International Seaways Inc

Government regulation significantly affects the operation of the Company’s vessels. INSW’s vessels operate in a heavily regulated environment and are subject to international conventions and international, national, state and local laws and regulations in force in the countries in which such vessels operate or are registered.

The Company’s vessels undergo regular and rigorous safety inspections and audits which are conducted by the ships’ third-party managers. In addition, a variety of governmental and private entities subject the Company’s vessels to both scheduled and unscheduled inspections. These entities include USCG, local port state control authorities (harbor master or equivalent), coastal states, Classification Societies, flag state administration (country of registry) and customers, particularly major oil companies and petroleum terminal operators. Certain of these entities require INSW to obtain permits, licenses and certificates for the operation of the Company’s vessels. Failure to maintain necessary permits or approvals could require INSW to incur substantial costs or temporarily suspend operation of one or more of the Company’s vessels.

The Company believes that the heightened level of environmental, health, safety and quality awareness among various stakeholders, including lenders, insurance underwriters, regulators and charterers, is leading to greater safety and other regulatory requirements and a more stringent inspection regime on all vessels. The Company is required to maintain operating standards for all of its vessels emphasizing operational safety and quality, environmental stewardship, preventive planned maintenance, continuous training of its officers and crews and compliance with international and U.S. regulations. INSW believes that the operation of its vessels is in compliance with applicable environmental laws and regulations. However, because such laws and regulations are changed frequently, and new laws and regulations impose new or increasingly stringent requirements, INSW cannot predict the cost of complying with requirements beyond those that are currently in force. The impact of future regulatory requirements on operations or the resale value or useful lives of its vessels may result in substantial additional costs in meeting new legal and regulatory requirements. See Item 1A, “Risk Factors— Risks Related to Our Company —Risks relating to legal and regulatory matters, compliance with complex laws, regulations and, in particular, environmental laws or regulations, including those relating to the emission of greenhouse gases, may adversely affect INSW’s business.”

International and U.S. Greenhouse Gas Regulations

In February 2005, the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (commonly called the Kyoto Protocol) became effective. Pursuant to the Kyoto Protocol, adopting countries are required to implement national programs to reduce emissions of certain gases, generally referred to as greenhouse gases (“GHGs”), which contribute to global warming. The Kyoto Protocol, which was adopted by about 190 countries, commits its parties by setting internationally binding emission reduction targets. In December 2012, the Doha Amendment to the Kyoto Protocol was adopted to further extend the Kyoto Protocol’s GHG emissions reductions through 2020. In December 2015, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (“UNFCCC”) forged a new international framework (the “Paris Agreement”) that became effective in November 2016, after it had been ratified by a sufficient number of countries. The Paris Agreement sets a goal of holding the increase in global average temperature to well below 2 degrees Celsius and pursuing efforts to limit the increase to 1.5 degrees Celsius, to be achieved by aiming to reach a global peaking of GHG emissions as soon as possible. To meet these objectives, the participating countries, acting individually or jointly, are to develop and implement successive “nationally determined contributions.” The countries assessed their collective programs toward achieving

the goals of the Paris Agreement in 2023 and agreed to reassess such programs every five years thereafter, referred to as the global stock take, and subsequently are to update and enhance their actions on climate change. The Paris Agreement does not specifically require controls on shipping or other industries, but it is possible that countries or groups of countries will seek to impose such controls as they implement the Paris Agreement. In November 2021, at UNFCCC’s COP26 in Glasgow, new initiatives to incorporate shipping in the climate change framework were proposed. These proposals remain either voluntary among countries or represent efforts towards building consensus for further work within the maritime industry. In particular, at COP26, a coalition of 19 countries including the United Kingdom and the United States signed the Clydebank Declaration to support and facilitate the establishment of at least six green shipping corridors – zero emission maritime routes between two or more ports -- by 2025, with a view toward increasing the number of green corridors over the longer term. The Declaration noted that voluntary participation by operators would be essential.

