FPE breaker failed to trip - this is a typical breaker overheat example provided by Mark Cramer, a Tampa Florida home inspectorFederal Pacific Electric Stab-Lok® Letter to IAEI

  • FPE HAZARD IAEI LETTER INACCURATE - CONTENTS: 1999 Letter written to IAEI magazine in response to an "infomercial" denying failure issues with FPE Stab-Lok® equipment - 2013 Response to the letter, from IAEI or its editor [14 years, still None]
  • POST a QUESTION or READ FAQs about infomercials, conflicts of interest, and claims regarding the presence or absence of hazards associated with Federal Pacific Electric Stab-Lok® electrical panels and circuit breakers
InspectAPedia tolerates no conflicts of interest. We have no relationship with advertisers, products, or services discussed at this website.

IAEI International Association of Electrical Inspectors ran an "infomercial" placed by an FPE attorney that claimed there are no FPE hazards.

How did that nonsensical article appear and what did it signify? This website explains the fire and shock hazards associated with Federal Pacific Electric Stab-Lok® circuit breakers and service panels, provides a history of the issue, recounts research on FPE failures, and recommends replacement of the panels.panel replacement or repair. The web author has no business, financial, or other connection with FPE products nor with their replacement.

Replacement FPE Stab-Lok® circuit breakers are unlikely to reduce the failure risk of this equipment. We recommend that residential FPE Stab-Lok® electrical panels be replaced entirely or the entire panel bus assembly be replaced, regardless of FPE model number or FPE year of manufacture. We do not sell circuit breakers nor any other products. 

Green links show where you are. © Copyright 2017, All Rights Reserved.

Letter to IAEI International Association of Electrical Inspectors News Magazine re: FPE Public Relations Article asserts Federal Pacific Electric Stab-Lok® panels are OK

Photograph of Heater circuit burnup, FPE breaker failed to trip

[Click to enlarge any image] Field reports of FPE failures ranging from simple failure to trip to burn-ups and fires add support to independent studies confirming an unusually high no-trip rate for this circuit breaker line.

But a writer connected to Federal Pacific Electric wrote otherwise in an article to IAEI magazine. IAEI declined to ever address the dangerous inaccuracies in the original IAEI magazine article. The original IAEI magazine article appears to have been penned by an attorney charged with protecting the remaining interests of that FPE and its successors.

Below is a letter to the Philip Cox, the editor of that magazine, asking for more accurate reporting.

InspectAPedia is an independent publisher of building, environmental, and forensic inspection, diagnosis, and repair information provided free to the public - we have no business nor financial connection with any manufacturer or service provider discussed at our website. 

We are dedicated to making our information as accurate, complete, useful, and unbiased as possible: we very much welcome critique, questions, or content suggestions for our web articles. Working together and exchanging information makes us better informed than any individual can be working alone.

The photos of FPE field failures and burn-ups shown above are discussed in more detail at FPE FAILURE FIRE PHOTOS and at FPE FAILURE FIELD REPORTS


International Association of Electrical Inspectors
ATTN: Philip H. Cox, Editor-in-Chief, IAEI Magazine
PO Box 830848
Richardson TX 75083-0848

Dear Mr. Cox:

The May/June '99 IAEI News article by an unidentified FPE consultant asserts that Federal Pacific Electric Stab-Loks are UL-Listed and thus without any concern. The article fails to address a record of failures to trip, actual test results, field reports of failures, and improper UL listing practices.

The FPE author and IAEI News failed to report on the actual website content, failed to contact the author, and failed to give the correct website address so that readers could judge for themselves. I am an IAEI member and the author of the informational website for home inspectors which was referred-to in the FPE article. The correct Internet website address is

Publicly available information is compelling and sufficient to warrant warning contractors, inspectors, and consumers. The best data available substantiates that the 2-pole breakers cannot be relied upon to trip. CPSC found that was the case.

FPE agreed that was the case. Field reports confirm that is still the case. Inspectors should work towards replacing breakers that won't trip, not towards whitewashing the problem.

The problem with FPE breakers is that a significant portion of them will not trip on overload or short circuit conditions in order to protect a building from fire ignition. Testing done by the CPSC showed that at a modest overload on both poles these failed 25% of the time, followed by a lockup. The breaker would never trip in the future at any overload. (See Table 1, Summary of Failures, CPSC-C-81-1429 December 30, 1982, attached.) There are other types of failures known to occur in FPE panels at lower probability and not as well documented as the 2-pole no-trip problem.

FPE did not refute the CPSC's test data. The no-trip problems with 2-pole Stab-Lok® breakers were acknowledged by FPE. FPE claims that when their circuit breakers do not trip it does not constitute a hazard.

The article in IAEI News by FPE is asking us to agree with FPE's position that breakers that won't trip are OK because they are "listed and labeled." Let's keep in mind that a breaker that will not trip on certain overcurrent conditions is electrically the same as an Edison-base fuse with a penny behind it. No inspector should be encouraged to condone or whitewash the continued use of breakers that cannot be depended on to trip properly.

