The container type was guessed
On this page12
The type was inferred from the size
A small consumer bottle is usually nonrefillable, which is a heuristic and not a designation. The required sentence depends on the designation.
And our capacity field was used as the proxy
Nothing here exceeds 120 mL, which points one way without settling anything. We publish no refillable or nonrefillable field.
So the wrong statement was printed
Which is not an approximation. "Nonrefillable container." and "Refillable Container." are different required texts and only one of them is right.
The reuse statement was written freely
The section gives permitted options, of which the household wording is "Do not reuse or refill this container." Paraphrasing a required statement is not available.
The recycling statement was treated as optional
It is part of the nonrefillable set, with options including "Offer for recycling if available." and "Offer for reconditioning if appropriate."
And our Recyclable attribute was used for it
We publish that spec on 803 rows catalog-wide. It is a product attribute and not a statement about whether collection is available locally.
The batch code was expected from us
It identifies your production. We publish a dc sku and a case pack, and no lot number, which the compounding property names as the same gap under cGMP.
Refillable was read as general purpose
The statement says refill with pesticide only and do not reuse for any other purpose. The permission is to refill, not to repurpose.
And the whole section was applied to a product outside it
Part 156 is pesticide labeling. A shampoo with no pesticidal claim is not reached by it, and nothing on these pages rules on any product.
And a sample was used to settle it
A container in the hand does not carry its own designation. The sentence follows from what the manufacturer calls it, not from how refillable it looks.
Ask the supplier, then print
The designation has a definite answer and it is not in our data. One question, before artwork.