SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents for Preamble

I. Abbreviations

II. Basis and Purpose

III. Background

IV. Discussion of Comments

VI. Discussion of the Rule

V. Regulatory Analyses

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

B. Small Entities

C. Assistance for Small Entities

D. Collection of Information

E. Federalism

F. Unfunded Mandates

G. Taking of Private Property

H. Civil Justice Reform

I. Protection of Children

J. Indian Tribal Governments

K. Energy Effects

L. Technical Standards

M. Environment

I. Abbreviations

CAS RN CAS Registry Number

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CG-ENG-5 U.S. Coast Guard Hazardous Materials Division

CHRIS Chemical Hazards Response Information System

DHS Department of Homeland Security

FR Federal Register

IBC Code International Code for the Construction and Equipment of Ships Carrying Dangerous Chemicals in Bulk

IBC Code (2020) 2020 edition of the IBC Code

LCC Liquid Chemical Categorization

IMO International Maritime Organization

MARPOL International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships

MEPC International Maritime Organization's Marine Environment Protection Committee

MEPC.2/Circ.25 MEPC Resolution number 2, Circular 25, dated December 1, 2019

NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking

OMB Office of Management and Budget

§ Section

U.S.C. United States Code

II. Basis and Purpose

The legal basis of this rulemaking is title 46 of the United States Code (U.S.C.), Section 3703, which requires the Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is operating to prescribe regulations relating to the operation of vessels that carry liquid bulk dangerous cargoes, and to the types and grades of cargo those vessels carry. Additional regulatory authority is provided by 33 U.S.C. 1903 (Administration and enforcement, regulations to implement the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL) Protocol of 1978 relating to the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973), 46 U.S.C. 2103 (Superintendence of the merchant marine, general merchant marine regulatory authority), and 46 U.S.C. 3306 (Regulations, regulations for the safety of individuals and property on inspected vessels). The Secretary's authority under these statutes is delegated to the Coast Guard in the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Delegation 00170.1, Revision No. 01.3, paragraphs (II)(77) and (92)(a) and (b).

The purpose of this rulemaking is to provide updates to regulatory tables that list liquid hazardous materials, liquefied gases, and compressed gases that have been approved for maritime transportation in bulk, and to indicate how each cargo is categorized by its pollution risk and safe carriage requirements.

III. Background

The Coast Guard is tasked by Congress with promulgating regulations to improve the shipping practices in the United States. Since 1983, the Coast Guard has published tables with chemicals that are safe to ship together, and others that are incompatible for shipping, in order to improve their shipping safety.

Each December, the International Maritime Organization's (IMO) Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) releases an annual circular that lists cargoes which have undergone a multi-year review to determine safe carriage requirements. A cargo is listed in the circular if a tripartite agreement approved it for international bulk maritime transportation and the MEPC validated the approval. The International Code for the Construction and Equipment of Ships Carrying Dangerous Chemicals in Bulk (IBC Code) is periodically revised by parties to the IBC Code to include the updated cargoes listed in the MEPC annual circulars.

The Coast Guard, as the administrator of regulations that control liquid chemical shipping practices, has endeavored to update these regulations to keep the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) aligned with international standards. This rulemaking is one in a planned series of rulemakings that will periodically update the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) to align with latest updates of the IBC Code (2020). The last time the Coast Guard updated these regulations was in a final rule published April 17, 2020 entitled “2013 Liquid Chemical Categorization Updates” (85 FR 21660).^[1] In addition, the Coast Guard corrected minor typographical errors in a correcting amendments document published May 8, 2020 and effective May 18, 2020 and entitled “2013 Liquid Chemical Categorization Updates; Correction” (85 FR 27308).^[2] The Coast Guard corrected additional minor errors in a correcting amendments document published and effective on August 5, 2021 and entitled “2013 Liquid ( printed page 81185) Chemical Categorization Updates” (86 FR 42738).^[3]

IV. Discussion of Comments

On September 22, 2022, the Coast Guard published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) titled “2022 Liquid Chemical Categorization Updates” (87 FR 57984) requesting comments on the proposed changes implemented by this final rule.^[4] The comment period for the NPRM ended on December 21, 2022. The Coast Guard received no comments on the proposed rule.

