41038 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 128 / Monday, July 3, 2000 / Proposed Rules

of PAN carbon fiber from foreign

sources. DoD conducted a review of the

administratively imposed restrictions,

evaluating DoD applications for PAN

carbon fiber, key domestic and foreign

suppliers, supply and demand market

information, potential impacts on DoD

and key suppliers, and potential

national security issues. As a result,

DoD is proposing to phase out the

restrictions over the five-year period

ending May 31, 2005. The phased

elimination will minimize short-term

risks to both DoD and current domestic

suppliers and will allow for a gradual

introduction of competition that will

encourage innovation and emphasize

affordability. This action is consistent

with DoD’s interest in promoting

vigorous competition in defense markets

while ensuring that industrial

capabilities essential to national defense

are preserved.

This rule was not subject to Office of

Management and Budget review under

Executive Order 12866, dated

September 30, 1993.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The proposed rule is not expected to

have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small entities

within the meaning of the Regulatory

Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq.,

because there are no known domestic

small business manufacturers of PAN

carbon fiber. Therefore, DoD has not

performed an initial regulatory

flexibility analysis. DoD invites

comments from small businesses and

other interested parties. DoD also will

consider comments from small entities

concerning the affected DFARS subpart

in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 610. Such

comments should be submitted

separately and should cite DFARS Case

2000–D017.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act

The Paperwork Reduction Act does

not apply because the rule does not

impose any information collection

requirements that require the approval

of the Office of Management and Budget

under 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.

List of Subjects in 48 CFR Part 225

Government procurement.

Michele P. Peterson,

Executive Editor, Defense Acquisition

Regulations Council.

Therefore, DoD proposes to amend 48

CFR Part 225 as follows:

1. The authority citation for 48 CFR

Part 225 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 41 U.S.C. 421 and 48 CFR

Chapter 1.

PART 225—FOREIGN ACQUISITION

2. Section 225.7103–1 is revised to

read as follows:

§ 225.7103–1 Policy.

DoD has imposed restrictions on the

acquisition of PAN carbon fiber from

foreign sources. DoD is phasing out the

restrictions over the five-year period

ending May 31, 2005. Contractors with

contracts that contain the clause at

252.225–7022 must use U.S. or

Canadian manufacturers or producers

for all PAN carbon fiber requirements.

3. Section 225.7103–3 is revised to

read as follows:

§ 225.7103–3 Contract clause.

Use the clause at 252.225–7022,

Restriction on Acquisition of

Polyacrylonitrile (PAN) Carbon Fiber, in

solicitations and contracts for major

systems as follows:

(a) In solicitations and contracts

issued on or before May 31, 2003, if—

(1) The system is not yet in

production (milestone III as defined in

DoD 5000.2–R, Mandatory Procedures

for Major Defense Acquisition Programs

(MDAPS) and Major Automated

Information System (MAIS) Acquisition

Programs); or

(2) The clause was used in prior

program contracts.

(b) In solicitations and contracts

issued during the period beginning June

1, 2003, and ending May 31, 2005, if the

system is not yet in engineering and

manufacturing development (milestone

II as defined in DoD 5000.2–R).

[FR Doc. 00–16639 Filed 6–30–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5000–04–M

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

48 CFR Parts 242 and 252

[DFARS Case 2000–D003]

Defense Federal Acquisition

Regulation Supplement; Material

Management and Accounting Systems

AGENCY: Department of Defense (DoD).

ACTION: Proposed rule with request for

comments.

SUMMARY: The Director of Defense

Procurement is proposing to amend the

Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation

Supplement (DFARS) to revise the

criteria for determining when review of

a contractor’s material management and

accounting system (MMAS) is needed.

The rule also replaces the current

requirement for an MMAS

‘‘demonstration’’ with a requirement for

the contractor to provide adequate

evidence that it has conducted internal

audits to ensure compliance with its

MMAS policies, procedures, and

operating instructions.

DATES: Comments on the proposed rule

should be submitted in writing to the

address shown below on or before

September 1, 2000, to be considered in

the formation of the final rule.

