skip to Main Content

Committee Ballot CAN/CGSB 44.227

CGSB has been reviewing its CAN/CGSB 44.227 standard through a working group for efficiency reasons. I was part of that working group. I really like this formula as this is much more efficient than the full meetings where a lot of time is wasted for “red tape” purposes. The standard is now up for committee ballot. Committee members have to submit their comments before September 30th. This standard still calls up BIFMA X5.5, BIFMA X 5.9 and some Coating testing as well as some dimensional criteria. You will find below our comments about this standard. We trust this will help you better understand where this standard is going and vote appropriately.

CGSB 44227In parallel to this work Public Works Canada (PWGSC) is still struggling to finalize its supply agreement bidding process for Panel Systems, Freestanding Furniture and Storage Cabinets. Per the current RFSA document re-testing must be done within a 9 month period once a standard has been issued. I do not foresee be many contentious issues with the current CAN/CGSB 44.227 standard re-write. Please bear in mind that once the standard comes out, you only have to prove you meet the requirements of the new standard. Which means if the new standard did not change significantly from the old one or if the requirements are easier to meet then you don’t have to re-test. That is unless your test reports are older than five years; which is another requirement from PWGSC.

For more information about this revised standard and our furniture testing services, please don’t hesitate to contact us.

Micom is a material testing industrial laboratory accredited by the Standards Council of Canada, CGSB and ISTA.

Canadian General Standards Board

des normes générales du Canada

Comments and secretariat
observationsCommentaires et note du secrétaire



Date 2015










Clause No./

Subclause No./


(e.g.  3.1)



(e.g. Table 1)

Type of com-ment2

Comment (justification for change) by the MB

Commentaires (justification) par le MB

Proposed change by the MB

Changement proposé par le MB

Secretariat observationson  each comment submittedNote  du secrétaire sur chaque
commentaire soumis
MC 3.1   ed French text in English document Remove “(tablette à
clavier articulé)”
MC 3.1   Te Roll-out keyboards are more for SOHO and low end applications Remove Roll-out keyboards from  standard  
MC 5.6   Te I got a hold of a contact at NEMA: the  72 (Mr. Kevin Connelly).  He indicated  this test is used as a screening test:


Light resistance testing with 285.1 kJ/m2  at 70C black panel  50%RH (approx  72hr) has worked well for light fade screening.

This is based on manufac-turer comparison data of batch QC test results  compared to field complaints.  In other words, the manufactures routinely did this test on pretty much all their production runs. They also
track field complaints on fade issues and track that to production  batches.  If the product passed the test they did not see field  complaints.  Products that showed perceptible fade with the test  procedure tended to have field complaints.

This is the “xenon weatherometer” test.  Test temperature is critical.  Lower test temps will not  give the same results given the same light exposure.  We did extensive  comparative testing at NCSU to get test parameters that gave test re-sults comparable to results from the old (1985?) enclosed carbon arc test.
The test is an “accelerated” light fade test, and the test
temperature is critical to get appropriate results in the short time

If you are designing an ambient temperature test, exposure times would need
to be much longer.  The accelerated test was used since it has a good  record of screening out problematic products and is short enough to use in  production quality testing (even the 72 hr test is  sort of longer than they would like for line QC)

Kevin Connelly

Senior Program Manager


The question is do we want a screening  test or do we really want to simulate 5 or 10 years.  Furthermore, he indicates “Products that showed perceptible fade with the test procedure  tended to have field complaints”.  If  we decide to leave the exposure time at 72 hours should we tighten or  acceptance criteria & it appears to permissive based on his statement


 ASTM F1515 for resilient flooring calls for  a 400 hours exposure by 100 hours increments.

Personally I believe 300 hours would be a more reasonable figure.

Increase light exposure from 72 to 300  hours. Keep acceptance criteria the same or keep 72 hours exposure and use a  greyscale rating of 5.   Te I would keep the deflection requirement.  It is a signify- cant asset to the end user.    
MC 6.5.3   Te PWGSC waived this requirement because  they have determined that too many  manufacturers can’t meet this criteria Lower requirement from 65 to 50 %  
MC 6.8.3   Te Same comment as section 3.1 above    
1    MB   = Member Initials/  Initiales du membre

2    Type of comment: ge = general   te  = technical   ed = editorial
/ Type de commentaire: ge = général    te = technique   ed =  éditorial

NOTE :  Columns 1, 2, 4, 5   are compulsory/ colonnes 1, 2, 4, 5 sont  obligatoires 

Back To Top