85 



to do so. Probably the most the statute can do is frame Congressional intent. 



We are concerned that other parts of the description are vague and give little 



guidance to those who will interpret the statute. For example, paragraph (iii) of the 



definition (Page 3, lines 11-16) could be interpreted to include varieties with multiple, 



significant differences resulting from the "act of derivation" as being essentially 



derived. We believe this is beyond the intent of S. 1 406. Conversely, a strict 



interpretation could mean that a change in any one of the "essential" characteristics of 



a variety would be sufficient to make a variety independent. We propose that 



paragraph (iii) be changed to read: 



(iii) conforms to the initial variety in the expression of the essential 

 characteristics that result from the genotype or combination of genotypes of the 

 initial variety, unless multiple essential characteristics have been changed by the 

 act of derivation and these changes lead to differences in performance, 

 adaptation, maturity, end use characteristics, or other significant attributes. 



We believe this change would provide significant additional guidance on the 



intent of the provision. 



Page 5 r lines 10-18 



This section should be omitted . 



As written this section permits rather large amounts of seed to be sold provided 



it is alleged that the seed was: 



done as an integral part of a program of experimentation 

 or testing to ascertain the characteristics of the variety, 



This could easily lead to abuses and create problem of the type and magnitude of the 



present situation with farmers selling "saved seed". It does not solve a present 



problem and may only create a significant enforcement problem for the PVP owners. 



For these reasons it should be omitted. 



Pa ge 7, line 1 3 

 Omit "(other than fungi or bacteria)" as technically they are not plants. 



