State of California 

AIR RESOURCES BOARD

Final Statement of Reasons for Rulemaking, 

Including Summary of Comments and Agency Response 

PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE ADOPTION OF AMENDMENTS TO THE 

CURRENT REGULATIONS FOR LARGE SPARK-IGNITION ENGINES WITH AN 

ENGINE DISPLACEMENT LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO ONE LITER 

Public Hearing Date: November 21, 2008 

Agenda Item No.: 08-10-4 

I. GENERAL 

The Air Resources Board (Board or ARB) amended California’s exhaust emission 

regulations for large spark-ignition (LSI) engines with an engine displacement less 

than or equal to one liter (≤ 1.0 L) to include more stringent exhaust emission 

standards. The Board also adopted new regulations to control evaporative 

emissions from LSI equipment using these engines. LSI engines ≤ 1.0 L are 

typically used in different equipment types, such as portable generators, large turf 

care equipment, industrial equipment, scrubbers, sweepers, and various airport 

ground support equipment. The amendments include the following primary 

elements: 

• Increased stringency of current exhaust emission standards 

Model Year Engine 

Displacement 

HC+NOx

1

(g/kW-hr) 2

CO 

(g/kW-hr) 

2011 and 

subsequent ≤ 825 cc 8.0 549 

2011 - 2014 > 825 cc - ≤ 1.0 L 6.5 375 

2015 and 

subsequent > 825 cc - ≤ 1.0 L 0.8 20.6 

1 HC+NOx means combined hydrocarbons and oxides of nitrogen 

2 g/kW-hr means grams per kilowatt-hour 

• New evaporative emission standards and requirements 

• Use of off-highway recreational vehicles (OHRV) test procedures for LSI 

engines ≤ 1.0 L used in OHRV-like applications 

This rulemaking was initiated on October 3, 2008 with the release of a notice and 

staff report entitled “Staff Report: Initial Statement of Reasons for Proposed 

Rulemaking, Public Hearing to Consider Amendments to the Current Regulations for 
2 

Large Spark-Ignition Engines with an Engine Displacement Less Than or Equal to 

One Liter,” which is incorporated by reference herein (Staff Report or ISOR). 

On November 21, 2008, the Board conducted a public hearing to consider staff’s 

proposed amendments to the existing off-road LSI engine regulations. After 

consideration of the written comments received during the 45-day public comment 

period prior to the hearing and the testimony received at the public hearing, the 

Board adopted Resolution 08-42 to amend the regulations that incorporate by 

reference the revised regulations and test procedures. The amendments to section 

2433, chapter 9, article 4.5, title 13, California Code of Regulations (CCR), and 

related amendments to the incorporated, “California Exhaust and Evaporative 

Emission Standards and Test Procedures for New 2010 and Later Off-Road Large 

Spark-Ignition Engines,” were included as attachments to the Staff Report. A copy 

of Board Resolution 08-42 adopting the regulatory action described above, and the 

regulatory documents for this rulemaking, are available online at the following ARB 

website: http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2008/lsi2008/lsi2008.htm

This Final Statement of Reasons (FSOR) updates the Staff Report by identifying and 

providing the rationale for the modifications made to the originally proposed 

regulatory text. The FSOR also contains a summary of the comments received on 

the proposed regulatory amendments during the formal regulatory process and 

ARB’s responses to those comments. 

Fiscal Impacts. In developing the regulatory proposal, staff evaluated the potential 

economic impacts on private persons and businesses. In general, any business 

involved in the manufacture of LSI engines ≤ 1.0 L and associated equipment will 

potentially be affected by the regulatory amendments. Also potentially affected are 

businesses that supply engines and parts to these manufacturers, and those 

businesses that buy and sell equipment in California. As described in the Staff 

Report, there are 13 manufacturers of LSI engines ≤ 1.0 L that market certified 

engines in California. None of these manufacturers is located in California, although 

some have small repair and distribution operations in the state. 