In 2014, IMO’s third study of GHG emissions from the global shipping fleet predicted that, in the absence of appropriate policies, GHG emissions from ships may increase by 50% to 250% by 2050 due to expected growth in international seaborne trade. Methane emissions are projected to increase rapidly (albeit from a low base) as the share of LNG in the fuel mix increases. With respect to energy efficiency measures, the Marine Environmental Protection Committee (“MEPC”) adopted guidelines on the Energy Efficiency Design Index (“EEDI”), which reflects the primary fuel for the calculation of the attained EEDI for ships having dual fuel engines using LNG and liquid fuel oil (see discussion below). IMO is committed to developing limits on greenhouse gases from international shipping and is working on proposed mandatory technical and operational measures to achieve these limits. In April 2018, IMO adopted an initial strategy on the reduction of GHG emissions from ships, with the ultimate goal of eliminating GHG emissions from international shipping as soon as possible during this century. More specifically, under the identified “levels of ambition,” the initial strategy envisages the halt of the growth in GHG emissions from international shipping as soon as possible and then the reduction of the total annual GHG emissions by at least 50% by 2050 compared to 2008 levels. In 2019, IMO launched a project for an initial two-year period to initiate and promote global efforts to demonstrate and test technical solutions for reducing GHG emissions and improve energy efficiency throughout the maritime sector. In 2020, IMO issued its Fourth GHG Study, which further refined IMO’s understanding of maritime greenhouse gas emissions and reported updated projections that in 2050 GHG emissions will increase from 0 to 50% over 2018 levels, which is equal to 90-130% of 2008 levels.

At the MEPC 76 in June 2021, the IMO, taking into account the findings of the Fourth GHG Study, adopted short-term measures that became effective in 2023 to implement its stated goals of reducing carbon dioxide emissions from international shipping by 40% by 2030 and 70% by 2050, and GHG emissions from international shipping by 50% by 2050. The new measures will require ships to calculate their Energy Efficiency Existing Ship Index (EEXI) and to establish their annual operational carbon intensity indicator (CII) that links the GHG emissions to the amount of cargo carried over distance traveled. Ships with low ratings are required to submit corrective action plans.

In 2011, the European Commission established a working group on shipping to provide input to the European Commission in its work to develop and assess options for the inclusion of international maritime transport in the GHG reduction commitment of the European Union (“EU”). The Measure, Report and Verify (“MRV”) Regulation was adopted on April 29, 2015 and created an EU-wide framework for the monitoring, reporting and verification of carbon dioxide emissions from maritime transport. The MRV Regulation requires large ships (over 5,000 gross tons) calling at EU ports from January 1, 2018, to collect and later publish verified annual data on carbon dioxide emissions. IMO has developed similar MRV regulations that became effective on March 1, 2018 and the first reporting period was for the full year 2019. In July 2021, the EU issued draft legislation that from 2023 to 2026 would phase in GHG emissions from shipping into its established Emissions Trading Scheme (“ETS”) and require the purchase of allowances reflecting the emissions. In December 2022, the EU Council and Parliament agreed to include maritime shipping emissions in the EU ETS, with a gradual introduction of obligations for shipping companies to surrender allowances: 40% for verified emissions from 2024, 70% for 2025 and 100% for 2026. It was also agreed to include non-carbon dioxide emissions (methane and nitrous oxide) in the MRV scheme from 2024 and in the EU ETS from 2026. The Company cannot predict the specific impacts of the EU ETS on the shipping industry as a whole and on the Company at this time.

In the United States, pursuant to U.S. Supreme Court decisions in 2007 and 2014, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) has authority to regulate GHG emissions under the U.S. Clean Air Act. Although the EPA has promulgated certain regulations relating to GHG emissions, to date the regulations proposed and enacted by the EPA have not involved ocean-going vessels. However, the current administration has stated that GHG emissions from shipping are a priority and that the United States will be participating more actively in international efforts including the IMO’s.

Future passage of climate control legislation or other regulatory initiatives by the IMO, EU, United States or other countries where INSW operates that restrict emissions of GHGs could require significant additional capital and/or operating expenditures and could have operational impacts on INSW’s business. Although we cannot predict such expenditures and impacts with certainty at this time, they may be material to INSW’s results of operations.