V. Discussion of the Rule

Coast Guard regulations in 46 CFR chapter I subchapters D (Tank vessels, parts 30 through 40) and O (Certain bulk dangerous cargoes, parts 150 through 155) contain requirements for ensuring the safe maritime carriage (transportation) of certain bulk liquid cargoes. Tables in subchapters D and O list the cargoes that have been approved for maritime carriage. The tables also categorize each cargo's pollution-hazard risk and safe carriage requirements. The categories are developed during the Coast Guard and MEPC's assessment and review processes, which are described in the following paragraphs. This rule incorporates information from MEPC Resolution number 2, Circular 25, dated December 1, 2019 (MEPC.2/Circ.25) ^[5] that vessel owners and operators, and shippers use to transport such cargoes safely and so brings 46 CFR chapter I subchapters D and O into closer conformity with the IBC Code (2020).

The agencies administering international treaties must agree on the new cargo's assessment before the cargo can be approved for transportation. This is done by a tripartite agreement between the administrations of the exporting country, the importing country, and the country in which the ship that will carry the cargo is registered. The tripartite agreement categorizes the cargo's pollution-hazard risk, flammability, and combustibility in accordance with the IBC Code. A copy of the tripartite agreement is forwarded to the MEPC and to the administration of every country that is signatory to the IBC Code.

The Coast Guard is unique among IBC Code-signatory administrations because, in addition to categorizing the cargo in the tripartite agreement, the Coast Guard also assigns each cargo to a compatibility group. The compatibility grouping guides IBC signatories and shippers in determining which cargoes cannot safely be shipped with other cargoes in adjacent tanks, without special precautions. The compatibility grouping is informed by chemical analyses and test data submitted by manufacturers. The MEPC conducts its own multi-year review and assessment of the information contained in the tripartite agreement, and, following that review, either validates or modifies the agreement's information. Our tables also reflect any modifications resulting from this assessment. Each December, the MEPC releases a circular listing each new cargo for which it has completed its review. The circular lists the countries that have approved each new cargo for international maritime transportation and provides information about each cargo's pollution-hazard risk, flammability and combustibility. Periodically, the IBC Code is revised to update the cargoes listed in the MEPC's annual circulars.

This rule brings the following tables in 46 CFR chapter I into closer conformity with the IBC Code (2020) by incorporating information from MEPC.2/Circ.25:

• Table 30.25-1, List of Flammable and Combustible Bulk Liquid Cargoes, in subchapter D;
• Table 1 to Part 150, Alphabetical List of Cargoes, in subchapter O;
• Table 2 to Part 150, Grouping of Cargoes, in subchapter O; and
• Appendix I to Part 150, Exceptions to the Chart, in subchapter O.

Table 30.25-1 lists flammable or combustible cargoes that, when transported in bulk, must be in vessels certificated under subchapter D regulations. We are updating Table 30.25-1 to add flammable or combustible chemicals that are approved for shipping by the IBC Code (2020) and appear in the MEPC.2/Circ.25. The circular is available online at http://ocn.cl/​wp-content/​uploads/​2021/​03/​IMO-MEPC-2-CIRC-25-2019.pdf.

Table 1 to Part 150 is a comprehensive table that includes all cargoes subject to the regulations in subchapter D. Table 1 lists these cargoes alphabetically and lists the chemical compatibility group number assigned to each cargo. We are updating Table 1 to include cargoes that have been approved for shipping by the IBC Code (2020) and MEPC.2/Circ.25.