The new emission standards are not expected to impose a significant cost burden to 

either engine or equipment manufacturers. Manufacturers have indicated that they 

would use liquid-cooled engines with closed-loop electronic fuel injection systems 

and three-way catalysts to meet the standards. Based on results from staff’s 

analysis of an industry survey, this added technology will result in an average per 

engine increase of approximately $1,940. This represents a 14-percent cost 

increase over the current average equipment cost of $14,000, which staff anticipates 

manufacturers will pass directly on to consumers. Although such a price increase 

for equipment with LSI engines ≤ 1.0 L may cause a consumer to delay a purchase 

in the short-term, it is not expected to significantly impact the long-term demand 

because this equipment eventually wears out and is replaced. Therefore, the 

lifetime cost impact on equipment operators, as a result of the amendments, is 

expected to be negligible. 

The amendments to the LSI engine regulations will have some impact, although not 

significant, on small businesses that buy and sell portable generators, large turf care 
3 

equipment, and industrial equipment. For small retailers, during the initial years of 

implementation, the increased cost of the equipment may lead to a slight drop in 

demand that could result in lower profits. These retailers would also need to carry 

over unsold stock to the next year, possibly realizing less profit on the future sale of 

these units. 

Finally, the Board has determined that this regulatory action will not create costs or 

savings, as defined in Government Code section 11346.5(a)(5) and 11346.5(a)(6), 

to any state agency or in federal funding to the state, costs or mandate to any local 

agency or school district, whether or not reimbursable by the state pursuant to Part 7 

(commencing with section 17500), Division 4, Title 2 of the Government Code, or 

other non-discretionary costs or savings to local agencies.

Consideration of Alternatives. The amendments and new regulatory language 

proposed in this rulemaking were the result of extensive discussions and meetings 

involving staff and the affected LSI engine manufacturers, equipment manufacturers, 

and other stakeholders. Staff considered all of the alternatives proposed by industry 

and was able to incorporate a majority of industry’s proposed amendments into the 

regulation presented to the Board. The Board evaluated and rejected four potential 

alternatives as described in both the Staff Report (see section 5) and in the 

responses below. 

Additional proposed alternatives were submitted by commenters during the 

rulemaking process and considered by the Board. For the reasons set forth in the 

Staff Report, in staff’s comments and responses at the hearing, and in this FSOR, 

the Board has further determined that no alternative considered by the agency would 

be more effective in carrying out the purpose for which the regulatory action was 

proposed or would be as effective and less burdensome to affected private persons 

than the action taken by the Board. 

II. MODIFICATIONS TO THE ORIGINAL PROPOSAL 

At the hearing the staff presented, and the Board adopted, the amended regulations 

as proposed in the Staff Report released on October 3, 2008. No substantive 

modifications to the proposed amendments were directed by the Board. Pursuant to 

Government Code section 11346.8(c) and section 40, title 1 of the CCR and to 

Board Resolution 08-42 directing appropriate revisions, staff has made the following 

nonsubstantial change. 

Final Regulation Order, CCR, title 13, section 2433 (b) (5): corrected the exhaust 

emission standards reference from “Section 2411 (b)(1)(A)” to “Section 2433 

(b)(1)(A).” 

III. SUMMARY OF COMMENTS AND AGENCY RESPONSE 

At the November 21, 2008 hearing, oral testimony was received from the Engine 

Manufacturers Association (EMA), Outdoor Power Equipment Institute (OPEI), the 
4 

Manufacturers of Emission Controls Association (MECA), Polaris Industries Inc., and 

the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). Additional written 

comments were received by the hearing date. Below is a listing of persons and 

organizations that submitted comments. 

Comments Received during the 45-day Public Comment Period and Board Hearing 

Organization and Person Providing Comments Written 

testimony 

Oral 

testimony 

James McNew, OPEI 11/18/2008 11/21/2008 

Rasto Brezny, MECA 11/21/2008 11/21/2008 

Roger Gault, EMA 11/21/2008 11/21/2008 

Henry Hogo, SCAQMD 11/14/2008 11/21/2008 

Lawrence E. Keller, Polaris Industries Inc. 11/21/2008 11/21/2008 

Paul C. Vitrano, Recreational Off-Highway 

Vehicle Association (ROHVA) 11/20/2008 - 

Set forth below is a summary of each objection or recommendation received for the 

proposed regulatory actions, and an explanation of how the proposed action was 

either changed to accommodate an objection or recommendation, or the reason for 

not making a change. The comments have been grouped by topic whenever 

possible. Comments not involving objections or recommendations specifically 

directed toward the rulemaking, or to the procedures followed by ARB in this 

rulemaking, are not summarized. Comments in support of the regulations are not 

summarized either. 

