ASTM F2413 Safety Footwear Explained

What do the ASTM F2413 ratings on safety footwear mean?

Published June 22, 2026 · Last updated July 26, 2026

Short answer: ASTM F2413 ratings are the multi-line code stamped inside protective footwear that certifies what the boot protects against. The marking names the standard and edition (ASTM F2413-24 is current; F2413-18 is on most stock), then the gender and toe codes — M/I/C for a full-protection boot — followed by any additional codes such as EH for electrical hazard, PR for puncture resistance, or Mt for metatarsal guard. ASTM F2413 is the consensus standard OSHA 29 CFR 1910.136 accepts for foot protection, and it superseded the older ANSI Z41.

Part of the Safety Footwear: The Complete Buyer's Guide — see the full guide for ASTM F2413 ratings, toe materials, and EH protection.

Every compliant pair of safety footwear carries a small multi-line code stamped on the inside of the tongue or shaft, and that code is the only reliable proof of what the boot actually protects against. The marking is defined by ASTM F2413-18, Standard Specification for Performance Requirements for Protective (Safety) Toe Cap Footwear, with the underlying test methods set by ASTM F2412. ASTM F2413 replaced the older ANSI Z41 standard, so legacy Z41 references on spec sheets are out of date. For safety managers and procurement, reading this code line by line is what separates documented compliance from a boot that merely looks rugged.

This guide decodes the full ASTM F2413 marking — the standard line, the gender and toe-protection ratings, and every supplemental code from EH to Mt — and explains how each maps to a real workplace hazard. Whether you are sourcing steel toe boots for a warehouse or electrical hazard boots for a maintenance crew, the ASTM F2413 rating is the first thing on the purchase order to verify, because OSHA 1910.136 holds the employer responsible for the match.

Why this matters.
Mis-reading an ASTM F2413 marking is a direct compliance and injury exposure, not a cosmetic detail. A boot rated M/I/C with no EH line gives no certified protection against energized circuits, and issuing it to an electrician leaves a documented gap an auditor can cite. OSHA enforces foot protection under 29 CFR 1910.136 and accepts ASTM F2413 as the consensus standard, so the marking inside the boot is the evidence a workplace hazard assessment was actually closed out with the correct PPE.

What ASTM F2413 is (and what it replaced)

ASTM F2413 is the U.S. performance specification for protective toe-cap footwear. It defines the minimum requirements a boot must meet to be marked as safety footwear and the code that communicates those ratings to the buyer. The current edition referenced on most markings is ASTM F2413-18.

ASTM F2413 vs. ASTM F2412

The two standards work as a pair. ASTM F2413 is the specification — the pass/fail requirements and the marking. ASTM F2412 is the test-methods standard that defines how impact, compression, electrical, and puncture resistance are actually measured in the lab. A boot is certified to F2413 using the procedures in F2412. There is a third standard in the family worth knowing: ASTM F2892 covers soft-toe protective footwear — shoes and boots with no protective toe cap that still carry EH, Cd, SD or PR ratings. That is how a soft-toe shoe can legitimately be marked electrical-hazard: it is certified to F2892, not F2413. If a job requires impact and compression protection, F2892 footwear does not satisfy it, no matter which other codes it carries. Both specifications were revised in 2024 (F2413-24 and F2892-24), so a marking citing the 2018 edition of either is simply an earlier certification, not a defective one.

ASTM F2413 superseded ANSI Z41

The older standard was ANSI Z41, which was withdrawn and replaced by ASTM F2413. Procurement specs and manufacturer sheets that still cite Z41 are referencing a retired standard; current compliant footwear is marked to ASTM F2413. ASTM is also only one of three systems in use across North America and Europe — Canada marks footwear with CSA Z195 symbols and Europe uses EN ISO 20345 S-classes, neither of which is an ASTM marking. If you are holding a boot whose code does not look like the lines above, read safety footwear standards compared: ASTM vs CSA vs EN ISO. When evaluating how to choose safety boots, treat a Z41-only marking as a red flag to verify the actual rating.

Where OSHA fits

OSHA 29 CFR 1910.136 requires protective footwear wherever a foot-hazard assessment identifies a risk of falling or rolling objects, punctures, or electrical contact. OSHA does not write the footwear test itself — it incorporates consensus standards by reference. This is where most compliance write-ups go wrong: 1910.136(b) still names ASTM F2412-2005 and ASTM F2413-2005, plus ANSI Z41-1999 and Z41-1991, editions that are decades old. The regulation is not stuck there, because the same paragraph deems footwear compliant when the employer demonstrates it is at least as effective as footwear built to one of those listed standards. A boot marked to a later edition — F2413-18 or F2413-24 — qualifies through that clause, not because OSHA lists it. (Construction is older still: 29 CFR 1926.96 references ANSI Z41.1-1967.) The marking is the practical proof of compliance under the broader OSHA 1910.132 PPE requirements.