ADDRESSES: Interested parties should

submit written comments on the

proposed rule to: Defense Acquisition

Regulations Council, Attn: Mr. Rick

Layser, OUSD (AT&L) DP (DAR), IMD

3D139, 3062 Defense Pentagon,

Washington, DC 20301–3062. Telefax

(703) 602–0350.

E-mail comments submitted via the

Internet should be addressed to

dfars@acq.osd.mil

Please cite DFARS Case 2000–D003 in

all correspondence related to this

proposed rule. E-mail correspondence

should cite DFARS Case 2000–D003 in

the subject line.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Rick Layser, (703) 602–0293.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. Background

This proposed rule makes the

following changes to the DFARS:

1. Revises the prescription for use of

the clause at 252.242–7004, Material

Management and Accounting System.

a. The DFARS presently requires

inclusion of the clause in fixed-price

contracts with progress payments or

other Government financing, regardless

of whether the financing provisions are

based on cost. The proposed rule

requires inclusion of the clause in only

those fixed-price contracts that contain

progress payments based on cost or

other financing provisions based on

cost.

b. The DFARS presently exempts

small businesses, educational

institutions, and nonprofit organizations

from the major MMAS requirements of

disclosure, demonstration, and

maintenance, but still requires inclusion

of the clause in contracts with these

entities. The proposed rule eliminates

the requirement for inclusion of the

clause in contracts with small

businesses, educational institutions, and

nonprofit organizations.

2. Revises the clause at 252.242–7004

to replace the requirement for an MMAS

‘‘demonstration’’ with a requirement for

the contractor to have policies,

procedures, and operating instructions

that adequately describe its MMAS, and

to provide adequate evidence that it has

conducted internal audits to ensure

compliance with its MMAS policies,

procedures, and operating instructions.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 128 / Monday, July 3, 2000 / Proposed Rules 41039

The requirement for a demonstration

has caused significant confusion,

because the DFARS does not define the

term or describe what constitutes an

adequate demonstration. The proposed

rule revises the MMAS requirements to

be consistent with the documentation

and testing requirements of other system

reviews such as accounting and

purchasing. The Government does not

require demonstrations of these systems,

but instead performs risk-based reviews

that focus on contractor practices and

the implementation of those practices,

including testing the system when and

where necessary. This revision does not

eliminate the requirement for contractor

compliance with the ten MMAS

standards or alter the level of audit

access to which the Government is

entitled.

3. Makes the dollar threshold for

conducting an MMAS review consistent

with the threshold for conducting a

Contractor Insurance/Pension Review at

DFARS Subpart 242.73. The DFARS

presently requires an MMAS review

every 3 years for contractors that receive

total annual DoD awards in excess of

$70 million, unless the administrative

contracting officer (ACO) specifies

otherwise. The proposed rule eliminates

the requirement for an MMAS review

every 3 years; raises the minimum

dollar threshold for MMAS review from

$30 million to $40 million; requires the

ACO to make a case-by-case

determination of the need for an MMAS

review; and revises the basis for the

dollar threshold, replacing ‘‘prior year

DoD contract and subcontract awards’’

with the definition of ‘‘qualifying sales’’

from DFARS Subpart 242.73.

4. Clarifies the responsibilities of the

ACO and the MMAS team members.

This rule was not subject to Office of

Management and Budget review under

executive Order 12866, dated September

30, 1993.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The proposed rule is not expected to

have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small entities

within the meaning of the Regulatory

Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq.,

because the DFARS already exempts

small business concerns from the major

MMAS requirements. Therefore, DoD

has not performed an initial regulatory

flexibility analysis. DoD invites

comments from small businesses and

other interested parties. DoD also will

consider comments from small entities

concerning the affected DFARS subparts

in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 610. Such

comments should be submitted

separately and should cite DFARS Case

2000–D003.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act

The proposed rule will eliminate the

requirement for contractors to

demonstrate their material management

and accounting systems, and will

reduce the number of contractors that

must disclose their systems to the

Government. Therefore, this rule will

reduce the paperwork burden hours

approved under Office of Management

and Budget Control Number 0704–0250.

List of Subjects in 48 CFR Parts 242 and

252

Government procurement.