International Environmental and Safety Regulations and Standards

Liability Standards and Limits

Many countries have ratified and follow the liability plan adopted by the IMO and set out in the International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage of 1969 (the "1969 Convention"). Some of these countries have also adopted the 1992 Protocol to the 1969 Convention (the "1992 Protocol"). Under both the 1969 Convention and the 1992 Protocol, a vessel's registered owner is strictly liable for pollution damage caused in the territory, including the territorial waters (and in the exclusive economic zone under the 1992 Protocol) of a contracting state by discharge of persistent oil, subject to certain complete defenses. Both instruments apply to all seagoing vessels carrying oil in bulk as cargo. These instruments also limit the liability of the shipowner under certain circumstances. As these instruments calculate liability in terms of a basket of currencies, the figures in this section are converted into U.S. dollars based on currency exchange rates on January 2, 2024 and are approximate. Actual dollar amounts are used in this section “Liability Standards and Limits” and in “U.S. Environmental and Safety Regulations and Standards - Liability Standards and Limits” below.

Under the 1969 Convention, except where the pollution damage resulted from the actual fault or privity of the owner, its liability is limited to $179 per ton of the vessel’s tonnage, with a maximum liability of $18.7 million. Under the 1992 Protocol, the liability of the owner is limited to $4.0 million for a ship not exceeding 5,000 units of tonnage (a unit of measurement for the total enclosed spaces within a vessel) and $603 per gross ton thereafter, with a maximum liability of $80.0 million. Under the 1992 Protocol, the owner's liability is limited except where the pollution damage results from its personal act or omission, committed with the intent to cause such damage, or recklessly and with knowledge that such damage would probably result. Under the 2000 amendments to the 1992 Protocol, which became effective on November 1, 2003, liability is limited to $6.0 million plus $845 for each additional gross ton over 5,000 for vessels of 5,000 to 140,000 gross tons, with a maximum liability of $120.1 million subject to the exceptions discussed above for the 1992 Protocol.

Vessels trading to states that are parties to these instruments must provide evidence of insurance covering the liability of the owner. The Company believes that its P&I insurance will cover any liability under the plan adopted by the IMO. See the discussion of insurance in “U.S. Environmental and Safety Regulations and Standards-Liability Standards and Limits” below.

The United States is not a party to the 1969 Convention or the 1992 Protocol. See “U.S. Environmental and Safety Restrictions and Regulations” below. In other jurisdictions where the 1969 Convention has not been adopted, various legislative schemes or common law govern, and liability is imposed either on the basis of fault or in a manner similar to that convention.

The International Convention on Civil Liability for Bunker Oil Pollution Damage, 2001, which was adopted on March 23, 2001 and became effective on November 21, 2008, is a separate convention adopted to ensure that adequate, prompt and effective compensation is available to persons who suffer damage caused by spills of oil when used as fuel by vessels. The convention applies to damage caused to the territory, including the territorial sea, and exclusive economic zones, of states that are party to it. Vessels operating internationally are subject to it if sailing within the territories of those countries that have implemented its provisions (which does not include the United States). Key features of this convention are compulsory insurance or other financial security for vessels over 1,000 gross tons to cover the liability of the registered owner for pollution damage and direct action against the insurer. The Company believes that its vessels comply with these requirements.

Other International Environmental and Safety Regulations and Standards

Under the ISM Code, promulgated by the IMO, vessel operators are required to develop a safety management system that includes, among other things, the adoption of a safety and environmental protection policy describing how the objectives of a functional safety management system will be met. The third-party managers of INSW’s vessels, have safety management systems for the Company’s fleet, with instructions and procedures for the safe operation of its vessels, reporting accidents and non-conformities, internal audits and management reviews and responding to emergencies, as well as defined levels of responsibility. The ISM Code requires a Document of Compliance (“DoC”) to be obtained for the company responsible for operating the vessel and a Safety Management

Certificate (“SMC”) to be obtained for each vessel that such company operates. Once issued, these certificates are valid for a maximum of five years. The company operating the vessel in turn must undergo an annual internal audit and an external verification audit in order to maintain the DoC. In accordance with the ISM Code, each vessel must also undergo an annual internal audit at intervals not to exceed twelve months and vessels must undergo an external verification audit twice in a five-year period. The Company’s third-party managers have DoCs for their offices.

The SMC is issued after verifying that the company responsible for operating the vessel and its shipboard management operate in accordance with the approved safety management system. No vessel can obtain a certificate unless its operator has been awarded a DoC issued by the administration of that vessel’s flag state or as otherwise permitted under the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, 1974, as amended (“SOLAS”).

