FIA-approved rain lights required starting 1/1/2024

[Steve Davis]

I just sent a letter to the CRB recommending the Afterburner FIA light or similar as a less expensive alternative.

As I'm reading through these posts.. I am RECALLING that 'not too long ago' (when did the Afterburner come out? - 6 years or so ago?)... there was an attempt in Impound to DQ someone who had one.. and the rules did NOT SAY it could 'flash'.. I remember writing a letter at that time to the CRB supporting FLASHING rain lights and poopooing anyone that wanted to eliminate them.
BTW.. I also recall that I had to pay like $175 for mine .. used.. 4 years ago. SO now, SCCA is going to tell me I have to toss that one and BUY a different one that cost over $200 ?? .. and works NO BETTER than the one I already have?? Where do I get off this train?
Steve, FV80

[hdsporty1988]

As I'm reading through these posts.. I am RECALLING that 'not too long ago' (when did the Afterburner come out? - 6 years or so ago?)... there was an attempt in Impound to DQ someone who had one.. and the rules did NOT SAY it could 'flash'.. I remember writing a letter at that time to the CRB supporting FLASHING rain lights and poopooing anyone that wanted to eliminate them.
BTW.. I also recall that I had to pay like $175 for mine .. used.. 4 years ago. SO now, SCCA is going to tell me I have to toss that one and BUY a different one that cost over $200 ?? .. and works NO BETTER than the one I already have?? Where do I get off this train?
Steve, FV80

For what it's worth, Pegasus indicates the Afterburner is "Fully FIA approved." Whatever that means.

[Hardingfv32]

It was approved in 2010, so maybe things have changed at the FIA and the afterburner needs to be re- homologated to a new standard.

Regarding viewing angle: FIA does a lot of research before setting its standards. They usually form committees of outside experts to develop standards. I am willing to assume that the viewing angle topic was researched and the proper compromise made regarding the issue.

[problemchild]

I am willing to assume that the viewing angle topic was researched and the proper compromise made regarding the issue.

For teams with $250 million budgets.

[Extreme1]

Anyone looked closely at the ones on EBay? They are $17, are LED and can be set up to flash or be in constant. Are they junk?

[FVRacer21]

Working on my letter to the SCCA. The items on the Pegasus page are interesting

Cartek FIA 8874-2019 Circular Rain/Brake Light $174.00 - draws 700 mA

The Ultimate Rain Light, 50 Red LED Steady Light $52.00 - draws 100 mA

Now FVs with a total loss battery system - that seems to be a pretty big difference.

Some people might end up with larger or 2nd battery, increasing the cost.

Yes 15w should be about 1.2 amp but most have switch to LEDs which draw less than 50 mA.

ChrisZ

[DaveW]

For teams with $250 million budgets.

Tongue-in-cheek, but still on point, IMO.

[Hardingfv32]

Cartek FIA 8874-2019 Circular Rain/Brake Light $174.00 - draws 700 mA

The Ultimate Rain Light, 50 Red LED Steady Light $52.00 - draws 100 mA

Now FVs with a total loss battery system - that seems to be a pretty big difference.ChrisZ

1) So your argument against the rule is that one class's issue should enough to reject the change. How about an exception to allow FV to run an inferior light?

2) The difference in current requirements pretty much sums up the need for the rule change. It is a fairly safe assumption to claim that the FIA unit produces 7X as many lumens. Again, FIA the light standard is well developed and researched.

Brian

[problemchild]

I have to wonder ......

If the FIA is so smart, why do the F1 rain tires suck so bad that they cannot run if the rain gets any stronger than drizzle.

After 2 years being involved with F4, I run the opposite direction when I see the FIA connection. It is all about rules, more rules, and more rules that are oppressive and enforced with delight. Common sense has no place in the FIA process.

[BeerBudgetRacing]

I have to wonder ......

If the FIA is so smart, why do the F1 rain tires suck so bad that they cannot run if the rain gets any stronger than drizzle.

After 2 years being involved with F4, I run the opposite direction when I see the FIA connection. It is all about rules, more rules, and more rules that are oppressive and enforced with delight. Common sense has no place in the FIA process.

Reading the regulation where most of the regulation is about the testing and approval process (on a rain light), I get the impression it's more about the pay to play.
The tester pay to be an approved tester.
The manufacturers pay to have things tested and to become an approved supplier.

