OSHA Foot Protection: How 29 CFR 1910.136 and 1926.96 Impact Safety Footwear Choices

A Cal/OSHA Appeals Board decision upheld penalties against a national retailer after inspectors found warehouse employees working around pallet jacks and industrial vehicles in ordinary shoes. The case made clear that when workers face foot hazards, failing to require protective footwear is a violation, no matter the industry.

That ruling carries a lesson beyond one store. OSHA standards apply anywhere employees face impact, puncture, electrical, or chemical risks. Inspectors will not ask what brand of shoe is on the floor, but they will ask whether it meets the required protection.

Could your workplace pass the same scrutiny if OSHA knocked on your door tomorrow?

Under 29 CFR 1910.136 and 1926.96, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) established a mandatory baseline in its foot protection requirements: employers must identify hazards and provide footwear that complies with recognized performance standards. Anything less leaves workers exposed and puts the employer out of compliance.

Key Takeaways

• OSHA foot protection rules under 29 CFR 1910.136 and 1926.96 require employers to assess hazards and provide footwear that meets ASTM or ANSI foot protection standard performance criteria.
• Safety footwear should have features matched to documented risks, such as impact/compression, puncture resistance, slip protection, or electrical classifications, rather than just a generic “safety boot.”
• OSHA footwear requirements in construction differ slightly from general industry, still referencing older ANSI standards, but in practice, ASTM F2413 compliance is the benchmark employers should verify.
• PPE foot protection decisions must balance compliance markings with real-world conditions, ensuring that protective footwear not only passes tests but also withstands environmental exposures like chemicals, heat, and cold.

Why Protecting Your Workers’ Feet Is Important

Workplace hazards put the feet at risk in ways that are often underestimated. A heavy load can cause crushing injuries. Scrap metal, nails, or shards on the ground lead to objects piercing through footwear. Slippery or uneven surfaces trigger slips and falls that damage toes and ankles. In chemical handling, hot work, or foundries, exposure can burn through footwear within seconds.

These injuries rarely resolve quickly. A punctured sole or fractured toe can take weeks to heal, and severe cases limit mobility for the rest of a worker’s career. Even when recovery is possible, the lost time disrupts operations and increases compensation costs.

For employers, protecting the workforce means providing more than generic gear. PPE foot protection must be matched to the hazards present. Issuing personal protective equipment that resists the right risks is part of compliance. Protective footwear must comply with OSHA and ANSI standards and should have the features required for the environment. When the match is wrong, the result is preventable foot injuries and operational setbacks that affect the entire team.

What Are the OSHA Footwear Requirements?

General Industry

Under 29 CFR 1910.136, employers must ensure that employees wear protective footwear in any workplace where there are hazards of falling or rolling objects, objects that could pierce the sole, or electrical hazards that remain after other necessary protective measures have been taken. The requirement is hazard-based: once a risk is identified, protective footwear is mandatory.

Compliance follows two key steps:

1. Hazard Assessment: OSHA requires employers to assess the workplace to determine whether foot hazards are present or are likely to occur. If hazards exist, the employer must document the assessment through a written certification that identifies the workplace, the certifier, and the date(s) of the assessment, per 29 CFR 1910.132(d).
2. Selection of Footwear: Under 1910.136(b), protective footwear must either (1) comply with one of the consensus standards OSHA has incorporated by reference (such as ASTM F-2412-2005 and F-2413-2005, or ANSI Z41-1999 and Z41-1991), or (2) be demonstrated by the employer to be at least as effective as footwear constructed to those standards.

OSHA does not reference brand names or styles. The rule requires that protective footwear be matched to the hazards documented in the assessment. Employers typically demonstrate compliance through ASTM F2413 markings on the footwear, but OSHA also allows employers to show equivalence through other documentation under 1910.136(b)(2). Failing to ensure footwear meets these criteria can result in noncompliance.

Are Steel Toe Boots Required by OSHA?

No, OSHA does not require steel toe boots. As I mentioned earlier, OSHA requires protective footwear that meets recognized consensus standards, but it does not name any material. That’s why the assumption that OSHA mandates steel toes is one of the most common misconceptions about workplace footwear.

What the rule demands is compliance with the required performance criteria. As long as the footwear carries the proper marking, OSHA considers it compliant. The toe cap material is secondary. A safety toe may be steel, composite, aluminum, or carbon fiber, and all can satisfy OSHA if tested under the required standard test methods.