These problems were known. Reliance Electric Co. had bought FPE in 1979 when they discovered problems with FPE breakers. They sued the company they had bought FPE from, claiming undisclosed potential liability made FPE not what they had bargained for and citing evidence that "improper and deceptive practices were employed for many years to secure UL listings for Federal Pacific's circuit protective products?

They wanted their money back. Reliance eventually settled the suit, kept FPE, and got back $41.85 million in return for which they agreed to indemnify the company they'd bought FPE from for product liability claims arising from products made by FPE before the purchase.

Continuing problems can't be ruled out. For example, see the Federal Pacific/Federal Pioneer circuit breaker warranty alert issued by the Ontario New Home Warranty Program in 1997 (copy attached). These products are still present in the field! Reports from consumers and electricians indicate failures to trip, overheating, and fires.

Note also that the author of the FPE article did not want to have his or her name associated with it and that the FPE contact listed is an attorney retained (presumably) by FPE.

The information address given in the article would have been more accurate if given as: Howard B. Abramoff Law Offices, 25700 Science Park Dr. Suite 260, Cleveland OH 44122. This is a law firm, not a circuit-breaker manufacturer.

This confirms that the article is biased towards the defense of FPE rather than providing information on "?the safe installation and use of electricity" (IAEI's mission statement in the magazine's masthead).

As a neutral professional, I'd be pleased to receive reliable information shedding new light on the situation. But a public relations article written by someone whose aim is to protect FPE's interests and which fails to address legitimate concerns and the known failures and problems occurring around the country is not something I'd rely upon.

Based on my experience and numerous reports from people with no axes to grind, it appears that FPE circuit breakers frequently fail to perform their function. A circuit breaker may sit in a building for twenty years, and as long as it never sees an overload or short circuit it may seem to work fine. But if it cannot perform its function to interrupt current when overloaded or short circuited, that circuit breaker is a latent fire hazard. Such equipment should be replaced.


Dan Friedman, IAEI #195930


1. "Calibration and Condition Tests of Molded Case Circuit Breakers, Final Report: Contract CPSC-C-81-1429," December 30, 1982, Wright Malta Corporation, Summary Pages 1-3.

2. Reliance Electric Co. Press Release, July 7, 1980, stating that "Underwriters Laboratories labels for most of FPE's circuit breakers were obtained through improper practices,?

3. Schneider Electric Canada Warranty Alert, recalling Federal Pioneer (Federal Pacific Canadian) circuit breakers NC015/NC015P, October 14, 1997

4. My resume/background (Since the article indicates the author did not know who I am)

5. WEB FaqS: Website author, credibility

6. "Federal Pacific Electric (FPE) Panels, a Summary," website page from (This is the root page of a collection of public documents and articles regarding this topic.)

FPE HAZARD REPORT - 2017 [PDF] independent research article by Jess Aronstein, supercedes older FPE hazard reports by this author.
03/27/2012 through 04/15/2015 follow-up note: IAEI never responded to this correspondence.
02/10/2009 follow-up note: IAEI never responded to this correspondence.
05/28/2008 follow-up note: IAEI did not respond to this correspondence
06/01/07 follow up note: IAEI and Mr. Cox have not replied to this correspondence.
10-1-00 follow up note: IAEI and Mr. Cox have declined to reply to this correspondence.
03/01/03 follow up note: IAEI has not retracted the un-signed article described above. Industry experts have confirmed that the IAEI article is inaccurate and dangerous in its advice as it exposes consumers to equipment which cannot be relied upon in event of an overcurrent. The result could be shock or fire. I have encountered one or two instances of electricians who, unfamiliar with FPE failures, cited this article in defense of a "no action" position, in all cases in defense of a home seller. My advice to consumers who are faced with denials that this equipment is a latent safety hazard to ask for that opinion in writing. To date (12/1/2005) I have not had any reports of a professional who was willing to sign such a document.


Continue reading at FPE HAZARD ARTICLES, STUDIES or select a topic from closely-related articles below, or see our complete INDEX to RELATED ARTICLES below.

Or see FPE FAILURE FIELD REPORTS - consumer reports of FPE failures in situ

Or see FPE HAZARD REPORT - 2017 [PDF] independent research article by Jess Aronstein, supercedes older FPE hazard reports by this author. Independent testing confirms high level of no-trip hazards with FPE circuit breakers & panels

Suggested citation for this web page

FPE HAZARD IAEI LETTER INACCURATE at - online encyclopedia of building & environmental inspection, testing, diagnosis, repair, & problem prevention advice.


Or use the SEARCH BOX found below to Ask a Question or Search InspectApedia


Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

Click to Show or Hide FAQs

Ask a Question or Search InspectApedia

Questions & answers or comments about infomercials, conflicts of interest, and claims regarding the presence or absence of hazards associated with Federal Pacific Electric Stab-Lok® electrical panels and circuit breakers.

Use the "Click to Show or Hide FAQs" link just above to see recently-posted questions, comments, replies, try the search box just below, or if you prefer, post a question or comment in the Comments box below and we will respond promptly.

Search the InspectApedia website

Comment Box is loading comments...

Technical Reviewers & References

Click to Show or Hide Citations & References

Publisher's Google+ Page by Daniel Friedman