Skip to main content

This page has been translated using TexTra by NICT. Please note that the translation may not be completely accurate.
If you find any mistranslations, we appreciate your feedback on the "Request form for improving the automatic translation ".

Digital Extraordinary Administrative Advisory Committee Working Group (6th)

Overview

  • Date and time: Friday, March 18, 2022 (2022) from 10:00 to 12:00
  • Location: Online
  • Agenda:
    1. Opening
    2. Proceedings
      1. Hearing from related ministries and agencies about regular inspection regulation
      2. Exchange of opinions
    3. Adjournment

Materials

Related Information

Minutes, etc.

Date

Friday, March 18, 2022 (2022) from 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.

Location

Online Meetings

Attendees

Chairman

  • Fumiaki Kobayashi, Senior Vice-

Members

  • Junji Annen (Attorney-at-law, Professor of the Graduate School of Law
  • Tatsuhiko Inadani (Professor, Graduate School of Law, Kyoto University)
  • Katsuya Uenoyama (President of PKSHA Technology, Inc.)
  • Takafumi Ochiai (Attorney at law, Atsumi & Sakai, Foreign Law Joint Enterprise)
  • Katsunori Nemoto (Senior Managing Director, Japan Business Federation)
  • Masakazu Masushima (Attorney-at-Law, Mori Hamada & Matsumoto)

Minutes

Secretariat (Takamatsu): I would like to open the 6th "Digital Extraordinary Administrative Advisory Committee Working Group".

Members are invited to participate online this time as well.
In addition, Mr. Sugawara is absent due to business reasons. In addition, Mr. Uenoyama and Mr. Masushima are scheduled to leave the office in the middle of the meeting.

In addition, today, when Parliamentary Senior Vice-Minister for Foreign Affairs Kobayashi gives an opening address, and after that, when the Secretariat explains the review of PHASE, all the relevant ministries and agencies participating in today's hearing will be present online. Regarding the discussion of each part after that, the relevant ministries and agencies will participate in turn.

Then, I would like to receive an address from Mr. Kobayashi, Senior Vice-Minister for Digital, who is the chair of this working group. Thank you very much.

Senior Vice-Minister for Digital . Today is the sixth meeting of the Working Group, and the theme will be regular inspection regulation. Thank you very much for your cooperation, everyone from the Fire and Disaster Management Agency and the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism, as well as the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, the Ministry of the Environment, and the people of Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare, who are attending the opening. Each ministry has its own rules, but I think some of the rules that were created a long time ago may be considered to be about time to change in consideration of technological progress and environmental changes. On the other hand, I think there are concerns about whether safety can be guaranteed by changing them so easily. I would like to talk about this frankly or honestly, and discuss how to overcome it while consulting with you.

The background for this is that we are entering an era in which the working-age population will be overwhelmingly decreasing, and the industries under your jurisdiction are also facing a labor shortage in Issue. Amidst this, I believe it is important to increase the income and after-tax income of each person by increasing productivity more than ever. Therefore, through this initiative, the industries under your jurisdiction will overcome the labor shortage and increase their income. In this context, the use of digital technology will reduce paperwork. I believe this will lead to a reduction in the work of people in public office. I would like to create new rules that are good for both of us, and I would like to ask for your cooperation.

The periodic inspection and inspection regulation that we will discuss today is different from the perspective of so-called Digital Principles 1 such as visual inspection regulation and written notice regulation that we have discussed so far, and I think it is an example of the principles of agile governance of Digital Principles 2, in which the inspection cycle is a uniform advance regulation that requires periodic inspection. Therefore, in today's hearing, compared to the discussion on how to utilize digital technology, I think the issue of how to make regulation more agile and flexible on a risk basis by utilizing data is more important. Therefore, I would like you to cooperate and give us good wisdom, and I would like you to make positive proposals from each ministry. Thank you very much.

Secretariat (Takamatsu): Thank you very much. Now, I would like to begin today's proceedings. I would like to ask Vice Chairman Annen to proceed with the proceedings from now on. Vice Chairman Annen, thank you.

Deputy Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. This is the sixth meeting. In the first half of the meeting, we plan to hear about the periodic inspection of fire defense equipment and specified buildings and the simplified inspection under the Fluorocarbons Emission Control Act, and in the second half of the meeting, we plan to hear about the periodic inspection of water supply and simplified water supply, and the periodic measurement related to occupational safety and health.

Before we begin the hearing, we would like to hear an explanation from the Secretariat about the review of PHASE in regular inspection. Mr. Takamatsu, Counselor, please.

Secretariat (Takamatsu): Thank you for your time. I'm Takamatsu from the Secretariat.

With regard to regular inspection, which I would like to discuss today, I recently presented three types and three phases. Of these, I would like to add a certain level of review to Phases 1, 2, and 3, which are on the left side indicating the depth of digitalization, based on the results of discussions with various ministries and agencies so far, and I have taken some time to do so.

In the table shown, the left side is the current plan and the right side is the revised plan. In the current plan, the inspection cycle is extended in PHASE2, and the abolition of periodic inspections by technology substitution and the like is set in PHASE3 after that, but in the revised plan, the extension of the inspection cycle, which is currently in PHASE2, is moved to PHASE3, which is a major difference. At present, we are conducting inspections of the conformity to the digital principles for various law, but as an example that is often seen in regular inspection type regulation, the rule that this is inspected periodically is placed at a higher level, and on the other hand, regarding what items are inspected in the inspection, various items are set in the rule at a lower level. Such a structure occupies a large part.

In that case, between each ministry and the Secretariat, it seems that the interval between inspections of items A and B can be extended by technology substitution. On the other hand, regarding items C and D, there are many situations where it seems that technology substitution will be difficult soon. Regarding the latter, we, the Secretariat, think that it may be difficult.

In other words, while multiple items are listed as items for periodic inspection, there are many cases in which it is likely that technical substitution will be possible for some items, but it is likely that immediate technical substitution will be difficult for some items.

In this case, as a result, for regulation, which is specified to be inspected on a regular basis, as a full set of inspections including all items A, B, C, and D, it will be impossible to extend the inspection interval, so based on the current PHASE arrangement, it will not be possible to proceed to PHASE2 and will remain in PHASE1. As for regulation, which is currently a regular inspection, in fact, regulation, which is the subject of the Great Majority, is becoming like that. Based on the situation I just mentioned, I believe that the hurdles for PHASE2 are somewhat too high in the current PHASE arrangement. Based on the fact that this is a series of efforts to steadily advance efforts from where digital technology can be used, while supporting the support of each ministry and providing indirect support from Digital Agency, we would like to set some hurdles for PHASE1, 2, and 3 from the perspective of inducing efforts by each ministry.