This distinction matters in practice. Employers sometimes default to steel because it feels traditional or universally recognized, but in many environments, composite or aluminum options are more practical. The regulation leaves that decision open. The employer’s obligation is to match the hazards documented in the assessment with footwear that has been certified.

Construction Sites

OSHA footwear requirements in construction are contained in 29 CFR 1926.95 and 1926.96. These provisions establish that protective footwear must be worn when hazards are present on a jobsite, including falling or rolling objects and objects piercing the sole.

Two rules define the baseline:

• 29 CFR 1926.95(a): Protective equipment must be "provided, used, and maintained in a sanitary and reliable condition wherever it is necessary by reason of hazards of processes or environment, chemical hazards, radiological hazards, or mechanical irritants encountered in a manner capable of causing injury."
• 29 CFR 1926.96: Safety-toe footwear must meet the requirements in American National Standard for Men's Safety-Toe Footwear, Z41.1-1967. Note that, unlike general industry standards, the construction footwear standard has not been updated to reference modern ASTM F2413 standards.

Construction follows the same PPE payment rules as other industries. Under 29 CFR 1926.95(d), employers are not required to pay for non-specialty safety-toe boots that employees can also wear off the job site. But if the job requires additional, work-specific features, such as puncture-resistant plates, electrical-hazard soles, or metatarsal protection, those are considered specialty PPE, and the employer must provide them at no cost.

What Is the ANSI Standard for Safety Shoes?

Before ASTM became the benchmark, protective footwear in the United States was measured against the ANSI foot protection standard, known as ANSI Z41. This standard, developed by the American National Standards Institute, was the basis for OSHA’s early references to safety footwear.

Key points about ANSI Z41:

• Versions OSHA accepts:

• ANSI Z41-1999
• ANSI Z41-1991
• ANSI Z41.1-1967 (explicitly cited in construction at 29 CFR 1926.96)
• Performance focus: ANSI Z41 classified footwear for impact resistance, compression strength, and conductive/static-control properties. Footwear that carried these ANSI markings was considered compliant under OSHA rules.

Although ANSI Z41 is now obsolete and was formally withdrawn in 2005, OSHA continues to recognize these older designations. That means:

• If protective footwear was manufactured and labeled to Z41-1991 or Z41-1999, it still satisfies OSHA requirements today.
• For construction, the regulation’s text continues to cite Z41.1-1967, even though manufacturers no longer produce footwear under that edition.

Why ANSI was replaced:

ANSI transferred responsibility for footwear standards to ASTM International in 2005. ASTM then published F2412 (test methods) and F2413 (performance requirements), which now serve as the active standards. ANSI Z41 is still legally recognized because OSHA incorporated it into regulation, but new footwear is certified to ASTM standards instead.

In practice:

• Footwear on the market today will almost always show ASTM F2413 markings, not ANSI Z41.
• If an older boot is still in service and carries an ANSI Z41-1991 or 1999 label, OSHA accepts it as compliant.
• Employers should verify that any footwear purchased going forward aligns with ASTM standards, since ANSI Z41 is no longer updated or manufactured.

What Is the ASTM Standard for Safety Shoes?

Protective footwear sold today in the U.S. is almost always certified under the ASTM standard for safety shoes. OSHA regulations (29 CFR 1910.136) specifically incorporate these standards by reference.

Two linked ASTM standards govern safety footwear:

1. ASTM F2412: Standard Test Methods for Foot Protection
• Details the laboratory standard test methods for impact, compression, puncture resistance, electrical hazards, and other performance measures.
2. ASTM F2413: Standard Specification for Performance Requirements for Protective Footwear
• Sets the minimum design, performance, labeling, and classification requirements.
• Provides the marking system (e.g., I/75 for impact, C/75 for compression) that manufacturers apply to compliant footwear.

Edition details:

• OSHA’s rule lists ASTM F-2412-2005 and ASTM F-2413-2005 as the incorporated standards.
• The most current industry editions are ASTM F2412-24 and ASTM F2413-24. While OSHA has not yet updated its regulation to reference these newer editions, many employers use footwear certified to current ASTM versions, though they should verify that the newer editions meet or exceed the incorporated 2005 standard requirements.

In practice for employers:

• Look for ASTM F2413 markings on the footwear label or inside the tongue.
• Use the markings to confirm that the footwear addresses the hazards found in your site’s assessment.
• Rely on ASTM’s coding system to distinguish between impact, puncture resistance, electrical hazard ratings, and static-control properties.

OSHA vs. ASTM/ANSI: Who Sets the Rules and Who Sets the Benchmarks?