Table 2 to Part 150 contains the proper shipping names of all the cargoes listed in Table 1, sorted by chemical compatibility group numbers instead of listed alphabetically. We align Table 2 with Table 1 to Part 150 and so update it to include cargoes that have been approved for shipping by the IBC Code (2020) and MEPC.2/Circ.25.

Appendix I to Part 150 contains cargoes listed in Tables 1 and 2 to Part 150 that have positive chemical compatibility exceptions. To illustrate, consider the following: cargoes in group X and cargoes in group Y are generally incompatible for co-shipping. However, there is one cargo in group X and one cargo in group Y that, for whatever reason, can be shipped together safely. This is an example of a positive chemical compatibility exception, and it would be listed in Appendix I so that stakeholders can maximize the efficiency of their shipping practices. We are updating Appendix I to include cargoes from the updated tables 1 and 2 that have such positive exceptions.

To further illustrate how the chemical categorization tables work together, Section (b) of Appendix I to Part 150 contains cargoes listed in tables 1 and 2 that have negative chemical compatibility exceptions. Even if cargoes from hypothetical group X and group Y are generally compatible for co-shipping, there may be a particular chemical in group X that, when stored with a particular chemical from group Y, can react dangerously. This is an example of a negative chemical compatibility exception and would be listed in Appendix I(b) so that stakeholders can be sure to ship such cargoes safely.

We are including one addition to section (b) of Appendix I to Part 150 that was not included in the proposed rule. On March 2, 2023, the Coast Guard received a report from industry stakeholders detailing testing procedures that demonstrated the incompatibility of Glycol ethers (Group 40) and Acrylonitrile (Group 15). According to the report, which is available in the docket, the chemical reaction that resulted from the reactivity test released gas and increased temperatures. We have decided to include this negative chemical compatibility exception in this final rule in the interest of public safety.

In addition to the introduction of new chemicals into these tables, the Coast Guard is adding a new column to Table 1 to Part 150 that contains a CAS Registry Number (RN). CAS, a division of the non-profit organization American Chemical Society, designed the CAS Registry to prevent the frustration, delays, and safety concerns that can come with a convoluted system of ( printed page 81186) identifying chemicals. A CAS RN is a unique and unambiguous identifier for a specific substance that allows clear communication and links together all available data and research about that substance. Government agencies rely on CAS RNs for substance identification in regulatory applications because they are unique, easily validated, and internationally recognized. The addition of the CAS RNs makes it easier to use the information and leads to safer shipping practices.

The Coast Guard considered proposing the removal of Chemical Hazards Response Information System (CHRIS) codes from the tables. While the Coast Guard decided not to propose such a removal in the proposed rule, we solicited comments from the public on the utility of CHRIS codes. Having received no comments, the Coast Guard will not remove the CHRIS codes in this final rule. However, the next iteration of updates to these tables will most likely propose the removal of the CHRIS codes, which are no longer used in practice.

The rule also revises the authority citation to 46 CFR part 150 so that it no longer cites 44 U.S.C. 3507 in citing DHS Delegation No. 00170.1. This was done because DHS Delegation No. 00170.1 does not address 44 U.S.C. 3507 and that statute dictates the manner in which the Coast Guard may seek approval to collect information, rather than delegating authority to edit the CFR. The authority citation is further revised to reflect another revision to the citation of DHS Delegation No. 00170.1.

In this final rule, we also add clarifying language to the chemical entries, make conforming edits across the tables, and correct typographical and punctuation errors. We have also edited the Notes and formatting in the tables to make them easier to understand.

VI. Regulatory Analyses

We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on these statutes or Executive orders.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

Executive Orders 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), as amended by Executive Order 14094 (Modernizing Regulatory Review), and 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review) direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility.

Executive Order 13610 (Identifying and Reducing Regulatory Burdens) promotes the goals of Executive Order 13563. Executive Order 13610 aims to modernize the regulatory systems and to reduce unjustified regulatory burdens and costs on the public.

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not designated this rule a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, as amended by Executive Order 14094. Accordingly, OMB has not reviewed this regulatory action. A regulatory analysis (RA) follows.