IMO regulations also require owners and operators of vessels to adopt Shipboard Oil Pollution Emergency Plans (“SOPEPs”). Periodic training and drills for response personnel and for vessels and their crews are required. In addition to SOPEPs, INSW has adopted Shipboard Marine Pollution Emergency Plans, which cover potential releases not only of oil but of any noxious liquid substances. Noncompliance with the ISM Code and other IMO regulations may subject the shipowner or charterer to increased liability, may lead to decreases in available insurance coverage for affected vessels and may result in the denial of access to, or detention in, some ports. For example, the USCG and EU authorities have indicated that vessels not in compliance with the ISM Code will be prohibited from trading to United States and EU ports.

The International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships’ Ballast Water and Sediments (“BWM Convention”) is designed to protect the marine environment from the introduction of non-native (alien) species as a result of the carrying of ships’ ballast water from one place to another. The introduction of non-native species has been identified as one of the top five threats to biological diversity. Expanding seaborne trade and traffic have exacerbated the threat. Tankers must take on ballast water in order to maintain their stability and draft and must discharge the ballast water when they load their next cargo. When emptying the ballast water, which they carried from the previous port, they may release organisms and pathogens that have been identified as being potentially harmful in the new environment.

The BWM Convention defines a discharge standard consisting of maximum allowable levels of critical invasive species, which standard is met by installing treatment systems that render the invasive species non-viable. In addition, each vessel is required to have on board a valid International Ballast Water Management Certificate, a Ballast Water Management Plan and a Ballast Water Record Book.

INSW’s vessels are subject to other international, national and local ballast water management regulations (including those described below under “U.S. Environmental and Safety Regulations and Standards”). INSW complies with these regulations through ballast water management plans implemented on each of the vessels in its fleet. To meet existing and anticipated ballast water treatment requirements, including those contained in the BWM Convention, INSW has a fleetwide action plan to comply with IMO, EPA, USCG and possibly more stringent U.S. state mandates as they are implemented and become effective, which may require the installation and use of costly control technologies. Compliance with the ballast water requirements effective under the BWM Convention and other regulations may have material impacts on INSW’s operations and financial results, as discussed below under “U.S. Environmental and Safety Regulations and Standards-Other U.S. Environmental and Safety Regulations and Standards.”

Other EU Legislation and Regulations

The EU has adopted legislation that: (1) bans manifestly sub-standard vessels (defined as those over 15 years old that have been detained by port authorities at least twice in the course of the preceding 24 months) from European waters, creates an obligation for port states to inspect at least 25% of vessels using their ports annually and provides for increased surveillance of vessels posing a high risk to maritime safety or the marine environment, and (2) provides the EU with greater authority and control over Classification Societies, including the ability to seek to suspend or revoke the authority of negligent societies. INSW believes that none of its vessels meet the definitions of a "sub-standard" vessel contained in the EU legislation. EU directives require EU member states to introduce criminal sanctions for illicit ship-source discharges of polluting substances (e.g., from tank cleaning operations) which result in deterioration in the quality of water and has been committed with intent, recklessness or serious negligence. Certain member states of the EU, by virtue of their national legislation, already impose criminal sanctions for pollution events under certain circumstances. The Company cannot predict what additional legislation or regulations, if any, may be promulgated by the EU or any other country or authority, or how these might impact INSW.

International Air Emission Standards

Annex VI to MARPOL (“Annex VI”) sets limits on sulfur oxide (“SOx”) and nitrogen oxide (“NOx”) emissions from ship exhausts and prohibits deliberate emissions of ozone depleting substances, such as chlorofluorocarbons. Annex VI also regulates shipboard incineration and the emission of volatile organic compounds from tankers. Under Annex VI, the global cap on the sulfur content of fuel oil is currently 0.50% and the sulfur content of fuel oil for vessels operating in designated Emission Control Areas (“ECAs”) is 0.1%. Currently designated ECAs are the Baltic Sea area, the North Sea area, the North American area (covering designated coastal areas off the United States and Canada) and the United States Caribbean Sea area (around Puerto Rico and the United States Virgin Islands). For vessels over 400 gross tons, Annex VI imposes various survey and certification requirements. The U.S. Maritime Pollution Prevention Act of 2008 amended the U.S. Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships to provide for the adoption of Annex VI. In October 2008, the U.S. ratified Annex VI, which came into force in the United States on January 8, 2009.