OSHA sets the rule, ASTM and ANSI set the benchmarks. OSHA’s standards in 29 CFR 1910.136 and 1926.96 require employers to provide protective footwear whenever hazards exist. But OSHA does not write the technical design criteria. Instead, it incorporates consensus standards by reference.

ASTM and ANSI provide the performance language. These standards spell out how footwear is tested, what levels of impact or compression it must withstand, and what markings confirm compliance. OSHA’s regulations simply point to those documents as the benchmarks.

The division of responsibility matters for employers:

• OSHA enforces compliance and issues citations if hazards are not addressed.
• ASTM (and historically ANSI) define the technical tests and classifications that manufacturers use to label compliant footwear.
• Compliance on the job is shown through the footwear’s consensus-standard marking, not through any OSHA “approval.”

In short: OSHA creates the obligation to wear protective footwear, while ASTM/ANSI creates the yardstick by which that footwear is measured.

Assessing Your Risks: Identifying Workplace Foot Hazards

OSHA footwear requirements require employers to evaluate the workplace for hazards and determine when PPE foot protection is necessary. The assessment is not meant to be a generic checklist. Its purpose is to establish, step by step, what safety footwear should have to protect workers against the conditions they face.

Step 1: Review the Tasks Being Performed

Tasks are the starting point of any hazard assessment. Every lift, cut, or push creates a scenario where the feet may be struck or trapped. What matters here is not the job title but the actions carried out during a shift.

• What to observe: How loads are lifted and set down, the height of handling, whether tools or parts are carried overhead, how carts or pallets move in relation to where people stand

• Questions to ask:

• What would hit the foot if an object slipped?
• Are workers routinely stepping through debris or unfinished surfaces that could hide sharp edges?
• Field cues: Frequent denting of toe caps, scuffs concentrated at the forefoot, or near misses when workers set down heavy parts.

When I watch tasks directly, the risks reveal themselves almost immediately. A worker labeled as “light duty” may still shift loads that could crush toes if dropped. By centering the assessment on observed actions, not assumptions, I get a clearer picture of where falling or rolling objects or objects piercing hazards really exist.

Step 2: Examine the Work Environment

The surrounding environment can transform a low-risk task into one with significant hazards. Floors, layouts, and equipment placement all affect how likely a worker’s foot is to be struck, pierced, or injured by a slip.

• What to observe: Floor condition throughout the day, transitions between surfaces, housekeeping, presence of cords or hoses, storage practices, and the proximity of energized equipment.

• Questions to ask:

• Where do surfaces consistently become wet, oily, or dusty?
• Are walkways kept clear, or do workers step over hoses and cords daily?
• Field cues: Polished or dust-slicked concrete, recurring puddles near machines, narrow aisles forcing workers close to moving equipment.

Workers who carry only small tools may still suffer slips when the floor is polished smooth with dust or moisture. In construction zones, uneven ground or cluttered pathways are often the real reason protective footwear fails to prevent injury. The environment should be treated as a direct source of hazards, not just background detail, so the selection of foot protection PPE accounts for traction, sole construction, and electrical classifications where needed.

Step 3: Consider Materials and Exposures

Footwear that performs well against impacts can still fail quickly if it is not built for the environmental exposures present. Heat, cold, and chemicals degrade materials in ways that are less visible than strikes but just as harmful.

• What to observe: Work around welding, grinding, foundries, or asphalt; chemical transfer stations; freezer storage; or outdoor winter work. Look for where footwear comes into contact with liquids or extreme temperatures.

• Questions to ask:

• Do sparks or molten metal reach the floor where operators stand?
• Are solvents, caustics, or cleaning agents splashed in walk zones?
• Does footwear remain wet or frozen for long parts of the shift?
• Field cues: Melted tread near weld bays, scorched uppers, cracked leather from freeze/thaw cycles, seam delamination from solvents, salt-stiffened boots.

If heat, cold, chemicals, or constant wet work are present, they belong beside impact and puncture in the assessment because they determine materials, construction, and service life. I bring them forward to prevent toe-only solutions that read as compliant yet fail under the site’s conditions. The result is a list of exposures that directly informs what safety footwear should have for real shifts.

Step 4: Validate Hazard-to-Footwear Link

An assessment only matters if the hazards identified are tied to footwear features that control them. This step translates observations into technical requirements, so the result is not a generic “safety boot policy” but a defensible specification.

