OT:RR:CTF:VSP H346874 ACH
Michelle Campbell
Catalyst Customs Brokers, Inc.
160 Bartlett Plaza
Bartlett, IL 60103
RE: Applicability of Subheading 9817.00.96, HTSUS; Effortless Bra and Adaptive
Underwear
Dear Ms. Campbell:
This is in response to your request, on behalf of Springrose Inc., dated March 14, 2025,
for a binding ruling regarding the eligibility of Effortless Bra and Adaptive Underwear for
subheading 9817.00.96, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”), treatment.
A sample of the product was provided to the National Commodity Specialist Division. Our
ruling is set forth below.
FACTS:
Springrose designs apparel exclusively for women with disabilities, including those that
suffer from stroke, amputations, arthritis, and fibromyalgia. The company maintains a
distributor agreement with Pisces Healthcare and partners with clinicians (including physical and
occupational therapists) to design their garments for patients with physical impairments. A
review of their website indicates that they are only selling adaptive bras for women with limited
mobility.
The Style 3.1 “Effortless Bra” is double layered and features a front magnetic multi-clasp
closure; adjustable elasticized shoulder straps, which can be worn in a racerback style;
elasticized edging along the neckline, armhole and top back; and an adjustable hook and eye
closure. The bra also features patent-pending finger pockets to assist in latching and unlatching
the front magnetic closure and can feature mastectomy pockets for artificial breast forms. The
Style 4.1 “Adaptive Underwear” is a woman’s bikini panty featuring adjustable magnetic
closures on both sides, which allow the front panel to be lowered so the wearer can put on the
underwear without stepping into it and pulling it up. Springrose used models with leg and arm
amputations in the visual materials provided to CBP.
ISSUE:
Whether the Effortless Bra and Adaptive Underwear imported by Springrose are eligible
for duty-free treatment under subheading 9817.00.96, HTSUS.
LAW AND ANALYSIS:
1. The Effortless Bra and Adaptive Underwear are Eligible for Duty-free Treatment
under Subheading 9817.00.96, HTSUS.
The Nairobi Protocol to the Agreement on the Importation of Educational, Scientific and
Cultural Materials of 1982, Pub. L. No. 97-446, 96 Stat. 2329, 2346 (1983) established the duty-
free treatment for certain articles for the handicapped. Presidential Proclamation 5978 and
Section 1121 of the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988 provided for the
implementation of the Nairobi Protocol into subheadings 9817.00.92, 9817.00.94, and
9817.00.96, HTSUS.
Subheading 9817.00.96, HTSUS, covers: “Articles specially designed or adapted for the
use or benefit of the blind or other physically or mentally handicapped persons; parts and
accessories (except parts and accessories of braces and artificial limb prosthetics) that are
specially designed or adapted for use in the foregoing articles . . . Other.” In Sigvaris, Inc. v.
United States, 227 F. Supp 3d 1327, 1336 (CIT 2017), aff’d, 899 F.3d 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2018), the
U.S. Court of International Trade (“CIT”) explained that:
The term “specially” is synonymous with “particularly,” which is defined as “to an extent
greater than in other cases or towards others.” Webster’s Third New International Dictionary
1647, 2186 (unabr. 2002). The dictionary definition for “designed” is something that is “done,
performed, or made with purpose and intent often despite an appearance of being accidental,
spontaneous, or natural.” Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 612 (unabr. 2002).
Subheading 9817.00.96, HTSUS, excludes “(i) articles for acute or transient disability;
(ii) spectacles, dentures, and cosmetic articles for individuals not substantially disabled; (iii)
therapeutic and diagnostic articles; or, (iv) medicine or drugs.” U.S. Note 4(b), Subchapter XVII,
Chapter 98, HTSUS. Thus, eligibility within subheading 9817.00.96, HTSUS, depends on
whether the article is “specially designed or adapted for the use or benefit of the blind or
physically and mentally handicapped persons,” and whether it falls within any of the enumerated
exclusions under U.S. Note 4(b), Subchapter XVII, Chapter 98, HTSUS.
The term “blind or other physically or mentally handicapped persons” includes “any
person suffering from a permanent or chronic physical or mental impairment which substantially
limits one or more major life activities, such as caring for one’s self, performing manual tasks,
walking, seeing, hearing, speaking, breathing, learning, or working.” U.S. Note 4(a), Subchapter
XVII, Chapter 98, HTSUS. While the HTSUS does not establish a clear definition of
“substantial limitation,” in Sigvaris, 227 F. Supp 3d at 1335, the CIT explained that “[t]he
2
inclusion of the word ‘substantially’ denotes that the limitation must be ‘considerable in amount’
or ‘to a large degree.’”
CBP must evaluate “for whose, if anyone’s, use and benefit is the article specially
designed.” Sigvaris, Inc. v. United States, 227 F. Supp 3d 1327, 1336 (C.I.T. 2017), aff’d, 899
F.3d 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2018). In other words, we must consider whether such persons are
suffering from a permanent or chronic physical or mental impairment which substantially limits
one or more major life activities.