How to read the in-boot marking line by line

The ASTM F2413 marking has up to four lines stamped on the inside of the boot. Each line carries a distinct piece of information, and reading them in order tells you exactly what the footwear is certified to do.

Line 1 — the standard

The first line names the standard and the edition it was certified to, for example ASTM F2413-18 or ASTM F2413-24. ASTM F2413-24 is the current active edition; it replaced F2413-18 in June 2024. Most footwear on the shelf today still reads F2413-18, and that is not a defect — the toe-protection thresholds did not change, and boots certified to the earlier edition remain compliant under OSHA’s equivalency clause. What you should reject is a line that is missing entirely, or one that reads ANSI Z41: that standard was withdrawn and replaced by ASTM F2413.

Line 2 — gender and toe protection

The second line begins with M (male) or F (female) and then the toe-protection codes: I for impact and C for compression. A full-protection toe line reads M/I/C. There is no number after the letters on a boot marked to F2413-18 or F2413-24. If you are holding a boot stamped M I/75 C/75, you are reading a pre-2018 marking — F2413-11 and earlier used numeric tiers, with a lower Class 50 alongside Class 75. The 2018 edition removed the Class 50 tier and dropped the numeric suffix, because a single performance level (75 ft-lbf impact, 2,500 lbf compression) became the only one the standard recognizes. The protection is identical; only the notation changed.

Lines 3 and 4 — additional protection codes

The remaining lines list any supplemental codes the boot carries — EH, Cd, SD, PR, Mt, CS, or DI. A boot with no third or fourth line carries only toe protection; the additional hazards must be explicitly marked to be claimed. Never assume an unmarked feature is present.

Source: ASTM F2413 (current edition F2413-24; F2413-18 on most in-market stock). Under both editions the toe codes are letter-only — the /75 suffix belongs to F2413-11 and earlier.

The toe codes: I and C, and the retired /75 tiers

Toe protection is the core of every ASTM F2413 boot. Under the current standard there is exactly one performance level, and the codes are plain letters. The two-tier system that produced I/75 and I/50 was retired in 2018, but pre-2018 boots stay in service for years, so both notations are still in circulation.

Impact resistance (I)

The I code is impact resistance at the toe: the cap withstands a 75 ft-lbf impact, the energy of roughly a 50 lb object dropped 18 inches. Under F2413-11 and earlier there was also a Class 50 tier at 50 ft-lbf, marked I/50. F2413-18 abolished Class 50, so any boot certified to the 2018 or 2024 edition meets the 75 ft-lbf level and is simply marked I.

Compression resistance (C)

The C code is compression resistance — a slow crushing load rather than a drop. The cap withstands 2,500 lbf, roughly the load of a laden pallet-jack wheel rolling across the toe. The retired Class 50 tier was 1,750 lbf, marked C/50. Impact and compression are always tested and marked together, so a full-protection boot certified to the current standard reads M/I/C — and a pre-2018 pair reads M I/75 C/75.

Steel, alloy, or composite toe

The toe cap material does not change the rating: steel, alloy, and composite caps all meet the same 75 ft-lbf impact and 2,500 lbf compression requirement when certified. The standard rates the protection, not the material. Composite toe boots are non-metallic and lighter, which matters where metal detection or thermal conductivity is a concern, while steel toe boots remain the traditional choice. The full material trade-off is in our steel toe vs composite toe boots comparison.

The electrical codes: EH, Cd, SD, and DI

The electrical family is the most misread part of the ASTM F2413 marking, because three of the codes look related but serve opposite purposes. Matching the right one to the job is critical for crews working around electricity or static-sensitive materials.

EH — Electrical Hazard

EH-marked footwear has a sole and heel built to insulate the wearer against incidental contact with energized parts. Two different numbers get quoted for EH, and they are not the same thing. 18,000 volts at 60 Hz for one minute, with leakage no greater than 1.0 milliampere, is the laboratory dielectric test the sole and heel must survive. 600 volts is the in-service ceiling: EH footwear is intended as secondary protection against open circuits up to 600 V in dry conditions. Quoting the 18,000 V test figure as the protection level is the single most common error in EH boot copy — the test voltage is a proof load, not a working rating. EH is secondary protection — a backup if primary safeguards fail, not a license to contact live conductors. It is the rating to look for on electrical hazard boots for electricians and maintenance crews, and it pairs with the broader arc-flash program under NFPA 70E.