• Impact and compression risks → Toe protection (steel, composite, aluminum, or carbon fiber); metatarsal protection if upper foot exposure exists.
• Penetration risks → Puncture-resistant midsoles against objects piercing hazards.
• Slip risks → Slip-resistant outsole compounds and tread suited to contaminants.
• Electrical hazards → Electrical Hazard (EH), Static-Dissipative (SD), or Conductive footwear.
• Thermal/chemical risks → Insulated, heat-resistant, or chemically compatible construction.

I will provide a fuller footwear-versus-hazard summary after discussing the different types of foot protection PPE. For now, the point is to establish the main sources of foot injuries that every assessment should capture. The list of sources below serves as the reference framework for understanding how hazards show up on site before linking them to specific footwear later.

Sources of Workplace Foot Injury

OSHA describes the duty in 29 CFR 1910.136(a) as protecting against impact, compression, penetration, and electrical hazards, among “other recognized dangers.” Those phrases set the legal baseline but are broad. On a site walk, the challenge is translating them into conditions you can actually see and record.

The table I prepared below makes the categories practical. Using these markers during an assessment keeps the process consistent and ensures no major hazard is overlooked when specifying PPE foot protection.

Types of Foot Protection PPE

1. Impact-Resistant and Compression-Resistant Footwear

Foot protection begins with guarding against falling or rolling objects that can crush toes and forefeet. OSHA requires that protective footwear must comply with standards for impact and compression resistance, and ASTM F2413 defines these as I/75 and C/75 ratings. These ratings specify that the boot has passed standard test methods, showing it can withstand heavy forces without collapsing onto the foot.

Different materials are used to build the protective cap, each with advantages and trade-offs:

• Steel toe: Long considered the default choice. Provides maximum strength with a relatively thin profile, which leaves more internal room for the toes. However, steel is heavy and conducts temperature, making it less comfortable in very hot or cold environments.
• Composite toe: Non-metallic and lighter than steel. Insulates against heat and cold and is suitable for metal-free environments like airports or security facilities. Bulkier than steel, which can reduce internal space.
• Aluminum toe: Lighter than steel but still metallic. Slightly thicker than steel to achieve equivalent strength. Useful where weight savings matter, but a slimmer profile is still needed compared to composite.
• Carbon fiber toe: Strong and lightweight, offering a balance between the slim profile of steel and the insulation benefits of composite. More costly and less common, but increasingly available.

What Is Safety Toe?

A safety toe is the reinforced cap built into footwear to resist impact and compression, measured by ASTM F2413 ratings such as I/75 and C/75. The term applies broadly to steel, composite, aluminum, and carbon fiber versions, each with different trade-offs in weight, insulation, and clearance through metal detectors. A safety toe, however, protects only the front of the foot. When hazards extend higher, additional coverage is needed.

What Protection Does a Metatarsal Guard Provide?

A metatarsal guard protects the long bones on the top of the foot, an area not covered by a safety toe. It disperses the force of falling or rolling objects that strike higher than the toe cap. Guards may be built inside the boot or attached externally, with internal designs offering a lower profile and external guards providing heavy-duty coverage. They are common in foundries, heavy manufacturing, and other environments where large parts or tools are handled overhead.

2. Puncture-Resistant Soles

While impact protection shields the top of the foot, the sole must also be guarded against penetration. Objects piercing the bottom of footwear, such as nails, scrap metal, rebar, or broken glass, are common on construction and demolition sites. To address this, protective footwear must comply with ASTM requirements for puncture resistance, which specify that midsoles reinforced with steel or composite plates can stop sharp objects from driving through to the foot.

The choice of plate material influences performance:

• Steel plates provide strong, reliable protection but add weight and can reduce flexibility.
• Composite plates are lighter and non-metallic, making them useful in metal-free environments, but they may not cover as much of the sole area as steel.

In either case, PPE foot protection with puncture-resistant soles is essential wherever debris is scattered on walking surfaces. Without it, routine steps through scrap piles or demolition areas can lead to serious foot injuries that are often preventable.

3. Electrical and Static-Control Footwear

Electrical hazard (EH), static-dissipative (SD), and conductive footwear are all designed to prevent electrical shock, but each serves a different purpose depending on the environment.