EMISSION STANDARDS 

1. Comment: EMA recommends that ARB treat LSI engines ≤ 1.0 L in the same 

fashion as the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 

Specifically, the engine manufacturer should be provided the flexibility to 

determine based on the intended market for the engine, if the engine will be 

certified to comply with the small spark-ignition regulatory requirements or the 

LSI > 1.0 L regulatory requirements. (EMA) 

Comment: EMA’s proposal would preserve the ability to produce very clean, 

substantially improved LSI engines with a minimal impact on the projected air 

quality benefit of the program. (OPEI)
5 

Comment: The proposed schedule does not allow adequate lead time to 

achieve the substantial exhaust and evaporative emission reductions 

required, compared to the current standards. (Polaris, ROHVA) 

Agency Response: In developing the proposal, staff evaluated technology to 

control both exhaust and evaporative emissions. As presented in the Staff 

Report, the results from staff’s analysis of the industry survey, as well as data 

supplied by manufacturers of the applicable emission control technology, 

clearly support staff’s finding that the proposed emission standards are 

technologically feasible. Specifically, to meet the proposed 2011 model year 

(MY) exhaust emission standards, these engines will require only minor 

engine modifications and air/fuel ratio changes. Compliance with the adopted 

2015 MY exhaust emission standards will likely be based on water-cooled 

engines with closed-loop electronic fuel injection systems, and three-way 

catalysts. Although these technologies are not presently common in this 

segment of the market, they are nevertheless all well-established, proven 

emission control technologies. Three currently certified engine families within 

this category meet the proposed exhaust emission standards. Furthermore, 

the adopted 2015 MY implementation timeframe would allow six years of lead 

time for manufacturers, with engines that do not yet meet the newly adopted 

standards, to develop and integrate the requisite technology into their engine 

designs and products. 

Staff also evaluated cost-effectiveness based on estimates of lifetime 

emission reductions for typical off-road LSI equipment. Cost estimates for the 

technology to control exhaust and evaporative emissions were based on 

estimates provided by the manufacturers of this technology and included an 

allowance for manufacturer and dealer markups. These cost estimates were 

also presented in the Staff Report (see section 4.2). Staff’s conclusion was 

that its proposal was cost-effective. 

2. Comment: If ARB continues with the current segregation of the LSI > 1.0 L 

and LSI ≤ 1.0 L, EMA recommends that the 2015 exhaust emission standard 

level requirement be replaced with a 5.0 g/kW-hr standard for HC+NOx

applicable in 2014 model year. (EMA) 

Agency Response: The difference between the EMA proposal and the staff’s 

proposal is that EMA’s proposed 5.0 g/kW-hr HC+NOx emission standard is 

over six times the 0.8 g/kW-hr HC+NOx emission standard proposed by staff. 

As explained in the Agency Response to Comment No. 1, control to the 

0.8 g/kW-hr HC+NOx emission standard is both technologically feasible and 

cost-effective. Furthermore, setting the emission standard above the 

proposed level may impact the Board’s ability to fulfill the overall emission 

reductions required under the State Implementation Plan. 

3. Comment: ARB staff is proposing, however, less stringent standards for LSI 

engines with engine displacements less than or equal to 825 cubic centimeter 

(≤ 825 cc) because of the small number of sales and poor cost-effectiveness. 

SCAQMD staff is concerned that migration from the more stringently 
6 

regulated LSI engines with engine displacements larger than 825 cc but less 

than or equal to one liter (> 825 cc – ≤ 1.0 L) would occur. In addition, 

because of the large difference in emission standards, a small number of 

large engines migrating to the smaller engine category would erase the 

emission reductions gained by the proposed regulation. Moreover, the very 

generous time frame of seven years should provide adequate time for 

manufacturers to cost-effectively meet the exhaust emission standard of 0.8 

g/kW-hr for HC+NOx. Therefore, SCAQMD staff urges ARB to set the same 

HC+NOx emission level for all LSI engines ≤ 1.0 L at 6.5 g/kW-hr in 2011 and 

0.8 g/kW-hr in 2015. (SCAQMD) 

