Can NC require the BUYER of electrical equipment to make sure the equipment was tested by a qualified laboratory, or does that legal duty fall only on the seller?
Plain-English summary
Representative Constance K. Wilson asked the AG to sort out a statutory question that mattered to electrical contractors and manufacturers: when electrical equipment ends up in a NC building, whose job is it to make sure the equipment was tested by a qualified independent lab? Senior Deputy AG Reginald L. Watkins and Assistant AG Ted R. Williams answered with a two-part structure.
Part one: Article 4 of Chapter 66 (sales-side testing duties). G.S. § 66-23 imposed pre-sale testing duties on "every person, firm or corporation before selling, offering for sale, assigning, or disposing of by gift as premiums or in any similar manner any electrical material, devices, appliances or equipment." Those entities had to determine, before the equipment left their hands, that it complied with Article 4's testing requirements. G.S. § 66-27A gave the Commissioner of Insurance (or designated electrical inspectors) the authority to enforce Article 4 by entering and inspecting facilities suspected of selling non-conforming equipment.
The AG read the language literally. Article 4 applied to sellers, manufacturers offering equipment for sale, and similar dispositions. It did not apply to purchasers. The AG cited News and Observer Pub. Co. v. State of N.C. ex rel. Starling, 312 N.C. 276 (1984), for the proposition that when a statute's language is plain, courts give it its plain meaning. Article 4 was plain. It governed the supply side.
Representative Wilson's letter included four hypothetical scenarios involving manufacturers. The AG examined them and concluded that in none of them was the relevant manufacturer "selling, offering for sale or otherwise disposing of" electrical equipment. Article 4 therefore did not apply to those scenarios.
Part two: the State Building Code and installation-side controls. The AG did not stop with the "Article 4 doesn't apply" conclusion. The opinion went on to identify the regime that did apply to installed equipment.
G.S. § 143-139.1 authorized the State Building Code to require testing, evaluation, inspection, and certification by a recognized independent testing laboratory for buildings, structures, or components manufactured off-site. Approval was evidenced by labels or seals acceptable to the Building Code Council. Equipment bearing those labels was deemed to meet the Code without further inspection (except for connection and local-ordinance requirements).
The NC State Building Code, Volume IV - Electrical (the State Electrical Code), provided the operative scheme. Section 10.2 stated the Code's purpose: minimum safety standards for electrical systems and equipment in buildings. Section 110-2 required that conductors and equipment "shall be acceptable only if approved." Section 110-3 governed examination, identification, installation, and use, and its Explanatory Note pointed to "listing or labeling" as the way suitability is identified. Article 100 of the Code defined "listing" (equipment included on a list maintained by an organization concerned with product evaluation) and "labeling" (equipment to which an organization-attached label is affixed). Underwriters Laboratories (UL) and similar bodies were the industry's recognized labeling organizations.
Enforcement on the installation side ran through county and municipal inspection departments. G.S. §§ 153A-352 (counties) and 160A-412 (municipalities) authorized those departments to enforce state and local laws governing buildings and electrical-system installation. Practically, if a builder or contractor installed unapproved electrical equipment, the inspector would refuse to approve the work. The enforcement lever was a withheld certificate of occupancy or a failed final inspection.
The combined regime. Sellers face Article 4 testing requirements before the equipment leaves the supply chain. Purchasers, builders, and contractors face State Electrical Code listing-and-labeling requirements at the inspection stage. The two regimes complement each other, but the legal duty does not reach upstream to make the purchaser responsible for verifying lab testing under Article 4.
The opinion was useful for manufacturers in the four hypothetical scenarios (because Article 4 did not reach them), and useful for building inspectors (because it confirmed the State Building Code regime as the locus of installation-stage enforcement).
Currency note
This opinion was issued in 1998. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here. The NC State Building Code has been updated on regular cycles since 1998 (with adoption of National Electrical Code revisions), and Chapter 66 has been amended. The fundamental split between sales-side and installation-side enforcement remains, but specific section numbers and language should be checked against current law.
Background and statutory framework
Why this question matters. Electrical equipment failure causes fires, shocks, and electrocutions. The state regulates the equipment to reduce those risks. The regulatory scheme can target the supply side (testing before sale), the installation side (inspection before energization), or both. NC uses both. The Wilson opinion clarified which statute reached which actor.
Article 4 of Chapter 66. Chapter 66 is NC's commercial and consumer protection chapter; Article 4 governs electrical equipment safety. G.S. § 66-23 is the central provision: every seller, manufacturer offering for sale, or person disposing of electrical equipment as a premium must first verify compliance with Article 4's testing standards. The seller's duty is to determine compliance before placing the equipment in the stream of commerce.
Commissioner of Insurance enforcement. G.S. § 66-27A vested enforcement authority in the Commissioner of Insurance, with the Commissioner's designee and local electrical inspectors as agents. The Commissioner could enter and inspect any NC facility on reasonable suspicion of non-conforming equipment being sold. The remedy included action to prevent, restrain, or correct violations.
