How does the public account distinguish the text of law, agency guidance, a company legal argument and a product-specific decision?

How does the public account distinguish the text of law, agency guidance, a company legal argument and a product-specific decision?

By naming each one for what it is, every time it appears.

The text of the law is the text of the law: 40 C.F.R. § 152.500(a) defines a device, and 40 C.F.R. § 152.500(b) states that a device is not required to be registered under FIFRA section 3 and lists the requirements that apply instead. The requirements that apply instead are labelling; establishment registration and reporting; books and records; inspection of establishments; violations, enforcement and penalties; import and export; child-resistant packaging; and the Agency's authority under FIFRA section 25(c)(4). Agency guidance is the Agency's published interpretation, not the statute: EPA states the test for a device in its own words, “A device must work solely by physical means (such as electricity, light or mechanics)”, and that sentence is EPA's published interpretation in a compliance advisory, not the text of the statute. A company legal argument is the company's own: the Statement of Classification is issued by NF Technical Products Inc., and it records how the company applies the definition to its article. A product-specific decision is a decision by an agency about a named product, and the company publishes none and claims none. No agency has approved, registered or cleared the NanoFlashing™ Air Filter. The company classifies the article itself.

Source: 40 C.F.R. § 152.500, as published on eCFR; EPA Compliance Advisory 305F20004 (October 2020), at 1; Statement of Classification for the NanoFlashing™ Air Filter, issued by NF Technical Products Inc.

Reviewed on 21 September 2026.