Can you build J and higher motors at home without having a Level 1 Certification?

[jderimig]

I am wondering this too, but after reading through NFPA and the MA statute, I think it is a law and I think this is very weird. My prior interpretation was that Tripoli makes a nice "path" for fliers like myself to follow and stay within the rules. If someone wanted to "do it themselves", I thought they could but they would then need to work it out with all the agencies to get all the various permissions. I *think* this is true for home built motors but for commercial motors I am not sure.

States can create laws based on NFPA, but cannot say NFPA is the law because NFPA is not a legislative body. NFPA is a product for sale created by unelected people. Also adjudication of NFPA or any other code violations in never done in the US court system, its administrative, another violation of the constitutional separation of powers but that is fodder for a future thread that will be eventually locked.

 

[AlexBruccoleri]

States can create laws based on NFPA, but cannot say NFPA is the law because NFPA is not a legislative body. NFPA is a product for sale created by unelected people. Also adjudication of NFPA or any other code violations in never done in the US court system, its administrative, another violation of the constitutional separation of powers but that is fodder for a future thread that will be eventually locked.

That was exactly my understanding too. Maybe states are copying the codes into their laws. I dunno... and maybe Steve will comment more and clarify. He was/is a representative to NFPA so he knows this stuff well.

Ps-You are good at predicting thread lockage.

 

[cwbullet]

I just wanted to know if you can build J and higher solid motors at home without Level 1 Certification. Also if there are any federal or state regulations in the California, US that prohibit it.

You have a single post. Most user are suspicious of your question. Single login, but the OP appears to be from Cali.

 

[cbrarick]

What we really need here is to hijack this to a glue thread! Now THAT will get everyone's dander up!

 

[NateB]

I am not sure that this is a general law. Is this specifically a CA statute? NFPA as you said is not a law it is code. Enforcement of code violation has to exist in specifically define law along with definitions and penalties.

States can create laws based on NFPA, but cannot say NFPA is the law because NFPA is not a legislative body. NFPA is a product for sale created by unelected people. Also adjudication of NFPA or any other code violations in never done in the US court system, its administrative, another violation of the constitutional separation of powers but that is fodder for a future thread that will be eventually locked.

Some states codify sections of NFPA guidelines as law, others refer to them properly as "recommendations." Ohio actually refers to NFPA 1123 as law for firework displays, and the State tests people over it before granting various licenses they require to to work on firework dispalys or be the lead or lead safety for them. In both cases, if you found yourself on the wrong side of a criminal or civil trial, they would serve as an expert witness against you if you were not following them.

If it is law, it is problematic for the reasons you describe. The NFPA review process isn't as open as a legislative session should be, although they do take comments. I've seen requests for comments on rule proposals through the fire service and assume they do the same for other industries they regulate.

 

[jderimig]

Some states codify sections of NFPA guidelines as law, others refer to them properly as "recommendations." Ohio actually refers to NFPA 1123 as law for firework displays, and the State tests people over it before granting various licenses they require to to work on firework dispalys or be the lead or lead safety for them. In both cases, if you found yourself on the wrong side of a criminal or civil trial, they would serve as an expert witness against you if you were not following them.

If it is law, it is problematic for the reasons you describe. The NFPA review process isn't as open as a legislative session should be, although they do take comments. I've seen requests for comments on rule proposals through the fire service and assume they do the same for other industries they regulate.

But NFPA code can not stand as law on its own. It can be included but a law needs to specifically stipulate the penalties and method of enforcement to be a legal statute. A state or local jurisdiction cant just say follow NFPA or else....

 

[AlexBruccoleri]

But NFPA code can not stand as law on its own. It can be included but a law needs to specifically stipulate the penalties and method of enforcement to be a legal statute. A state or local jurisdiction cant just say follow NFPA or else....

NFPA has a guide on how to do this in the code. Check out the end of NFPA 1127. I am not sure what Massachusetts does though. Either way, I am not thrilled about it from an abstract legal angle. Practically this offers hobby rocketeers some solid protection so that is a plus.

 

[NateB]

If the the State copies an NFPA section verbatim and adds a penalty for failure to comply. The "law" is still written by a non-governing body. Some states (like Indiana), pick and choose some parts and leave out others. At least the NFPA tries to seek out advice for fire departments from fire departments rather than having lawyers and career politicians hash it out.