Comment: Gasoline engines that are below 825 cc cannot provide the 

needed power for commercial turf care and utility vehicles that are currently 

powered by LSI > 825 cc gasoline engines. (OPEI) 

Agency Response: Staff proposed the less-stringent emission standard for 

the 825 cc displacement cut point for a couple of reasons. First, because LSI 

engines ≤ 825 cc tend to be used in equipment that is relatively much less 

expensive than LSI engines > 825 cc – ≤ 1.0 L, the profit potential for 

manufacturers is not as attractive. Accordingly, staff believes that the 

probability for migration from the more stringently regulated LSI 

engines > 825 cc – ≤ 1.0 L category is small. Secondly, LSI engines ≤ 825 cc 

represent approximately only 10 percent of the engines in the LSI ≤ 1.0 L 

category, and they are already used mostly in turf care equipment. Since 

their performance and operation characteristics are comparable to small offroad engines, staff believed that the proposal that these engines meet 

exhaust emission standards equivalent to the tier 3 emission standards for 

small off-road engines was reasonable. 

PERFORMANCE 

4. Comment: Even after installing three-way catalysts with a heated oxygen 

sensor and multiport fuel injection on current “optimized” engines, OPEI 

members are certifying 953 cc displacement engines used on lawn tractors at 

6.6 g/kW-hr HC+NOx. 2015 exhaust emission standards for LSI 

Engines > 825 cc should be amended. Only automotive-based gasoline 

engines could practically meet ARB’s 0.8 g/kW-hr standard. Several OPEI 

members have tried to use water-cooled, automotive-based engines in turf 

care equipment. In these member’s development programs, automotive-style 

engines completely failed to meet the extreme operational challenges and 

constraints for lawn and garden products. (OPEI) 

Agency Response: The comment is not consistent with recent turf care 

industry sales literature in which “automotive-based” water-cooling and 

electronic fuel-injected engine technologies are touted as providing added 

value to the customer, and which are all present in the market today. Indeed, 

OPEI itself identifies a water-cooled engine with fuel injection and a three-way 

catalyst as being currently used on lawn tractors. So obviously this 

technology can be used for turf care equipment applications. Furthermore, 
7 

although OPEI notes that this engine does not meet the proposed 0.8 g/kW-hr 

HC+NOx standard, it does have zero-hour emission levels that are only 

slightly above that level. Since the OPEI-identified engine has significantly 

less catalytic material and a higher emissions deterioration rate than the 

engines that can meet the proposed emission standard, a higher catalyst 

loading would reduce both the zero-hour emission level and the emissions 

deterioration rate. Therefore, with a higher catalyst loading, the OPEIidentified engine would be expected to satisfy the 0.8 g/kW-hr HC+NOx 

emission standard. 

In addition, staff surveyed the industry in February 2008 to ascertain whether 

there were any applications for which it would be essential to retain the lowest 

common denominator engine (i.e, air-cooled and carbureted, with no 

catalyst). The responses from industry indicated that there could be some of 

these applications, in the lower engine displacements. Accordingly, staff then 

modified its proposal to allow less stringent standards for LSI engines ≤ 825 

cc. Ultimately, however, the concerns boil down to cost. 

5. Comment: Unlike forklifts and certain other industrial applications, LSI 

engines > 825 cc - ≤ 1.0 L used in tractors, generators, utility vehicles, and 

turf care equipment typically depend on air-cooled engines to maintain their 

power and weight ratio, packaging, and performance requirements. Liquidcooled automotive-style engines can not meet the performance demands and 

operational challenges. (OPEI) 

Agency Response: In general, staff agrees with OPEI regarding the need for 

some equipment chassis redesign for some models to accommodate cleaner 

engines. The cost estimates provided by OPEI are generally consistent with 

staff’s cost estimates in the Staff Report. However, not all equipment 

platforms need to be redesigned. There are already many products in the 

market with liquid-cooled engines, including some that share platforms with 

air-cooled engines. According to ARB’s 2008 MY certification records, 15 out 

of a total of 24 LSI engine families > 825 cc – ≤ 1.0 L are water-cooled. 

Furthermore, only one engine manufacturer does not offer at least one watercooled engine family in either the small off-road engine or LSI engine 

categories. 

Although some manufacturers have expressed concern that water-cooled 

engines might not be readily accepted in to the market, in actuality the 

advantages offered by these engines may encourage market acceptance. 

