1. [Donald] Hi Alec,
as we have discussed before a switchboard is can be treated as a
fitting under the regulations.
What is your interpretation of Regulation 80?
New and used fittings and appliances to be electrically safe
(2) A new fitting or appliance that is sold or offered for sale is
deemed to be electrically safe if-
(a) it complies with-
(ii) whichever official standard listed in Schedule 4 applies to the
fitting or appliance;
AS 3439.1 Low Voltage switchgear and controlgear assemblies is listed
in Schedule 4
We supply an electrically safe fitting for an installation
Regards
Donald
[Alec] Donald
I accept that a switchboard can be treated as a fitting - as can lots
of other things usually thought of as PEW. It can be forced into the
definition in the Act - but then so can an entire installation, so I
don't accept that's the only criterion (I've just had someone claim
that a pivot irrigator is a vehicle, so the electrics should be
inspected & WoEFed every 4 years as a connectable installation). But
putting that aside, and remembering that I would never suggest your
product was anything less than electrically safe as claimed; how do you
prove your product is electrically safe? Claiming compliance with cited
Standards is one thing; but you have to go further (as per Reg 81) and
state how such compliance is achieved. You need to supply either a test
report or a declaration of conformity.
[Donald] Testing of switchgear assemblies is a requirement of the
AS/NZS3439 standard. The tests are recorded and presented in a report
with the switchboard
[Alec] That might do it - but R 81 seems to require more
Is a swbd a medium risk article?
[Donald] Well who knows? I can't find any definition of 'medium risk'.
I wouldn't consider a new switchboard to be a medium risk however if it
has been installed poorly or poorly maintained it can be but we have no
control over this. Is a car a medium risk? Is the engine of a car
medium risk?
[Alec] They're not listed in the Gazetted list of items requiring an
SDoC. So probably not
If so you need an SDoC (as per R 83).Note particularly R 83(3) (c) &
(d).
If it's a high-risk article, it needs approval by Secretary.
As far as I can see it's not on either list, so I'm not sure where that
leaves you - however "low risk" doesn't seem right. I believe this
means that neither R 83 nor R 84 applies, but R 80 & 81 certainly do if
you want to take the "fitting" approach. so you need either a
Declaration of Conformity or a test report as evidence of compliance

2. with the Standard(s) in Schedule 4. In my view, a sticker / label on
the panel is /not/ sufficient. The installer needs something in
writing, which they can attached to their CoC or keep on file. If a
bald assertion of compliance is no longer good enough for the items on
the medium risk list, such as a range, range hood, etc, it shouldn't be
good enough for your switchboards either.
[Donald] The switchboards come with a test report (along with their
label).
[Alec] but is the report done by an accredited laboratory?
[Donald] Are range hood manufacturers supplying DoCs! ?
[Alec] If asked, they do. Otherwise, just like switchboards, they are
covered by the installer's CoC
[Donald] Where do we find the 'medium risk list'?
[Alec] as published on ES website.
What is a switchboard? There's no definition in the Act, nor in Regs
(although some types of switchboard are defined) The only available
definition is in the Standard(s) and the better dictionaries (my
Oxford's primary definition starts with "an installation..."). "3000"
calls it "An assembly of circuit protective devices, with or without
switchgear, instruments or connecting devices...."
I believe that assembling these devices, and the conductors between
them, is more correctly treated as PEW. Unless you're working to a
design that is standardised, and has been through some sort of type-
testing to prove compliance, I think the "fitting" approach is
fundamentally flawed.
[Donald] A switchboard is the colloquial term for a switchgear and
controlgear assembly
[Alec] I agree, but would not want to argue that in court - a
definition within Act or Regs would be better
This is essentially the same argument as was used for heat pumps, with
installers claiming the cable between was part of the equipment so
didn't need a sparky or a CoC. But they also shied away from certifying
the work and the manufacturers wouldn't take responsibility either.
As I suggested earlier, you may actually find it easier to treat your
products as "installation work" needing only a CoC. But either way, you
should be supplying a piece of paper. As PEW you'd need 2: a DecConf
for the design, and a CoC for the finished work. And of course licensed
workers to do the work.
Schedule 1 [1(a)&(b)] says installation of conductors & fittings is
PEW.
You install conductors and fittings, and not within the exemptions of
2(a) to (t). You don't stamp out switchboards to a standard design,
pretty much each and every one is different. So I still think it's
wrong to treat your products as "fittings"(despite the Standard you're
working to being listed); but if you do, you have to go the whole hog
and provide appropriate paperwork. As always (until defined by the
courts) the choice is yours, not mine.
[Donald] We do not install conductors in the installation we install
them in the assembly.
[Alec] I see the conductors, and the fittings ; which go together to
make up the switchboard; as all ending up being part of the
installation. And I don't really care which method is used to certify
the safety of the swbd assembly . Or even if it's not certified, 'cos

3. ultimately the installing electrical worker signs-off for swbd safety
on their CoC, But once they realise that they're doing that, some will
seek to limit their liability by obtaining documentation from yourself.
At which stage this question assumes some relevance. The more I look at
it, the less I think you can take the "fitting" option. Not only
because it's inherently wrong (though I think it is), but more because
unless you're building cookie-cutter identical units, I believe you
need to get outside certification as per R 81(2)...or become an
accredited test house. The CoC route has got to be easier & cheaper for
you. But as an installing sparky, I won't care whether the CoC / SDoc
or similar is validly issued or not, I just want something to reduce my
liability, especially in a specialist area where I can't realistically
do the all the testing myself, and I don't have a copy of the
applicable Standard.
I agree the testing is PEW but not the assembly
Why would the testing be PEW if the work itself isn't? The only testing
that's PEW is testing _of_ PEW.
[Alec] Donald
Have now checked Schedule 4; your Standard is only there as applying to
"type tested and partially type-tested assemblies" .....done any type-
testing lately? ....if not, we're back to taking the PEW approach.
Alec
[Donald] Our larger boards have type tests, smaller boards rely data
supplied by the manufacturers and form partial type test assemblies
Regards
Donald
[Alec] Donald
If you've got full or partial type-testing, then i would say Schedule 4
covers you & the SDoC approach is back on the agenda _for those units._
Anything ouside the type-test parameters would need test report by
accredited lab. You would need to show how you met the Standard -
which your record of tests would go some way - possibly all the way -
to doing.
Alec
[Donald] Alec thanks very much for your consideration on this, is
something that obviously needs to be clarified, I hope your time is
going under the ECANZ banner.
[Alec] Not so far.. unless you - or someone - put it up through Nat
office.
I don't expect you want to forward an order number when my opinion
doesn't support your preferred approach? eventually someone will, and
this discussion has prepared me for when I need to do an "ECANZ Answer"
- not just re switchboards but basically any other "assembled
equipment".
[Donald] I have most of NZs switchboard manufacturers interested in
this outcome are you OK if I post these responses? (With a suitable
disclaimer that this a forum)

4. [Alec] Go for your life. You're welcome (as long as you don't misquote
me, which I’m sure you won't). My opinions are only that, opinions. I
don't get to make rulings - probably just as well! While I have
probably spent more time studying the new Regs etc than most, I can't
be infallible and can only interpret what they say in light of my own
understanding & experience. But I will have to limit my input and get
some paying work done. Let me know what the consensus of your
conference is.
Regards
Alec