Years ago, when CTI first had their "model rocket" sized reloads Classified by the CSFM for sale in CA, they were all Classified as HPR motors. I asked them via e-mail and they responded that they were legally required to do so by the CA law.
This was the antiquated law which I will quote here:
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.
This was being ignored by the CSFM when they revised their regulations after the NFPA recognized reloadable motors. The plan was to get the law changed, but it was not a priroty of the CSFM. They Classified Aerotech RMS motors that met the NFPA standards as "Model Rocket Motors".
Then the Kosdon Incident occurred...and Frank insisted that the CSFM enforce the Health and Safety Code as written. The CSFM sent letters to manufacturers telling them that any future reloadable motor Classifications would need to be "High Power Rocket Motors" and that they would reclassify any motors that a manufacturer requested be reclassified from "Model Rocket Motor" to "High Power Rocket Motor" with no fee. (How nice of them....) Naturally, Aerotech never requested the reclassification of motors already classified.
It was years before Aerotech submitted any more RMS motors in the 'model rocket' NFPA definition to CSFM and when they did they were Classified as "High Power Rocket Motors".
This is one of the reasons there were no new reloads for the 24/60 casing for so many years.
CTI had all their motors Classified as "High Power Rocket Motors".
After we got the law changed (Jan 1, 2016), I asked CTI to request re-Classification as "Model Rocket Motors". They said they would get around to it, but the accident occurred and they had other priorities.
Aerotech did created new reloads for the 24/60 and those were Classified as "Model Rocket Motors".
https://www.aerotech-rocketry.com/u...fae1740d5926_CSFM Modroc Approvals 2-4-19.pdf
Feel free to check with Aerotech and CTi to see if I got any of that wrong.
After thinking about it for a while, here's where I come down. The issue of students using CTI motors is a lot like a 7-year-old riding a bike. The manufacturer can tell you that the child should wear a helmet and should ride under adult supervision, but unless your municipality has laws that require both of those things, you're not required to follow those recommendations.