The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) clarified that to be “specially
designed,” the merchandise “must be intended for the use or benefit of a specific class of persons
to an extent greater than for the use or benefit of others. This definition of ‘specially designed’ is
consistent with factors that Customs uses in discerning for whose use and benefit a product is
‘specially designed” … we adopt them in our analysis ….” Id. at 1314-15. In Danze, Inc. v.
United States, 319 F. Supp. 3d 1312, 1326 n.22 (CIT 2018), the CIT held that ADA compliance
alone was insufficient to show that an item was “specifically designed or adapted” for the
handicapped under subheading 9817.00.96, HTSUS.
To determine whether the Effortless Bra and Adaptive Underwear are “specially
designed” for the use or benefit of a class of persons to an extent greater than for others, CBP
must examine the following five factors adopted by the CAFC in Sigvaris, 899 F.3d at 1314-15:
(1) physical properties of the article itself (e.g., whether the article is easily distinguishable in
design, form and use from articles useful to non-handicapped persons); (2) presence of any
characteristics that create a substantial probability of use by the chronically handicapped, so that
the article is easily distinguishable from articles useful to the general public and any use thereof
by the general public is so improbable that it would be fugitive; (3) importation by manufacturers
or distributors recognized or proven to be involved in this class or kind of articles for the
handicapped; (4) sale in specialty stores that serve handicapped individuals; and (5) indication at
the time of importation that the article is for the handicapped. See also T.D. 92-77 (26 Cust. B.
240 (1992)).
Analysis of the five Sigvaris factors shows that the Effortless Bra and Adaptive
Underwear are specially designed for the use of the handicapped. Since these articles feature
magnetic multi-clasp closures that are prominent and relatively large, we find that the garments
possess design features that distinguish them from ordinary bras and underwear. We also find
that the magnetic clasp closures would add undesirable bulk to undergarments. It is improbable
that an individual would seek out these garments for wear unless they had physical disabilities or
limitation that necessitated their use. Further, the importer has identified themselves as an
intimate apparel company targeting women with disabilities and health conditions. The only
products currently offered on their website are adaptive bras. In addition, their submission states
that they design apparel exclusively for women with disabilities, including those that suffer from
stroke, amputations, arthritis, and fibromyalgia. Finally, the submitted samples have specialized
features that suggest the articles are suitable for the handicapped.
This ruling is also similar to HQ H304041, dated August 2, 2019, in which CBP held that
a men’s jacket was specially designed for the use of the handicapped. The jacket featured a full-
3
length, center back placket with a VELCRO® hook and loop closures that allowed the wearer to
remain in the wheelchair while dressing. Further, in HQ H321334, dated October 26, 2021, CBP
held that boxers, briefs, and swimwear that could be put-on without having to step into them
were articles specially designed for the use of the handicapped. Additionally, CBP has held that
bras with loops and hooks that made the garments easier to close were specially designed for the
use of the handicapped. See NY N243947, dated July 19, 2013; and NY N113939, dated August
3, 2010.
Here, CBP finds that the articles are for the use of the handicapped. The Effortless Bra
and Adaptive Underwear have specific features, such as hooks and magnetic closures, that
enable those who have difficulty caring for themselves, i.e. dressing themselves, to put on their
underwear with greater ease. Finally, subheading 9817.00.96, HTSUS, does not cover articles
for acute or transient disability. See U.S. Note 4(b), Subchapter XVII, Chapter 98, HTSUS.
Based upon the nature of the garment, we believe it is unlikely that an individual with a transient
or acute disability would invest in garments such as those at issue.
HOLDING:
The Effortless Bra and Adaptive Underwear at issue are eligible for duty-free treatment
under subheading 9817.00.96, HTSUS, as articles specially designed or adapted for the use or
benefit of the blind or other physically or mentally handicapped persons.
Duty rates are provided for your convenience and are subject to change. The text of the
most recent HTSUS and the accompanying duty rates are provided on the internet at
https://hts.usitc.gov.
Please note that 19 C.F.R. § 177.9(b)(1) provides that “[e]ach ruling letter is issued on the
assumption that all of the information furnished in connection with the ruling request and
incorporated in the ruling letter, either directly, by reference, or by implication, is accurate and
complete in every material respect. The application of a ruling letter by a Customs Service field
office to the transaction to which it is purported to relate is subject to the verification of the facts
incorporated in the ruling letter, a comparison of the transaction described therein to the actual
transaction, and the satisfaction of any conditions on which the ruling was based.”
A copy of this ruling letter should be attached to the entry documents filed at the time the
goods are entered. If the documents have been filed without a copy, this ruling should be
brought to the attention of the CBP officer handling the transaction.
Sincerely,
Monika R. Brenner, Chief
Valuation and Special Programs Branch
4