Specifically, it is in the revision proposal on the right. As I said at the beginning, the extension of the inspection cycle, which is currently located in PHASE2, will be moved to the next phase, PHASE3. At the same time, although it is not an extension of the inspection cycle for the full set, we would like to support efforts to this effect by specifically positioning the extension of the inspection cycle for some items in PHASE2.

Furthermore, as initiatives that will lead to the extension of the full set inspection cycle, as listed in the black dots of PHASE2 on the right side, we would like to see the active promotion of initiatives to rationalize inspections, such as the technological neutrality of regulation, the abolition and consolidation of inspection items, and the online reporting of inspection results, which includes the work of reporting the results of periodic inspections to the authorities. Such positioning will be specified in PHASE2. We would like to make such amendments.

I would like to consult with you about the review of PHASE as described above. Thank you very much.

Deputy Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. . If you have any comments on the current PHASE review proposal, please let me know. What do you think? Mr. Nemoto, please.

Nemoto Constituent: Thank you very much, . I do not mean to say that I am opposed to it, but the current plan is written on the premise that we will move from PHASE1 to PHASE 2 and 3. As long as I hear the explanation in the first sentence, there may be cases in which regular inspection will not be exempted in the future, and there may be cases in which digitalization will not be exempted as a whole. If so, I heard the explanation that there is a possibility of changing the classification to "What kind of test is this?" in the form of SCOPE1, SCOPE2, and SCOPE3, for example, by changing the name of what humans need to do regardless of the situation.

This review proposal is also premised on the premise that it is good to go to PHASE3 and that digitalization itself should go in this direction. You explained that you changed it like this because you were a little worried about whether you could go to all of them, so I felt that there might be an idea to change your view a little. I do not mean to change it like that, but I will provide it as a material for discussion. That is all.

Deputy Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. . Is there anything else you would like? Is that all right? To what extent can we substitute with technology? I think it is a limited story to mechanize what we are doing now. I have been interested in nuclear power plants for a long time, and I have been a nuclear power plant researcher for the past 10 years or so. In a periodic inspection of a nuclear power plant, the lid of the pressure vessel is only fastened with bolts, but it is removed and the inside is viewed. I don't think it is possible to completely substitute this with a machine. In that case, if we want to mechanize, there is no other way than to substitute by development technology, such that it is okay to monitor various parameters inside without removing the lid. So, I came here because I felt that there was an implication that we had to consider another method because it is a little difficult to substitute with a machine for what Nemoto said. Thank you very much.

Ochiai Member: I think that what you just discussed is that the Secretariat is also looking at the scope in about three years, so I think that this is the arrangement of PHASE for the time being, but if we review it after a while, we may be able to see other methods, so I thought that we should review it again at that time. I thought that the step between 2 and 3 is that I want to challenge to the point where 2 is a partial change and 3 is a general change in the system itself, so I understood that this is what I can see at this point.

Deputy Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. . Now, does anyone else have any comments? Member Uenoyama, please.

Member Uenoyama: I'm Uenoyama I am very much in favor of this change proposal. In particular, the extension of the inspection cycle is only one result of the placement of the location as a kind of approach shot in PHASE2, so the premise is that it has changed in a very good way.

If so, can we automate all of them? Basically, when all of them cannot be automated, in PHASE3, human testing and digital testing will coexist. Rather than considering these two separately, the act of going to perform a test itself is a sensor that senses data. In other words, it is often said that the act of going to perform a test by digital parts and human testing will become one data network in the first place. As a direction of the architecture of PHASE3, it is important for the secretariat to keep a certain level of focus on this in future communication with each ministry and agency and in discussions on whether automation can be done or not. That is all.

Deputy Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. . You have added a new perspective. What do you think, Mr. Inadani?

Member Inadani: Thank you very much, . I am not opposed to it at all, and I think that it is very important to promote it realistically in order to steadily advance major reforms. However, I feel that this discussion has been made several times before, and when considering a regulation such as visual inspection, which is related to the talk by the current member of Uenoyama and the talk by the current member of Nemoto, there is a story that where people are good at and where machines are good at are different from each other in the first place, and that is why I think it is necessary to clarify what we want to realize in that regulation in the end in order to promote digitalization. Clarifying the purpose of regulation must be done when changing regulation to a risk-based system in the first place, but in relation to digitalization, I think it is essential to redefine a certain kind of thing based on the understanding of the fields in which machines and people are good at and the way of cooperative work.

In particular, in this case, I think you pointed out the nuance that there may be a slightly large step between 2 and 3, so from the perspective of smoothly passing through the step, I don't know if it is appropriate to write this in PHASE itself, but I felt that if we do not run the process related to the redefinition of a certain kind of regulation, as I just mentioned, it will not proceed smoothly as a whole. I will leave it to you how to reflect this point in the paper, but from the perspective of the progress of the entire digitalization, I think it may be better if you consider it a little, so I will comment.

Deputy Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. . Next, Mr. Masushima, what do you think?

Masujima Member: Thank you very much, In this way of thinking about PHASE2, when we were originally working in various fields such as plants, we should have been thinking like that, but as Professor Annen said earlier, I think the essence is that we have to change our approach here. I feel that I don't know well how to express the fact that it is not about reducing the number of items or sending the results over the Internet. I wonder if this technology neutralization is saying such a thing, but there is a possibility that the idea of using this kind of technology will be trivialized by the idea that other technologies are fine. What we want PHASE2 to do now is to encourage people to think about innovative things using digital technology. How will each ministry understand this? I feel that the current situation is that if we try to make what we are doing into technology when we deploy it to each ministry, it will come back as if it is impossible. I think it is important how we communicate here, and how we communicate, and it seems a little difficult to think about whether the way we write PHASE2 properly expresses what we are thinking now.

Deputy Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. . It is a difficult issue. May I take it that this is the way to go this time? However, as Mr. Masushima pointed out recently, it will not lead to major changes unless the concept of inspection and inspection is reviewed, so this review proposal includes such a mind. While having such an image, it is quite difficult to express that mind in language at the present time, so how about summarizing it by thinking in the direction of replacing it with more sophisticated words later?

Masujima Member: Thank you very much, , if we go ahead with this as it is, I think we will probably see exactly this, and we will talk about doing this, and we have tried to change the number of items from 15 to 12, or we have tried to online the last item to be sent. I don't mean to say that I don't appreciate it in the sense that you are doing it and moving forward, but in the end, probably, the expression "bureaucrat" is not very good, but judging from the mechanism of the Japanese education, it is like you are trying to do it. Rather than thinking about new ideas, I think we will definitely start checking whether we can find a place that can be hit by this with the current items. I feel that it is better to think about it a little, including what we should do when such things come back. What do you think?

Senior Vice-Minister for Digital I will try to devise the way of writing again.

Deputy Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. .

Senior Vice-Minister for Digital 's feelings, so I believe that we should go back to the original purpose of the inspection and think about it.