Michele P. Peterson,

Executive Editor,

Defense Acquisition Regulations

Council.

Therefore, DoD proposes to amend 48

CFR Parts 242 and 252 as follows:

1. The authority citation for 48 CFR

Parts 242 and 252 continues to read as

follows:

Authority: 41 U.S.C. 421 and 48 CFR

Chapter 1.

2. Subpart 242.72 is revised to read as

follows;

Subpart 242.72—Contractor Material

Management and Accounting System

Sec.

242.7200 Scope of subpart.

242.7201 Definitions.

242.7202 Policy.

242.7203 Review procedures.

242.7204 Contract clause.

242.7200 Scope of subpart.

(a) This subpart provides policies,

procedures, and standards for use in the

evaluation of a contractor’s material

management and accounting system

(MMAS).

(b) The policies, procedures, and

standards in this subpart—

(1) Apply only when the contractor

has contracts exceeding the simplified

acquisition threshold that are not for the

acquisition of commercial items and are

either—

(i) Cost-reimbursement contracts; or

(ii) Fixed-price contracts with

progress payments based on cost or

other financing provisions based on

cost; and

(2) Do not apply to small businesses,

educational institutions, or nonprofit

organizations.

242.7201 Definitions.

Material management and accounting

system and valid time-phased

requirements are defined in the clause at

252.242–7004, Material Management

and Accounting System.

242.7202 Policy.

DoD policy is for its contractors to

have an MMAS that conforms to the

standards in paragraph (e) of the clause

at 252.242–7004, so that the system—

(a) Reasonably forecasts material

requirements;

(b) Ensures the costs of purchased and

fabricated material charged or allocated

to a contract are based on valid timephased requirements; and

(c) Maintains a consistent, equitable,

and unbiased logic for costing of

material transactions.

242.7203 Review procedures.

(a) Criteria for conducting reviews.

Conduct an MMAS review when—

(1) A contractor has $40 million of

qualifying sales to the Government

during the contractor’s preceding fiscal

year; and

(2) The administrative contracting

officer (ACO), with advice from the

auditor, determines an MMAS review is

needed based on a risk assessment of

the contractor’s past experience and

current vulnerability.

(b) Qualifying sales. Qualifying sales

are sales for which cost or pricing data

were required under 10 U.S.C. 2306a, as

implemented in FAR 15.403, or that are

contracts priced on other than a firmfixed-price or fixed-price with economic

price adjustment basis. Sales include

prime contracts, subcontracts, and

modifications to such contracts and

subcontracts.

(c) System evaluation. Cognizant

contract administration and audit

activities must jointly establish and

manage programs for evaluating the

MMAS systems of contractors and must

annually establish a schedule of

contractors to be reviewed. In addition,

they must—

(1) Conduct reviews as a team effort.

(i) The ACO—

(A) Appoints a team leader; and

(B) Ensures that the team includes

appropriate functional specialists (e.g.,

industrial specialist, engineer, property

administrator, auditor).

(ii) The team leader—

(A) Advises the ACO and the

contractor of findings during the review

and at the exit conference.

(B) Makes every effort to resolve

differences regarding questions of fact

during the review.

(iii) The contractor auditor—

(A) Participates as a member of the

MMAS team or serves as the team leader

(see paragraph (c)(1)(i) of this section);

and

(B) Issues an audit report for

incorporation into the MMAS report

based on an analysis of the contractor’s

books, accounting records, and other

related data.

41040 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 128 / Monday, July 3, 2000 / Proposed Rules

(2) Tailor reviews to take full

advantage of the day-to-day work done

by both organizations.

(3) Prepare the MMAS report.

(d) Disposition of evaluation team

findings. The team leader must

document the evaluation team findings

and recommendations in the MMAS

report to the ACO. If there are any

significant MMAS deficiencies, the

report must provide an estimate of the

adverse impact on the Government

resulting from those deficiencies.

(1) Initial notification to the

contractor. The ACO must provide a

copy of the report to the contractor

immediately upon receipt from the team

leader.

(i) The ACO must notify the

contractor in a timely manner if there

are no deficiencies.