Common sense is not allowed.

[924RACR]

Reading the regulation where most of the regulation is about the testing and approval process (on a rain light), I get the impression it's more about the pay to play.
The tester pay to be an approved tester.
The manufacturers pay to have things tested and to become an approved supplier.

Common sense is not allowed.

Been studying the SFI business model, have they?

[Fred Michael]

Been studying the SFI business model, have they?

Other way around

[Steve Demeter]

Of course it is all about lining others pockets with racer's money. Make the requirement simply sso many lumens at so many feet and get an inexpensive light meter to measure it.

It seems that the current rules have served OK for a long time. Granted it takes some common sense to apply them in a sane manner ( IIRC min 15 watts minimum).

I buy the brightest I can come up with which happens to be an LED array from a motorcycle which incorporates both the running and brake lights. I have it wired so that both are on whenever it is turned on. It will make your eyes water if you look at it too long.

I have this cause I want the guy behind me who is no doubt coming like the hammers from heck to be able to know where I am.

[FVRacer21]

Make the requirement simply so many lumens at so many feet and get an inexpensive light meter to measure it.

Better yet - just set a standard and let the manufacturer build to the spec - self certification. This is not a critical safety part like seat belts or fire systems, more like a piston made to spec, or a mirror. Just keep the paperwork to show tech. They don't need any extra tools. If the manufacturer will not publish specs - you cannot buy it. Saved the manufacturer (and the racer) money. If they want to go beyond the minimum - fine. Good, Better, Best.

ChrisZ

[scorp997]

I’m now waiting for the ‘expiration date’ to be added to the rule!!!

(if it were SFI, it would be there)
glad I’m in vintage

[EACIII]

And what about drives in the southwest who almost never see rain. Most don't even own rain tires. Are they going to spend over $200 on something that they will never use. Too bad the SCCA is no long a club run by its members.

Ed

[Rick Kirchner]

I wonder if there's a procedure for a recall election....

[TimH]

I wonder if there's a procedure for a recall election....

Wait and see if the rule actually goes into effect..

[Steve Demeter]

Hold that thought

[Offcamber1]

Please don't anyone give SCCA Enterprises the bright idea that they can sell a mandatory rain light for $200.00, then charge an annual subscription fee to make it work.

[BeerBudgetRacing]

Please don't anyone give SCCA Enterprises the bright idea that they can sell a mandatory rain light for $200.00, then charge an annual subscription fee to make it work.

You mean like car manufacturers? Everything now requires a subscription service...

[Raceworks]

Reading the regulation where most of the regulation is about the testing and approval process (on a rain light), I get the impression it's more about the pay to play.
The tester pay to be an approved tester.
The manufacturers pay to have things tested and to become an approved supplier.

Common sense is not allowed.

The hilarious thing about this rule is it's not going to solve anything. The problem is that modern rain tires displace a LOT of water and if the cars have aero they throw up a huge "rooster tail" of spray as well. This means that over 65mph or so in wet conditions each car is throwing out a LOT of spray. This inevitably leads to one of two conditions except for the slowest corners:

#1) WALL OF GRAY. This is typical of starts and re-starts in wet conditions, as well as when the precipitation is so heavy that no matter how much Rain-X you use the precipitation is hitting your visor or windscreen faster than it can shed off. In either case NO rain light is visible regardless of how bright it is, how fast it flashes, or what series of overly complicated specifications it meets.

#2) NOT WALL OF GRAY. You'll get this if it's not quite so damp, the track is drying off, or in wet conditions when the pack is strung out or after they've slowed down enough they're not kicking up so much spray. In this case you can usually see the other cars normally because of the lack of spray, or you can assume that the cloud of mist in front of you is a moving car and not some freak weather event, or the car in front of you is stationary and not throwing up any spray.

In condition #2, the only time I've found rain lights useful is in spotting very distant cars when the field is strung out. This is somewhat useful from a competition standpoint, but has no effect on safety.

In 28 years of racing, 20 of them in formula cars, I have NEVER once had a situation where I was able to avoid a wreck because of a rain light. Overall the lighting rules in SCCA make no sense: why don't we require brake lights on formula / SR cars as well as production cars given how much shorter the braking distances are?