Deputy Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. I see. Then, for today, on the premise that we will not be able to catch up realistically even if we are too greedy in PHASE2, we will use at least the part in red in the review proposal as a premise and starting point for the time being. As you pointed out, I would like to ask you to devise a few more expressions or expressions of thought. Is that okay? Now, moving on to the hearing, I would like to ask Counselor Takamatsu, who is in charge of the hearing, to proceed with the proceedings as before. Thank you.

Secretariat (Takamatsu): Thank you very much. Thank you for your very important point about the review. We will discuss it again after considering how to express our feelings. Thank you.

Now, regarding the first point of the hearing, I would like to discuss the periodic inspection of fire defense equipment, etc., as the first point, and the periodic inspection of specific buildings, etc., as the second point.

At the beginning, I would like to have two explanations from you. First of all, regarding the periodic inspection of fire defense equipment, etc., I would like to have a seven minute explanation from Director of Fire Prevention Division Shiraishi of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications Fire Department. Thank you.

Director of Fire Prevention Division Shiraishi: This is the . I'm Director of Fire Prevention Division of Fire and Disaster Management Agency Shiraishi. It's about the periodic inspection of fire defense equipment. Please turn over one page, and first of all, the name of the law and so on. On pages 1 to 3, we have an excerpt from the article on the periodic inspection of fire defense equipment. On page 1, Article 17-3-3 of the Fire Service Act provides for periodic inspection. As you can see on page 2, Article 31-6 of the Regulation for Enforcement of the Fire Service Law and the Fire and Disaster Management Agency's notification on page 3 specify the period of periodic inspection to be six months or one year.

The purpose and background of the request for periodic inspection can be found here. Article 17 of the Fire Service Act requires the installation of fire defense equipment such as fire extinguishers and automatic fire alarm systems depending on the use, scale, and other conditions of the building. Since these equipment are used only after a fire has occurred, it is necessary to perform sufficient daily management regardless of when a fire occurs. Therefore, Article 17-3-3 of the Fire Service Act requires periodic inspection.

In addition, although it is written in dotted parentheses, as shown in the accident case of the fire extinguisher, if the inspection is insufficient, the fire extinguisher is damaged, and there are reports of cases in which the fire extinguisher is thrown up and hit the face and injured.

In addition, in the background, in response to the fires at department stores that occurred continuously in the 1965 s, etc., in order to ensure the thorough maintenance and management of fire defense equipment, etc., such an inspection report system was introduced. In addition, in 2003, in addition to the conventional specifications, we tried to introduce performance regulations on technical standards. It was decided that special fire defense equipment certified by the Minister for Internal Affairs and Communications can be installed in place of normal fire defense equipment as having equivalent or higher performance. As such a type, a type of special fire defense equipment, etc. was added to the periodic inspection report.

Please see page 5. It shows an image of a periodic inspection. After conducting an inspection as shown in 1, it is required to report the results of the periodic inspection to the fire department as shown in 2.

On page 6, we show the person who is obliged to inspect, the person who implements the inspection, and the period of inspection. The person who is obliged to inspect is a property under fire prevention measures, that is, a person related to the building, and the inspection may be conducted by the person himself or herself, but there are cases in which the person must have fire defense equipment or a fire protection equipment inspector inspect it. As I explained earlier, the period of inspection is determined based on Article 31-6 of the Regulation for Enforcement of the Fire Service Law, and the period for normal fire defense equipment is determined by the Commissioner of the Fire and Disaster Management Agency within one year, and the period for special fire defense equipment, etc. is determined in the maintenance plan.

Examples of specific inspection items are shown on page 7. For example, in the case of a fire extinguisher, we will check the location where it is installed and the outer shape of the container. In addition, in the case of an automatic fire alarm system, we will check the alarm status of the detector, the outer shape of the transmitter for ringing the bell, the lighting status of the emergency lamp, and so on. In the case of a comprehensive inspection, we will check the sensitivity of the detector and whether the sound device is sounding normally.

On page 8, we have heard about remote monitoring and continuous monitoring as digital principles are applied this time. In the case of this automatic fire alarm system, as shown in the picture on page 8, there is a automatic test function, and by confirming that no abnormalities are recorded in the recording device, it is still possible to exempt from inspection items such as functional tests of sensors in equipment inspections and sensitivity tests of sensors in comprehensive inspections. Based on this idea of automatic test function, we believe that there is a possibility that we will partially exempt from inspection items when more advanced monitoring technologies are developed.

On page 9, the current PHASE is applied. First, the current PHASE of the inspection of fire defense equipment, etc. is 1-1. This is because the inspection standard and periodic inspection of fire defense equipment, etc. are regulated by the Fire law Office, and the extension of the inspection period by alternative means is not regulated at present.

Next, the PHASE of inspection for special fire defense equipment, etc. is 2. This is because the parties concerned with the property under fire prevention measures and the parties concerned with buildings, etc. can specify the inspection standard and inspection period in the special fire defense equipment installation and maintenance plan that they themselves specify.

Next, on page 10, I would like to discuss the issues for advancing PHASE. Regarding the technology neutrality of regulation, which defines the inspection method for each device and inspection item for new technologies, etc., the abolition or consolidation of inspection items, and the extension of the inspection cycle, I believe that there are parts in Issue where it is technically difficult to confirm the appearance of 1. On the other hand, as for 2, which is the operation of equipment and operations, as I introduced the automatic test function earlier, I believe that there is a possibility that the inspection items will be exempted by upgrading the functions.

As a response to Issue, at the bottom, for each inspection item such as fire defense equipment, we would like to respond to those that can be expected to have the same inspection effect with digital technology and can be substituted.

To this end, we will investigate the needs and seeds of digital technologies that can be expected to have the same inspection effect, and confirm whether or not the technologies identified based on the results of the investigation can be substituted.

Next, on page 11, Issue 2, I would like to discuss a business operator certification system that allows the extension of periodic inspections and exemption from third party inspections. Fire defense equipment and special fire defense equipment are used for the first time in the event of a fire, and it is required to be able to effectively perform their functions at any time. Therefore, necessary inspections are required. On the other hand, unlike plant industrial facilities where a business operator certification system has been introduced, there are very many types of fire prevention objects and buildings where fire defense equipment is maintained. I believe that it is important to consider what kind of method is good for periodic inspections of fire defense equipment.

In this regard, even under the current system, the person concerned with the property under fire prevention measures may install special fire defense equipment, etc., certified by the Minister for Internal Affairs and Communications as having equivalent or higher performance in place of fire defense equipment. In this case, the person concerned with the property under fire prevention measures may determine the inspection standard and inspection period of the equipment by himself / herself in the equipment installation and maintenance plan.

Based on the above, we believe that if the development of special fire defense equipment, etc. that can ensure the same or better inspection effect through the use of digital technology is made, we can proceed with efforts equivalent to PHASE2 by certifying it as equipment, etc.

