I was notified by email on March 2nd, back in 2023, from USDA/APHIS about your "Call for Feedback on Engagement in the Regulatory Process" This 8-day timeline is not enough time to allow me to present a thought-out approach to advising you appropriately. However, I can try. well, i can show you how it has gone wrong for me in the past... and I hope you can see through the stressful words and understand the importance of the mission you're asking me to be a part of. furthermore, I appreciate you for allowing this response.

I have been involved with public commenting for ten years and will try and focus on the current problems that are taking place and save the past nightmare experiences for another day.

Here is a list of suggestions (referred to as - ) from my past experiences. 

-A simple confirmation email stating the file or comment has been received, If the commenter chooses that option.

-A follow-up response to people's submissions... so that the commenter will get a follow-up informational update on what happened to the topic when the government decides on it... a mass email of the press letter from that topic would suffice to all who commented.

-Making the comments available to other people commenting is crucial to transparency. It helps people read different viewpoints and makes for a more informed public.

as you can see in this 2022 example of the USDA/APHIS stakeholder meeting (Note that the US government is using youtube... with this sensitive history is hosted!... -please fix that! My Mother was unable to proofread this part of my comment because the link took her to ad's!)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0J_lrR6blE 

and if that link doesn't work, then try it from the USDA /APHIS library, in which you would need to click the bottom link labeled "watch the meeting" to see if it works for you. - i will reference this meeting a few times in my comment.

https://www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/ourfocus/biotechnology/meetings/stakeholder_meetings/2022-stakeholder-meeting

> notice how only six people get to ask questions during Q & A... some people did not get to ask their questions (maybe a 3-minute video of their comment could be recorded after the meeting and available to the public to review. and on record. Thats why we come here to be on the record!) in this 2022 APHIS stakeholder meeting, I am the second question at 2:11:42. The 5th person to comment touches on my comment, and i learned something that APHIS did say earlier!) -I also resent that my name and organization were not affirmed like everyone else. I have made plenty of relationships from these public comments from like-minded people in the past that help me understand topics better. -I hope that people-to-people conversations become more available.

Additionally, I have watched over the years how the "meetings" or interface communication programs have been limiting the users' ability to ask questions... It used to be that you could get a video question live to the panel, and Now, as seen in this video, you must write your question down and see if it is an approved question... That is corruption!

In the past, the audience could conversate and make points in a chatroom as the meeting or session was being broadcasted. Sure, there are some nuts out there that make unfound claims. However, sometimes they have a point. so maybe other users could rank the user, and We, the people could filter out the crap.

-Links to related information and supporting evidence should be on the regulations.gov when requesting a public response. For example, and ill use real examples from a request for comment. 

On Oct 25, 2021

https://www.regulations.gov/docket/APHIS-2021-0062

With the confusing title; 

Draft Guidance for Requesting a Regulatory Status Review (RSR) under 7 CFR part 340

NOTE, This title holds the most significant rule change in Genetic editing the world has ever seen... and it says 11 people commented.

There is only one single informative document in this request for public comment. I had to call APHIS and ask if there was an EIS. There should be links to past stakeholder meetings and informational material. A clear, understandable title for the request would also be helpful... In the U.K., they are considering how they want to move forward with G.E. just as the U.S. did, and it has been very insightful; their request for public comment on this topic yielded 65,000 comments, and the topic is named (Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill), https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3167#timeline (FYI, Link has slow response speed)Their process brought critical conversations to light and has resulted in what might be a less risky way to explore this technology in their regulations.

-I ask you to read this past comment in which i point out some additional errors in the current commenting process;

https://www.regulations.gov/comment/APHIS-2021-0062-0010

-It would be best if you always showed the audience attendance. State how many people are online during meetings.

If a topic comes back up for re-evaluation. Regulators should contact the last commenters contact and see if they are still interested in re-commenting! (those millions of people who commented on GMOs back in 2006ish I bet, would love to hear this topic I am concerned about.

-You could have a video comment library on the topic and have people watch other people's comments/questions before the meeting and vote or give a thumbs up to see what questions will be asked to the government during the session.

(A filter-out button in looking into other public comments). For instance, on this request for comment ( https://www.regulations.gov/docket/APHIS-2020-0079 ), I would have liked to see different viewpoints. However, a chain letter's mass use makes finding other independent views hard. A filter could be used to remove duplicate comments from the list and be able to view the list of original comments. Or make a folder that states that the comments are the same.

-close to instant video upload of whatever presentation on the .gov website. with a soal media share button... that isn't limited but promoted by the social media platforms to be watched!

- the media request that came to me for this request had no home page. it was simply an email. it should always have a .gov link to make it official. This session should have been done on regulation.gov simply so we can make record. i would also have preferred to read others people's viewpoints and interests when the time ran out. but whatever, work on it!

Here is a quick blurb of my personal ambitions (only on this topic) to combat what i have been witnessing and why I have recently started an organization to spotlight corruption in our government because of my extended history of communicating with the government. byandforthepeople.org

A recent change in Regulatory status under 7 CRF part 340. < https://www.regulations.gov/docket/APHIS-2021-0062 > has an exception clause. < https://www.aphis.usda.gov/brs/pdf/requesting-confirmation-of-exemption.pdf > This change will allow the climate change agenda to flourish with lease agreements in public lands and food systems while admitting this will affect the environment in this 

EIS < https://www.aphis.usda.gov/biotechnology/340-secure-rule-eis.pdf >

Eight people only commented on this change... there has never been any mainstream news coverage regarding this change Or how this change makes the "climate change agenda" possible in the public lands without any public consultation.

somebody needs to do better!

Thank you for your time and understanding; please respond that you have received this message. 

I hope a great government isn't a mythical creature. -Josh 3/8/23