Specifically, these engines are capable of running cooler than air-cooled 

engines, and they use less fuel, thereby reducing production of carbon 

dioxide, a greenhouse gas. 

INVENTORY/EFFECT ON MARKET

6. Comment: While ARB staff has made a number of emission inventory 

adjustments over the course of the proposal’s development, the inventory 

assessment recently provided by staff, as an update to the inventory in the 
8 

amendment hearing notice, remains controversial due to population 

projections. The projected population is based on a significant growth rate in 

annual sales in 2002 through 2011, resulting in a 50 percent increase 

between 2008 and 2011. EMA member company projections compiled prior 

to the recent collapse of the housing market were for limited growth of less 

than one percent per year or four percent for the period. EMA believes that 

the population in 2020 and 2030 will be less than the staff’s projections, 

significantly reducing the projected emissions benefits assumed by the staff’s 

proposal. (EMA) 

Comment: ARB’s growth projections for turf care equipment overestimate the 

future market for these products. In fact, this market segment has been fairly 

flat and in the current market is trending downwards. ARB should correct its 

exaggerated cost-effectiveness calculations to account for turf equipment’s 

low volume sales and its flat growth projections as well as the likely switch to 

> 825 cc diesel engines. (OPEI) 

Agency Response: The emission inventory projections are consistent with 

both the sales and actual production data. These projections were revised 

after publication of the Staff Report in response to industry comments. Staff 

revised the growth rate to reflect actual data submitted by engine 

manufacturers during the certification process and production line testing. 

The new growth rate used in the emission inventory projections is actually 

more conservative than both the sales projections and actual production 

numbers. 

7. Comment: The major engine changes will require significant design changes 

to the equipment that these engines power. EMA anticipates that, based on 

the small market potential for these products, engine and equipment 

manufacturers will not invest the design and manufacturing resources to 

produce products that comply with the 2015 standard level. Consumers that 

utilize the equipment currently powered by these engines will be forced to 

either prolong the use of their existing equipment and/or replace the 

equipment with diesel powered alternatives. While diesel powered 

alternatives currently exist in many cases, such products typically cost more 

than today’s spark ignition products. Increased manufacturing costs 

combined with capital amortization for creating a spark ignition engine 

powered product compliant with the proposed 2015 standard is expected to 

result in equipment costs equal to or greater than diesel powered alternatives. 

(EMA) 

Comment: If ARB proceeds along the lines proposed, new gas-powered turf 

care equipment will not be offered in California and/or most turf care 

equipment users will switch to diesel powered product options. In turn, this 

will 1) cause harm to California businesses and landscape operators; and 2) 

disrupt the marketplace – with no commensurate benefits. (OPEI) 
9 

Comment: When volume projected growth is corrected, the EMA proposal 

provides almost an equivalent air quality benefit to the proposed amendments 

not taking into account the expected shift from spark ignition to diesel product. 

(OPEI) 

Agency Response: Staff believes that a switch to diesel engines is 

extremely unlikely, mainly because the cost of LSI engine-powered 

equipment will always be less than diesel-powered equipment. For the case 

when a diesel version is not already available, equipment manufacturers 

would still face redesign issues in order to integrate a water-cooled diesel 

engine in to their equipment. For the case when a diesel product is currently 

available, then the Tier 4 diesel emission standards, which will go into effect 

for the equivalent horsepower range in 2013, will require particulate matter 

(PM) filters. Adding a PM filter will create its own set of redesign and 

economic concerns. Current cost estimates for diesel versions of off-road 

equipment in this category are approximately $3,000 more than for the 

equivalent gasoline-fueled counterparts. Compliance with the Tier 4 diesel 

standards is likely to add another $1,000. So even with the incremental costs 

of complying with staff’s proposal, LSI equipment will be less expensive than 

diesel equipment. 

8. Comment: Thousands of California landscape contractors depend on 

commercial turf care equipment to perform their essential operations. ARB 

staff has apparently not evaluated whether these California landscape 

business will be adversely impacted. The Board should direct ARB staff to 

submit to the Board an analysis of: 1) the impacts on California landscape 

businesses due to the lack of product availability; and 2) the costs (per unit of 

the redesigned turf care sold in California). (OPEI) 

Agency Response: Staff does not believe additional analyses are necessary 

or appropriate. The cost impacts are included in the Staff Report (see section 

4.2). Additionally, as noted specifically in the Agency Response to Comment 

No. 7, and in other responses regarding equipment availability, nothing in the 

OPEI comment would materially change staff’s conclusions. 