Next, Point 3 is about the online and systematic reporting of periodic inspections. Until now, various procedures for each Fire Defense Headquarters, such as inspections of fire defense equipment, etc., have been mainly carried out in writing, but it has been a problem how to respond to the human and financial burden of building a system for accepting online application at the Fire Defense Headquarters. With regard to this, in December 2021, with the cooperation of Digital Agency, we preset a Mynaportal form with 19 procedures and 10 forms, including fire inspection, in the online application Perfect Service. We have compiled an introduction manual on the introduction of online application using this, and are providing technical advice to the Fire Defense Headquarters.

We are currently making active efforts to each fire department so that we can start accepting online application by the end of FY 2022 through such an introduction manual and introduction support by advisors.

Finally, on page 12, we are aiming for PHASE2. The expected effects of advancing to PHASE2 are the efficiency of inspection work and the reduction of inspection costs. In addition, the introduction of IoT technology will improve the functions of fire defense equipment and the maintenance and management technology. We believe that this will be possible, so we will actively work toward PHASE2. That's all.

Secretariat (Takamatsu): . Next, Mr. Fukai, Director of the Architecture Guidance Division, Housing Bureau, Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism, will explain about the periodic investigation and inspection of specified buildings.

Director of the Fukai Building Guidance Division: With regard to the . Following on from last week, I would like to ask for your continued support. This time, I would like to talk about periodic surveys and inspections related to buildings

The first part contains the basic regulations, etc., but it is the Building Standards Act, a law to ensure safety, and based on this, periodic inspection of buildings or building equipment, etc. is required.

As I just mentioned, when buildings are completed, compliance is ensured through completion inspections, etc., as I explained the other day. However, if subsequent management is not performed properly, various safety devices and safety measures used to prevent fires and accidents may not work properly. Therefore, the purpose of the periodic inspection is to properly check this. As described in the second paragraph, if there are fires or accidents in buildings and elevators used by an unspecified number of people, users may die. Therefore, the purpose of the periodic inspection is to check that maintenance and management are performed properly. Therefore, the purpose of the periodic inspection is to ensure that maintenance and management are performed properly. Therefore, the purpose of the periodic inspection is to ensure that maintenance and management are performed properly. Therefore, the purpose of the periodic inspection is to ensure that maintenance and management are performed properly. Therefore, the purpose of the periodic inspection is to ensure that maintenance and management are performed properly. Therefore, the purpose of the periodic inspection is to ensure that maintenance and management are performed properly. Therefore, the purpose of the periodic inspection is to ensure that maintenance and management are performed properly. Therefore, the purpose of the periodic inspection is to ensure that maintenance and management are performed properly. Therefore, the purpose of the periodic inspection is to ensure that maintenance and management are performed properly. Therefore, the purpose of the periodic inspection is to ensure that maintenance and management are performed properly. Therefore, the purpose of the periodic inspection is to ensure that maintenance and management are performed regulation

On page 5, a similar flow is shown the other day. In this periodic inspection, after the completion inspection described the other day is completed and the building is actually used, there are cases in which deterioration, damage, or modification by the owner occurs. Therefore, periodic inspections are conducted by qualified personnel to determine whether there are any such cases and whether the building is properly maintained and managed.

As for the background, the system was originally established in 1959, but it has a history of being systematically strengthened in response to subsequent fires and accidents.

In terms of the system, as shown on page 8, owners and managers commission qualified persons with skills to periodically inspect the condition of various buildings and equipment to determine whether various parts are in good condition, as shown in the table below. Depending on the object, hundreds of thousands of inspections are conducted per year for buildings with various uses and various types of equipment.

Page 11 is a summary of the explanation so far. (1) is omitted. As shown in (2), there are many parts designated by public organizations and the Specified Administrative Office. I will explain a little about preceding cases of (3) later.

The current PHASE is organized as PHASE1.

On page 13, I would like to introduce some of the efforts we are making. One is that an outer wall fell and hit a passerby, or a few years ago, an exterior material fell and killed a passerby. Originally, we asked for manual sounding using a testing hammer, but it is said that it is quite difficult because we have to set up a scaffold. Recently, there has been a demand for more rational inspection by skipping a drones. Therefore, we have decided to position in the notification of inspection methods that it is possible to inspect the degradation status of the outer wall by loading an infrared device on the drones.

On the other hand, although there have been successful cases like this, we are requesting that the rope and wire that hang the elevator basket be periodically inspected for damage and rust. It was a style that could be replaced by a non-contact type continuous sensor, but when we actually demonstrated how accurately we could check this, the actual rope was not clean, so it was quite dirty with dust and oil, and it was quite difficult to properly detect wire breakage with a non-contact type. We will consider what to do about this in the future when the technical development is properly made.

On page 14, as I mentioned earlier, we are planning to introduce a method in which an infrared device is loaded in a drones for inspection. In order to conduct proper inspection, there are certain prerequisites, etc., so we are also preparing to organize such information through demonstration and provide it to actual inspectors.

Also, I am sorting out the points of contention. One is from the perspective of the introduction of new technologies. I have just introduced drones, and the picture below shows a conventional inspection. There are sensors with a automatic test function, and it is possible to inspect them using new technologies. I hope that we will continue to actively work on this.

Next, I received an argument from the Secretariat about how to think about a business operator certification system. In the case of the Building Standards Act, inspections are conducted on a building-by-building basis, and the equipment installed in each building, the shape of the part, and the like are completely different. The state of deterioration and the repair cycle of each part and equipment are also originally different.

On the other hand, as I mentioned earlier, there are cases in which the failure to conduct regular inspections is one of the factors behind the expansion of damage. In addition, there have recently been cases in which violations of the law Act have been committed in as many as tens of thousands of buildings, not necessarily because they are major manufacturers. Therefore, I believe that targeting business operators means that the Issue Act is large.

Since the inspection cycle is specified by the Specified Administrative Office in some cases, there are actually cases where the inspection is requested in a relatively short cycle such as half a year or one year. In the future, we are considering asking about the operation status of the Specified Administrative Office and investigating the actual condition of the inspection site, etc., and we would like to consider whether we can provide information that will be helpful to the Specified Administrative Office, including what kind of ingenuity can be taken.

Finally, regarding online reporting, since this is a reporting system, we are finally required to report on this periodic report, but in the past, we were required to affix a seal due to the format, so it was quite difficult in reality. However, since there is a trend to abolish the seal and there is also the whole DX, we will actively work on online reporting last year, and we have notified public organizations that it will be successful if we pay attention to these points. We have just started to introduce online reporting, and we will continue to work on expanding online reporting in consultation with the Specified Administrative Office and others.