In addition to Annex VI, there are regional mandates in ports and certain territorial waters within the EU, Turkey, China and Norway, for example, regarding reduced SOx emissions. These requirements establish maximum allowable limits for sulfur content in fuel oils used by vessels when operating within certain areas and waters and while “at berth.” In December 2012, an EU directive that aligned the EU requirements with Annex VI entered into force. For vessels at berth in EU ports, sulfur content of fuel oil is limited to 0.1%. For vessels operating in SOx Emission Control Areas (“SECAs”), sulfur content of fuel oil is limited to 0.1%. For vessels operating outside SECAs, sulfur content of fuel oil is limited to 0.5%. Alternatively, emission abatement methods are permitted as long as they continuously achieve reductions of SOx emissions that are at least equivalent to those obtained using compliant marine fuels.

More stringent Tier III emission limits are applicable to engines installed on a ship constructed on or after January 1, 2016 operating in ECAs. NOx emission Tier III standards came into force on January 1, 2016 in ECAs.

Additional air emission requirements under Annex VI mandate the development of Volatile Organic Compound (“VOC”) Management Plans for tank vessels and certain gas ships.

The Company believes that its vessels are compliant with the current requirements of Annex VI and that those of its vessels that operate in the EU, Turkey, China, Norway and elsewhere are also compliant with the regional mandates applicable there. However, the Company anticipates that, in the next several years, compliance with the increasingly stringent requirements of Annex VI and other conventions, laws and regulations imposing air emission standards that have already been adopted or that may be adopted will require substantial additional capital and/or operating expenditures and could have operational impacts on INSW’s business. Although INSW cannot predict such expenditures and impacts with certainty at this time, they may be material to INSW’s financial statements.

SOLAS

From January 1, 2014, various amendments to the SOLAS conventions came into force, including an amendment to Chapter VI of SOLAS, which prohibits the blending of bulk liquid cargoes during sea passage and the production process on board ships. This prohibition does not preclude the master of the vessel from undertaking cargo transfers for the safety of the ship or protection of the marine environment.

MARPOL

Effective March 1, 2018, pursuant to an amendment to MARPOL Annex V, shippers are required to determine whether or not their cargo is hazardous and classify it in line with the criteria of the United Nations Globally Harmonized System of Classification. Vessels are required to maintain a new format garbage record book, which is divided into two parts: cargo residues and garbage other than cargo residues. The cargo residues part must be further divided into hazardous and non-hazardous to the marine environment cargo. More stringent discharge requirements apply to hazardous cargo residues.

U.S. Environmental and Safety Regulations and Standards

The United States regulates the shipping industry with an extensive regulatory and liability regime for environmental protection and cleanup of oil spills, consisting primarily of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (“OPA 90”), and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (“CERCLA”). OPA 90 affects all owners and operators whose vessels trade with the United States or its territories or possessions, or whose vessels operate in the waters of the United States, which include the U.S.

territorial sea and the 200 nautical mile Exclusive Economic Zone around the United States. CERCLA applies to the discharge of hazardous substances (other than oil) whether on land or at sea. Both OPA 90 and CERCLA impact the Company’s operations.

Liability Standards and Limits

Under OPA 90, vessel owners, operators and bareboat or demise charterers are "responsible parties" who are liable, without regard to fault, for all containment and clean-up costs and other damages, including property and natural resource damages and economic loss without physical damage to property, arising from oil spills and pollution from their vessels. On December 9, 2022, USCG issued a final rule, effective March 23, 2023, increasing the limits of OPA 90 liability with respect to (i) tanker vessels with a qualifying double hull to the greater of $2,500 per gross ton or approximately $21.5 million per vessel that is over 3,000 gross tons; and (ii) non-tanker vessels, to the greater of $1,300 per gross ton or approximately $1.1 million per vessel. The statute specifically permits individual states to impose their own liability regimes with regard to oil pollution incidents occurring within their boundaries, and some states have enacted legislation providing for unlimited liability for discharge of pollutants within their waters. In some cases, states that have enacted this type of legislation have not yet issued implementing regulations defining vessel owners’ responsibilities under these laws. CERCLA, which applies to owners and operators of vessels, contains a similar liability regime and provides for cleanup, removal and natural resource damages associated with discharges of hazardous substances (other than oil). Liability under CERCLA is limited to the greater of $300 per gross ton or $5 million.