The Coast Guard received no comments from the public on the proposed rule. Since there was no feedback from public commenters that would require changes to the regulatory analysis for this final rule, we adopt the regulatory analysis that we presented in the proposed rule.

Summary of Impacts of This Rule

In this rule, the Coast Guard incorporates information from MEPC.2/Circ.25 into the tables of subchapters D and O to conform the tables with the IBC Code (2020). In subchapter D, we revise table 30.25-1; in subchapter O, we revise tables 1 and 2 and Appendix I to part 150. A summary of the impacts from the rule follows.

Affected Population

This rule updates the Liquid Chemical Categorization (LCC) tables that list the names, pollution risk categorization, safe carriage requirements, chemical flammability, combustibility, and chemical compatibility of each liquid hazardous material, liquefied gas, and compressed gas that has been categorized and approved for maritime transportation in bulk by the IMO and the Coast Guard. In this rule, the Coast Guard is making no additional changes about whether any specific liquid bulk dangerous cargo is approved for maritime transportation, about how any specific cargo is categorized, or about carriage requirements that apply to any specific cargo. The rule provides updated information about cargoes that are currently approved for maritime transportation in bulk, and the cargo's pollution categorization and minimum transportation safety requirements. The rule also adds a column to Table 1 of part 150 containing the applicable CAS RNs. This rule applies to the carriage of the cargoes by the vessel population described in 46 CFR 30.01-5, 150.110 (with exceptions outlined in 46 U.S.C. 3702), 153.1, and 154.5. All U.S.- and foreign-flagged tank vessels are included, unless exempted by 46 CFR 30.01-5 or 46 CFR 153.1. This rule also applies to U.S.- and foreign-flagged self-propelled bulk cargo-carrying vessels when in U.S. waters, see 46 CFR 153.1. Foreign tank vessels are exempt from this regulation when on innocent passage through U.S. waters, see 33 CFR 157.01.

Costs

This rule updates the tables to reflect changes already made under MEPC approved tripartite agreements regarding which liquid chemical substances are approved for bulk maritime transportation, and how those substances are categorized with respect to their pollution risk. The Coast Guard already applies these standards when assessing ad hoc domestic carriage requests for liquid chemicals. Vessel owners and chemical shippers will have to comply with these standards to receive Coast Guard approval for carriage. Industry is aware of this ( printed page 81187) procedure, and we believe that chemical shippers already comply with these standards. Therefore, the Coast Guard does not expect that this rule will change established shipping requirements or current practices among chemical shippers. No additional labor or equipment will be required because of this rule. As a result, we expect that there will be no incremental private sector costs to chemical shippers or vessel owners. Further, we do not anticipate that the rule will impose any additional costs on the Coast Guard. This rule incorporates the Coast Guard's compatibility categorizations, as well as chemical cargoes and categorizations listed in IMO's IBC Code (2020) and MEPC.2/Circ.25.

Benefits

The rule provides qualitative benefits by updating the LCC tables, thereby aligning the domestic shipping requirements for liquid bulk dangerous cargoes with current international standards. The Coast Guard expects this rule to serve the public through greater clarity regarding the regulatory requirements in the LCC tables and through easier use of chemical safety information. This rule codifies existing industry practices which will add clarity about regulatory requirements in the LCC tables.

B. Small Entities

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, we have considered whether this rule has a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.

There are no small vessel owners or chemical shippers engaged in the transport of the LCC chemicals. In addition, the rule does not impose economic costs on the regulated public. The Coast Guard does not expect that small entities will incur any incremental costs; therefore, the Coast Guard finds that there is no significant impact on small entities nor are a substantial number of small entities incurring impacts. Therefore, the Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

C. Assistance for Small Entities

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, Public Law 104-121, we offer to assist small entities in understanding this rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247).