The plain meaning canon. News and Observer Pub. Co. v. Starling (1984) reaffirmed the standard NC rule: "When . . . the language of a statute is clear and unambiguous, there is no room for judicial construction, and courts must give the statute its plain meaning." The AG used this canon to refuse to extend Article 4 to purchasers, even though such extension might serve public safety.
The State Building Code framework. G.S. § 143-139.1 authorized the Building Code Council to require testing, evaluation, inspection, and certification of off-site manufactured components by an independent recognized testing laboratory. Approval was indicated by labels or seals. Components bearing approved labels were "deemed to meet the requirements of the State Building Code" without further inspection beyond connection-related requirements.
Listing and labeling under § 110-3. Section 110-3 of the State Electrical Code (which incorporated the National Electrical Code as adopted in NC) required that equipment be acceptable for the specific use, environment, or application. The Explanatory Note made clear that listing or labeling by a recognized evaluation organization established suitability. UL was the dominant evaluator, but others were recognized.
Local enforcement. G.S. §§ 153A-352 and 160A-412 authorized county and municipal inspection departments to enforce state and local laws relating to buildings and electrical-system installation. The inspector's authority to fail an installation that used unlabeled or unapproved equipment was the practical backstop for the listing-and-labeling regime.
Why both regimes exist. The supply-side regime catches problems upstream. The installation-side regime catches what slips through. Together, they create overlapping coverage so that unsafe equipment is unlikely to reach a finished building. The AG's opinion clarified that the two regimes target different actors and operate through different enforcement channels, even though both rely substantially on independent testing labs.
Common questions
Q: If a contractor buys non-UL-listed electrical equipment for use in a NC building, can the contractor be prosecuted under Chapter 66?
A: No, not under Article 4. Article 4 addresses sellers. But the contractor will likely fail electrical inspection under the State Electrical Code's § 110-2 and § 110-3 listing-and-labeling requirements, which means no approval to energize.
Q: Who enforces Chapter 66 Article 4 against a non-compliant seller?
A: The Commissioner of Insurance, the Commissioner's designee, or any state or local electrical inspector under G.S. § 66-27A.
Q: What "recognized independent testing laboratory" qualifies?
A: The Building Code Council approves the labels and seals. Underwriters Laboratories (UL) is the most common. Others include ETL, CSA, and TÜV, each subject to NC Building Code Council recognition.
Q: Does this opinion apply to homeowners doing their own electrical work?
A: The Building Code's listing-and-labeling requirements apply to all electrical installations subject to permit inspection. A homeowner using unapproved equipment will face the same inspection-stage failure as a contractor.
Q: What about used or salvaged electrical equipment?
A: The opinion did not address resale or salvage specifically. Sellers of used equipment are still "selling" under § 66-23's plain language. Inspectors at installation will require listing or labeling regardless of whether the equipment is new or used.
Q: Does Article 4 apply to manufacturers who don't sell directly?
A: The opinion said it does not. A manufacturer that does not sell, offer for sale, assign, or dispose of equipment in NC is outside Article 4. Their product enters the regulatory system at the point where it is sold or installed.
Citations from the opinion
- N.C. Gen. Stat. § 66-23
- N.C. Gen. Stat. § 66-27A
- N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143-139.1
- N.C. Gen. Stat. § 153A-352
- N.C. Gen. Stat. § 160A-412
- NC State Building Code, Volume IV - Electrical, §§ 10.2, 10.4, 110-2, 110-3
- News and Observer Pub. Co. v. State of N.C. ex rel. Starling, 312 N.C. 276, 322 S.E.2d 133 (1984)
Source
- Landing page: https://ncdoj.gov/opinions/purchasers-of-electrical-equipment-ensuring-that-equipment-is-tested-by-qualified-lab/
Original opinion text
December 22, 1998
The Honorable Constance K. Wilson Representative 57th District 529 Legislative Office Building Raleigh, North Carolina 27602-1096
RE: Advisory Opinion; Purchasers of electrical equipment ensuring that equipment is tested by qualified lab; Article 4 of Chapter 66 of North Carolina General Statutes; North Carolina Building Code
Dear Representative Wilson:
You request our opinion whether it is proper to require the purchaser of electrical equipment to ensure that the equipment is tested by a qualified laboratory under the provisions of Article 4 of Chapter 66 of the North Carolina General Statutes. For the following reasons, it is our opinion that purchasers cannot be required to ensure that electrical equipment is tested by a qualified laboratory pursuant to Article 4 of Chapter 66 because those provisions do not apply to purchasers. Article 4 is applicable to entities selling, offering for sale or otherwise disposing of electrical equipment. However, other statutory provisions and related regulations are applicable to purchasers of such equipment.
N.C.G.S. § 66-23, which governs the sale of electrical goods, provides:
Every person, firm or corporation before selling, offering for sale, assigning, or disposing of by gift as premiums or in any similar manner any electrical material, devices, appliances or equipment shall first determine if such electrical materials, devices, appliances and equipment comply with the provision of this Article.