These limits of liability do not apply, however, where the incident is caused by violation of applicable U.S. federal safety, construction or operating regulations, or by the responsible party’s gross negligence or willful misconduct. Similarly, these limits do not apply if the responsible party fails or refuses to report the incident or to cooperate and assist in connection with the substance removal activities. OPA 90 and CERCLA each preserve the right to recover damages under existing law, including maritime tort law.

OPA 90 also requires owners and operators of vessels to establish and maintain with the USCG evidence of financial responsibility sufficient to meet the limit of their potential strict liability under the statute. The USCG enacted regulations requiring evidence of financial responsibility consistent with the previous limits of liability described above for OPA 90 and CERCLA. Under the regulations, evidence of financial responsibility may be demonstrated by insurance, surety bond, self-insurance, guaranty or an alternative method subject to approval by the Director of the USCG National Pollution Funds Center. Under OPA 90 regulations, an owner or operator of more than one vessel is required to demonstrate evidence of financial responsibility for the entire fleet in an amount equal only to the financial responsibility requirement of the vessel having the greatest maximum strict liability under OPA 90 and CERCLA. INSW has provided the requisite guarantees and has received certificates of financial responsibility from the USCG for each of its vessels required to have one.

INSW has insurance for each of its vessels with pollution liability insurance in the amount of $1 billion. However, a catastrophic spill could exceed the insurance coverage available, in which event there could be a material adverse effect on the Company’s business.

In addition to potential liability under OPA 90, vessel owners may in some instances incur liability on an even more stringent basis under state law in the particular state where the spillage occurred. The State of California’s Lempert-Keene-Seastrand Oil Spill Prevention and Response Act requires vessels of a specified size that operate in California waters to have a California State certificate of financial responsibility (COFR) equal to at least $2 billion and imposes certain criminal fines in the event of an oil spill.

Other U.S. Environmental and Safety Regulations and Standards

OPA 90 also amended the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to require owners and operators of vessels to adopt vessel response plans, including marine salvage and firefighting plans, for reporting and responding to vessel emergencies and oil spill scenarios up to a "worst case" scenario and to identify and ensure, through contracts or other approved means, the availability of necessary private response resources to respond to a “worst case discharge.” The plans must include contractual commitments with clean-up response contractors and salvage and marine firefighters in order to ensure an immediate response to an oil spill/vessel emergency. Each vessel has an USCG approved plan on file with the USCG and onboard the vessel. These plans are regularly reviewed and updated.

OPA 90 requires training programs and periodic drills for shore-side staff and response personnel and for vessels and their crews. INSW’s third-party technical managers conduct such required training programs and periodic drills.

OPA 90 does not prevent individual U.S. states from imposing their own liability regimes with respect to oil pollution incidents occurring within their boundaries. In fact, most U.S. states that border a navigable waterway have enacted environmental pollution laws that impose strict liability on a person for removal costs and damages resulting from a discharge of oil or a release of a hazardous substance. These laws are in some cases more stringent than U.S. federal law.

In addition, the U.S. Clean Water Act (“CWA”) prohibits the discharge of oil or hazardous substances in U.S. navigable waters and imposes strict liability in the form of penalties for unauthorized discharges. The CWA also imposes substantial liability for the costs of removal, remediation and damages and complements the remedies available under the more recent OPA 90 and CERCLA, discussed above.

At the federal level in the United States, ballast water management is subject to two separate, partially interrelated regulatory regimes. One is administered by the USCG under the National Aquatic Nuisance and Control Act and National Invasive Species Act, and the other is administered by the EPA under the CWA.

Under the USCG’s final ruleon ballast water management for the control of nonindigenous species in U.S. waters, which generally is in line with the requirements set out in the BWM Convention, the treatment systems for domestic and foreign vessels operating in U.S. waters must be Type Approved by the USCG. INSW’s vessels discharging ballast in U.S. waters currently have, or INSW expects such vessels will have, Type Approved treatment systems by their extended compliance dates.

The discharge of ballast water and other substances incidental to the normal operation of vessels in U.S. ports also is subject to CWA permitting requirements. In accordance with the EPA’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, the Company is subject to a Vessel General Permit (“VGP”), which addresses, among other matters, the discharge of ballast water and effluents. The current VGP identifies twenty-six vessel discharge streams and establishes numeric ballast water discharge limits that generally align with the treatment technologies to be implemented under USCG’s final rule, requirements to ensure that the ballast water treatment systems are functioning correctly, and more stringent effluent limits for oil to sea interfaces and exhaust gas scrubber wastewater. The VGP contains a compliance date schedule for these requirements. The VGP standards and requirements were due for modification and renewal in December 2018, but this renewal has been postponed by the EPA with no fixed date for completion. Until a new VGP program is implemented, the current standards remain in effect.

