250.64(E)

[texie]

I think the 2 screw fitting is likely approved for use for attaching the armored cable to the enclosure. I know some may flame me for this, but it does not meet the requirements of 250.92 by itself. You would need to add and bonding busing and jumper as shown in the OP photo. The bonding required by 250.92 requires the use of fittings listed as KDER in the White Book.
I know some don't believe that the 250.92 requirements apply to the enclosure end of a ferrous enclosure for a GEC, but I disagree. While I don't have my Handbook in front of me, I seem to recall that the authors also agree with my view.

 

[Smart $]

I think the 2 screw fitting is likely approved for use for attaching the armored cable to the enclosure. I know some may flame me for this, but it does not meet the requirements of 250.92 by itself. You would need to add and bonding busing and jumper as shown in the OP photo. The bonding required by 250.92 requires the use of fittings listed as KDER in the White Book.
I know some don't believe that the 250.92 requirements apply to the enclosure end of a ferrous enclosure for a GEC, but I disagree. While I don't have my Handbook in front of me, I seem to recall that the authors also agree with my view.

I do not see where a KDER listing is required. The requirement is to be compliant with 250.92(B)(2), (3), or (4). (3) has no listing requirement and this type connector would fall under that requirement.

 

[texie]

I do not see where a KDER listing is required. The requirement is to be compliant with 250.92(B)(2), (3), or (4). (3) has no listing requirement and this type connector would fall under that requirement.

250.64(E) says that 250.94 shall apply to both ends and 250.92(B)(4) says it must be listed.

Setting aside for a moment the use of armored GEC, what if you used EMT as an enclosure? Do you think a standard EMT connector can be used to connect to the enclosure without a grounding bushing and jumper a still be compliant with 250.92? 250.92 says standard locknuts are not acceptable for this.

 

[Smart $]

250.64(E) says that 250.94 shall apply to both ends and 250.92(B)(4) says it must be listed.

Setting aside for a moment the use of armored GEC, what if you used EMT as an enclosure? Do you think a standard EMT connector can be used to connect to the enclosure without a grounding bushing and jumper a still be compliant with 250.92? 250.92 says standard locknuts are not acceptable for this.

You have to take the entire general statement of 250.92(B) into account...

Bonding jumpers meeting the requirements of this article shall be used around impaired connections, such as reducing washers or oversized, concentric, or eccentric knockouts. Standard locknuts or bushings shall not be the only means for the bonding required by this section but shall be permitted to be installed to make a mechanical connection of the raceway(s).

Where a connection is impaired as noted, I agree with you completely. :happyyes:

 

[texie]

You have to take the entire general statement of 250.92(B) into account...



Where a connection is impaired as noted, I agree with you completely. :happyyes:

Let me try to try to convince you. Lets forget the GEC issue for a moment and just look at complying with 250.92.
If you have concentric/eccentric KOs or reducing washers you must use a bonding bushing and jumper.
If you have a clean punched hole you can use a bonding locknut.
In no case are standard lock nuts permitted.
Any fittings used for these purposes must be listed to UL 467/KDER. Standard fittings are UL 514B/DWTT.

 

[Smart $]

Let me try to try to convince you. Lets forget the GEC issue for a moment and just look at complying with 250.92.
If you have concentric/eccentric KOs or reducing washers you must use a bonding bushing and jumper.
If you have a clean punched hole you can use a bonding locknut.
In no case are standard lock nuts permitted.
Any fittings used for these purposes must be listed to UL 467/KDER. Standard fittings are UL 514B/DWTT.

I agree many interpret it that way... and quite possibly the intent.

Here's a counterpoint based on logical deduction (assuming logic applies ). The precursory text to 250.92(B)(1) through (4) says "continuity... shall be ensured by one of the following methods". How do you propose that you can use a threadless connector specifically stated in (3) without also using a bonding locknut or bushing specifically mentioned in (4)? If you use both a threadless connector and a bonding locknut or bushing with jumper, by my count, that'd be two of the methods...