9. Comment: At a minimum, ARB should also create an equipment-based small 

volume exemption to avoid the total elimination of certain products in the 

California market. (OPEI)

Agency Response: Staff does not believe that an equipment-based small 

volume exemption is needed. As noted, OPEI did not identify anything 

unique to the small volume products that would warrant exempting them, 

beyond the fact that they are small volume. The newly created category for 

LSI engines ≤ 825 cc should take care of those applications that truly cannot 

absorb the cost of the additional emissions controls. 

10. Comment: ROHVA supports functional harmonization between U.S. EPA 

and ARB vehicle classification systems. ROHVA is concerned by the fact that 
10 

some OHRVs covered under U.S. EPA’s recreational vehicle emission 

regulations could be subject to ARB’s LSI engine regulations. (ROHVA) 

Comment: The most appropriate approach is that LSI engines ≤ 1.0 L used 

in OHRV-like applications would be immediately subject to the OHRV exhaust 

and evaporative emission limits. (Polaris) 

Agency Response: The issue raised by Polaris and ROHVA is outside the 

scope of the amendments proposed in the rulemaking. Pursuant to 

Government Code section 11346.9(a)(3), ARB will not respond to these 

comments and testimony as they are not relevant to the proposed 

amendments. 

COST/PACKAGING 

11. Comment: Many turf product platforms are niche products and constitute less 

than 10 units per year sold in California. For these niche products, the 

equipment manufacturer would incur (in equipment redesign costs) roughly 

$20,000 on a per equipment basis ($1 million costs/50 products sold over 5 

years). Obviously, per-unit redesign costs for these niche California products 

(even without the additional engine costs) could dramatically exceed the total 

retail costs of these units. (OPEI) 

Agency Response: Staff’s analysis of the cost-estimate relied on the figures 

provided by OPEI that were evaluated with actual sales volumes identified by 

the manufacturers, and which were larger than the hypothetical sales figures 

stated in OPEI’s comments. Staff acknowledges that niche products are 

likely to be dropped if it is not cost-effective for companies to re-engineer 

them to the more stringent standards or to use LSI engines ≤ 825 cc. 

However, it should be remembered that when evaluating any sales volumes 

that are exceptionally small, such as less than 10 units a year, the slightest 

change could significantly affect a product’s profitability. Lastly, OPEI did not 

identify anything unique to the small volume products that would warrant 

exempting them from the more stringent emission standards, beyond the fact 

that they are small volume in sales. 

12. Comment: Air cooled engines cannot practically or cost-effectively be 

modified to include water jackets to the block and cylinder head, water 

pumps, hoses, radiators and other components. Much larger and heavier 

water-cooled engines would not fit into most existing equipment designs, 

requiring equipment-design changes to maintain low turf load and equipment 

balance. OPEI members estimate that the additional costs of liquid-cooled 

engines with the necessary fuel injection, exhaust and cooling systems would 

be between $1,150 and $2,500. Assuming a 5-year production period and a 

one million dollar in equipment re-design and re-tooling and testing for these 

products, the equipment retooling costs would be around $2,000 per common 

equipment platform. (OPEI) 
11 

Agency Response: The cost and cost-effectiveness analyses are included in 

the Staff Report (see section 4.2), as well as in the Agency Response to 

Comment Nos. 4 and 11. For the reasons stated, staff believes its cost and 

cost-effectiveness estimates more accurately reflect reality. Nevertheless, 

staff evaluated OPEI’s estimated average redesign cost of $2,000 based on a 

total redesign cost of one million dollars for 500 products. If OPEI’s $2,000 

figure is substituted for the $700 redesign cost used in the cost-effectiveness 

calculations in the Staff Report, the cost would range from $0.02 - $10.69 per 

pound of ROG+NOx reduced. The higher cost-effectiveness value of $10.69 

per pound still compares favorably with other emission control regulations 

adopted recently by ARB, which have ranged from less than $1 to $11 per 

pound of ROG+NOx reduced.