• EH footwear provides secondary protection against accidental contact with live electrical circuits. It offers electric shock resistance, but serves as supplemental protection, not primary electrical safety equipment. Its effectiveness is reduced when wet or contaminated with conductive materials.
• SD footwear controls static electricity buildup on the body. SD footwear provides static dissipative properties to reduce hazards due to excessively low footwear resistance that may exist where SD footwear is required. It's essential in electronics manufacturing and clean rooms where static discharge could damage sensitive equipment.
• Conductive footwear transfers static electricity from the wearer to ground. It has conductive properties which reduce hazards that may result from static electricity buildup, and reduce the possibility of ignition of explosives and volatile chemicals. Used in flammable or explosive environments where preventing static sparks is critical.

4. Specialty Footwear

While safety-toe boots provide essential protection against impact and compression, specialty footwear is designed to address specific environmental hazards that require additional features. These boots are tailored to meet the unique demands of certain work conditions, including slip-resistant, chemical-resistant, cold-weather, ice-traction, and heat-resistant needs.

Some occupations even require a mix of these features. For example, boots for mechanics often combine oil-resistant soles, slip protection, and puncture-resistant midsoles to handle the hazards of service bays and repair shops.

The table below summarizes the types of specialty footwear, the hazards they mitigate, and typical applications for each. These boots are an integral part of any PPE foot protection program, helping to prevent injuries related to environmental factors.

Footwear Types vs. Hazards

Now that I have discussed the main categories of protective footwear and the hazards they are intended to control, it is useful to see the information consolidated. The table below summarizes each footwear type alongside the hazards it mitigates. This overview provides a quick checkpoint to ensure every hazard identified during an assessment is matched with the appropriate footwear category.

One category in the above table requires a closer look. Unlike impact or puncture protection, chemical resistance depends heavily on the materials used in the boot. Rubber, neoprene, and PVC each perform differently against acids, solvents, and fuels. The table below compares these materials, showing where they provide strong resistance and where their limitations appear.

What Do ASTM Markings Mean?

Protective footwear that complies with OSHA rules must show its certification markings similar to the above image. These markings come from ASTM F2413 performance requirements, tested according to ASTM F2412 standard test methods. Each code on the label corresponds to a specific hazard the boot protects against. Reading these markings correctly is critical because they show which risks the footwear is designed to control.

The table below decodes the most common ASTM markings found on footwear, with a brief explanation of the protection each represents.

How to Choose the Right Foot Protection PPE

Step 1: Confirm the Regulatory Trigger

• Verify that the tasks and conditions you documented meet the threshold for OSHA foot protection.
• Note any industry context that affects the scope, such as OSHA footwear requirements in construction.
• Keep in mind that protective footwear must comply with consensus standards; brand names are irrelevant to compliance.

Step 2: Translate Hazards Into Required Protections

• Map each hazard to a protection attribute rather than a product name to prevent “toe-only” solutions where more features are needed
• Examples: falling or rolling objects → impact/compression; objects piercing walking surfaces → puncture resistance; wet or oily floors → slip resistance; energized or static-sensitive areas → EH, SD, or Cd; heat/cold/chemicals → thermal or chemical resistance.

Step 3: Select the Category from the Types of Foot Protection PPE

• Choose among safety toe, metatarsal, puncture-resistant, electrical/static control, slip-resistant, heat-resistant, cold-weather, or chemical-resistant categories.
• Use the earlier footwear types vs. hazards table to check that every listed hazard points to one or more categories.

Step 4: Verify the Standard and the Marking

• Confirm the footwear carries an ASTM F2413 label that matches your needs (I/75, C/75, Mt/75, EH, PR, SD, Cd).
• Remember that F2413 performance is validated using standard test methods in F2412.
• Legacy products built to the ANSI foot protection standard may still be in service; confirm the marking before relying on them.

Step 5: Resolve Electrical Classification Correctly

• EH, SD, and Conductive are distinct and not interchangeable. Pick the one that fits the environment, and do not combine conflicting requirements.
• Align the choice with your controls for equipment, solvents, flammable atmospheres, and humidity.

Step 6: Fit, Ergonomics, and Wearability

• Prioritize correct length/width and toe-box shape so workers maintain natural gait and balance.
• Balance cap material trade-offs (steel, composite, aluminum, carbon) for weight, thermal transfer, and clearance through detectors.
• Poor fit increases fatigue, contributes to foot injuries, and reduces real-world compliance.

Step 7: Materials, Durability, and Environment Match

• Outsoles: select compounds and tread geometry that match the primary contaminant and surface.
• Uppers and construction: choose materials that tolerate the site’s heat, cold, water, or chemicals; confirm bonding/seams won’t degrade under those exposures.
• For chemical areas, align boot material with the specific agents present; do not assume one material covers all.

