|
0 members (),
205
guests, and
28
robots. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 4,294
OP
Member
|
Posted for George Little: I have a question that may not be relevant in all States but here in Michigan they just adopted a version of the energy code that affects recessed lights in the insulation envelope of a residence. Is it equivalent to use an air tight recessed can with a open trim and/or a IC can and a trim that has the letters "AT" in the model number. I have had no experience with either. _________________________ George Little
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 853
Member
|
In Massachusetts,Yes. The 'AT' Is an enclosed fixture housing. These must be used on the upper floors (attic) and between tenants (over under).
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 939
Member
|
I do know in State of Wisconsin do required AT { air tight } for any area where it will be in concat with insulating materals { it don't matter if batt or blow in type } And in France they just adopted not too long ago as well for recessed cans I do belive they have few additonal code requirement as well.
Merci,Marc
Pas de problme,il marche n'est-ce pas?"(No problem, it works doesn't it?)
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 7,381 Likes: 7
Member
|
Air tight cans with matching (AT) listed trims.
John
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 1,507
Member
|
The issue that I am asking about has to do with the contractors using IC cans and then using AT trims. The claim is that the trim gives them the required energy code requirements. I have to believe that the trims used on the cans need to be Listed for use with that can and vise versa. I think the installer should be using AT cans in the insulation envelope to comply with the energy code and the can should be finished off with an AT trim.
George Little
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 853
Member
|
The way I understand it (I'll research more),One or the other or both will meet the standard.
Not an Inspector.
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 169
Member
|
We've been ICAT here in CA since the October 2005 revision of Title 24.
I just heard tell of old partner installing all 80 IC (non-AT) cans in a new residence. As it turns out the inspector will let him fly with just AT trims.
I've used both since the revision not knowing I had an option. Just as well as I like the finished product better.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 853
Member
|
Still looking!
What a PITA. Ma Web sites.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 1,507
Member
|
I'm still checking also Leland, I should be getting something kinda official from Cooper Industries (Halo Lighting) on the compatibility and interchange of their trims with the cans.
George Little
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 7,381 Likes: 7
Member
|
George/Leland:
Went to Cooper/Halo website & poked around. I used the H7ICAT, and went to trims. 4 were on the spec page (trims) and 3 were OK for that can; 1 was not.
Looks like a spec sheet trail is going to be needed.
BTW, who checks to see if the gasket/caulk is properly installed after shtrock & before trims????
George, you're killin me
John
|
|
|
Posts: 44
Joined: July 2013
|
|
|
|
|