Finally, in terms of the overall summary, we would like to proceed with the introduction of new technologies, etc. if they can be properly inspected after validation them individually, but I think it is a little difficult to consider them on a per-operator basis even from a safety perspective. On the other hand, we would like to continue to advance the introduction of online technologies, and we hope that such rationalization will lead to the efficiency of overall inspections.

Secretariat (Takamatsu): . We would like to have a Q & A session on the two cases. If you have any opinions or questions, please do so. Mr. Uenoyama, please.

Member Uenoyama: I'm Uenoyama . I'm making a lot of comments from a technical perspective. Thank you for your presentation. I think it's good that a lot of things are starting to progress.

Looking at it from a flat perspective, I think from a technical perspective, various government agencies are involved in various matters such as automation of inspections, but in terms of whether or not inspections of fire defense equipment and specific buildings can be technically automated, I honestly think that there are relatively many areas where people need to go last. It will take quite a long time to replace all the matters such as whether or not it actually moves at a high temperature with robotics. Therefore, I think that this is a field in which there are many such matters, and this will be the starting point for the first discussion.

However, I would like to comment on some perspectives that I think it would be better to consider in the medium term from this perspective. The first is that even if we proceed to PHASE2 and 3, both digital technology and inspectors will be used in combination, so how to make the form of cooperation between inspectors and digital technology, which is a little abstract, is an especially important field.

I would like to conclude by sharing a few ideas about what kind of cooperation is possible. First of all, cooperation 1 is a way of thinking that people who conduct inspections nationwide themselves should be digitally armed. For example, to put it simply, if you input the results of inspections on your smartphone, all the data will be collected by fire departments. The idea of making human inspections easier and more streamlined is to be digitally armed. As cooperation 2, which is a little different, people who conduct inspections nationwide input various data, and when that data is collected and managed well, it becomes collective intelligence. In fact, there are many points to be pointed out, or there are dangers in these parts, and data is collected and analyzed, and people can check this, so I think there is a way of cooperation in which people who conduct inspections themselves are digitally armed or their quality is improved.

So, although it is a mid-term project, in the context of not being able to automate everything, from the perspective of positively advancing digitalization, I think that if we can proceed with a sense of direction in which people and software work together with such a sense of vision, the discussion will be very positive.

I would like to ask one last question. How are the results of the inspection currently stored in data? Are the data entered on the spot? To be specific, how is the data managed and stored? Is it still in paper form?

Secretariat (Takamatsu): . What do you think of the Fire and Disaster Management Agency?

Director of Fire Prevention Division Shiraishi: This is the Fire and Disaster Management Agency. Thank you for your very important point. Regarding the status of data input that you asked about, at present, there is no situation in which data is input digitally and managed as data. I think it depends on the business operator who inspects, but I think the situation so far is that most of the data is held as paper-based data and reported to the Fire Defense Headquarters in that state.

As you pointed out, sharing such data will lead to the accumulation of data on the reliability of the equipment we are inspecting in the future. I believe that this will make it possible to conduct more streamlined inspections, so I think it is very important.

However, I would like to repeat the last question, but I believe that it is still insufficient in terms of data utilization, so I would like to further promote digitalization.

Secretariat (Takamatsu): . What do you think, MLIT?

Director of the Fukai Building Guidance Division: With regard to the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism. As for the input method, it is the same situation as the Fire and Disaster Management Agency, and I have heard that most of the actual actions are currently performed on a paper basis. As for the voice, for example, there is a talk that if I could input while holding a tablet, I would like to learn such a thing.

The number of cases is large, so I think the way to summarize them is a bit of a big Issue at present. On the other hand, in terms of reflecting on-site events in measures and systems, we have a separate mechanism to constantly collect information from administrative agencies close to the site, such as information on various malfunctions and close calls, as well as information on hardware accidents. In this way, we have a system to properly investigate the causes of some objects that may be dangerous even if they are not human beings. In this context, I would like to continue to work on taking measures that should be taken firmly and determining that those that seem to be okay are okay.

Secretariat (Takamatsu): . Next, Mr. Inadani, please.

Member Inadani: Thank you very much, Thank you very much for the very substantial materials.

I would like to ask one question that concerns me a little about the relationship between Mr. Uenoyama's talk and the opening statement, and I would like to make some comments. First of all, I would like to ask from what perspective the period of periodic inspection is specified. From the perspective of clarifying regulation's goals and objectives, I think it is quite an essential problem why such inspection is mandatory during this period. In addition, as Mr. Uenoyama explained earlier, if data is collected to a certain extent, it will be possible to define the state that we want to realize based on data rather than a set period of time. In other words, when we see the target that we want to control, we will be able to redefine the purpose, and I think there is a possibility that we will gradually move away from the rigid method of periodic inspection. From this perspective, it is a straightforward question to what purpose and on what criteria the period of periodic inspection has been made. Therefore, I would like to ask you this point.

The second point is a comment. In a talk by the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism, it was said that it is difficult to do it on a discretionary basis for business operators. This has been discussed in agile governance, but I thought that it is a set with the problem that it is difficult to do it without thinking together about a system that gives incentives to business operators to do it properly when business operators try to be creative by themselves.

However, this issue is quite difficult, and in the hearings so far, there have been stories that if you fail a little, you will be punished immediately and you are afraid to do it. Some people on one side don't seem to care at all, and some people on the other side are very worried. Perhaps the current method of incentives is not working well, so I thought again that it is necessary to discuss this from the perspective of moving PHASE upward.

Secretariat (Takamatsu): Fire Department?

Director of Fire Prevention Division Shiraishi: This is the Fire and Disaster Management Agency. Regarding the inspection period, fire defense equipment is a very special equipment that is installed and it is not known when it will be actually used. It is fine if it is always used and its status can be always seen, but the automatic fire alarm system is also characterized by being an equipment that is not usually paid attention to because it operates by detecting smoke and heat for the first time in a fire.

As a result, regarding the period of inspection, the basic idea is to maintain the function of a product by checking its appearance and other minor items at least once every six months and checking its function once a year. This has been the case since the introduction of this system.

By the way, if you look at the guidelines for such equipment in various foreign countries, for example, the NFPA and the National Fire Protection Association, some of them say that it should be checked in a shorter time, but in a sense, within a reasonable range, I think that six months or one year has been introduced for normal equipment in the fire department.

Secretariat (Takamatsu): , what do you think?

Director of the Fukai Building Guidance Division: With regard to the cycle, the original Building Standards Law has the nature that the regulation is the minimum. The burden of inspection on the site, of course, deterioration, etc., always progresses, so from the perspective of the inspector, the shorter the period, the better, but I understand that the period is set within a reasonable range.

Voluntary inspections, which are actually conducted, and more light maintenance inspections, for example, are conducted relatively frequently in elevators, and in consideration of such situations, basically one year, and the exterior wall inspection I mentioned earlier is quite large-scale, so in some cases, a cycle of three years is set.