Cd — Conductive (the opposite of EH)

Conductive footwear does the reverse of EH: it drains static charge from the body to ground. Its electrical resistance is deliberately low — 0 to 500,000 ohms — so charge bleeds away instead of accumulating. It is used in explosive-atmosphere and munitions areas where a static spark is the hazard. Cd footwear must never be worn for electrical work, because that same low resistance offers no insulation against energized circuits.

SD and DI

SD (Static Dissipative) is the middle ground, used in electronics and clean assembly work: it bleeds static away, but keeps enough resistance to limit current through the wearer. The standard defines more than one SD level; the common one, SD 100, spans 1 megohm to 100 megohms (10⁶ to 10⁸ ohms) — several orders of magnitude above conductive footwear. DI (Dielectric Insulation) is supplemental insulation for hazards beyond what EH addresses. The key takeaway: Cd grounds you, SD bleeds charge slowly, EH insulates you, DI insulates further — confirm which one the job actually requires before ordering, because Cd and EH are opposites and are one letter apart on a label.

The mechanical codes: PR, Mt, and CS

Beyond toe and electrical protection, ASTM F2413 covers puncture, instep, and cut hazards with their own codes. These are the additions that tailor a boot to a specific trade.

PR — Puncture Resistant

A PR marking certifies a puncture-resistant plate or insole in the bottom of the boot. The threshold is a minimum 270 lbf (1,200 N) nail-penetration force. It is the rating to specify for demolition, roofing, and any site littered with sharps. PR protects the sole, not the toe — it is a separate code from the I and C toe ratings, and a boot can carry one without the other.

Mt — Metatarsal

Mt (metatarsal) protection guards the top of the foot and instep, the area a toe cap does not cover. It is rated to the same 75 ft-lbf impact as the toe cap. It is specified for foundry, forging, and heavy-material-handling work where objects can strike behind the toes, and it comes in internal (built into the boot) and external (a visible flap over the laces) forms. A boot can carry Mt in addition to its toe rating.

CS — Cut/chain-saw resistant

CS marks footwear built to resist chain-saw contact, relevant to forestry and arborist work. Like the other supplemental codes, CS appears only when the boot is certified for it — pair it with cut-rated hand protection for a complete chain-saw PPE set.

Where footwear fits in the head-to-toe PPE program

Foot protection is one line in a full hazard assessment, and the same ASTM/ANSI logic governs the rest of the body. A compliant program documents a rated boot alongside every other exposure: head protection to ANSI Z89.1 (see the OSHA hard hat requirements), eye protection to ANSI Z87.1, hearing protection where noise exceeds limits, and respiratory protection where airborne hazards are present.

Slip and environmental ratings

Slip resistance was not part of ASTM F2413 until the 2024 edition. F2413-24 added two classifications: SR for general wear, requiring a minimum 0.40 coefficient of friction on dry and wet quarry tile, and SRO for oily environments, which adds a minimum 0.33 on oily-wet clay quarry tile. The requirements are specified in ASTM F3445 and measured with the ASTM F2913 whole-shoe tester, and the SR or SRO designation appears on the product label. Because the overwhelming majority of footwear in stock is still certified to F2413-18, a boot with no SR mark is not deficient — it was certified before the classification existed, and its grip claim is the manufacturer’s rather than a certified rating. Water ingress remains a separate selection factor layered on top of the protective rating. Slip resistant shoes address walking-surface hazards, while waterproof work boots handle wet environments — neither replaces the toe and supplemental codes, they complement them.

Working at height and high-visibility

Crews working at height combine rated footwear with fall protection — the harness, lanyard, and anchorage covered in the ABCDs of fall protection — and high visibility apparel where struck-by hazards exist. For contamination work, a full barrier such as the DuPont Tyvek 400 hood, boots, and coverall wraps the footwear in a disposable layer.

Worked example: reading a boot marking and spec'ing footwear for an electrician

Here is how a safety manager moves from an in-boot marking to a documented purchase decision for a maintenance electrician, using categories listed on this site:

