What this does not decide
On this page12
The threshold question is not a packaging question
A pet grooming product is reached by pesticide labeling only if it is a pesticide, and that turns on the claims made for it rather than on the shelf it sits on.
A flea or tick claim is the usual route
Which is a marketing copy decision with a regulatory consequence, the same shape as the cosmetic-or-drug question in the cannabis topicals property.
And an ordinary shampoo is not a pesticide
A cleaning product with no pesticidal claim is not reached by part 156 at all, and nothing in this property suggests otherwise.
Nothing here rules on any product
Not on any of the six leaves and not on any formulation. The determination belongs with someone qualified.
Nor on registration
Whether a product requires registration, and the establishment and registration numbers a registered product carries, are outside these pages.
Nor on the rest of the label
A pesticide label carries a great deal besides the container type statements, and none of it is described here.
Nor on use directions or worker protection
Which are substantial parts of pesticide labeling and have nothing to do with a container catalog.
Nor on whether a grooming product is a drug
A product making a therapeutic claim is assessed differently again, and the hair care property covers the monograph route for human products.
What is here is the container consequence
Two container types, two required statements, and the fact that our catalog does not record which type anything is.
Nor on how a claim is read
Whether a particular form of words amounts to a pesticidal claim is a judgment made elsewhere, and it is the judgment the whole scope question rests on. A container catalog has no standing in it.
Plus an honest account of the shelf
Which for four of the six leaves is the wrong shelf, and the right parts are in the catalog and not routed here.