 

[Alan15578]

What we really need here is to hijack this to a glue thread! Now THAT will get everyone's dander up!

How is glue made from old horses? Is a license or certification required for that?

 

[NateB]

How is glue made from old horses? Is a license or certification required for that?

Apparently ASTM D-4236 which according to Google pertains to the labeling of hazardous art products.
Also, my glue expired 9 years ago. Better call the feds.

 

[AlexBruccoleri]

Okay to steer the conversation back to the OP’s question. Does anyone disagree that if the OP is the authority having jurisdiction or gets permission from that person, then he is good to build and statically test rocket motors? In California he almost certainly needs permission from the fire department, who is probably the authority. Note this type of activity is commonly referred to as amateur rocketry and is often not even associated with launching anything. It should be extra noted that building rocket motors and testing them is a far different activity than hobby rocket flying. Flying ex motors is a different story but static testing is a world far different than almost anyone will ever see being apart of Tripoli or NAR. Tripoli offers no formal certifications on static testing for members and making codes which might even become laws for those who do this activity seems inappropriate. (Yes, some ex people test their motors, but many do not, and nobody is required to.) Lastly if I am interpreting the code correctly there is no issue as amateur rocketry will fall into the hands of the AHJ.

 

[Steve Shannon]

Okay to steer the conversation back to the OP’s question. Does anyone disagree that if the OP is the authority having jurisdiction or gets permission from that person, then he is good to build and statically test rocket motors? In California he almost certainly needs permission from the fire department, who is probably the authority. Note this type of activity is commonly referred to as amateur rocketry and is often not even associated with launching anything. It should be extra noted that building rocket motors and testing them is a far different activity than hobby rocket flying. Flying ex motors is a different story but static testing is a world far different than almost anyone will ever see being apart of Tripoli or NAR. Tripoli offers no formal certifications on static testing for members and making codes which might even become laws for those who do this activity seems inappropriate. (Yes, some ex people test their motors, but many do not, and nobody is required to.) Lastly if I am interpreting the code correctly there is no issue as amateur rocketry will fall into the hands of the AHJ.

I disagree. The OP is not an AHJ. Neither is the landowner. AHJ (Authority Having Jurisdiction) typically refers to the governmental unit that is charged with enforcing the codes, regulations, or laws. Nor is there any language in NFPA 1127 that authorizes an AHJ to grant permission to violate the codes or regulations.
There is a portion in the beginning that establishes scope however. It provides protection against enforcement for certain entities.

 

[wsume99]

Okay to steer the conversation back to the OP’s question. Does anyone disagree that if the OP is the authority having jurisdiction or gets permission from that person, then he is good to build and statically test rocket motors? In California he almost certainly needs permission from the fire department, who is probably the authority. Note this type of activity is commonly referred to as amateur rocketry and is often not even associated with launching anything. It should be extra noted that building rocket motors and testing them is a far different activity than hobby rocket flying. Flying ex motors is a different story but static testing is a world far different than almost anyone will ever see being apart of Tripoli or NAR. Tripoli offers no formal certifications on static testing for members and making codes which might even become laws for those who do this activity seems inappropriate. (Yes, some ex people test their motors, but many do not, and nobody is required to.) Lastly if I am interpreting the code correctly there is no issue as amateur rocketry will fall into the hands of the AHJ.

If (and that's a gigantic if) the OP is the AHJ in this instance then it does in fact seem that NFPA 1127 permits them to build and statically test HPR motors assuming they comply with all the other requirements in NFPA 1127. I'm pretty sure the landowner being the AHJ only occurs if there is not an otherwise legally appointed statutory authority. It mentions this in the Explanatory Material annex. I'm guessing in most places in the US there would be a statutory authority of some kind so I think your assumption that the OP is the AHJ is a very weak assumption.

Two other things I'd point out:
1) Most of all the other requirements in NFPA 1127 relate to HPR launches so it's not exactly clear to me how much of the document applies if you are doing ground testing. If you are to conduct ground tests like a launch then you'd essentially be operating like a NAR/TRA sanctioned launch if you were to fully comply with everything else in NFPA 1127.
2) I'm not sure if you read the purpose section of the document, specifically Para 1.2.2 and the three notes included there. I think that pretty much clears up what NFPA thinks of EX rocketry and why the document is so ambiguous about requirements for EX. For anyone that hasn't read the document it explicitly states the purpose of NFPA 1127 is to discourage experiments, construction, and attempted launches or operation of homemade rocket propellants/motors/devices. I think that's why the document focuses nearly entirely on the use of commercial HPR motors and has only one single paragraph talking about EX rocketry. They purposely wanted it to be ambiguous so that people avoid EX rocketry. Especially EX rocketry that is not done at a launch sanctioned by TRA.

