California to modernize model rocketry code (AB-467)

The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

Tanarin

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 26, 2014
Messages
115
Reaction score
2
So, I am kinda shocked there has been no mention on here about this, but I figured I pass the word. On April 27th, the California assembly passed their version to put California in line with the national standards for Model rockets. As of now it is in the Senate Governmental Organization committee awaiting it's reading and possible passage to the general Senate.

Bill #: AB 467
Text of bill: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160AB467

Now, I am not an expert here, but would it be safe to assume if this passes, it could possibly drive down prices a bit for motors, as now manufacturers would not have to make their motors with California in mind? Either way this would have a huge benefit on the hobby as a whole.
 
Last edited:
So, I am kinda shocked there has been no mention on here about this, but I figured I pass the word. On April 27th, the California assembly passed their version to put California in line with the national standards for Model rockets. As of now it is in the Senate Governmental Organization committee awaiting it's reading and possible passage to the general Senate.

Bill #: AB 467
Text of bill: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160AB467

Now, I am not an expert here, but would it be safe to assume if this passes, it could possibly drive down prices a bit for motors, as now manufacturers would not have to make their motors with California in mind? Either way this would have a huge benefit on the hobby as a whole.

California will still require hobby rocket motor manufacturers to submit rocket motors for 'classification' by the state before they can be sold. The new regulations/laws will not change this.
 
It will be great for the rocket guys in CA, but it won't change the cost of your motors.

The hobby rocket motor market is tiny and the product is already competitively priced. Everyone is paying about the same price for raw materials and no one can afford to drop their prices if they want to stay in business. The larger manufactures generate enough revenue through sales to absorb the one time cost of CA product registration whereas the smaller lower volume manufactures do not generate enough revenue through sale to absorb the costs with raising their prices and therefore can not enter the CA market. What will happen is the CA market will open up for the smaller low volume manufacturers and improve their economic viability. And that's a benefit for all of us.

Bob
 
I'll settle for amateur rocketry not to involve the possibility of being cited for engaging in the pursuit of Ns.

...and elimination of the Pyro III requirement/permission slip for HPR.
 
California will still require hobby rocket motor manufacturers to submit rocket motors for 'classification' by the state before they can be sold. The new regulations/laws will not change this.

Currently, all reloadable motors are considered "high power rocket motors" by the CSFM because the current California definition of a "model rocket motor" defines it as not having any metal parts. This new law would adopt the standard definition of a "model rocket motor" from the NFPA. Someone more familiar with California's regulations will have to explain how this will affect fliers and manufacturers, but it does seem like a step in the right direction.

-- Roger
 
I am no expert on this subject, but props go to Shreadvector for pursuing this and working with the legislators to get this changed. He has been the voice behind changing this.

What this does is allows us here in California to be able to launch with what the rest of the country is able to do. It will remove the 500 gram restriction (i.e. I went to launch my Executioner at a club launch {SCRA} and it weighed more than 500 grams w/the motor, so I couldn't launch, etc.) And I believe other motors will be allowed to be used, but I cannot remember the regs on those. Hopefully this will allow the use of reloads like the CTI motors, which are currently not allowed under the current regulations. When I say CTI I mean like 24mm and 29mm. These changes only pertain to the "model rocket" classifications and not high power, which is a different club. It is a good thing.
 
The antiquated law only has old definitions for Model Rocket and Model Rocket Engine. The law does not affect high Power Rockets since they are not defined by law.

The CA State Fire Regulations cover many things that the law does not cover, such as HPR, but the regulations cannot over-ride the law, so if the law has a definition, it over-rides any regulation.

When they revised the regulations in 1988, they intentionally did not include anything that would conflict with the old (~1968) law, but the CA State Fire Marshal intended to submit a change to the law. That effort never happened and different people moved in and out of the CFSM office and it was not a priority. After a 2010 "enforcement" event with an infamous one-person rocket motor manufacturer who was selling their products, that infamous person pointed out that they would have to enforce the old antiquated law on the Model Rocket community if they were going to cite him for his activity. This led the CSFM to notify rocket motor manufacturers who had reloadable motors classified as "Model Rocket Motors" that any new classifications would need to be done as "High Power Rocket Motors".

you will see that some motors were never resubmitted for re-classification (there was never a mandate that they must be resubmitted....), but all newer reloadable motors submitted are now classified as HPR. The old definition does not allow metal casings or handling of ingredients, so LMS are also affected.

https://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=ab_467&sess=CUR&house=B&search_type=email

If this gets voted through the CA Senate and signed by the Governor, it should go into effect on Jan 1, 2016.

