OT:RR:CTF:VSP H348400 ACH
Ignacio Alcorisa
Improving Mobility Development Corp.
Carrer de la Coma 19 46160
Lliria, Valencia, 46010, Spain
RE: Applicability of Subheading 9817.00.96, HTSUS; Scooters
Dear Mr. Alcorisa:
This is in response to your request, dated May 14, 2025, for reconsideration of New York
Ruing Letter (NY) N347694, dated May 7, 2025. In that ruling, U.S. Customs and Border
Protection (“CBP”) determined that three scooters were not eligible for duty-free treatment under
subheading 9817.00.96, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). CBP
determined that the scooters did not satisfy the five factors included in Sigvaris, Inc. v. United
States, 227 F. Supp 3d 1327, 1336 (C.I.T. 2017), aff’d, 899 F.3d 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2018), discussed
below. We have reviewed NY N347694 and determined that it is correct, and for the reasons set
forth below we are affirming that ruling.
Improving Mobility Development Corp. (“Improving Mobility”) is importing the
following three mobility scooters:
• PEPE Lightweight Scooter- The PEPE Lightweight Scooter is designed to be
operated by the user, who steers the scooter with both hands on the handlebar. The
front wheels are slightly smaller than the rear wheels. The seat measures 42 by 38 cm
and includes a manual brake system that allows the wheels to be locked when the
scooter is stationary, as well as two speed controllers: forward and reverse. The
scooter folds for easy storage after use. The folding scooter is also equipped with a
front light and horn. The PEPE folding scooter video advertisement features users
folding and unfolding the scooter. The battery capacity is 10Ah, and the scooter
weighs 22.5 kg including the battery. It supports a maximum user weight of 120 kg
and a maximum speed of 4.3 mph.
• PEPE High-Performance Scooter- The PEPE High-Performance Scooter is
designed to be operated by the user, who steers the scooter with both hands on the
handlebar. The scooter is equipped with armrests, a backrest, a seat with a safety
belt, a fixed footrest, a front light, a 10L capacity basket, and four wheels with a
manual brake system that allows them to be locked when the scooter is stationary to
ensure its stability. The scooter also features a front light, front mounted basket, anti-
collision bar, and horn. The PEPE high-performance scooter is advertised as being
able to go over difficult terrain and does not fold up. This scooter’s advertisement
shows users they can lift the arm rest, rotate the seat, and step out with ease.
• KMINA All-Terrain Scooter- The KMINA All-Terrain Scooter is designed for flat
surfaces with small slopes and/or irregularities—such as those commonly found in
urban environments. The wheels have a diameter of 30 cm. The seat is height-
adjustable and includes armrests and a footrest. It features a manual brake lever as
well as an automatic brake that engages when the speed lever is released, both in
forward and reverse. The KMINA All-Terrain scooter is equipped with rear-view
mirrors, headlights, turning signals, horn, outside temperature gauge, and cup holder.
The scooter has a maximum speed of 9.3 mph. Because this scooter is still in
development, there are no advertising materials available.
Improving Mobility has provided additional information stating that the target customers
of the mobility scooters are elderly people, people with mobility problems or reduced mobility,
people convalescing or rehabilitating from injuries, and people suffering from any kind of
chronic disability, whether physical or mental. All three scooters can be pushed manually after
the electric drive is disengaged.
In the U.S. market, the KMINA and PEPE scooters are sold through KMINA’s website,
pharmacies, orthopedic shops, and distributors. Scooters are sold both online and offline.
Improving Mobility states that the scooters are not available on Amazon, but there is currently an
unavailable product listing on Amazon that links to the Amazon PEPE Mobility Store, which
features other mobility products. Both the KMINA and PEPE scooters are sold on the KMINA
website, which features pictures of elderly people and other mobility or assistance products such
as walkers, canes, and bathroom aids.
Improving Mobility has also provided additional information stating that the scooters are
classified as Class 1 medical devices in compliance with European Union regulations,
specifically EN 12184. Further, Improving Mobility is registered with the FDA and the Spanish
AEMPS as a manufacturer of medical devices. “The mobility scooter is considered to be an
assistive technology. Assistive technology is defined by the World Health Organi[z]ation as any
device or system that allows individuals to perform tasks that they would otherwise be unable to
do or increases the ease and safety with which tasks can be performed.” 1
An article from the National Library of Medicine discusses how the use of mobility
scooters such as those imported by KMINA have become more common. 2 The article points out
1
Roselle Thoreau, “The impact of mobility scooters on their users. Does their usage help or hinder?: A state of the
art review,” J. Transp. Health, June 2015. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4510203/.
