ASTM F2413-18: Every Code on Your Boot Label, With the Test Behind It

ASTM F2413 is the performance specification: it says what a protective-toe boot must survive. Its companion, ASTM F2412, is the book of test methods: how the lab drops the weight, squeezes the cap or applies the voltage. A boot is certified to F2413 and tested per F2412. When a maker writes “meets ASTM F2412-18 and F2413-18”, as KEEN does, it's naming both.

The two digits after the dash are the edition year. F2413 has been published in 2005, 2011, 2017, 2018 and 2024. ASTM's store now marks F2413-18 as historical and F2413-24 as the active edition. A boot labelled astm f2413-18 is not suddenly unsafe; it was tested to the edition in force when it was certified, and makers recertify their styles over time.

The second line of an F2413-18 label carries the gender and the two toe tests, written as “M/I/C” or “F/I/C”, according to Lori Hyllengren's walk-through of the 2018 standards in OH&S. Gender matters because the test pass mark differs: a women's toe cap is held to a slightly smaller minimum clearance. Wolverine's women's Floorhand, for example, prints “ASTM F2413 F/I/C EH”.

Every safety-toe boot carries I and C. Thorogood's guide says “All boots with a safety toe (either steel or composite) meet or exceed the following IMPACT and COMPRESSION testing.” That's the floor. The other codes are optional extras that only appear when the boot has passed that extra test.

Here's every code that can appear on an F2413-18 or -24 label, with the value behind it. The source column names where each number comes from, because ASTM's own text is paywalled. If a code isn't on your label, the boot wasn't certified for that hazard, whatever the product description says.

Older editions printed a class number after each toe code. The 2005 edition allowed a minimum class of 50: OSHA's December 2013 letter to the elevator constructors' union notes that “ASTM F-2413-2005 allows a minimum compression resistance rating of 50 and a minimum impact resistance of 50”, and that safety-toe boots “normally have a compression rating of 75 and an impact rating of 75.” The University of Washington's summary of the 2011 edition still lists compression classes 75, 50 and 30 (2,500, 1,750 and 1,000 lb), but ASTM's own 2005 release, quoted by North Carolina OSH, says Class 30 was removed when the F2413 standards replaced ANSI Z41. The sources disagree on class 30, so treat 75 as the class that matters.

Under F2413-18, Hyllengren shows line two as plain “M/I/C”, and Thorogood lists the codes as I and C without a number. Yet many makers' web copy still prints the class beside the 2018 year. KEEN's Pittsburgh says “Meets ASTM F3445-21 and F2413-18 M I/75 C/75 EH standards”; Wolverine's Floorhand says “ASTM F2413-18 M I/75 C/75 EH”. Read those as the same 75 ft-lbf impact and 2,500 lbf compression tests, just written the older way. If you ever see I/50 or C/50 on a tag, you're holding an older-edition boot rated below the usual 75 level, and that is worth raising with whoever specifies your footwear.

Hyllengren's example puts the hazard codes on a third line, such as “Mt/EH/PR”, with a fourth line for anything further (Cd or an SD class). The University of Washington summary says a four-line format is recommended and the marking sits inside a rectangular border. Not every maker's web copy keeps the line breaks, which is why rating lines online often read as one long string.

Mt is a separate impact test over the top of the foot, not a stronger toe cap. KEEN's Evanston INT MET writes it as MT/75; Wolverine's Raider DuraShocks writes “Mt”. EH is a property of the whole boot as tested: sole, upper and construction together. A composite or carbon toe doesn't make a boot EH-rated by itself, and plenty of steel-toe boots carry EH. PR means a puncture-resistant plate under the foot passed the 270 lbf test; a boot sold as having a “puncture-resistant sole” without PR on the label hasn't shown you that test.

Before 2018 there was one static-dissipative class with a band of 1 to 100 megohms. F2413-18 split it into three, according to Hyllengren: SD100 (1 to 100 MΩ), SD35 (1 to 35 MΩ) and SD10 (1 to 10 MΩ). The lower the upper limit, the faster static bleeds away, which matters in electronics assembly where a discharge can damage components.

One correction if you're reading the OH&S article yourself: its web text prints the SD35 upper limit as “3.5 x 108 Ω”. Thirty-five megohms is 3.5 × 10^7 ohms; the 8 is a typesetting slip of the exponent. SD footwear and EH footwear do opposite jobs. SD lets a small, controlled current flow; EH is built to resist current. Don't treat one as a substitute for the other.

Here's what the sources can confirm about the 2024 edition, and nothing beyond it. SATRA, a footwear test and research body, reports that F2413-24 and the soft-toe F2892-24 “now include specific reference to slip resistance” and that SR and SRO are to be included on labels. ASTM's own abstract for F2413-24 adds “resoling of the footwear” to §1.4, the clause saying after-market footbeds or inserts could make the ASTM marking invalid; the F2413-18 abstract mentions only footbeds and inserts.

No source we fetched states that F2413-24 changed any impact, compression, metatarsal, EH, SD or puncture value. ASTM's Standardization News reported in December 2022 that the committee aimed for clearer test-specimen sizing covering men's and women's sizes, improved labelling and another look at the SD test method. Those were goals stated before publication. Some websites present them as finished changes, but we have no fetched source showing the final 2024 text, so we don't describe them as changes.

So the practical difference for a buyer is small. A boot labelled -24 may also carry SR or SRO on its label. A boot labelled astm f2413-18 was tested to the same published I, C, Mt, EH and PR values quoted above, as far as any public source shows.

Usually yes, but it's your employer's call, and the reason is a quirk in the regulation. OSHA's foot-protection rule, 29 CFR 1910.136(b)(1), still names the 2005 editions: ASTM F-2412-2005 and F-2413-2005, or ANSI Z41-1999 or Z41-1991. It doesn't name the 2011, 2018 or 2024 editions. Newer boots comply through (b)(2): footwear “that the employer demonstrates is at least as effective” as footwear built to one of those standards “will be deemed to be in compliance.”

The only written regulator statement we found on newer editions comes from a state plan. North Carolina's OSH division (SN 70B, 2013) said it “will consider safety footwear which is labeled as meeting the requirements of the 2011 ASTM standards as equivalent to the ANSI Z41.1 standards and the ASTM 2005 standards.” No federal OSHA letter we found names F2413-18 or -24. OSHA's 2007 letter to the postal workers' union puts the burden on the employer to show equal effectiveness.

If your employer's policy names F2413-11, the simplest move is to ask whether a newer edition is acceptable before you buy. Most safety programmes accept it, since the newer edition is the current version of the same standard, but the decision and the paperwork are theirs.

Product pages are marketing copy; the certification lives inside the boot. Use the decoder at the top of this page with whatever you find there.