 

[AlexBruccoleri]

I disagree. The OP is not an AHJ. Neither is the landowner. AHJ (Authority Having Jurisdiction) typically refers to the governmental unit that is charged with enforcing the codes, regulations, or laws. Nor is there any language in NFPA 1127 that authorizes an AHJ to grant permission to violate the codes or regulations.
There is a portion in the beginning that establishes scope however. It provides protection against enforcement for certain entities.

Thanks for the reply. The definition of AHJ in the code states that the land owner is often the AHJ. It also states when public safety is a concern the AHJ is often local ordinance. The fire department is listed as a possibility. This is stated toward the end of the document. Note I never said the OP was the AHJ, I said “if”. If it’s his land and no public safety threat exist then he might be the AHJ.

If you go to NFPA 1127, Section 6.1, Note 5, it says ex motors can be made for new technology if either a national organization or a AHJ is involved. I never said a AHJ can violate the code but they can evaluate and therefore authorize ex motor development. I never suggested the AHJ can violate the code but section 6.1 gives them the ability to be an evaluator of ex activities.

 

[Steve Shannon]

The definition of an AHJ in NFPA 1127 3.2.2 says nothing about landowners. Where are you seeing that an AHJ is often the landowner? Of course that doesn’t mean that a landowner is necessarily an AHJ. For instance, BLM is frequently a landowner (for regulatory purposes) and is an AHJ for Department of Interior regulations. But by no means does that authorize a private rancher to act as an AHJ.
I agree that 6.1 carves out an exception for an AHJ, but it doesn’t logically or legally follow that an AHJ can authorize others. That’s just not how regulations work. For instance, in a state that adopted NFPA 1127 by reference, BLM doesn’t have the authority to waive NFPA 1127 based regulations on their lands except if they’re evaluating a new high power rocket motor technology. They could participate in such an evaluation, but they couldn’t just pat a person on the head and say “Go have fun!”

 

[AlexBruccoleri]

The definition of an AHJ in NFPA 1127 3.2.2 says nothing about landowners. Where are you seeing that an AHJ is often the landowner? Of course that doesn’t mean that a landowner is necessarily an AHJ. For instance, BLM is frequently a landowner (for regulatory purposes) and is an AHJ for Department of Interior regulations. But by no means does that authorize a private rancher to act as an AHJ.
I agree that 6.1 carves out an exception for an AHJ, but it doesn’t logically or legally follow that an AHJ can authorize others. That’s just not how regulations work. For instance, in a state that adopted NFPA 1127 by reference, BLM doesn’t have the authority to waive NFPA 1127 based regulations on their lands except if they’re evaluating a new high power rocket motor technology. They could participate in such an evaluation, but they couldn’t just pat a person on the head and say “Go have fun!”

The last sentence of A.3.2.2 says property owners often are the AHJ. And 6.1 says ex motors can be made for either evaluation of a national org or an AHJ. This is from the 2018 edition. Maybe that is the wrong edition?

 

[AlexBruccoleri]

If (and that's a gigantic if) the OP is the AHJ in this instance then it does in fact seem that NFPA 1127 permits them to build and statically test HPR motors assuming they comply with all the other requirements in NFPA 1127. I'm pretty sure the landowner being the AHJ only occurs if there is not an otherwise legally appointed statutory authority. It mentions this in the Explanatory Material annex. I'm guessing in most places in the US there would be a statutory authority of some kind so I think your assumption that the OP is the AHJ is a very weak assumption.

Two other things I'd point out:
1) Most of all the other requirements in NFPA 1127 relate to HPR launches so it's not exactly clear to me how much of the document applies if you are doing ground testing. If you are to conduct ground tests like a launch then you'd essentially be operating like a NAR/TRA sanctioned launch if you were to fully comply with everything else in NFPA 1127.
2) I'm not sure if you read the purpose section of the document, specifically Para 1.2.2 and the three notes included there. I think that pretty much clears up what NFPA thinks of EX rocketry and why the document is so ambiguous about requirements for EX. For anyone that hasn't read the document it explicitly states that purpose of NFPA 1127 is to discourage experiments, construction, and attempted launches or operation of homemade rocket propellants/motors/devices. I think that's why the document focuses nearly entirely on the use of commercial HPR motors and has only one single paragraph talking about EX rocketry. They purposely wanted it to be ambiguous so that people avoid EX rocketry. Especially EX rocketry that is not done at a launch sanctioned by TRA.