You also pointed out incentives for business operators, which are slightly different from what business operators are originally engaged in, so I think it is a big Issue to think about something from such a perspective.

As the Fire and Disaster Management Agency has said, elevators are not necessarily operated on a regular basis. For example, they are devices that stop when an elevator is in a dangerous state due to some problem. Most of them are operated when the time comes. So, while such parts are thoroughly inspected, it is also beneficial for the owner. We must properly publicize this to those who are in charge of various things and to the owners. I have heard what you just pointed out.

Member Inadani: Thank you very much, If the purpose is clarified well, it may be that there is an incentive for business operators, but I understand that your response is that there is a possibility that we can gradually change to the direction using reasonable data. Thank you very much.

Secretariat (Takamatsu): . If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact the secretariat.

In addition, based on the opinions received from the members, we may ask for additional consideration, so we ask for the cooperation of each ministry.

Let's finish the first part. Thank you very much to everyone from the Fire and Disaster Management Agency and the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism. This is the second part of the hearing. It is a simple inspection of the Fluorocarbons Emission Control Law.

Then, Mr. Tsutomu Tamura, Director of the Ozone Layer Protection Promotion Office, Manufacturing Industry Bureau, Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, and Mr. Toyozumi, Director of the CFC Measures Office, Global Warming Measures Division, Global Environmental Bureau, Ministry of the Environment

Director Toyozumi: I am Toyozumi, Director of the CFC Measures Office, Global Environmental Bureau, Ministry of the Environment of . Today, I would like to explain about the simple inspection of equipment by equipment managers as specified in the Act on the Rational Use and Proper Management of Fluorocarbons, commonly known as the Fluorocarbon Emission Control Act. Later, the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry will give a specific explanation. Since the system is under the joint supervision of the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry and the Ministry of the Environment, the Ministry of the Environment will first explain the outline of the system, purpose, etc. of the Fluorocarbon Emission Control Act.

In order to protect the ozone layer and prevent global warming, this Law prescribes measures to control the emission into the atmosphere of chlorofluorocarbons, which are used as refrigerants in commercial refrigeration and air-conditioning equipment, because they cause depletion of the ozone layer and global warming.

Specifically, as shown in the figure below, emissions control measures covering the entire life cycle of fluorocarbons are specified, including the reduction of domestic shipments of fluorocarbons, appropriate management of commercial refrigeration and air-conditioning equipment during use, and the obligation to recover fluorocarbons at the time of disposal.

It is said that about 70% of the total emissions of fluorocarbons from commercial refrigeration and air-conditioning equipment are generated during use. For example, it is said that the emissions are caused by pipe connections. Measures against refrigerants during use are an extremely important Issue.

Therefore, the CFC Emission Control Law was revised in 2013, and managers of commercial refrigeration and air-conditioning equipment are required to inspect and manage the equipment.

It is specified in the public notice as a measure to be taken by the manager of commercial refrigeration and air-conditioning equipment, and this is called the manager's judgment criteria. Specifically, as shown in the figure below, it is required to install the equipment in an appropriate location, inspect the equipment, take measures in the event of leakage discovery, and record and store the history of inspection, etc.

Under the CFC Emission Control Act, prefectural governments have the authority to provide guidance to managers of commercial refrigeration and air-conditioning equipment, and their guidance, advice, etc. are to be provided in consideration of these criteria. In particular, managers with large equipment may be given recommendations or orders if their management is significantly insufficient in light of these criteria. I will now hand the baton to the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry.

Director Tamura: Thank you for your question. As you said, one of the original requests from regulatory reform was that we already have a machine like this, so we could use a machine like this as a substitute for the simplified inspection. We also studied that and asked if there is such a system. Then, the industry has created guidelines on how many requirements must be met for the system to be substituted for the simplified inspection, and we have exchanged opinions and examined various matters based on the guidelines. Finally, we have reflected the guidelines in our public notice, and we are now making final arrangements in the direction that the substitute can be made in this form. In that sense, there is a product already sold in the market, and we have responded based on the request from the people of private sector that we would like to use this as a substitute for the simplified inspection. In this sense, we have responded based on the request from the people of private sector that we would like to use this as a substitute for the simplified inspection. : Thank you very much. I am Tamura, Director of the Ozone Layer Protection Promotion Office, Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry. I will explain the contents of the simple inspection and the digitalization. First of all, regarding the simple inspection, as explained by the Ministry of the Environment earlier, it is mandatory for all commercial refrigeration and air conditioning equipment. It is required to be conducted by the user of the equipment once every three months. This is a Type 2 voluntary inspection, and we believe that it falls under PHASE 1 because the frequency of inspection is specified in the notification.

In terms of specific inspection items, we are supposed to check the outdoor unit of the refrigeration and air-conditioning equipment at the visual inspection for abnormal noise, abnormal vibration, external damage, corrosion, rust, and oil oozing.

The simplified inspection is to confirm whether or not there is a possibility of leakage of refrigerant, which is chlorofluorocarbon. Currently, refrigeration and air-conditioning equipment manufacturers are selling systems that can detect leakage by collecting various data. We call these systems continuous monitoring systems. If we introduce such systems, we can replace the simplified inspection with them. In other words, we do not need to conduct the simplified inspection, which is supposed to be conducted once every three months. We have just started to revise the notification to that effect.

If the revision of this notification is realized, users of equipment with a continuous monitoring system will not be subject to periodic self-inspection. We believe that this will be PHASE3.

However, regarding the continuous monitoring system, it is necessary to ensure a certain level of performance, including the accuracy to detect CFC leakage. Therefore, in May last year, an industry organization of refrigeration and air-conditioning equipment formulated guidelines summarizing the requirements to be provided as a detection system. We have used this as a basis for our consideration, and we have been considering it with refrigeration and air-conditioning equipment manufacturers who sell continuous monitoring systems. We are working on the policy that continuous monitoring systems that meet the requirements shown on this slide will be subject to this notification. That is all from my explanation.

Secretariat (Takamatsu): . If you have any comments or questions, please let us know. Mr. Ochiai, please.

Ochiai Member: Thank you for your explanation. It overlaps with the part you explained, and I would like to ask you a question because I think the way you reviewed will be helpful in other cases in the future.

In the original inspection, for example, in the part where rust and changes to the appearance of the visual inspection were observed by human hands, in the part where it was written in the image of a simple inspection, it seems that the original problem was due to the leakage of gases such as CFCs. If the leakage of gases itself is measured, the point where rust and the like appear on the outer surface is a secondary event, and was it reviewed from the viewpoint that the necessary situation can be sufficiently grasped?