Certain of the Company’s vessels are subject to more stringent numeric discharge limits under the EPA’s VGP, even though those vessels have obtained a valid extension from the USCG for implementation of treatment technology under the final rule. The EPA has determined that it will not issue extensions under the VGP, but in December 2013 it issued an Enforcement Response Policy (“ERP”) to address this industry-wide issue. Under the ERP, the EPA states that vessels that have received an extension from the USCG, are in compliance with all of the VGP’s requirements other than the numeric discharge limits and meet certain other requirements will be entitled to a “low enforcement priority.” While INSW believes that any vessel that is or may become subject to the VGP’s numeric discharge limits during the pendency of a USCG extension will be entitled to such low priority treatment under the ERP no assurance can be given that they will do so.

The VGP system also permits individual states and territories to impose more stringent requirements for discharges into the navigable waters of such state or territory. Certain individual states have enacted legislation or regulations addressing hull cleaning and ballast water management. For example, California has adopted extensive requirements for more stringent effluent limits and discharge monitoring and testing requirements with respect to discharges in its waters.

Following an assessment by the California State Lands Commission of the current technology for meeting ballast water management standards, California extended the deadline for compliance with stringent interim standards to 2030 and the deadline for final “zero detect” standards to 2040. In the interim, the California State Lands Commission incorporated the federal ballast water discharge standards and implementation schedule into California law and established operational monitoring and recordkeeping requirements.

New York State has imposed a more stringent bilge water discharge requirement for vessels in its waters than what is required by the VGP or IMO. Through its Section 401 Certification of the VGP, New York prohibits the discharge of all bilge water in its waters. New York State also requires that vessels entering its waters from outside the Exclusive Economic Zone must perform ballast water exchange in addition to treating it with a ballast water treatment system.

Under the USCG Authorization Act of 2018, which includes the Vessel Incidental Discharge Act (“VIDA”), the EPA is the designated government agency responsible for establishing standards for U.S. ballast water regulations and the USCG was assigned the responsibility for monitoring and enforcing those standards. VIDA reduces the scope of the VGP and is expected to align state and local discharge standards with federal standards. Ultimately, under VIDA, the discharge of ballast water in the navigable waters of the United States will no longer subject to the VGP or the CWA. In October 2020, EPA issued its proposed national standards of performance for 20 separate discharges incidental to normal vessel operations including ballast tanks and exhaust gas emission control

systems. EPA has not yet issued a final rule. The Company plans to continue to monitor the implementation of VIDA at the federal, state, and local levels.

U.S. Air Emissions Standards

Pursuant to MARPOL Annex VI, EPA adopted regulations implementing the provisions of Annex VI, which regulations require subject vessels to comply with the applicable Annex VI provisions when they enter U.S. ports or operate in most internal U.S. waters. The Company’s vessels are currently Annex VI compliant. Accordingly, absent any new and onerous Annex VI implementing regulations, the Company does not expect to incur material additional costs in order to comply with this convention.

The U.S. Clean Air Act of 1970, as amended by the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977 and 1990 (“CAA”), requires the EPA to promulgate standards applicable to emissions of volatile organic compounds and other air contaminants. INSW’s vessels are subject to vapor control and recovery requirements for certain cargoes when loading, unloading, ballasting, cleaning and conducting other operations in regulated port areas. Each of the Company’s vessels operating in the transport of clean petroleum products in regulated port areas where vapor control standards are required has been outfitted with a vapor recovery system that satisfies these requirements. In addition, the EPA issued emissions standards for marine diesel engines. The EPA has implemented rules comparable to those of Annex VI to increase the control of air pollutant emissions from certain large marine engines by requiring certain new marine-diesel engines installed on U.S. registered ships to meet lower NOx standards were implemented in two phases. The newly built engine standards that became effective in 2011 required more efficient use of current engine technologies, including engine timing, engine cooling, and advanced computer controls to achieve a 15 to 25 percent NOx reduction below previous levels. More stringent long-term standards for newly built engines that applied beginning in 2016 and required the use of high efficiency emission control technology such as selective catalytic reduction to achieve NOx reductions 80 percent below the pre-2016 levels. Fuel used by all vessels operating in the North American ECA, encompassing the area extending 200 miles from the coastlines of the Atlantic, Gulf and Pacific coasts and the eight main Hawaiian Islands, and the United States Caribbean Sea ECA, encompassing water around Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands, cannot exceed 0.1% sulfur. The Company believes that its vessels are in compliance with the current requirements of the ECAs. If other ECAs are approved by the IMO or other new or more stringent requirements relating to emissions from marine diesel engines or port operations by vessels are adopted by the EPA or the states where INSW operates, compliance could require or affect the timing of significant capital and/or operating expenditures that could be material to INSW’s consolidated financial statements.