(ii) If there are any deficiencies, the

ACO must request the contractor to

provide a written response within 30

days (or such other date as may be

mutually agreed to by the ACO and the

contractor) from the date of initial

notification.

(iii) If the contractor agrees with the

report, the contractor has 60 days (or

such other date as may be mutually

agreed to by the ACO and the

contractor) to correct any identified

deficiencies or submit a corrective

action plan showing milestones and

actions to eliminate the deficiencies.

(iv) If the contractor disagrees with

the report, the contractor must provide

rationale in the written response.

(2) Evaluation of the contractor’s

response. The ACO, in consultation

with the auditor, evaluates the

contractor’s response and determines

whether—

(i) The MMAS contains any

deficiencies and, if so, any corrective

action is needed;

(ii) The deficiencies are significant

enough to result in the reduction of

progress payments or disallowance of

costs on vouchers; and

(iii) Proposed corrective actions (if the

contractor submitted them) are adequate

to correct the deficiencies.

(3) Notification of ACO

determination.

(i) The ACO must notify the

contractor in writing (copy to auditor

and functional specialists) of—

(A) Any deficiencies and the

necessary corrective action;

(B) Acceptability of the contractor’s

corrective action plan (if one was

submitted) or the need for a corrective

action plan; and

(C) Any decision to reduce progress

payments or disallow costs on vouchers.

(ii) The Government does not approve

or disapprove the contractor’s MMAS.

ACO notifications should avoid any

such implications.

(iii) From the time the ACO

determines that there are any significant

MMAS deficiencies until the time the

deficiencies are corrected, all field

pricing reports for that contractor must

contain a recommendation relating to

proposed adjustments necessary to

protect the Government’s interests.

(iv) The ACO should consider the

effect of any significant MMAS

deficiencies in reviews of the

contractor’s estimating system (see

215.407–5).

(4) Reductions or disallowances.

(i) When the ACO determines the

MMAS deficiencies have a material

impact on Government contract costs,

the ACO must reduce progress

payments by an appropriate percentage

based on affected costs (in accordance

with FAR 32.503–6) and/or disallow

costs on vouchers (in accordance with

FAR 42.803). The reductions or

disallowances must remain in effect

until the ACO determines that—

(A) The deficiencies are corrected; or

(B) The amount of the impact is

immaterial.

(ii) The maximum payment

adjustment is the adverse material

impact to the Government as specified

in the MMAS report. The ACO should

use the maximum adjustment when the

contractor did not submit a corrective

action plan with its response, or when

the plan is unacceptable. In other cases,

the ACO should consider the quality of

the contractor’s corrective action plan in

determining the appropriate percentage.

(iii) As the contractor implements its

accepted corrective action plan, the

ACO should reinstate a portion of

withheld amounts commensurate with

the contractor’s progress in making

corrections. However, the ACO must not

fully reinstate withheld amounts until

the contractor corrects the deficiencies,

or until the impact of the deficiencies

become immaterial.

(5) Monitoring contractor’s corrective

action. The ACO and the auditor must

monitor the contractor’s progress in

correcting deficiencies. When the ACO

determines the deficiencies have been

corrected, the ACO must notify the

contractor in writing. If the contractor

fails to make adequate progress, the

ACO must take further action. The ACO

may—

(i) Elevate the issue to higher level

management;

(ii) Further reduce progress payments

and/or disallow costs on vouchers;

(iii) Notify the contractor of the

inadequacy of the contractor’s cost

estimating system and/or cost

accounting system; and

(iv) Issue cautions to contracting

activities regarding the award of future

contracts.

242.7204 Contract clause.

Use the clause at 252.242–7004,

Material Management and Accounting

System, in all solicitations and contracts

exceeding the simplified acquisition

threshold that are not for the acquisition

of commercial items and—

(a) Are not awarded to small

businesses, educational institutions, or

nonprofit organizations; and

(b) Are either—

(1) Cost-reimbursement contracts; or

(2) Fixed-price contracts with

progress payments based on cost or

other financing provisions based on

cost.

PART 252—SOLICITATION

PROVISIONS AND CONTRACT

CLAUSES

3. Section 252.242–7004 is revised to

read as follows:

252.242–7004 Material Management and

Accounting System.