Director Tamura: Thank you for your question. As you said, one of the original requests from regulatory reform was that we already have a machine like this, so we could use a machine like this as a substitute for the simplified inspection. We also studied that and asked if there is such a system. Then, the industry has created guidelines on how many requirements must be met for the system to be substituted for the simplified inspection, and we have exchanged opinions and examined various matters based on the guidelines. Finally, we have reflected the guidelines in our public notice, and we are now making final arrangements in the direction that the substitute can be made in this form. In that sense, there is a product already sold in the market, and we have responded based on the request from the people of private sector that we would like to use this as a substitute for the simplified inspection. In this sense, we have responded based on the request from the people of private sector that we would like to use this as a substitute for the simplified inspection. Originally, this simplified inspection was intended to detect slow leaks of CFCs, particularly from pinholes in the pipe, which we call slow leaks. Therefore, for example, if there is frost in the pipe, the refrigerant CFC may be leaking. If such a thing is found, the inspection is intended to call a serviceman to take a look at it. However, rather than detecting CFC leakage with a sensor, for example, a new digital system now is used. For example, when CFCs leak, a compressor compresses the refrigerant CFC for heat exchange. The pressure changes a little, or the temperature changes a little between when the CFCs go out and when they come in. Therefore, the system measures the pressure and temperature, and makes an announcement when something is a little strange compared with normal conditions. visual inspection

Because CFCs are colorless, transparent, and odorless, we do not know if they are leaking. However, we have introduced this continuous monitoring system because it is possible to determine whether CFCs are leaking in the same way as a person can determine whether CFCs are leaking based on, for example, oil or frost, and a machine can determine whether CFCs are leaking by collecting data on pressure changes and temperature changes.

Ochiai Member: I see. Since we cannot see the CFC itself, I think we were looking at it as a different rust or frost. In addition, in this case, we understood that we did not directly measure where the CFC was leaking, but assumed that there was a certain pressure when the gas was accumulated. And since the temperature was measured because the temperature should change when pressure is applied, we understood that the arrangement was made so that the gas could be substituted by measuring the state of the place where the gas should be stored without detecting the gas leaking directly. I thought it was an advanced case that would be very helpful in relations with other ministries and agencies. Thank you very much.

Secretariat (Takamatsu): , please.

Masujima Member: Thank you very much, Thank you for your explanation. There seem to be few examples where we have been able to reach this point, so I thought it would be very helpful, so I asked you. When I asked you a little bit earlier about the possibility of doing it this way, was there a story that the business operator might not be able to do it this way, and then this story came out from there?

I have a slight feeling that it may be difficult to come up with good innovative proposals even if we try to consider and complete the rules in the process of inspections by each authority. Could you please tell us whether there is a cycle in which a fairly good idea comes up in good engagement with private sector and is flexibly adopted?

Director Tamura: Thank you for your question. As you said, one of the original requests from regulatory reform was that we already have a machine like this, so we could use a machine like this as a substitute for the simplified inspection. We also studied that and asked if there is such a system. Then, the industry has created guidelines on how many requirements must be met for the system to be substituted for the simplified inspection, and we have exchanged opinions and examined various matters based on the guidelines. Finally, we have reflected the guidelines in our public notice, and we are now making final arrangements in the direction that the substitute can be made in this form. In that sense, there is a product already sold in the market, and we have responded based on the request from the people of private sector that we would like to use this as a substitute for the simplified inspection. In this sense, we have responded based on the request from the people of private sector that we would like to use this as a substitute for the simplified inspection.

Masujima Member: Thank you very much, . I think it is a very useful example. If we could have the idea of incorporating a mechanism that would further induce innovation in private sector's inspection into the planning of this inspection system in the first place, it would be a new business. Also, I thought that everyone would be able to make the inspection easier and actually safer, or get into the cycle of being able to do more things after obtaining data. So, I would like to make a proposal to the Secretariat later, especially a proposal on the approach to this inspection. In that case, it was a very useful example. Thank you very much.

Secretariat (Takamatsu): Thank you very much. Now, I would like to conclude the second part. Thank you very much to everyone from the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry and the Ministry of the Environment. The third point of the hearing is about the periodic inspection of water supply and simplified water supply.

Then, I would like to have a 10-minute explanation from Mr. Nagura, Chief of the Water Supply Division of the Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare Pharmaceutical and Environmental Health Bureau. Thank you.

Nagura, Director of the Water Works Division: We have two projects, so I would like to explain them in order.

What you are looking at now is a periodic water quality inspection based on the provisions of Article 20 of the Water Supply Act. It means that water suppliers are required to conduct periodic water quality inspections based on the Water Supply Act. Water suppliers are, for example, the city's Waterworks Bureau or something like that. There are two main types, one is to conduct an inspection more than once a day and the other is to inspect the 51 water quality standard items.

The water quality standard items are further divided into those that are inspected at least once a month and those that are inspected at least once every three months. The notification shows inspection methods with such measurement accuracy that the measurement accuracy is up to one tenth of the water quality standard value.

2. This is to confirm the safety of tap water. Samples are collected at the tap, which is the end of the line, and tested. The tap is the water from the faucet.

When the Water Supply Law was enacted, there were 28 items, but now there are 51 items.

In fact, there are about 4,600 water suppliers, but they inspect the water quality. It can be omitted depending on the product. Basically, things that are unlikely to be produced in this water can be omitted. Things that cannot be omitted are set every day, once a month, and once every three months.

So far, we have been considering this based on regulation mitigation and e-Japan Strategy, and if automatic inspection methods can be adopted, we will actively adopt them. We have revised the Ministerial Ordinance to add and position continuous automatic measurement devices for pH, color, and turbidity, for example, and have also revised the Ministerial Ordinance to specify relaxation measures for the frequency of inspection. Basically, we are reviewing the Notice as needed according to the latest knowledge, scientific knowledge, and analytical technology. However, since the inspection site is a faucet and a water tap, the continuous automatic measurement device is also subject to space and power supply.

In terms of the current PHASE, inspections should be conducted once a month, and inspections for color, turbidity, and residual effects of disinfection should be conducted at least once a day. In addition, regarding the nine items of the Water Quality Standards, such as general bacteria, E. coli, chloride ions, and TOC, the seven items excluding general bacteria and E. coli can be relaxed to an inspection frequency of at least once every three months if they are continuously measured.

However, it is only pH, chromaticity, and turbidity that are actually specified in the notification of inspection methods using continuous automatic measurement devices, and I believe that some of these items are in the status of PHASE2.

Based on future technological developments, we will conduct a validation for continuous automatic measurement devices, and if we find them to be appropriate, we will add them to the notification of inspection methods. At the same time, we would like to expand the application of relaxation for inspected products by adding relaxation measures and provisions to the Ministerial Ordinance. That's all for the first one.

I would like to ask another question. It is a periodic inspection of a simple dedicated water supply system based on the provisions of Article 34-2 of the Water Supply Act. A simple dedicated water supply system is, for example, a building or other building that receives water at the first place, stores it once in a tank at a high place, and sends water from there to each room. It is called a simple dedicated water supply system. At such a place, it is required to be managed hygienically based on management standards, including annual cleaning. It is mandatory to undergo an inspection at least once a year on the management status.

