Would a breaker with a lockout be OK for installation under the latest NEC for an airhandler installed out of view of the panel with no other disconnect except in the unit?
Without looking it up, I’d say yes. It is OK to do a water heater that way.
Yes,
Why the Lockout (LOTO) would be Present.
I thought they were going to do away with that in favor of in sight disconnects. New construction today I was just double checking, I don’t have a copy of the NEC for the 2007 Fl. code and revision.
Yes, unless changed. Happened to me about 7 years ago building a school cafeteria kitchen and we had no room for the 200 amp disconnect for the water booster in the kitchen.
Electric inspector allow us to have a lockout tag out breaker on the main panel. 
I am only Referencing what I know
from Commercial Industrial Petrochemical Work
LOTO
at the Source with Lock of Contactor and Each Individual Working
Company Lock
can only be removed
after all others
If the disconnect is within the unit then nothing else is required.
Robert, I have always seen a disconnect with the Air handlers, is that a specification item by the engineer or just standard by the manufacturers?
Good question. I’m unsure if it’s a design option required by the engineer writing the specifications or not. Could also be part of the listing but I don’t really know. Here’s a photo of an integral disconnect within the unit:
Yes I am familiar with them. Always took it for granted that a disconnect is on the unit. I have seen in instances, depending on the equipment, that a disconnect is mounted on a pedestal near or on the unit also.
A service outlet is always required also. WP Thanks
I beg to differ with you on this, I would not approve it without the lockout on the breaker since the circuit would be active through the frame and the internal connections not visible. I would have preferred that a seperate pull type or breaker or even a switch be installed as a disconnect within view of the unit so that sevice personell could be certain the power could not be turned on. Code or not.
http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/controlhazardousenergy/index.html
If having employees… essential
to be familiar with…
Preferred and required are two different things. An integral disconnecting means satisfies the requirement and is permitted without any additional external disconnecting means by the NEC.
That would not qualify as a disconnect since there is no means to lock it out, it is just a switch…
The locking provision is if it’s not within sight of the equipment. A unit switch on or in the equipment does not require a locking means. Same thing would apply to a disconnect within sight of the equipment, no locking means required.