D. Collection of Information

This rule calls for no new or revised collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520. This rule simply updates tables that list liquid bulk dangerous cargoes that have been approved and categorized for bulk maritime transportation, which does not involve information collection.

E. Federalism

A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) if it has a substantial direct effect on States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13132 and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132. Our analysis follows.

It is well settled that States may not regulate in categories reserved for regulation by the Coast Guard. It is also well settled that all of the categories covered in 46 U.S.C. 3306, 3703, 7101, and 8101 (design, construction, alteration, repair, maintenance, operation, equipping, personnel qualification, and manning of vessels), as well as the reporting of casualties and any other category in which Congress intended the Coast Guard to be the sole source of a vessel's obligations, are within the field foreclosed from regulation by the States. This rule would amend existing regulations for inspected tank vessels carrying certain bulk dangerous cargoes. These cargoes fall within the categories in 46 U.S.C. 3703 and within fields in which the States are foreclosed from regulating. Therefore, because the States may not regulate within these categories, this rule is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.

F. Unfunded Mandates

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Although this rule will not result in such expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

G. Taking of Private Property

This rule will not cause a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630 (Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights).

H. Civil Justice Reform

This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform) to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

I. Protection of Children

We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045 (Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks). This rule is not an economically significant rule and will not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might disproportionately affect children.

J. Indian Tribal Governments

This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments), because it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

K. Energy Effects

We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211 (Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use). We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because ( printed page 81188) it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy.

L. Technical Standards

The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act, codified as a note to 15 U.S.C. 272, directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through OMB, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards ( e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies.

This rule does not use technical standards. It is based on international standards that were developed using consensus standards development processes. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

M. Environment

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a determination that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket. For instructions on locating the docket, see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble.

This rule meets the criteria for categorical exclusions L52 and L54 of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev.1.^[6] Paragraph L52 pertains to regulations concerning vessel operation safety standards, equipment approval, and or equipment carriage requirements; paragraph L54 pertains to promulgation of regulations that are editorial or procedural. This rule updates the LCC tables by incorporating information from MEPC.2/Circ.25 to more closely conform the tables with the IBC Code (2020). These tables provide a list of liquid hazardous material, liquefied gases, and compressed gases that are approved for international and domestic maritime transportation and indicate how each substance is categorized by its pollution potential, safe carriage requirements, chemical flammability, combustibility, and compatibility with other substances. All these changes are consistent with the Coast Guard's maritime safety and stewardship missions.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard is proposing to amend 46 CFR parts 30 and 150 as follows:

1. The authority citation for part 30 is revised to read as follows:

Authority: 46 U.S.C. 2103, 3306, 3703; DHS Delegation 00170.1, Revision No. 01.3.

2. In § 30.25-1, amend Table 30.25-1 by:

a. Adding in alphabetical order entries for “Alcohol (C10-C18) poly (7) ethoxylates”, “Alkylbenzenes mixtures (containing naphthalene)”, “Alkyl/cyclo (C4-C5) alcohols”, “Alkylphenols (C10-C18, C12 rich)”, “Alkyl (C10-C15, C12 rich) phenol poly (4-12) ethoxylate”, “Cresol/Phenol/Xylenol mixture”, “Cyclohexane-1, 2-dicarboxylic acid, diisononyl ester”, “1-Dodecene”;, “n-Dodecyl mercaptan”, “Ethylene glycol/(>75%)/Sodium alkyl carboxylates/borax mixture”, “Ethylene glycol (>85%)/Sodium alkyl carboxylates mixture”, “Glucitol/Glycerol blend propoxylated (containing less than 10% amines)”;

b. Removing the entry for “Glucitol/glycerol blend propoxylated (containing 10% or more amines)”;

c. Adding in alphabetic order entries for “Glucitol/Glycerol blend propoxylated (containing 10% or more amines)”, “Hexahydro-1,3,5-trimethy/l-1,3,5-triazine solution (45% or less)”, “Long-chain alkylphenol (C14-C18)” and “Long-chain alkylphenol (C18-C30)”;

