The first thought that comes to mind is (putting on my Race Officer hat) - how often has this resulted in a request for redress?  Are we trying to seal up a "leak" in the rules (SIs) that's not worth bothering with?

If I have a late starter (again, putting on my RO hat), I'll do my best to notify them so they don't interfere with the fleet and they have a decent chance of starting properly in the next race.

This looks like a solution in search of a problem.

I have to admit that though I’ve seen this language many times, I’ve never paused to examine it. 

Funny, my first thoughts were to RRS 28, and also that the language in the OP, through a backdoor, is changing the def of “start” (which of course is not allowed) as how can a boat that meets the def of “start“ be scored Did Not Start?

Changing RRS 28 though is allowed and I think an approach of adding the language there, such that to sail the course, a boat shall start within a certain time after her starting signal. 

That way, a boat not starting within that starting TL has not sailed the course. 

It could never be wrong to say RRS 35 was altered.
I think that as A5 is changed the power to alter a score is granted as described, and the need therefore to mention the RRS 35 is not necessary.
I do not the similar paragraph 15.2 in Appendix L mentioned RRS 35.
As I say mentioning it can never be wrong.

Michael, maybe I was the "someone" that Stuart mentioned, and thank you Stuart for putting this question forward.
A 5 states: "A boat, that did not start,.....shall be scored accordingly..." A 5 refers to the definition of "start" written in italicas, therefore in the meaning of the definition, which cannot be changed. The definition of "start" has no time frame. A boat that complies with the definition of "start" even e.g. 8 minutes after her starting signal has started and cannot be scored as "DNS", see RRS A 5 "...shall be scored accordingly..." The only way to go around this rule, is to change RRS 35, so that the RC is not obliged to score such a boat according to its finishing place. As in this case no rule overrule another, one has to change all the rules, that deal with this situation, so that the specific SI is "valid". 
No matter, Matt, if someone ever has requested redress in such a case, you are right, I never experienced this, too. 
However, we are bound by RRS 84!

I think my RRS 28.1 change is the most elegant, as RRS 35 references RRS 28 directly.  Don’t comply with 28?, RRS 35 doesn’t apply. 

RRS 28.1 is changed in its entirety to:
"28.1.A boat shall start within the starting time limit as defined in Si#.#, sail the course described in the sailing instructions and finish. While doing so, she may leave on either side a mark that does not begin, bound or end the leg she is sailing. After finishing she need not cross the finishing line completely.”

So with this change to 28.1 a late starter would have to be scored and then protested by the race committee?

If 28.1 is changed as suggested,  with the quoted SI, there shouldn't be a  need to protest the late-starter.  She would be scored DNS.

Angelo, all,
3 points:
1. The suggestion to change RRS 28 is not an answer to the original question if RRS 35 needs to be changed, when you want to change A4 and A5 with the described intention.
My suggestion for a good discussion is to stay first with the topic and then offer some alternatives. So lets first find out, if RRS 35 has to be changed or not.

2. Angelo, if RRS 28 is changed, RRS 35 still applies, referring to the changed RRS 28 (in the SIs) which is okay.
3. If you change RRS 28 -what you can do- you still have  to change RRS A4 and A5, as A5 refers to the definition of "start"  which you cannot change, because even if a boat does not comply with the amended RRS 28, she hast started in the meaning of the definition start.

If in the SIs is written the proposed text of Angelo, one has to add  "This changes RRS A4 and A5"  
Willii

Philip & Deepak

Yes a protest would need to be filed. It would be an RRS 28 violation like any other (missing mark, string rule, etc).  

That actually brings up another point about this and that is I really don’t see the need for starting late to be a “without hearing” RC scoring decision.  It would seem in my years of racing that this is a fairly infrequent occurrence (unlike OCS-like penalties, where having a protest and hearing for each one would be unmanageable).  Given the infrequency, I don’t see a protest and hearing being onerous. 

Willii, see my above comment. The infrequency (in my experience, please tell me if this is a more frequent issue than I’m aware) of this would allow it to be handled like any other RRS 28 breach witnessed by the RC.  Protest + Hearing.  Therefore no ref to A4-A5. 

To the OP, yes IMO a ref to a change to RRS 35 is required with the OP original language (not mine above). 

Want a PRo's solution?
If there are no more starts for that particular sequence, remove/relocate either pin (if you are using 2; perhaps setting up for shorter Finish line) or move the the Signal boat. If you still have other fleet(s) to start, at 4:01 move the Signal boat or the pin a touch (to adjust the line).
That negates the starting line for the late starter. She no longer can cross hers start line, hence did not start. 
Now, let's be reasonable about the late starter and use your mind to decide when and if this is good for your racing program or not.
A boat that is close to the line and obviously trying to start, ..... you fill in the blanks.
Sometimes I wonder if this 4 minute thing is worth it. Most boats try to start on time. There really is no advantage to starting late on purpose, trust me. As always, 'add water to it and see what will get you'.
Be a good PRO.

Along the line of Kim’s thoughts, I’m really interested in hearing from the RO’s on the forum regarding how often this occurs and the thoughts behind it. 

Are you seeing this issue more than once per regatta?  Once every couple regattas?

Are we mainly concerned with those late to the line or are we more/equally concerned with OCS boats returning late to the line to correct? (Is one more frequent?)

Also, what problem is being solved?  

I would appreciate reading your insights as I’m not often on the RC boat. 

Angelo, it is all three of those, plus the imposition on the local volunteer race committee members' evening time commitments.
Also the RC's pride of work in providing a superior experience for the balance of the fleet in "moving the races along."

The DNS score does not say that the boat did not "start." 
She did "start" by definition. 
The scoring shorthand says that the boat did not start within X minutes after her starting signal. 
And in accordance with the legitimate SI, to which she agreed, she was scored DNS.
Maybe it just needs a different name.

Philip

IMHO,  that should be the very, very, very (infinite "very's") last (if ever) of considerations.  Finishing TL's take care of that, not stopping someone from starting and then finishing within the finishing TL.  To me, that is in the same category of dropping a shorter course in good wind so that the RC can make it back for the 4pm kick-off (American Football reference for those internationals).

"Thank you, Race Committee!" - Not.

My point being that SI’s limiting how late a race can be started + finish TL’s takes care of getting folk back at a reasonable time.

Depending upon the distance of the race, conditions  and OD vs handicap, a 4 min pre-corrected finish-time-spread isn’t huge.  IMO, the reason for taking a boat out of the running should be a higher bar (like safety, etc). 

We address requests for redress based upon what is fairest for the fleet.
In fairness to the fleet we disqualify, without a hearing, over-aggressive boats via black flag to cut down on general recalls and keep "moving the races along." Same deal.
With the same motivation we should not condone late starters that eat into the number of races that the entire fleet can compete in.
DNS without a hearing is justified. 

I wonder if this couldn't be handled more simply with an SI (similar to what I think many use already) that says something like "Before her warning signal and after her starting signal, a boat shall avoid interfering with boats whose warning signal has been sounded and whose starting signal has not sounded." That should cover late starters as well as boats in later classes.

So basically if you're out of your starting sequence (which ends when your starting signal sounds, no?) you should avoid boats that are in their sequence. If a late starter can start without embarrassing anyone who's in their sequence there's no harm, no foul no matter how late they start. If they do interfere RC can protest them for breach of the SI.