A wide variety of opinions exists on how inspectors should comment on Federal Pacific Stab-Lok electrical panels. The more definitive an inspector's comment is, the more he opens himself to liability if, in court, he were asked to prove assertions that FP Stab-Loks represent a significant safety hazard.

The Consumer Products Safety Hazard Commission decided that a definitive study was too expensive to complete. The following in-depth paper provides a wealth of information on these panels:

FPECircuitBreaker Hazards- J. Aronstein

I recommend the use of one of the following narratives:

(From the InterNACHI Narrative Library)

"Stab-lok- QC evaluation

The service panel was made by Federal Pacific and was the Stab-lok model. Federal Pacific Stab-lok model service panels are widely reputed to have a number of problems that can result in a fire or shock/electrocution.  The Inspector recommends that before the expiration of your Inspection Objection Deadline, you consult with a qualified electrical contractor concerning the necessity for replacing this service panel. Information about defective Federal Pacific Stab-lok panels is widely available on the internet."

Or if you recommend replacement:

"Stab-lok- QC replace

The service panel was made by Federal Pacific and was the Stab-lok model. Federal Pacific Stab-lok model service panels are widely reputed to have a number of problems that can result in a fire or shock/electrocution.  The Inspector recommends that before the expiration of your Inspection Objection Deadline, you consult with a qualified electrical contractor to discuss options and costs for replacement of this service panel. Information about defective Federal Pacific Stab-lok panels is widely available on the internet."

These comments can also be used for Zinsco, Sylvania, Challenger, and Westinghouse panels.