d. Removing the entry for “N-Methylglucamine solution (70% or less)”;

e. Adding in alphabetic order entries for “N-Methylglucamine solution”,”Naphthalene crude (molten)”, “Offshore contaminated bulk liquid P (Pollution-only products)”, “Offshore contaminated bulk liquid S (Safety hazard products)”,

f. Under the heading “Oil, fuel:” after the entry “No. 6”, adding a heading for “Oil, misc.:”, and, in alphanumeric order, adding the entries, “Used cooking oil” and “Used cooking oil (triglycerides, C16-C18 and C18 unsaturated)”;

g. Adding in alphabetic order entries for “Polyolefinamine (C17+)”, and “Rapeseed acid oil”;

h. Removing the entry for “Rape seed oil fatty acid methyl esters*”;

i. After the entry for “ Undecylbenzene, see Alkyl (C9+) benzenes”, adding a heading for “Vegetable acid oils, n.o.s.:.” and an entry for “Vegetable oil mixtures, containing less than 15% free fatty acid”;

j. Revising the entry for “Vegetable oils, n.o.s”;

k. Removing the entry for “Vinyltoluene” and adding in alphabetic order an entry for “Vinyl toluene”;

l. Under the heading for “Waxes:”, adding, in alphanumeric order, an entry for “Hydrocarbon”; and

m. In the Notes to Table 30.25-1, in the entry for “ST,” remove the text “2016” and, in its place, add the text “2020”.

The additions read as follows:

3. The authority citation for Part 150 is revised to read as follows:

Authority: 46 U.S.C. 3306, 3703; DHS Delegation No. 00170.1, Revision No. 01.3.

4. Revise Table 1 to Part 150 to read as follows:

5. Revise Table 2 to Part 150 to read as follows:

6. Amend Appendix I to Part 150 by:

a. In the table in paragraph (a):

i. After the entry for “Caustic soda 50% or less (5)”, add an entry for “2,4, D Dimethyl amine salt (DMA 806) (0)”;

ii. Remove the entry for “Dimethyl disulfide (alternately disulfide) (0)”;

iii. Adding in alphabetic order entries for “Dimethyl disulfide (alternately disulphide) (0)”; “tert-Dodecanethiol (Sulfole 120) (0)”, “tert-Dodecanethiol (0)”, “n-Dodecyl mercaptan (0)”, “Hexamethylenediamine (7)”, “Hexamethylenediamine (molten) (HMD 98%, molten) (7)”, “Hexamethylenediamine solution (7)”, “Hexamethylenediamine solution (HMD 90%) (7)”, “Phenol (90% hydrated) (21)”, “Sodium hydrosulfide (alternatively hydrosulphide) solution (5)”, “Sodium Methylate, 30% solution in Methanol (0)”, “Sulfuric (alternatively Sulphuric) acid (95-98%) (2)”; and

b. Amend paragraph (b) by adding entries, in alphabetical order, for “Glycol Ethers (Group 40)” and “Toluene diisocyanate (TDI) (12)”.

The additions read as follows:

Appendix I to Part 150—Exceptions to the Chart

(a) * * * ( printed page 81234)

(b) * * *

Glycol Ethers (Group 40) are not compatible with Acrylonitrile (Group 15);

Toluene diisocyanate (TDI) (12) is not compatible with Alkylbenzene sulphonic acid, sodium salt solution (Group 33), Calcium nitrate solutions (50% or less) (Group 34), Calcium nitrate/Magnesium nitrate/Potassium chloride solution (Group 34), Formaldehyde solutions (45% or less) (Group 19), Glutaraldehyde solutions (50% or less) (Group 19), Lactonitrile solution (80% or less) (Group 37), Nitrilotriacetic acid, trisodium salt solution (Group 34), Sodium acetate solutions (Group 34), Sodium sulphate solutions (Group 34), Polyferric sulphate solution (Group 34).