The final wording in the law will be amended as it has been already after the initial introduction. The amendments are to make the wording more clear and provide the proper form of reference to the NFPA codes. The desire is to not just point to the current version of the NFPA 1122 and 1125, but to include wording that indicates the current version or any future revision. That way the law does not have to be changed every few years.

CSFM has already provided comments that once the law goes into effect, it over-rides any conflicting references in the Regulations and they will revise the regulations to match or remove the outdated NFPA references at a later date.

NOTE: massive mis-information in the past has been spread by people who use the "Handbook" of the CA regulations as their guide to what is in the regulations. The "Handbook" is like the DMV study guide. It is NOT the official regulations and the typos and incorrect reference material provided in the Handbook are wrong and have confused many. many people. It is simple: use the actual Regulations and Law. Period.
 
HPR is pretty much controlled only by the Regulations. If the HPR community wants the Regulations revised, they need to have representatives from the HPR community (preferably those with CA Pyro Op licenses) get on the appropriate pyrotechnics committee and work together to propose revisions to the Regulations. I don't know if the CSFM will ever get rid of licensing requirements, but perhaps they can make them simpler and also get rid of the bulk of the Regulations and just refer to NFPA 1127. The CA Regulations were written just before NFPA 1127 was created.

I do not see any Law being passed related to HPR. It is the regulations that need modernizing for HPR. And that still will not make more clear real estate appear for launch sites - most people will still have to make long drives to rural or desert areas.
 
Update on this post: As of yesterday, the bill has passes the full Senate 37-0, and is now back in the Assembly for voting with the new amendments.
 
The antiquated law only has old definitions for Model Rocket and Model Rocket Engine. The law does not affect high Power Rockets since they are not defined by law.

The CA State Fire Regulations cover many things that the law does not cover, such as HPR, but the regulations cannot over-ride the law, so if the law has a definition, it over-rides any regulation.

When they revised the regulations in 1988, they intentionally did not include anything that would conflict with the old (~1968) law, but the CA State Fire Marshal intended to submit a change to the law. That effort never happened and different people moved in and out of the CFSM office and it was not a priority. After a 2010 "enforcement" event with an infamous one-person rocket motor manufacturer who was selling their products, that infamous person pointed out that they would have to enforce the old antiquated law on the Model Rocket community if they were going to cite him for his activity. This led the CSFM to notify rocket motor manufacturers who had reloadable motors classified as "Model Rocket Motors" that any new classifications would need to be done as "High Power Rocket Motors".

you will see that some motors were never resubmitted for re-classification (there was never a mandate that they must be resubmitted....), but all newer reloadable motors submitted are now classified as HPR. The old definition does not allow metal casings or handling of ingredients, so LMS are also affected.

https://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=ab_467&sess=CUR&house=B&search_type=email

If this gets voted through the CA Senate and signed by the Governor, it should go into effect on Jan 1, 2016.

The final wording in the law will be amended as it has been already after the initial introduction. The amendments are to make the wording more clear and provide the proper form of reference to the NFPA codes. The desire is to not just point to the current version of the NFPA 1122 and 1125, but to include wording that indicates the current version or any future revision. That way the law does not have to be changed every few years.

CSFM has already provided comments that once the law goes into effect, it over-rides any conflicting references in the Regulations and they will revise the regulations to match or remove the outdated NFPA references at a later date.

NOTE: massive mis-information in the past has been spread by people who use the "Handbook" of the CA regulations as their guide to what is in the regulations. The "Handbook" is like the DMV study guide. It is NOT the official regulations and the typos and incorrect reference material provided in the Handbook are wrong and have confused many. many people. It is simple: use the actual Regulations and Law. Period.


I will thank you very much not to refer to Frank as "infamous". He was a friend of mine :dark:
 
Another update bump:

As of July 2nd, the bill as passed in Assembly again with all senate amendments, and is now on it's way to the Governor for him to sign, allow to go into law without a signature, or be vetoed. I don't see a veto happening so congrats to everyone in California!
 
Another update bump:

As of July 2nd, the bill as passed in Assembly again with all senate amendments, and is now on it's way to the Governor for him to sign, allow to go into law without a signature, or be vetoed. I don't see a veto happening so congrats to everyone in California!