2
Id.
2
that scooters can be hired in large supermarkets, shopping centers, tourist attractions, and visitor
centers. At many of these locations, users of the scooters must say they are disabled, but no
proof of disability is required. It also addresses the many uses of scooters, such as replacing a
car for trips to the grocery store. Further, the article states, “mobility scooters are designed for
and used by individuals who are able to walk and manipulate themselves on and off a seated
object. Unlike wheelchairs, mobility scooters are generally treated as vehicles in the sense that
they do not have to be guaranteed access into buildings. This means that in order to access
services and activities users must be able to walk…. Safe operation also requires the ability to
balance when the scooter is driving on a slope, on rough grounds, or on and off pavements.”
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.”
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 1336, the CIT explained that “[t]he
inclusion of the word ‘substantially’ denotes that the limitation must be ‘considerable in amount’
or ‘to a large degree.’”
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, classification under 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.
Here, the scooters can be used to assist those with limited mobility, but may also be used
by anyone to travel from place to place without walking. Therefore, CBP must evaluate “for
whose, if anyone’s, use and benefit is the article specially designed.” Sigvaris, 227 F. Supp 3d at
1335. In Sigvaris, the CIT explained that:
3
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).
In Sigvaris, the court used the Plaintiff’s own advertising materials to determine whether the
products were specially designed for the use of persons who are physically handicapped. Here,
the two scooters on the market are primarily advertised to the elderly and those with mobility
issues. They are sold alongside walkers and bath aids and feature pictures of the elderly using
the products. However, while advertising for the scooters often includes pictures of the elderly
using these products, we note that being elderly is not itself a handicap. The handicap at issue is
a substantial limitation on the ability to walk.
To determine whether the scooters 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)).
Regarding factor one, all three scooters feature physical properties of more stable seats
and slower speeds that allow those with disabilities greater ease in getting onto the scooters and
greater safety in riding the scooters. In addition, the seats on the PEPE High-Performance and
the KMINA All-Terrain scooters turn so users do not have to climb into them. However, the
scooters do require users to have enough mobility to climb onto them, especially the PEPE
lightweight scooter. The scooters also have features like rear-view mirrors and horns that make
them more suitable for general driving purposes. Therefore, the physical properties of the
articles indicate that they are not specially designed for the handicapped.
Regarding factor two, these scooters are also not distinguishable in design from those
used by the general public. A general search for “seated electric scooters” shows predominantly
scooters with bike or saddle seats, many of which are sold for less than half than the cheapest of
these scooters, though some name-brand models can be more expensive. Further, the scooters
advertised to the general public typically have top speeds ranging from 17 to 30 mph. However,
despite these differences, we believe these articles are still useful to the general public. As stated
in the National Library of Medicine article, similar articles are widely available in public places
such as grocery stores and visitor centers for the convenience of patrons. Therefore, because
these scooters are similar to those widely available to the general public, it is probable that they
will be used by members of the general public.
4
Regarding factor three, four and five, both KMINA and PEPE are recognized to be
involved in selling articles for the handicapped. The PEPE store on Amazon features walkers,
bath aids, and other living aids (articles CBP has determined to fall under subheading
9817.00.96, HTSUS), and the KMINA website offers the same. Further, Improved Mobility has
stated that these scooters are sold in specialty stores that serve handicapped individuals, but the
scooters are also available online to anyone who would like to purchase them. However, in
addition, we note that similar scooters are widely available online through sites such as Amazon
and Walmart.
Here, we believe that the scooters are not specially designed for the use of the
handicapped. The scooters could be used by people who do not want to walk, and the scooters
are sold online and can be purchased by anyone. Therefore, because of the wide availability and
usefulness of these scooters, we believe they are not specially designed for the use of the
handicapped.
Based on the facts provided, we find that the scooters at issue are not 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.
Accordingly, we affirm NY N347694.
Sincerely,
Monika R. Brenner, Chief
Valuation and Special Programs Branch
5