[sarcasm on] Plus, I can have a lot of fun with brake lights. When I ran production cars I had a trick of tapping the brake pedal just enough the get the lights to come on with my left foot. It often tricked people behind me into thinking I was braking early and they'd pull out of line, sometimes breaking the draft & giving me a little breathing room. Maybe the FIA has some novella-length specs on brake lights and we can mandate $400 in LED brake lights built to an FIA spec, plus another $200 of sensors and wiring ($1,000 if they need to meet an FIA spec), all so we can add lines to the rulebook for something that has ZERO effect on safety. [sarcasm off]

Overall, tail-lights are only critical when you're racing at night.

Whoever thought this new rule was a good idea is an absolute F-ing moron. What we really should be doing is just re-think what kind of conditions we allow races to be conducted in: because when the precipitation level is high enough you end up with conditions that are identical to heavy fog, which is already a hard "NO" for racing.

[Raceworks]

It was approved in 2010, so maybe things have changed at the FIA and the afterburner needs to be re- homologated to a new standard.

Regarding viewing angle: FIA does a lot of research before setting its standards. They usually form committees of outside experts to develop standards. I am willing to assume that the viewing angle topic was researched and the proper compromise made regarding the issue.

In theory yes. In practice, I haven't seen that the FIA-spec lights work any better any decent LED setup. The problem is that in heavy rain, especially at high speeds, everything disappears in the mist just the same.

It's true that some people are running around with relatively dim single-bulb lights, and maybe that needs to change to satisfy the insurance underwriters. They just need to mandate LED's with a minimum number of LED's (12, 16 or 18) and if makes them feel better they can mandate it flashes too (which isn't a difficult add-on to an existing LED setup).

[Hardingfv32]

In theory yes. In practice, I haven't seen that the FIA-spec lights work any better any decent LED setup. The problem is that in heavy rain, especially at high speeds, everything disappears in the mist just the same.

Would you like to state in a measurable standard that represents a 'decent' LED setup? I would say that this rule saves SCCA the effort to establishing/developing what is required of a good rail light. Having a FIA label saves Tech the effort to prove that the rain light std is being met. There is more to a good light than just the lumen level.

Yes, everything disappears in the mist at some point, but that is pointless argument.

Brian

[Steve Davis]

Would you like to state in a measurable standard that represents a 'decent' LED setup? I would say that this rule saves SCCA the effort to establishing/developing what is required of a good rail light. Having a FIA label saves Tech the effort to prove that the rain light std is being met. There is more to a good light than just the lumen level.

Yes, everything disappears in the mist at some point, but that is pointless argument.

Brian

MY opinion is that CLUB SCCA's desire to 'make everything easy to check' should NOT take precedence over 'reasonable COST to MEET THE NEEDS' of racing. The club should SET A GUIDELINE of some sort,, presumably MUCH BETTER than the current '15 watt incandescent bulb'.. and then 'police it within their ability to do so'... Forcing drivers to spend unreasonable amounts of $$$ to 'make it easy to tech' is NOT a proper plan for OUR club. Pretty much EVERY driver should WANT to be visible in the rain as much as possible .. in order to NOT get clobbered. Some good (not necessarily EXPENSIVE) guidelines should go FAR in that regard. Try to FORCE everyone to go BUY 'yet another expensive safety feature' .. when what they already HAVE is MORE THAN ADEQUATE (compared to the MOST EXPENSIVE POSSIBLE OPTION) .. will just lead to .. guess what???... REDUCED ENTRIES.. and even MEMBERSHIP!.
Steve, FV80

[lmpdesigner]

Easy answer:

Have the SCCA do a test or two on various lights. Using a pretty cheap lumen detector.

Come up with a list of acceptable lights.

Make sure the max cost is no more than X dollars as a criteria for approved lights. AND keep that number low. Say $50 max!!

Why does the SCCA always do things the hard way?? Is there no one there on the FSRAC or BOD with any common sense?

Just adopting FIA standards shows a lack of effort and laziness on the SCCA. Why not actually do some work and research before you all adopt a rule?

[Lotus7]

Do I dare ask if anyone setting these new rules has done any research into whether or not there are more collisions in the average rain race than in the average dry race, in order to justify "improving visibility at yet more cost to the entrants"?

Pure speculation: I'd imagine there might be LESS rain collisions, because drivers are mostly more wary and less inclined to take chances...
would better visibility possibly increase risk?
(said partially tongue in cheek)

[BLS]

"Do I dare ask..."

It's a good question.