As prescribed in 242.7204, use the

following clause.

Material Management and Accounting

System (XXX 2000)

(a) Definitions. As used in this clause—

(1) ‘‘Material management and accounting

system (MMAS)’’ means the Contractor’s

system or systems for planning, controlling,

and accounting for the acquisition, use,

issuing, and disposition of material. Material

management and accounting systems may be

manual or automated. They may be standalone systems or they may be integrated with

planning, engineering, estimating,

purchasing, inventory, accounting, or other

systems.

(2) ‘‘Valid time-phased requirements’’

means material that is—

(i) Needed to fulfill the production plan,

including reasonable quantities for scrap,

shrinkage, yield, etc.; and

(ii) Charged/billed to contracts or other

cost objectives in a manner consistent with

the need to fulfill the production plan.

(3) ‘‘Contractor’’ means a business unit as

defined in section 31.001 of the Federal

Acquisition Regulation (FAR).

(b) General. The Contractor shall—

(1) Maintain an MMAS that—

(i) Reasonably forecasts material

requirements;

(ii) Ensures that costs of purchased and

fabricated material charged or allocated to a

contract are based on valid time-phased

requirements; and

(iii) Maintains a consistent, equitable, and

unbiased logic for costing of material

transactions; and

(2) Assess its MMAS and take reasonable

action to comply with the MMAS standards

in paragraph (e) of this clause.

(c) Disclosure and maintenance

requirements. The Contractor shall—

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 128 / Monday, July 3, 2000 / Proposed Rules 41041

(1) Have policies, procedures, and

operating instructions that adequately

describe its MMAS;

(2) Provide to the Administrative

Contracting Officer (ACO) adequate evidence

that it has conducted internal audits to

ensure compliance with established MMAS

policies, procedures, and operating

instructions; and

(3) Disclose significant changes in its

MMAS to the ACO within 30 days of

implementation.

(d) Deficiencies.

(1) If the Contractor receives a report from

the ACO that identifies any deficiencies in its

MMAS, the Contractor shall respond as

follows:

(i) If the Contractor agrees with the report

findings and recommendations, the

Contractor shall—

(A) Within 30 days, state its agreement in

writing; and

(B) Within 60 days, correct the deficiencies

or submit a corrective action plan showing

milestones and actions to eliminate the

deficiencies.

(ii) If the Contractor disagrees with the

report findings and recommendations, the

Contractor shall, within 30 days, state its

rationale for each area of disagreement.

(2) The ACO will evaluate the Contractor’s

response and will notify the Contractor in

writing of the—

(i) Determination concerning any

remaining deficiencies;

(ii) Adequacy of any proposed or

completed corrective action plan; and

(iii) Need for any new or revised corrective

action plan.

(3) When the ACO determines the MMAS

deficiencies have a material impact on

Government contract costs, the ACO must

reduce progress payments by an appropriate

percentage based on affected costs (in

accordance with FAR 32.503–6) and/or

disallow costs on vouchers (in accordance

with FAR 42.803) until the ACO determines

that—

(i) The deficiencies are corrected; or

(ii) The amount of the impact is

immaterial.

(e) MMAS standards. The MMAS shall

have adequate internal controls to ensure

system and data integrity, and shall—

(1) Have an adequate system description

including policies, procedures, and operating

instructions that comply with the FAR and

Defense FAR Supplement;

(2) Ensure that costs of purchased and

fabricated material charged or allocated to a

contract are based on valid time-phased

requirements as impacted by minimum/

economic order quantity restrictions.

(i) A 98 percent bill of material accuracy

and a 95 percent master production schedule

accuracy are desirable as a goal in order to

ensure that requirements are both valid and

appropriately time-phased.