Statutory responsibility for enforcing N.C.G.S. § 66-23 is entrusted to the Commissioner of Insurance pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 66-27A. In pertinent part, the latter statute authorizes the Commissioner or his designee or the electrical inspector of any State or local governing agency to initiate an appropriate action to prevent, restrain, or correct any violation of Article 4. Under appropriate circumstances, the Commissioner or his designee may enter and inspect any facility within the State where there is reasonable cause to suspect that electrical materials, devices, appliances, or equipment not in conformance with the requirements of Article 4 are being sold, offered for sale, assigned, or disposed of by gift, as premiums, or in any other similar manner.
Both N.C.G.S. §§ 66-23 and 66-27A clearly apply to entities "selling, offering for sale, assigning or disposing of" electrical equipment. They do not apply to purchasers of such equipment under the plain meaning of the statutes. "When…the language of a statute is clear and unambiguous, there is no room for judicial construction, and courts must give the statute its plain meaning." News and Observer Pub. Co. v. State of North Carolina ex rel. Starling, 312 N.C. 276, 322 S.E.2d 133 (1984).
Your letter includes four scenarios questioning the application of Article 4 to certain manufacturers described therein. However, it does not appear in any of the scenarios that the manufacturer is selling, offering for sale or otherwise disposing of electrical equipment.
Consequently, the provisions of Article 4 of Chapter 66 do not apply to these situations. However, our analysis does not end here.
Although the manufacturer referred to in your examples would not be subject to the provisions of Article 4 of Chapter 66, other provisions of the North Carolina General Statutes and the State Building and Electrical Codes are applicable to both manufacturers and purchasers of electrical equipment. For instance, N.C.G.S. § 143-139.1 provides:
The State Building Code may provide, in circumstances deemed appropriate by the Building Code Council, for testing, evaluation, inspection, and certification of buildings, structures or components manufactured off the site on which they are to be erected, by a recognized independent testing laboratory having follow-up inspection services approved by the Building Code Council. Approval of such buildings, structures or components shall be evidenced by labels or seals acceptable to the Council. All building units, structures or components bearing such labels or seals shall be deemed to meet the requirements of the State Building Code and this Article without further inspection or payment of fees, except as may be required for the enforcement of the Code relative to the connection of units and components and enforcement of local ordinances governing zoning, utility connections, and foundations permits. (Emphasis added)
In addition, requirements imposed by the North Carolina State Building Code, Volume IV - Electrical (State Electrical Code) may be applicable. The State Electrical Code provides in Section 10.2:
[T]he purpose of the code is to provide certain minimum standards, provisions and requirements of safe and stable design, methods of construction and uses of materials in buildings and/or structures hereafter erected, constructed, enlarged, altered, repaired, moved, converted to other uses or demolished and to regulate the electrical systems, equipment, maintenance, use and occupancy of all buildings and/or structures. All regulations contained in the code shall have a reasonable and substantial connection with the public health, safety, morals, or general welfare, and their provisions shall be construed liberally to those ends.
Further, Section 10.4 of the State Electrical Code provides:
[U]nless the context clearly indicates otherwise, whenever the word "building" is used in this chapter, it shall be deemed to include the word "structure" and all installations such as plumbing systems, heating systems, cooling systems, electrical systems, elevators and other installations which are parts of, or permanently affixed to, the building or structure. (Emphasis added)
Significantly, the State Electrical Code prescribes the requirements for examination and approval of electrical installations. Under Section 110-2, the conductors and equipment required or permitted by this Code shall be acceptable only if approved. Section 110-3 governs the examination, identification, installation, and use of electrical equipment. An Explanatory Note for Section 110-3 makes it clear that suitability of equipment use for specific purpose, environment, or application may be identified by a description marked on or provided on such equipment. In other words, suitability of equipment may be evidenced by listing or labeling. Listing and labeling are defined, respectively, in Article 100 of the State Electrical Code as equipment included on a list of an organization concerned with product evaluation or equipment to which a label has been attached by such an organization. County and municipal inspection departments enforce State and local laws relating to buildings and the installation of electrical systems. See N.C.G.S. § 153A-352 and § 160A-412.
The provisions of both N.C.G.S. § 143-139.1 and the State Building and Electrical Code, through the process of listing and labeling under Section 110-3(b) of the Code, provide for the use of independent testing and evaluation agencies. The requirements under these provisions are not limited to sellers as they are under Article 4 of Chapter 66. The State Building Code is designed to ensure the proper installation of equipment in a structure, irrespective of whether an entity is selling or purchasing the equipment. The regulatory scheme under N.C.G.S. § 143-139.1 and the State Electrical Code contemplate that inspection and approval of electrical equipment will be based upon labeled or listed equipment to determine safety and suitably. Depending upon the inspection results, enforcement is accomplished by granting or withholding approval of the premises.
Should you have any further questions, please contact this office.
signed by:
Reginald L. Watkins, Senior Deputy Attorney General
Ted R. Williams, Assistant Attorney General