The CAA also requires states to draft State Implementation Plans (“SIPs”), designed to attain national health-based air quality standards in major metropolitan and industrial areas. Where states fail to present approvable SIPs, or SIP revisions by certain statutory deadlines, the EPA is required to draft a Federal Implementation Plan. Several SIPs regulate emissions resulting from barge loading and degassing operations by requiring the installation of vapor control equipment. Where required, the Company’s vessels are already equipped with vapor control systems that satisfy these requirements. Although a risk exists that new regulations could require significant capital expenditures and otherwise increase its costs, the Company believes, based upon the regulations that have been proposed to date, that no material capital expenditures beyond those currently contemplated and no material increase in costs are likely to be required as a result of the SIPs program.

Individual states have been considering their own restrictions on air emissions from engines on vessels operating within state waters. California requires certain ocean-going vessels operating within 24 nautical miles of the Californian coast to reduce air pollution by using only low-sulfur marine distillate fuel rather than bunker fuel in auxiliary diesel and diesel-electric engines, main propulsion diesel engines and auxiliary boilers. Vessels sailing within 24 miles of the California coastline whose itineraries call for them to enter any California ports, terminal facilities, or internal or estuarine waters must use marine gas oil or marine diesel oil with a sulfur content at or below 0.1% sulfur. The Company believes that its vessels that operate in California waters are in compliance with these regulations.

In August 2020, the California Air Resources Board (“CARB”) announced expansion of its existing at-berth air emissions requirements. These changes will require that ships at berths in California ports operate with either shore power or with CARB-approved stringent emission controls on auxiliary engines and boilers. For tankers, these changes become effective in 2025 and 2027, depending on the ship type and port. The impact of these changes is not known at this time.

Security Regulations and Practices

Security at sea has been a concern to governments, shipping lines, port authorities and importers and exporters for years. Since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, there have been a variety of initiatives intended to enhance vessel security. In 2002, the U.S. Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002 (“MTSA”) came into effect and the USCG issued regulations in 2003 implementing certain portions of the MTSA by requiring the implementation of certain security requirements aboard vessels operating in waters subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Similarly, effective in July 2004, a new subchapter of SOLAS imposes various detailed security obligations on vessels and port authorities, most of which are contained in the International Ship and Port Facilities Security Code (the “ISPS Code”). The ISPS Code is applicable to all cargo vessels of 500 gross tons plus all passenger ships operating on international voyages, mobile offshore drilling units, as well as port facilities that service them. The objective of the ISPS Code is to establish the framework that allows detection of security threats and implementation of preventive measures against security incidents that can affect ships or port facilities used in international trade. Among other things, the ISPS Code requires the development of vessel security plans and compliance with flag state security certification requirements. To trade internationally, a vessel must attain an International Ship Security Certificate (“ISSC”) from a recognized security organization approved by the vessel’s flag state.

The USCG regulations, intended to align with international maritime security standards, exempt from MTSA vessel security measures for non-U.S. vessels that have on board a valid ISSC attesting to the vessel’s compliance with SOLAS security requirements and the ISPS Code.

All of INSW’s vessels have developed and implemented vessel security plans that have been approved by the appropriate regulatory authorities, have obtained ISSCs and comply with applicable security requirements.

The Company monitors the waters in which its vessels operate for pirate activity. Company vessels that transit areas where there is a high risk of pirate activity follow best management practices for reducing risk and preventing pirate attacks and are in compliance with protocols established by the naval coalition protective forces operating in such areas.