I read the document carefully and hopefully I have the most current version. You are right they are discouraging ex work but ex rocketry in the context of static testing is not at all what NFPA 1127 is about or even should be about. It should be its own code and the FAR folks should be advising those codes, not Tripoli or NAR since their members test rocket motors as their hobby.

And I agree the OP is not likely the AHJ. In cali my guess is it’s the fire chief.

 

[jderimig]

Why would you want to make a J motor if you are not L1 certified? Its going to cost you more, your motor will probably suck at first, and you will be putting yourself and net worth at risk. Is it because you want to have a J motor and can't buy one because of your certification status?

My recommendation is read and follow NFPA for the safety practice standards AT A MINIMUM. Your personal compliance to the other parts is on you. If you die or burn your house down, insurance companies are unlikely to pay whether you follow NFPA or not.

 

[AlexBruccoleri]

The definition of an AHJ in NFPA 1127 3.2.2 says nothing about landowners. Where are you seeing that an AHJ is often the landowner? Of course that doesn’t mean that a landowner is necessarily an AHJ. For instance, BLM is frequently a landowner (for regulatory purposes) and is an AHJ for Department of Interior regulations. But by no means does that authorize a private rancher to act as an AHJ.
I agree that 6.1 carves out an exception for an AHJ, but it doesn’t logically or legally follow that an AHJ can authorize others. That’s just not how regulations work. For instance, in a state that adopted NFPA 1127 by reference, BLM doesn’t have the authority to waive NFPA 1127 based regulations on their lands except if they’re evaluating a new high power rocket motor technology. They could participate in such an evaluation, but they couldn’t just pat a person on the head and say “Go have fun!”

Hi Steve, I may have missed something in your message late last night. You are agreeing the BLM can evaluate new rocket technology. I am contending that the AHJ can authorize and regulate the testing of rocket motors. I am NOT contending (at present) that they can ignore the NFPA 1127 code. So let me rephrase. If the OP is not a Tripoli member and happens to be the AHJ or the AHJ agrees to conduct evaluations and all is done in accordance with NFPA 1127, then the OP is free NOT TO BE a Tripoli member. Tripoli certification was his question. Tripoli or NAR is not specifically required in NFPA 1127 and the code states certification, but the AHJ has discretion on who they recognize for certification. One could certainly lawyer this all day but and organization like FAR would be a far better certifying organization for someone who's interests lies in motor making an testing. Likewise if a company or school offered classes, that would also be fine. I do not know if any such certifications exists but I am speaking hypothetically here.

 

[Steve Shannon]

The last sentence of A.3.2.2 says property owners often are the AHJ. And 6.1 says ex motors can be made for either evaluation of a national org or an AHJ. This is from the 2018 edition. Maybe that is the wrong edition?

Well, there’s no such thing as a wrong edition, because when states or municipalities adopt NFPA 1127 by reference they must specify which edition. Laws or regulations are fixed in time. If they don’t amend the language of their law or regulations the edition in effect is locked to whatever they adopted. NFPA has a handy utility that shows which locale has adopted which revision. However, that means that no single version, even the most recent, is representative everywhere.
It should also be pointed out that appendix A, which you are quoting, is strictly explanatory and isn’t truly part of the regulations. The part that’s adopted is 3.2.2 (not in the appendix).

 

[AlexBruccoleri]

Why would you want to make a J motor if you are not L1 certified? Its going to cost you more, your motor will probably suck at first, and you will be putting yourself and net worth at risk. Is it because you want to have a J motor and can't buy one because of your certification status?

My recommendation is read and follow NFPA for the safety practice standards AT A MINIMUM. Your personal compliance to the other parts is on you. If you die or burn your house down, insurance companies are unlikely to pay whether you follow NFPA or not.

I agree with everything you wrote and was amused with the post before you edited it. (Wise call to delete though.) For what it is worth, there are people out there, and not many, who are into the chemistry and physics of rocket motors. They like to build and test them. No doubt if you want to fly rockets, going the standard Tripoli/NAR is the best, safest most regulatory friendly. But what if he does not?

