Our archive lists 13 recalls of work and safety boots between July 2004 and January 2024, covering about 358,060 pairs sold in the United States. Two of the 13 notices name women’s styles. In five of them, the problem was not a weak part but a label: the boot claimed a protection it did not have.
What federal workplace rules ask of work footwear
The rule for most U.S. workplaces is OSHA’s foot protection standard, 29 CFR 1910.136. Paragraph (a) says the employer “shall ensure that each affected employee uses protective footwear when working in areas where there is a danger of foot injuries due to falling or rolling objects, or objects piercing the sole,” and it extends the same duty to electrical hazards that remain after other protective steps.
Paragraph (b) sets the bar. Protective footwear must meet one of three consensus standards: ASTM F-2412-2005 and F-2413-2005, ANSI Z41-1999, or ANSI Z41-1991. Footwear the employer can show is “at least as effective” as boots built to one of those standards also complies.
Two parts of OSHA’s general protective equipment rule, 29 CFR 1910.132, touch work boots directly. Paragraph (d) requires the employer to assess the workplace for hazards, choose equipment that protects against them, and select equipment that fits each affected employee. Paragraph (h) says protective equipment is provided at no cost to employees, with an exception: the employer “is not required to pay for non-specialty safety-toe protective footwear” if workers may wear it off the job site.
What ASTM F2413 covers
ASTM F2413 is the specification boot makers test to. The ASTM catalogue lists F2413-24 as the active edition. The published scope of the 2018 edition lists the protections it sets requirements for:
- impact resistance and compression resistance for the toe area
- metatarsal protection, “that reduces the chance of injury to the metatarsal bones at the top of the foot”
- conductive properties and static dissipative (SD) properties
- electric shock resistance
- puncture resistance of the sole
- chain saw cut resistance and dielectric insulation
The same scope warns that changing original components, “such as replacing or adding after market footbeds/inserts,” can make the boot fail and render the ASTM marking invalid.
The marking on the boot is a short code. A University of Kentucky safety handout explains the two toe ratings this way: in the impact test, a 50-pound weight dropped from about 18 inches delivers 75 foot-pounds onto the toe, and a shoe that passes may be labeled I/75; a shoe that withstands 2,500 pounds of compression on the toe may be labeled C/75. Its sample label reads “ASTM F2413-17, M/I/75/C/75, Mt/75,” with Mt for metatarsal protection. Recall notices use similar shorthand. The Caterpillar logger boots in our archive had “EH” printed on the tongue label, and the notice ties that mark to resistance to electrical current. The full marking rules are in the paid standard, which we did not read, and the handout predates the current edition.
What failed in the recalled boots
We grouped the 13 recalls by what the notice says went wrong. Pair counts are U.S. units as stated in each notice.
| Failure in the notice | Recalls | U.S. pairs |
|---|---|---|
| Toe cap may fail on impact or compression | 7 | 326,900 |
| Mislabeled as electrical hazard resistant | 2 | 19,500 |
| Missing puncture-resistant plate or sole | 2 | 6,660 |
| Missing metatarsal guard | 1 | 3,200 |
| Snake guard failed | 1 | 1,800 |
Toe caps. The two largest work boot recalls in our archive are both toe-cap cases. Timberland’s October 2, 2007 recall covered about 193,000 pairs of Timberland PRO Direct Attach Steel Toe Boots, model numbers 26002, 65016, 26038 and 38021, sold from September 2005 to September 2007 for $90 to $115; the notice said they “could fail to provide the intended protection against compression and impact.” It ranks 11th by units among all 103 footwear recalls we track. Red Wing’s December 19, 2013 recall covered about 105,000 pairs in the U.S. and 9,000 in Canada: 45 styles of men’s steel-toe boots in sizes 11 to 18, with date codes between 12/12 and 11/13 on the tongue label. Both firms offered free replacement boots. Smaller toe-cap recalls came from Georgia Boot (recalled by Rocky) in 2006 and 2014, LaCrosse in 2004, Itasca in 2011 and Dan Post in 2017.
Labels that overstated protection. The 2011 Itasca Fusion Hiker, sold at Big 5 for about $50, had “Steel Toe” printed on a tag but “hard composite toe material rather than steel,” and could fail on compression and impact. Wolverine’s 2007 Caterpillar logger boots and Georgia Boot’s 2004 logger boots were labeled as resistant to electrical current when they were not. The Shoes for Crews ACE boots of 2017 “were advertised as puncture-resistant, but were not manufactured with the puncture-resistant plate.” H.H. Brown’s January 2024 Redeemer DH 5379 boots had “Puncture Resisting Sole” embossed on the leather, yet the notice says “The sole is not puncture-resistant.”
Missing parts. The Justin Keaven WP Met Guard boots, model SE4570, recalled by Boot Royalty in January 2024, had “Steel Toe” and “Met Guard” labels sewn into the side seam but could be missing the metatarsal guard. The firm had one report of bruising when a heavy object fell on a wearer’s foot.
The full list, with sale dates and prices, is on our work boot recalls page, and the shared failure types are explained on the impact hazards page.
Which recalls involved women’s sizes
Two notices name women’s styles.
Caterpillar logger boots, 2007. Wolverine recalled about 9,500 steel-toe logger boots sold from September 2006 through July 2007 for $90 to $130. The notice says: “Women’s boots were sold in black and have stock number P88030.” Men’s boots carried stock numbers P88033 or P88034. The remedy was a free replacement pair. Our Caterpillar logger boot recall page has the details.
McRae Industrial safety footwear, 2017. Dan Post Boot Company recalled about 7,200 boots and shoes in seven styles, sold from October 2013 through June 2017. Two were women’s hiker shoes: MR47321, brown, composite toe and metatarsal guard, $103; and MR43002, gray and purple, composite toe, metatarsal guard and static dissipative, $92. The notice says the footwear “can fail to protect feet when heavy or sharp objects fall on them” and reports one case of a tire falling onto a wearer’s foot, resulting in a broken foot. The remedy was a full refund. See our Dan Post safety footwear recall page.
A third notice is worth a look if you wear small sizes. The ACE Republic style was sold as a unisex boot in men’s sizing, starting at men’s 4.5 and running up to 16. On the standard US scale, a men’s 4.5 is about a women’s 5.5, so most women’s sizes fall inside that range. Our guide to US, UK and EU women’s sizes explains the conversion.
The other notices either list men’s sizes only, such as Red Wing’s 11 to 18 and Justin’s men’s 7 through 14, or do not say. The Timberland, LaCrosse and 2004 Georgia Boot notices describe the boots without naming men’s or women’s sizes.
Matching a pair you own
Every notice above points to a label you can read without tools: a style or stock number on the tongue or lining, and often a date code. Red Wing’s recall covered only date codes 12/12 to 11/13; the Timberland recall covered date codes ending in 35 and excluded Direct Attach boots made in China; the Redeemer recall covered only manufacturing codes VCJJ22, VCJC23, VCJD23 and VCJF23. A boot with the right style name but a different code is not part of the recall.
The five labeling cases also show that a protection mark is the maker’s claim. A buyer cannot see whether a toe cap, plate or metatarsal guard is inside the boot, so the style and date codes in the notice are the practical way to match a pair. If your boots match, the firm’s contact line in the notice is the place to start.