raises a number of
significant concerns for our Kentucky dairy, poultry, and swine
producers. Kentucky agricultural is very diverse and animal production
operations vary greatly in their size and scope. The proposed Consent
Agreement one size fits all approach is a poor fit for our producers.

Kentucky agriculture has traditionally been based on tobacco production,
but since 1997, due to quota cuts, Kentucky farmers have been
diversifying their operations in order to maintain their family farms.
The 2005 tobacco production season is the first in over 60 years without
a price support system in place. As a result more farmers are opting out
of tobacco production to pursue other on-farm production activities. The
proposed Consent Agreement which would for the first time apply air
emission standards to animal agriculture would greatly discourage our
Kentucky farmers from investing in the dairy, poultry, or swine industry
and increase the chances they will have to find off farm employment or
get out of farming all together.

Kentucky is home to a large number of small and medium-sized dairy,
poultry, and swine operations. The majority are run by independent
family farmers who are not under contract with an integrator. As a
result, building design and feed and waste management systems vary
greatly among these producers. In addition, unlike industry, farmers do
not have the luxury of passing along increased cost of collecting data
or reducing emissions to the consumer.

Kentucky's independent producers were not aware of the ongoing
negotiations between EPA and groups such as the National Pork Producers
Council and the United Egg Board regarding air emissions standards. The
agency's failure to seek or provide adequate opportunity for independent
producers to provide input to EPA has placed them at a significant
disadvantage in the resulting formulation of the Consent Agreement.

The application of air regulations to agriculture and the increased cost
to farmers associated with them, has the potential to further hasten the
demise of the small and medium sized independent producer. These family
farm operations will not be able to bear the cost and regulatory burden
of complying with the proposed monitoring program or the resulting
regulatory requirements that could occur. Driving out independent family
farmers will likely result in either more contract production or a total
shift in production to other countries.

Another concern for Kentucky animal operators is the questions of how
operations with two or more animal species will be addressed under the
Consent Agreement. Many Kentucky farming operations have a combination
of dairy, poultry, and swine facilities. Will EPA address each facility
separately or attempt to combine them all together when addressing air
emissions limitations?

The dilemma facing many Kentucky producers is the unknown. They are
being asked to sign a document that will require them to come into
compliance with future air quality standards. It is very difficult for a
producer to agree to such terms when the standards have not been made
public and the cost of such compliance has the potential to drive many
operations out of business. Will a producer be required to install the
permanent emission reduction equipment, costing an estimated \$200,000,
to address the few days their operations have the "potential" to emit
over the standard?

EPA has repeatedly assured potential participants that the penalties and
fees involved in this program are not an admission of guilt, however
many producers continue to view this "penalty" payment as just that. If
a producer does sign the Consent Agreement it does not provide them any
protection from other frivolous lawsuits and may actually increase their
risk from such lawsuits by providing their name and address to
environmental groups intent on shutting down animal agriculture.

The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act
(CERCLA) was passed to provide EPA authority to oversee cleanup of
synthetically produced toxic chemicals. The Emergency Planning and
Community Right to Know Act (EPCRA) was later passed to protect the
lives of emergency responders by mandating disclosure of storage and use
of hazardous chemicals. These laws clearly were not intended to apply to
the dairy parlors, chicken houses, or hog barns across the USA. These
farming operations provide our nation with the safest and most reliable
food supply in the world. CERCLA and EPCRA have been interpreted to
apply to livestock facilities due to lawsuits filed by those seeking to
hamper animal agriculture.

Unfortunately, CERCLA and EPCRA, with their potential fines of up to
\$32,500 per day, are being used by groups with fundamental opposition
to animal agriculture to push their agendas forward. In addition, to the
potential farmer liability, we would like to point out that using CERCLA
and EPCRA to regulate air emissions on dairy and livestock farms will
divert EPA resources away from cleaning up toxic sites that truly do
threaten the nations public health and safety.

Kentucky Farm Bureau recognizes the need for air emissions regulations
that are based on sound science and accurate data. However, the Consent
Agreement as proposed raises a number of significant concerns for our
Kentucky dairy, poultry, and swine producers. Applying an industrial
style approach such as this to agriculture simply doesn't work. Asking
farmers to monitor and pay up for possible past emissions goes against
the mindset of producers first and foremost. Beyond that concern, it
puts them at an extreme disadvantage with farmers around the world that
our global economy forces them to compete with. Farmers are facing ever
increasing costs of production with increased energy costs, skyrocketing
land prices, and equipment costs constantly cutting into an already thin
profit margin. Adding this type of punitive cost to their bottom line
without opportunity to recoup the expense will have major impacts, and
could threaten a farmer's ability to receive yearly operating loans from
lenders concerned about the potential for regulatory costs that cannot
be predicted.

Kentucky Farm Bureau asks that EPA reconsider the program and address
the potential compliance costs for farmers operating small and medium
sized animal operations. In Kentucky, the agriculture community came
together to pass the Kentucky Agriculture Water Quality Act (AWQA) over
ten years ago. The AWQA requires all farms, 10 acres or greater, to
develop a water quality plan with best management practices (BMPs) to
address potential sources of pollution. Our regulatory agencies and our
conservation districts have helped farmers write and implement their
plans and as issues arise the plans are revisited and improvements made.
It's a system that works and we believe it is the way air quality issues
could also be addressed.

In summary, Kentucky Farm Bureau strongly expresses opposition for the
guilty --now, prove it later approach embodied in EPA's proposed air
quality compliance agreement. We urge the agency to scrap this plan,
seek input on a new approach from small, independent family farmers and
develop a pollution reduction strategy that makes sense for the full
range of livestock producers.

Thank you for the opportunity to submit these comments. If you have any
questions or if we can be of any assistance please feel free to contact
me at (502) 495- 5104 or <lknoth@kyfb.com>.

Laura M. Knoth, Director

Public Affairs Division

Kentucky Farm Bureau Federation