This thread struck a cord with me since people are making it seem like Tripoli certs are somehow required for an activity they are not even involved in. I contend that local municipalities can oversee static rocket testing as they see fit, and Tripoli does not need to get involved. Rocket testing is not really well discussed in the codes anyway and local municipalities have broad discretion in the matter, as they should.

Oh and for the record, when I was a freshman at Dartmouth I went through all the hoops to get permission to statically test rocket motors. At the time, I was one of those rare people into testing. I ended spending 6 months talking to the fire department, zoning board, etc. I chatted with over 20 people and finally got things setup and was able to safely conduct test. I happened to be a Tripoli l2 member at the time and was in college, but none of that mattered. What mattered was keeping things safe mostly from a fire perspective and keeping noise down. (Someone was worried the beavers would get upset at a nearby pond.)

 

[Banzai88]

(Someone was worried the beavers would get upset at a nearby pond.)

Probably best to steer clear of angry beavers!

 

[Steve Shannon]

Hi Steve, I may have missed something in your message late last night. You are agreeing the BLM can evaluate new rocket technology. I am contending that the AHJ can authorize and regulate the testing of rocket motors. I am NOT contending (at present) that they can ignore the NFPA 1127 code. So let me rephrase. If the OP is not a Tripoli member and happens to be the AHJ or the AHJ agrees to conduct evaluations and all is done in accordance with NFPA 1127, then the OP is free NOT TO BE a Tripoli member. Tripoli certification was his question. Tripoli or NAR is not specifically required in NFPA 1127 and the code states certification, but the AHJ has discretion on who they recognize for certification. One could certainly lawyer this all day but and organization like FAR would be a far better certifying organization for someone who's interests lies in motor making an testing. Likewise if a company or school offered classes, that would also be fine. I do not know if any such certifications exists but I am speaking hypothetically here.

Here’s where we disagree. You say “I am contending that the AHJ can authorize and regulate the testing of rocket motors.”
I disagree. The actual wording of the exception says:

5) Making, operating, launching, flying, testing, activating, discharging, or otherwise experimenting with high power rocket motors, motor reloading kits, or pyrotechnic modules that have not been certified in accordance with NFPA 1125 other than for the purpose of evaluation of new high power rocket motor technology by a recognized national user organization or an AHJ, provided that all other requirements of this code are met and all activities are in accordance with applicable laws, regulations, and ordinances.

That says the AHJ can conduct the evaluation, but it does not say they could authorize or regulate testing. In other words, they would have to do it themselves.
I used the example of BLM because they are an example of an AHJ that happens to be a landowner, but in reality they would have little interest in performing motor testing themselves. They’re an AHJ for Department of Interior regulations, but they’re unlikely to be the AHJ charged with enforcement of NFPA 1127; they haven’t adopted NFPA 1127. The actual language that adopts an NFPA Code most likely identifies which agency is charged with enforcement.

 

[wsume99]

NFPA 1127 is confusing as hell WRT this topic. The part that is not confusing is the clear exception granted to EX motors for TRA (or NAR if they chose to allow EX motors). It may be possible through some other means but good luck figuring that out.

Question, can you ground test MPR EX motors at a TRA launch without being L2 certified?

 

[Steve Shannon]

NFPA 1127 is confusing as hell WRT this topic. The part that is not confusing is the clear exception granted to EX motors for TRA (or NAR if they chose to allow EX motors). It may be possible through some other means but good luck figuring that out.

Question, can you ground test MPR EX motors at a TRA launch without being L2 certified?

Here’s what the Safety Code says:

13-4	Only Tripoli members who are Certified Level 2 or higher may fly or test motors that are not certified.

 

[AlexBruccoleri]

Hi Steve, Evaluation can mean a lot. It can mean go run a test and show me the results. The first sentence states the activity and the exemption is the purpose of the prohibited activity. In other words you can go and test rockets motors all you want if you comply with NFPA 1127 so long as the *purpose* is for an evaluation. Your interpretation actually means that Tripoli needs to be involved in the Ex motor making since according to you the AHJ and therefore Tripoli as well, cannot authorize or regulate testing, they need to do "do it themselves". At a launch, you are could argue that Tripoli is doing the evaluation, but that is not true of the first part of the prohibited activity "Making". Are you suggesting Tripoli has the authority to authorize home motor mixing? If so, then an AHJ does too so long as they do an evaluation. (Edit: Summary contention. The AHJ has the same powers Tripoli does in (5).)