[LarryWinkelman]

The SRF3 is considered a Sports Racer, based on the the GCR. I wonder if that means Enterprises will be making the FIA strobe rain light a spec item, at the usual 100% markup?

I don't recall there being a "what do you think" in Fastrack about this... was there?

I think that something better than the $3 marker light I used to run on the wing support of my FM 20 years ago is a reasonable idea, but count me firmly in the NO category as far as FIA spec lights are concerned.

[Steve Demeter]

On that same thought what about GT, touring, prod and IT classes. Should not they be as safe as the formula cars and sports racers.



I wonder if anyone has had a collision because they could not see the rain light in front of them

[Marty Nygard]

"Just adopting FIA standards shows a lack of effort and laziness on the SCCA"

Or it shows the legal liabilities overcoming the technical judgement.

[Hardingfv32]

[QUOTE=Steve Davis;652754].. and then 'police it within their ability to do so'...[QUOTE]

This is not going to improve the rain light issue. Needs to be very simple for Tech to get this right at all the regions.

I bought one of these FIA units after watching a number of 2022 Runoff rain races. It jumped right out 'to me' what was required in the way of a rain light. I had the choice of the somewhat lower priced units, but put my faith in the FIA standard.

Brian

[Hardingfv32]

"Just adopting FIA standards shows a lack of effort and laziness on the SCCA"

SCCA does not have a staff to set tech standards. Everything is done by the CRB. The CRB could form a volunteer group to develop a standard, but what are the chances of that group having the data, budget and expertise to get the job done correctly?

Chances are very good that a good rain light might cost $100 as compared to the FIA unit at $200. I just do not see an effort being made to save $100 by the CRB. They have bigger fish to fry.

Brian

[Ron Doyle]

The letter proposing this change came into the GCR committee with visual evidence demonstrating how difficult the formula and prototype cars are to see in the spray with lights that we are currently using. This is nothing that anyone who has raced in the rain is not already aware of. There was a significant amount of debate on this topic at the CRB level, especially concerning the added cost which is a matter that is not taken lightly. In the end it was sent to the BOD as a recommended item because this has significant safety implications for everyone. A HANS device, helmet, safety belts, a certified fire system, etc... all protect the person who is employing them. If the other guy doesn't have or use those items it is likely not going to impact me directly; the rain light however does. One avoided crash or even contact in a formula or prototype car will pay for the light ten times over.

I don't like the fact that a seemingly simple light is so expensive but in the scheme of things it is a safety item that makes sense at least to me. Setting a rule that required a minimum lumens would permit us to be creative and save money, but it would be virtually impossible to police/enforce in the field.

This is a Recommended Item to the BOD so it is open for comment by members and up to them to vote up or down. If you have a strong opinion one way or the other you need to voice it through the letter system.
John

John,

To use the vernacular of the CRB the rule in the GCR for Rain Lights "GCR 9.3.32.B Page GCR 90 in printed GCR" is adequate as written. Here is the link to the FIA Technical List N 19: https://www.yumpu.com/fr/document/re...-no-19-cik-fia

[Kelf1975]

The letter proposing this change came into the GCR committee with visual evidence demonstrating how difficult the formula and prototype cars are to see in the spray with lights that we are currently using. This is nothing that anyone who has raced in the rain is not already aware of. There was a significant amount of debate on this topic at the CRB level, especially concerning the added cost which is a matter that is not taken lightly. In the end it was sent to the BOD as a recommended item because this has significant safety implications for everyone. A HANS device, helmet, safety belts, a certified fire system, etc... all protect the person who is employing them. If the other guy doesn't have or use those items it is likely not going to impact me directly; the rain light however does. One avoided crash or even contact in a formula or prototype car will pay for the light ten times over.

I don't like the fact that a seemingly simple light is so expensive but in the scheme of things it is a safety item that makes sense at least to me. Setting a rule that required a minimum lumens would permit us to be creative and save money, but it would be virtually impossible to police/enforce in the field.

This is a Recommended Item to the BOD so it is open for comment by members and up to them to vote up or down. If you have a strong opinion one way or the other you need to voice it through the letter system.

John

John,

I would like an explanation for this! This is copied out got the May-Updated GCR online and is also in the June-Updated GCR online and there was no Technical Bulletin in Fastrack.