Wow! Not only did it pass, but it was unanimous at all stages of the process. Everybody that voted, gave it a yes.
So it's effectively veto-proof anyway.

Nicely done, whomever spearheaded this one.

-Hans
 
You're welcome.

I tried to get a group of club leaders to help with this 2 years earlier, but I was met with vicious opposition.

So, I just started the process myself.

Once the AB was introduced, dozens of fantastic people wrote letters in support and some went the extra mile to travel to Sacramento to testify.
 
AB 467 has been signed by the Governor of California and from what I understand it will go into effect on January 1, 2016.


This will be reflected in our 2016 Calendar of Events and Rocket Report. Nothing changes right now, but you can start building those larger sized Model Rockets and get ready to start launching them in January. This is very good news for TARC teams launching under Model Rocket launching permits.


Our permit at the Santa Fe Dam is for Model Rocket launching and was issued by the LA County Fire Dept. They also updated their Fire Code a few years ago to get rid of the antiquated duplicated portions that came from very old State Fire Regulations and it is very streamlined. It simply refers to the State Regulations. If you are curious, it is LA County Code of Ordinances, Title 32 FIRE CODE, 105.6.29.1 Mode! l Rockets; "An operational permit is required to operate a model rocket motor or an experimental high-powered rocket motor as defined in Title 19 California Code of Regulations, Section 980." last revised Oct 2014.

That Section simply points to the Law (Health and Safety Code) paragraph that defines a Model Rocket Motor, and that is the law that has just been changed. (Very cool)


Any State Regulations that might possibly be in conflict with the new law will be null and void and eventually rewritten. The Law over-rides the old regulations. You will eventually see CA Code of Regulations, Title 19, Division 1, Chapter 6, Section 1022 revised.
 
:clap::clap::clap: Your hard work is very much appreciated. I wonder if it would be possible to explain exactly what this means for those of us here in California? Like a before and after.....
 
Great job on what you have done for the west coast rocketeers!

Now, can someone work to get the flush tax repealed in Maryland?
 
:clap::clap::clap: Your hard work is very much appreciated. I wonder if it would be possible to explain exactly what this means for those of us here in California? Like a before and after.....

I had typed a reply and then my browser locked up and all the good info was gone.

Before (current):

California Health and Safety Code Section 12519
"Model rocket" means any toy or educational device which weighs not more than 500 grams, including the engine and any payload, that is propelled by model rocket engines.

California Health and Safety Code Section 12520
"Model rocket engine" means a commercially manufactured, nonreusable rocket propulsion device which is constructed of a nonmetallic casing and solid propellant, wherein all of the ingredients are self-contained so as not to require mixing or handling by the user and which have design and construction characteristics determined by the State Fire Marshal to provide a reasonable degree of safety to the user.

The problem with section 12519 is the “500 grams” weight limit - the Model Rocket weight limit has been 1500 grams for well over a decade.
The problems with section 12520 are the words “nonreusable”, “nonmetallic” and “wherein all of the ingredients are self-contained so as not to require mixing or handling by the user”. Reloadable Model Rocket Motors have been part of the NFPA code since 1994. There is no “mixing” of propellant, but the premanufactured propellant modules are assembled into a re-usable ductile aluminum casing by the user. Also, there are single-use “loadable motors” where the premanufactured propellant modules are installed into the one-time-use plastic or ductile aluminum casing by the user.

After (Jan 1, 2016):
https://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/15-16/bill/asm/ab_0451-0500/ab_467_bill_20150715_chaptered.html

LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST


AB 467, Chang. Pyrotechnic devices: model rockets.
Existing law authorizes the State Fire Marshal to issue and renew
licenses for the manufacture, import, export, sale, and use of all
fireworks and pyrotechnic devices. Existing law provides that a
license shall not be required for the retail sale, use, or discharge
of model rocket engines. Existing law requires the State Fire Marshal
to classify all fireworks and pyrotechnic devices and prohibits the
importation, sale, or offering for sale prior to the classification.
Existing law requires all fireworks or toy propellant devices
containing pyrotechnic compositions that the State Fire Marshal finds
come within the definition of a "model rocket" or "model rocket
engine" to be classified as model rocket engines. Existing law
prohibits a person from launching a model rocket from a site without
first securing authorization from the authority having jurisdiction.
Existing law defines a model rocket as a toy or educational device
that weighs not more than 500 grams, including the engine and any
payload, that is propelled by a model rocket engine. Existing law
defines a model rocket engine as a commercially manufactured,
nonreusable rocket propulsion device that is constructed of
nonmetallic casing and solid propellant, as provided.
This bill would add to the definition of "model rocket" a
requirement that it conform to the definition of "model rocket" as
used in the 2013 edition of the "NFPA 1122: Code for Model Rocketry,"
or a more recent edition as adopted by the State Fire Marshal, and
would increase the maximum weight of a model rocket to not more than
1500 grams. This bill would change all references in statute to model
rocket engines to instead refer to model rocket motors. The bill
would revise the definition of "model rocket motor" to mean a rocket
propulsion device using commercially manufactured solid propellant
that does not require mixing by the user and that conforms to the
definition of "model rocket motor" as used in the 2012 edition of the
"NFPA 1125: Code for the Manufacture of Model Rocket and High Power
Rocket Motors," or a more recent edition as adopted by the State Fire
Marshal.


THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. Section 12519 of the Health and Safety Code is amended
to read:
12519. "Model rocket" means a toy or educational device that
weighs not more than 1500 grams, including the engine and any
payload, that is propelled by a model rocket motor, and that conforms
to the definition of "model rocket" in the 2013 edition of the "NFPA
1122: Code for Model Rocketry," or a more recent edition as adopted
by the State Fire Marshal.
SEC. 2. Section 12520 of the Health and Safety Code is amended to
read:
12520. "Model rocket motor" means a rocket propulsion device
using commercially manufactured solid propellant, that does not
require mixing by the user, and that conforms to the definition of
"model rocket motor" in the 2012 edition of the "NFPA 1125: Code for
the Manufacture of Model Rocket and High Power Rocket Motors," or a
more recent edition as adopted by the State Fire Marshal.

It also changes "engine" to "Motor" all over the rest of the Law.

After Jan 1, we can launch normal Model Rockets up to 1500 grams just like the NFPA/NAR Safety Code says, following all of the Safety Code field size requirements. CA still requires a permit for Model Rocket launching. Some locations have fire authorities that have blanket permits for smaller Model Rockets, such as OCFA:
https://ocfa.org/Uploads/CommunityRiskReduction/OCFA Guide-G01-Model Rocket Safety.pdf

Model Rocket Motor manufacturers who make LMS and RMS type motors will be able to have the Model Rocket (as defined by NFPA) motors Classified by the CA State Fire Marshal as Model Rocket Motors instead of High Power Rocket Motors.

This would apply to the newer Aerotech LMS and RMS Model Rocket (per NFPA) motors introduced since the Oct 2010 strict enforcement period began and also to all CTI Model Rocket (per NFPA) Motors.

The law change invokes the current version of NFPA 1122 and 1125 AND it also allows for any later versions, which eliminates the need to change the Law every time the NFPA code is changed! That is the ultimate version of the wording that I proposed.
 
I think AT and CTI should give you a nice big bonus for opening up more sales for them. :wink:
 
AB 467 has been signed by the Governor of California and from what I understand it will go into effect on January 1, 2016.

Thank you for your effort on this matter, Fred! :clap:

I am looking forward to the first SFD launch of 2016!
 
Way to go Fred!

There are those who talk about fixing a problem and those who actually do something to fix it.

Greg
 
Great job Fred!
Now could you work on an exemption that will allow motors larger than an "M" for LDRS next year? I've got this N2000.... Perfect for my Large, Dangerous Rocket Ship!
 
That would "only" require a revision to the State Fire Regulations as there is NOTHING about High Power Rocketry in the State Law.

First step would be to join the pyrotechnics committee (and/or bring it back to life if it has been dormant).

That will not be on my plate. I'm too busy with my extremely cool (and busy/intense) job.

Regulations for HPR could be revised to simply point to NFPA 1127. The CA regulations on HPR predated the existence of NFPA 1127 and paved the way for 1127, but they have never been revised...


Great job Fred!
Now could you work on an exemption that will allow motors larger than an "M" for LDRS next year? I've got this N2000.... Perfect for my Large, Dangerous Rocket Ship!
 
They had larger than "M" motors at the last LDRS ROC hosted in '09, I'm sure they will get that sorted out......
 
Back
Top