1. Read the marking line by line. You pull a candidate boot and find four lines stamped inside: ASTM F2413-18 / M/I/C / EH / PR. Line 1 names the edition the boot was certified to, line 2 confirms full male toe protection (75 ft-lbf impact, 2,500 lbf compression), and lines 3–4 add electrical-hazard and puncture resistance.
2. Confirm the rating matches the hazard assessment. The electrician's foot-hazard assessment lists energized circuits, heavy equipment, and a cluttered floor. The marking's EH covers the electrical exposure as secondary protection, I and C cover struck-by and crushing, and PR covers sharps. The boot's certified codes close every documented hazard.
3. Rule out the wrong electrical code. Verify the line reads EH and not Cd. A conductive (Cd) boot would drain static to ground and offer no insulation against energized circuits — the opposite of what an electrician needs. This single-letter check is the most common ASTM F2413 specification error. Source compliant pairs from the electrical hazard boots range.
4. Decide toe material against the work. For an electrician, a non-metallic cap avoids adding conductive metal at the toe, so a composite toe boot rated I/C is often preferred over steel toe — both meet the same toe tier, so the choice is about weight and conductivity, not protection level.
5. Layer environmental and slip ratings. If the work is outdoors or wet, add waterproof construction and confirm slip resistant outsoles. These are selection factors on top of the ASTM F2413 rating, not substitutes for it.
6. Document the marking on the PPE record. Record the exact marking — for example ASTM F2413-18, M/I/C EH PR — against the hazard assessment so the file shows the certified codes that justified the purchase, satisfying OSHA 1910.136 and the broader 1910.132 program.

As an Amazon Associate, WC Safety earns from qualifying purchases. Full affiliate disclosure.

CHECK PRICE ON AMAZON →

The same marking-first method scales from one electrician to a full crew roster. Start from the safety footwear catalog and the how to choose safety boots guide to match each ASTM F2413 code to the hazards your assessment actually identified.

Read the label inside the boot — the marketing outside does not count

F2413 compliance lives on the stitched-in label: the standard year, then the rated claims — I and C for impact and compression, Mt for metatarsal, EH for electrical hazard, SD/ESD variants for static-dissipative, PR for puncture resistance. A listing that says "safety toe" without the label text is a claim about vibes. Two practical rules: verify the label on arrival against what the listing promised, and treat capacities printed nowhere on the label (like "500 lb rated") as seller statements outside the standard — ANSI/ASTM duty classes stop where the label stops.

Frequently asked questions

What does CS mean on safety footwear?

CS marks footwear built to resist chain-saw contact, relevant to forestry and arborist work. Like all supplemental codes, it appears only when the boot is certified for it. Pair CS footwear with cut-rated hand protection for a complete chain-saw PPE set.

How does footwear fit into a full PPE program?

Rated footwear is one line in a head-to-toe hazard assessment alongside head protection, eye protection, hearing protection, and respiratory protection. Each exposure gets its own rated item documented against the assessment under OSHA 1910.132.

What should I check on the F2413 label when boots arrive?

Match it to the purchase promise: the standard edition, the I and C toe codes, and every claimed letter code — Mt, EH, SD, PR. A missing code on the stitched label means the boot does not carry that protection, whatever the product page said. The label is the compliance document; keep the assessment's required codes on file to check against.

Further reading on this site

• Safety footwear — the full catalog of ASTM F2413-rated protective boots and shoes.
• Electrical hazard (EH) boots — EH-marked footwear for electricians and maintenance crews.
• Composite toe boots — non-metallic I/C caps, lighter and non-conductive.
• Steel toe boots — the traditional I/C toe cap for general industry.
• How to choose safety boots — step-by-step selection beyond the marking codes.
• OSHA 1910.132 PPE requirements — the general hazard-assessment rule that frames footwear selection.
• NFPA 70E arc-flash safety — the electrical-safety program EH footwear supports.
• The ABCDs of fall protection — footwear pairs with harness and anchorage for work at height.
• safety footwear standards compared: ASTM vs CSA vs EN ISO — decode a CSA green triangle or a European S3 code, and whether either satisfies OSHA.
• safety footwear marking selector — answer the hazard questions and it builds the ASTM F2413 line to put on the purchase order.

Related reference

Related reading in this area: soft toe vs safety toe boots, safety footwear: the complete buyer's guide, best electrical hazard work boots, and work boot sizing & fit guide (2026): width, toe box & getting it right.

Why trust WC Safety

WC Safety is an independent, affiliate-supported review site. It is not a retailer: it holds no inventory, takes no orders, and earns only from qualifying purchases through clearly marked links — which never changes what a product is rated to do. Standards language is taken from the regulation text directly, and ratings are reported as the manufacturer publishes them. We run no laboratory and perform no testing of our own. Where published sources disagree, we say so and plan on the conservative figure rather than the flattering one.

Our methodology

Figures come from the regulation and the published specification, in that order. Derated numbers are calculated, not estimated. Nothing here is presented as a measured result, because we measure nothing.

Researched and written by Steven Eaton, editor of WC Safety. Steven holds no safety certification and does not test products; this page compares what manufacturers and regulators publish, with the gaps in that record marked. Last reviewed August 2026.

Frequently Asked Questions