First I want to premise by saying I would support language to this effect.
Quote:
"The use of a head and neck restraint device is highly recommended. All head and neck restraint devices must be certified by their manufacturer to meet or exceed the minimum performance requirements of SFI Specification 38.1."[/b]
I think it is highly likely that there are licensing issues with manufacturers making that representation without actually having the license to do so:
Quote:
1.3 Use of the "This Manufacturer Certifies That This Product Meets SFI Specification 38.1" logo/designation, the authorized artwork style, or conventional lettering by a manufacturer, on a subject product, is intended only to indicate that the manufacturer of the product has represented that they have submitted the product to the recommended tests, with positive results, in compliance with the standards established herein.[/b]
Quote:
10.0 CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE
Upon demonstration of successful compliance with all the requirements of the specification and the self-certification program and upon entering the licensing agreement with SFI, the manufacturer may advertise, present and offer the Head and Neck Restraint System for sale with the representation that their product meets the SFI Specification 38.1.[/b]
Quote:
14.0 STATEMENT OF LIMITATIONS
Testing procedures and/or standards contained in this specification are intended for use only as a guide in determining compliance with the minimum performance requirements as defined herein. The granting and assignment of the "This Manufacturer Certifies That This Product Meets SFI Specification 38.1" logo/designation is in no way an endorsement or certification of product performance or reliability by SFI. SFI, its officers, directors and/or members assume no responsibility, legal or otherwise, for failure or malfunctions of a product under this program.[/b]
I suspect the text of the logo is part of the subject of what I am sure is a registered trademark. This is all extremely problematic for a manufacturer to make the representation in the proposal you wrote.
"The use of a head and neck restraint device is highly recommended. Only head and neck restraint devices that have successfully passed all the impact performance tests of SFI Specification 38.1. may be used."
I know some will say it is semantics - but semantics matter in the arena of law and licensing.
Even then the SCCA as an SFI member may not even be able to provide such a work around as part of their membership.
I think efforts to correct 38.1 would be better served if the rule is going to make any reference to it all.
Quote:
Great letter Scott however you plagarized parts of my letter without permission.....(lol)!! :018: :D
[/b]
Falls under fair use, tough! :P