Comment on FR Doc # 2012-11586

I have three complaints: First, without reviewing recent patent filings by the topic creators for SBIR grants, the latest technologies cannot be represented in the List of Topics for the various technologies. You are losing time to commercialize by ignoring this since it takes about three years to even get interest of the agencies in new technology - where the innovations are. Second, your winning proposal completed and the "Submit" button is pushed in time - and what happens to kill this gem of technology but Grants.gov asks for a name and password - which one, I have 50 some, many with US Government? Then, even though you are CEO, listed accordingly on the CCR papers which were required, you are told you are not the "Authorized Organization Representative." So the top notch ideas written by the inventor is scrapped for crap. Grants.gov stuff should either be required at the beginning of the work or after the submission is accepted. Their stuff is totally irrelevant. Also, in 2007 the USDA pulled my USDA-SBIR Wildfire control proposal from consideration because it was 12 pages long. Too short, they said. "We want this done." said CAL FIRE trainer Chief, Kevin Olson. And 2% of Texas burned last year because our technology was not allowed on the fire lines. Third, I received one of the first 13 NFS-SBIR proposals in October 1982. I lost three months research time when Gallaudet people sabatoged providing subjects. We got other subjects and in 3 months discovered readability of the code was easy for 9 - 12 year old deaf children and OK for 3-6 yr. olds. Juried Journals would not publish results because results were above the average performance for new language experiences for group. Then, our Phase II proposal was graded "Poor" by the four peer reviewers to protect their $3million research grants to "find a solution for deafness." We had one. If they admitted it, they might lose their funding. Peer reviewers in the field will protect their $.