(ii) If systems have accuracy levels below

these, the Contractor shall provide adequate

evidence that—

(A) There is no material harm to the

Government due to lower accuracy levels;

and

(B) The cost to meet the accuracy goals is

excessive in relation to the impact on the

Government;

(3) Provide a mechanism to identify,

report, and resolve system control

weaknesses and manual override. Systems

should identify operational exceptions such

as excess/residual inventory as soon as

known;

(4) Provide audit trails and maintain

records (manual and those in machine

readable form) necessary to evaluate system

logic and to verify through transaction testing

that the system is operating as desired;

(5) Establish and maintain adequate levels

of record accuracy, and include

reconciliation of recorded inventory

quantities to physical inventory by part

number on a periodic basis. A 95 percent

accuracy level is desirable. If systems have an

accuracy level below 95 percent, the

Contractor shall provide adequate evidence

that—

(i) Three is no material harm to the

Government due to lower accuracy levels;

and

(ii) The cost to meet the accuracy goal is

excessive in relation to the impact on the

Government;

(6) Provide detailed descriptions of

circumstances that will result in manual or

system generated transfers of parts;

(7) Maintain a consistent, equitable, and

unbiased logic for costing of material

transactions as follows:

(i) The Contractor shall maintain and

disclose written policies describing the

transfer methodology and the loan/pay-back

technique.

(ii) The costing methodology may be

standard or actual cost, or any of the

inventory costing methods in 48 CFR

9904.411–50(b). The Contractor shall

maintain consistency across all contract and

customer types, and from accounting period

to accounting period for initial charging and

transfer charging.

(iii) The system should transfer parts and

associated costs within the same billing

period. In the few instances where this may

not be appropriate, the Contractor may

accomplish the material transaction using a

loan/pay-back technique. The ‘‘loan/pay-back

technique’’ means that the physical part is

moved temporarily from the contract, but the

cost of the part remains on the contract. The

procedures for the loan/pay-back technique

must be approved by the ACO. When the

technique is used, the Contractor shall have

controls to ensure—

(A) Parts are paid back expeditiously;

(B) Procedures and controls are in place to

correct any overbilling that might occur;

(C) Monthly, at a minimum, identification

of the borrowing contract and the date the

part was borrowed; and

(D) The cost of the replacement part is

charged to the borrowing contract;

(8) Where allocations from common

inventory accounts are used, have controls

(in addition to those in paragraphs (e)(2) and

(7) of this clause) to ensure that—

(i) Reallocations and any credit due are

processed no less frequently than the routine

billing cycle;

(ii) Inventories retained for requirements

that are not under contract are not allocated

to contracts; and

(iii) Algorithms are maintained based on

valid and current data;

(9) Notwithstanding FAR 45.505–3(f)(1)(ii),

have adequate controls to ensure that

physically commingled inventories that may

include material for which costs are charged

or allocated to fixed-price, costreimbursement, and commercial contracts do

not compromise requirements of any of the

standards in paragraphs (e)(1) through (8) of

this clause. Government-furnished material

shall not be—

(i) Physically commingled with other

material; or

(ii) Used on commercial work; and

(10) Be subjected to periodic internal

audits to ensure compliance with established

policies and procedures.

(End of clause)

[FR Doc. 00–16640 Filed 6–30–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5000–04–M

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

50 CFR Part 622

[Docket No. 000616183–0183–01; I.D.

053000E]

RIN 0648–AN35

Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of

Mexico, and South Atlantic; SnapperGrouper Fishery of the South Atlantic;

Special Management Zones

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for

comments.

SUMMARY: In accordance with the

framework procedure of the Fishery

Management Plan for the SnapperGrouper Fishery of the South Atlantic

Region (FMP), NMFS proposes to

establish 12 new special management

zones (SMZs) at the sites of artificial

reefs (ARs) in the exclusive economic

zone (EEZ) off Georgia; to revise the

boundaries of the 7 existing SMZs that

are in the EEZ off Georgia; to restrict

fishing in the new and revised SMZs to

rod and reel and spearfishing gear,

including powerheads; and within these

SMZs, to limit the harvest and

possession of South Atlantic snappergrouper taken by powerheads to the

applicable bag limits. NMFS also

proposes establishing a 30-day deadline

for resolving deficiencies related to an

application and a 60-day deadline for

correcting deficiencies regarding

automatic renewals of permits. The

intended effects are to promote orderly

use of the fishery resources on and

around the ARs and SMZs, to reduce