Reusability
On this page9
The wording
A small plastic bottle is one "that is intended to be nonreusable by the end user". So a container intended to be reusable is outside the definition.
Which sounds like an easy answer
It is not. Intention is read from the object and its presentation rather than from a claim, exactly as intended use is read in every other property here.
What makes a container read as reusable
A closure that reseals properly, a wall thickness that survives handling, a design that invites refilling, and a presentation that says so. A thin bottle with a peel foil does not become reusable because a label says it is.
And the end user is the guest
Not the hotel. A bottle the housekeeping team refills is still being provided to a guest who will not refill it, and the definition names the end user specifically.
Which is why dispensers answer the rule so cleanly
A wall-mounted dispenser is not provided to the guest as a bottle at all. It sidesteps capacity, material and reusability in one move.
A refill programme is a different claim
A property that collects, cleans and refills bottles between stays is making a real reusability case. It is also an operational commitment that most housekeeping operations are not set up for.
Be conservative with this lever
Of the four it is the one most dependent on a reading, and the one a local enforcement officer is most likely to see differently. Capacity and material are numbers; this is a judgment.
Document the design intent
If a product rests on reusability, the design rationale, the closure specification and the guest-facing messaging are the evidence. Having them written is the difference between a position and an assertion.