"9.3.32. LIGHTS

A. BRAKE LIGHTS
All non-Formula cars shall have two operating red brake lights.
B. RAIN LIGHTS
All cars shall be equipped with rain light(s) clearly visible from the rear. The rain light(s) shall be turned on when directed to by the Race Director or Chief Steward.

1. Non-Formula and Sports Racing cars shall utilize the original equipment red tail lights or the rain light described in 9.3.32.B.2 or both.

2. (Effective 1/1/2024) A red taillight meeting FIA Standard 8874-2019, Technical List No. 76, is required on all Formula (open wheel) and Sports Racing cars This light shall be mounted approxi- mately on the centerline of the car. Light assemblies are considered one light for the purposes of this rule, irrespective of the number of individual lamps the assembly may contain.

3. Original equipment tail light assemblies may be used. Light assemblies may perform both rain and brake light functions provided they have two distinct illumination levels. Lights that function as strobe lights are not permitted except in Formula and Sports Racer classes. The taillight may strobe when directed to be used as a rain light.

C. Exposed glass headlights shall be taped. Rear brake lights may be taped with transparent tape. Turn signals, front parking lights, backup lamps, and side marker lights may be taped or painted. Lights mounted on or below the bumper shall be removed, and all resulting holes shall be covered to prevent air passage through said holes. Lights mounted within the bumper may be removed or covered and any resulting holes shall be covered to prevent air passage through said holes."

Like Ron has said prior rule was adequate as written. Which was as follows:

"9.3.32. LIGHTS

A. BRAKE LIGHTS
All non-Formula cars shall have two operating red brake lights.
B. RAIN LIGHTS
All cars shall be equipped with rain light(s) clearly visible from the rear. The rain light(s) shall be turned on when directed to by the Race Director or Chief Steward.

1. Non-Formula and Sports Racing cars shall utilize the original equipment red tail lights or the rain light described in 9.3.32.B.2 or both.

2. All Formula (open wheel) and Sports Racing cars shall be equipped with a red taillight of at least the equivalent illumination power of a 15-watt bulb. This light shall be mounted on the centerline of the car. Light assemblies shall be considered one light for the purposes of this rule, irrespective of the number of individual lamps the assembly may contain. FIA Technical List N 19 rain lights are recommended.

3. Original equipment tail light assemblies may be used. Light assemblies may perform both rain and brake light functions provided they have two distinct illumination levels. Lights that function as strobe lights are not permitted except in Formula and Sports Racer classes. The taillight may strobe when directed to be used as a rain light.

C. Exposed glass headlights shall be taped. Rear brake lights may be taped with transparent tape. Turn signals, front parking lights, backup lamps, and side marker lights may be taped or painted. Lights mounted on or below the bumper shall be removed, and all resulting holes shall be covered to prevent air passage through said holes. Lights mounted within the bumper may be removed or covered and any resulting holes shall be covered to prevent air passage through said holes."

[John Nesbitt]

John,

I would like an explanation for this! This is copied out got the May-Updated GCR online and is also in the June-Updated GCR online and there was no Technical Bulletin in Fastrack.


"9.3.32. LIGHTS

A. BRAKE LIGHTS
All non-Formula cars shall have two operating red brake lights.
B. RAIN LIGHTS
All cars shall be equipped with rain light(s) clearly visible from the rear. The rain light(s) shall be turned on when directed to by the Race Director or Chief Steward.

1. Non-Formula and Sports Racing cars shall utilize the original equipment red tail lights or the rain light described in 9.3.32.B.2 or both.

2. (Effective 1/1/2024) A red taillight meeting FIA Standard 8874-2019, Technical List No. 76, is required on all Formula (open wheel) and Sports Racing cars This light shall be mounted approxi- mately on the centerline of the car. Light assemblies are considered one light for the purposes of this rule, irrespective of the number of individual lamps the assembly may contain.

3. Original equipment tail light assemblies may be used. Light assemblies may perform both rain and brake light functions provided they have two distinct illumination levels. Lights that function as strobe lights are not permitted except in Formula and Sports Racer classes. The taillight may strobe when directed to be used as a rain light.

C. Exposed glass headlights shall be taped. Rear brake lights may be taped with transparent tape. Turn signals, front parking lights, backup lamps, and side marker lights may be taped or painted. Lights mounted on or below the bumper shall be removed, and all resulting holes shall be covered to prevent air passage through said holes. Lights mounted within the bumper may be removed or covered and any resulting holes shall be covered to prevent air passage through said holes."