Step 8: Trial, Feedback, and Scale

• Run a small wear trial with representative jobs and shifts; include at least one high-exposure route.
• Capture break-in time, traction performance, damage patterns, and worker feedback, then adjust the spec only where evidence supports it.
• Scale purchasing once the trial data shows the selection meets performance and comfort targets.

Step 9: Training and Care That Protect the Investment

• Teach workers how to read ASTM markings so they can self-check that safety footwear has the right protection.
• Set simple routines for cleaning, drying, and tread checks; replace when caps are exposed, midsoles are compromised, or traction is worn.

Step 10: Ongoing Verification

• Periodically re-walk high-change areas and compare observed conditions to footwear performance.
• Update selections when processes, chemicals, or surfaces change so personal protective footwear stays aligned with risk.

Compliance Tips for Employers

In 2023, the California Occupational Safety and Health Appeals Board affirmed a serious violation against a retail discount chain for failing to require adequate foot protection. The employer argued that because it sold mostly lightweight goods, the risk of foot injuries was minimal.

Cal/OSHA, however, presented evidence that employees moved heavy pallets with manual pallet jacks and that an employee had sustained injuries while working on an incline. The Board ruled that the hazard was “in plain view” and that the employer’s administrative and engineering controls did not eliminate the risk.

This decision highlights two important lessons:

1. The duty to provide protective footwear is hazard-based, not product-based. It does not matter if most inventory appears harmless if equipment and processes create exposure to falling or rolling objects or objects piercing the sole.
2. The case illustrates that relying on training alone without issuing the right PPE is insufficient. When workers face foot hazards, OSHA and Cal/OSHA expect employers to require and enforce the use of compliant footwear.

To avoid similar outcomes, employers should integrate the following actions into their PPE foot protection programs:

• Integrate foot protection checks into routine safety audits so issues are caught with other PPE gaps.
• Rotate sample inspections across departments to confirm policies are enforced consistently.
• Track footwear replacement intervals instead of waiting for visible wear.
• Include contractors and temporary staff in the same footwear policy as direct employees.
• Tie supervisory performance reviews to PPE compliance outcomes.
• Keep at least one pair of compliant spare boots on site for visitors or new hires.
• Record photos of hazard zones during assessments to strengthen documentation.

Protective footwear policies look solid on paper, but paper does not stop a falling load or a nail driven through the sole. The standard is clear and the risks are real, yet too many programs collapse in the gap between written policy and what happens on the floor. Workers notice when the right boots are missing, and inspectors will see it too.

Compliance is proven only when the hazards match the footwear that is actually worn, day after day. If an inspector walked through your site tomorrow, could you say with certainty that every worker’s feet were protected?

FAQs on OSHA Foot Protection

Does OSHA require steel toe boots for forklift operators?

No. OSHA foot protection rules do not mandate steel specifically. Operators must wear protective footwear that meets ASTM F2413 standards. Steel toe is one option, but composite, aluminum, or carbon toe can also comply if they provide the impact and compression resistance required.

Is aluminum toe cap OSHA approved?

OSHA does not "approve" brands or materials. What matters is that the boot meets the ASTM F2413 standard. An aluminum toe cap is acceptable under OSHA footwear requirements in construction and general industry if the boot carries the proper ASTM marking showing it passed impact and compression tests.

In what situations might composite-toe footwear be preferred over steel-toed boots?

Composite-toe footwear is often chosen in environments that require metal-free shoes, such as security checkpoints, or in work areas with extreme heat or cold where metal conducts temperature. These boots can still meet OSHA foot protection standards as long as they have the ASTM marking that safety footwear should have.

What features must electrical hazard boots have to comply with OSHA standards?

Electrical hazard boots must carry the EH rating under ASTM F2413. To be compliant, the safety footwear should have non-conductive soles and heels that provide secondary protection against accidental contact with live circuits up to 18,000 volts at 60 Hz under dry conditions.

Are there specific testing standards for electrical hazard boots under OSHA?

Yes. OSHA references consensus standards rather than writing its own test methods. Electrical hazard boots are tested under ASTM F2412 and must meet the performance requirements in ASTM F2413. Older products marked under the ANSI foot protection standard (specifically ANSI Z41-1999 and Z41-1991) are still accepted by OSHA if they meet those standards, regardless of manufacturing date.

TRADESAFE provides premium industrial safety equipment, such as Lockout Tagout Devices, Eyewash Stations, Absorbents, and more; precision-engineered and trusted by professionals to offer unmatched performance in ensuring workplace safety.