Also to respond to the appendix. The definition of AHJ is vague in the first part and that is why they have the appendix. It is open ended intentionally. That is the whole point, near as I can tell and my experience working with local officials tells me that too. (Edit: I disagree the appendix has no added meaning. It states Tripoli and NAR certifications count toward official certifications in the rest of the document. I suspect whoever added that, meant for it to count in the code.)

And lastly it is not hard to become part of 1.3.3 (2), an individual ....in the research of, section.

 

[Ez2cDave]

Why would you want to make a J motor if you are not L1 certified? Its going to cost you more, your motor will probably suck at first, and you will be putting yourself and net worth at risk. Is it because you want to have a J motor and can't buy one because of your certification status?

My recommendation is read and follow NFPA for the safety practice standards AT A MINIMUM. Your personal compliance to the other parts is on you. If you die or burn your house down, insurance companies are unlikely to pay whether you follow NFPA or not.

The OP said he wanted to make J motors & LARGER . . . Without even having been Level 1.

This phrase by the OP "stuck out", to me. " . . . in the California, US " . . . Perhaps, not a native English speaker ?

The only reason why, that I can think of, is that he wants to remain anonymous, unregistered, & unlicensed, for whatever purposes, nefarious or otherwise.

Also, exactly where would he be able to learn how to design and make motors, "under the table" ? What knowledge of design and building skills of rockets to fly them in, would he have ? ( slapping an M motor into a carpet tube and "calling it good" is a bad idea ).

It just strikes me as suspicious.

Dave F.

 

[Steve Shannon]

Hi Steve, Evaluation can mean a lot. It can mean go run a test and show me the results. The first sentence states the activity and the exemption is the purpose of the prohibited activity. In other words you can go and test rockets motors all you want if you comply with NFPA 1127 so long as the *purpose* is for an evaluation. Your interpretation actually means that Tripoli needs to be involved in the Ex motor making since according to you the AHJ and therefore Tripoli as well, cannot authorize or regulate testing, they need to do "do it themselves". At a launch, you are could argue that Tripoli is doing the evaluation, but that is not true of the first part of the prohibited activity "Making". Are you suggesting Tripoli has the authority to authorize home motor mixing? If so, then an AHJ does too so long as they do an evaluation. (Edit: Summary contention. The AHJ has the same powers Tripoli does in (5).)

Also to respond to the appendix. The definition of AHJ is vague in the first part and that is why they have the appendix. It is open ended intentionally. That is the whole point, near as I can tell and my experience working with local officials tells me that too. (Edit: I disagree the appendix has no added meaning. It states Tripoli and NAR certifications count toward official certifications in the rest of the document. I suspect whoever added that, meant for it to count in the code.)

And lastly it is not hard to become part of 1.3.3 (2), an individual ....in the research of, section.

I agree that an AHJ is limited by this exception the same as Tripoli. Tripoli is a User Organization. By definition it’s members are Tripoli. But Tripoli could not authorize or regulate some third party to do testing unless that third party were allowed to do that within the regulations. It works the same for an AHJ. We all have to follow the same rules.
With respect to the appendix, here’s what the introduction to the appendix (annex) says:
Annex A is not a part of the requirements of this NFPA document but is included for informational purposes only. This annex contains explanatory material, numbered to correspond with the applicable text paragraphs.

I agree. And once out of scope, none of NFPA 1127 applies. The same scope limitations are present in NFPA 1122 and 1125 as well.

 

[wsume99]

And lastly it is not hard to become part of 1.3.3 (2), an individual ....in the research of, section.

Yes, "an individual, ... engaged as a licensed business in the research, ..."

All of the possibilities listed before the verb have to be doing research, etc as a licensed business for NFPA 1127 to not apply. So if you want to be exempt then start your own business. Which if you did then I assume NFPA 1125 would likely apply.

 

[rcktnut]

I just wanted to know if you can build J and higher solid motors at home without Level 1 Certification. Also if there are any federal or state regulations in the California, US that prohibit it.

Hoping that after 3 pages of responses {so far}, you have your answer. One thing for sure you opened up a nice big can of worms!!