Like Ron has said prior rule was adequate as written. Which was as follows:

"9.3.32. LIGHTS

A. BRAKE LIGHTS
All non-Formula cars shall have two operating red brake lights.
B. RAIN LIGHTS
All cars shall be equipped with rain light(s) clearly visible from the rear. The rain light(s) shall be turned on when directed to by the Race Director or Chief Steward.

1. Non-Formula and Sports Racing cars shall utilize the original equipment red tail lights or the rain light described in 9.3.32.B.2 or both.

2. All Formula (open wheel) and Sports Racing cars shall be equipped with a red taillight of at least the equivalent illumination power of a 15-watt bulb. This light shall be mounted on the centerline of the car. Light assemblies shall be considered one light for the purposes of this rule, irrespective of the number of individual lamps the assembly may contain. FIA Technical List N 19 rain lights are recommended.

3. Original equipment tail light assemblies may be used. Light assemblies may perform both rain and brake light functions provided they have two distinct illumination levels. Lights that function as strobe lights are not permitted except in Formula and Sports Racer classes. The taillight may strobe when directed to be used as a rain light.

C. Exposed glass headlights shall be taped. Rear brake lights may be taped with transparent tape. Turn signals, front parking lights, backup lamps, and side marker lights may be taped or painted. Lights mounted on or below the bumper shall be removed, and all resulting holes shall be covered to prevent air passage through said holes. Lights mounted within the bumper may be removed or covered and any resulting holes shall be covered to prevent air passage through said holes."

Chris

Look at the January-May combined Fastrack, pp. 4-5. The language that you quote is in the section headed "Recommended Items".

As John wrote, the CRB has proposed the rule, effective January 1, 2024. The BOD has to approve/disapprove the rule, and solicits member input.

It would not be in any Technical Bulletin yet because it is not an active rule, just proposed.

Send your letter!

[John LaRue]

Kelf - As Nesbitt states, this is a proposed rule to become effective 1/1/24 so there would be no Tech Bulletin.

[FVRacer21]

Chris

Look at the January-May combined Fastrack, pp. 4-5. The language that you quote is in the section headed "Recommended Items".

As John wrote, the CRB has proposed the rule, effective January 1, 2024. The BOD has to approve/disapprove the rule, and solicits member input.

It would not be in any Technical Bulletin yet because it is not an active rule, just proposed.

Send your letter!

Related to this, I used to get notification when a new Fastrack was published. Now I find I have to set a reminder to go and look for it. Most of us are old enough to remember when Fastrack was included inSportsCar or even mailed to license holders. Right now you have to go through four clicks just to get to the page - when you remember. I asked to have it put on the main menu, but did not get far.

if you go to the bottom of the weekly Kerrie Speed email, it reduces it to 2 or 3 clicks, but I today’s world, you should be able to sign up for direct notifications.

ChrisZ

[Kelf1975]

John (Mr. Nesbitt),

Thank you for your response. I will go back and read those Fastrack(s). I don't re call seeing mention of the Rain Light before, but I'll look.

This brings several other questions to mind though on the process of rules. So lets Strat with when did the process change? When I was Technical Manager at SCCA Enterprises if we proposed rule for the following year and it was excepted it came out in Fastrack as a Technical Bulletin that stated that 01-01-(Year) (New Rule) and was not in the GCR until 01-01-(Year), maybe was 12-01-(Current Year). Why is this a Rule that is said to still be proposed even in the Current GCR?

Thanks,
Chris

[John Nesbitt]

John (Mr. Nesbitt),

Thank you for your response. I will go back and read those Fastrack(s). I don't re call seeing mention of the Rain Light before, but I'll look.

This brings several other questions to mind though on the process of rules. So lets Strat with when did the process change? When I was Technical Manager at SCCA Enterprises if we proposed rule for the following year and it was excepted it came out in Fastrack as a Technical Bulletin that stated that 01-01-(Year) (New Rule) and was not in the GCR until 01-01-(Year), maybe was 12-01-(Current Year). Why is this a Rule that is said to still be proposed even in the Current GCR?

Thanks,
Chris

Chris,

You are quite right. The June GCR shows the new language, in red, and with an effective date of 1/1/2024. This is, indeed, new procedure.

Seems like the CRB is getting ahead of itself. Maybe a mistake? Perhaps John Larue could comment.

John