As for the inspection items, we conduct inspections on the status of management, water quality, and the organization of documents.

With regard to the background of regulation, water storage cisterns were originally left to be managed by municipalities. Urbanization has increased the number of water storage cisterns and caused various problems. Water supplies over a certain scale are subject to regulation as simplified water supplies. As stated on the right, there are about 207,000 simplified water supplies in Japan, and those with an effective volume of more than 10 cubic meters are designated as simplified water supplies.

With regard to the purpose and systems of regulation, since there is no water purification treatment facility or disinfection equipment in the simplified water supply system, if there is an abnormality, there is a risk of health damage to the direct users. Therefore, it is assumed that the water will be supplied in compliance with the water quality standards. Instead of requiring periodic water quality inspections, the water will be managed hygienically in accordance with the management standards, and the sanitary management of the water storage tank facility will be inspected by a third party at least once a year.

The rate of regular inspections is currently a little less than 80%, and some management deficiencies have been pointed out in about 20% of the inspections, so both the rate of inspections and the management level need to be improved.

Regarding the current PHASE, there are no measures to ease the frequency of inspections. It is a situation that falls under PHASE1, and I think there are Issue that have high hurdles in terms of cost, such as constant monitoring. In the future, we will investigate management cases and hear from experts, and we would like to consider easing the frequency of inspections with a target of PHASE3. Even if it costs money, we will consider whether it can be introduced in places that are willing to improve water safety. That is all for water supply.

Secretariat (Takamatsu): Thank you very much. If you have any comments or questions, please let us know.

Mr. Ochiai, please.

Ochiai Member: are both on the same theme and each Issue is different. In particular, I heard that Article 20 was originally advanced positively by incorporating scientific knowledge. Among the six PHASE items that you explained, the only ones for which the method using a continuous automatic measurement device is specified in the Notification are pH, chromaticity, and turbidity. In relation to this, there are seven items that can be eased at least once every three months, and only three items are written in the Notification. How are these arranged?

Secretariat (Takamatsu): , Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare, what do you think?

Nagura, Director of the Water Works Division: In terms of accuracy, it is possible to analyze with an accuracy of one tenth of the standard value. Although such a method is specified in the notification, we examined whether the continuous automatic measurement device also has such accuracy, and those three were judged to be technically appropriate.

Ochiai Member: I see. In that case, I believe that the accuracy of other measures is not that high. Is it your judgment that it is possible to ease the measures once every three months or more because there is no accuracy, but there is at least some measures being taken?

Nagura, Director of the Water Works Division: : There are purposes that can be done more than once a month and more than once every three months. If it is done once a month, it will not change unless it is measured quite frequently. However, if it is done once every three months, it will be done four times a year, and what is found will change due to changes in the water quality of the water source. Therefore, considering seasonal changes, it is determined that there are purposes that can be done more than once every three months.

Ochiai Member: I see. Among these, it is true that only pH, chromaticity, and turbidity have been confirmed as accuracy, but other items are also measured continuously, such as chloride ions, TOC, pH, and flavor. In this regard, it is written in the document that one month can be eased to three months, so I think that some one month items are eased, but is it eased like that?

Nagura, Director of the Water Works Division: According to the information we have at this point, for example, there are not very suitable machines or technologies, but since we have been given the opportunity to think about this, we will also investigate the existence of such technologies, consider the content, and consider adding what will be added to the regulations.

Ochiai Member: . I understand that there is a possibility that this part can be changed to one every three months as a Issue that can be considered in the future. If possible, rather than a uniform restriction in the public notice, if a certain system is established and something that meets it emerges, it will be done as it is, and when other fields are considered, for example, it will be written that it has been confirmed that such a thing has already been satisfied. In addition, regarding the accuracy of continuous measurement and the accuracy of periodic inspection, I think that it is possible that the accuracy of continuous measurement will be better if continuous measurement is performed continuously than fixed-point observation. I think that continuous measurement may be recommended as a target or a better thing than periodic inspection in some cases. I think this depends on the progress of technology, but if you think in that way, it may take a little longer than in front of you, but I think it is fine. What do you think?

Nagura, Director of the Water Works Division: I would like to think in that direction.

Ochiai Member: I see. Thank you very much.

Secretariat (Takamatsu): . Mr. Inadani, please.

Member Inadani: Thank you very much, . I don't know much about this field either, so it's really an amateur question. It may be a little related to what Dr. Ochiai just said, but for example, regarding the taste test, I thought I didn't know well whether there were any objective indicators in the past tests or from what perspective they were conducted. In short, when digital technology is introduced, I think there is a problem of whether or not it can be done, but it is quite dependent on personal sensitivity, but by utilizing AI and collecting data, visualization will be gradually made into quantitative digitalization, and I think there is an aspect that it will be closer to objective safety. I would like to ask if you have any thoughts on advancing quantification a little bit from such a perspective, particularly on how you are thinking about qualitative tests such as taste and how you will quantify them.

Nagura, Director of the Water Works Division: At the present time, we are conducting sensory tests under the rule that tastes and odors are not abnormal. For example, people are checking by smelling and drinking, but as you pointed out, for example, what are the components of taste and what are the components of odor? If it is physically possible to think that these are the components and that it would be sufficient to examine them, I think there is a possibility that machines and technologies that can examine them will be developed, so in the future, we will consider these points of view while conducting technical surveys.

Member Inadani: Thank you very much, .

Secretariat (Takamatsu): , please.

Ochiai Member: I would also like to ask about the simplified water supply system, but I heard that it has not been fully inspected in the first place. I think you explained that it would be good to leave it to a third party. However, I heard that the cost is quite Issue.

Regarding the cost, I thought there were millions of pieces of equipment. It is true that equipment that can analyze everything on the spot would be large-scale and expensive, but is there a possibility that the cost will be reduced if, for example, we consider a method in which only the components of water as a sample are measured at least on the spot, and the analysis is performed by a third party specialized company elsewhere? There were some parts where we did not know what kind of inspection equipment was assumed, so I would like to include your questions.

Nagura, Director of the Water Works Division: It is said that this inspection is currently being conducted by a third party. Since the inspection costs about 20000 yen, we would like to consider the equipment, including those with or without technology, in the future. However, I believe that it will be quite difficult to find one that can measure these continuously for 20000 yen immediately.

On the other hand, if there is a facility where we want to emphasize safety, we would like to conduct research and examination in the future, including the possibility that some people may be able to use such a machine even if it costs a little money.

Ochiai Member: I see. Thank you very much. I came here to conduct an investigation and review. I think it is the same as Dr. Inadani's earlier, but when it becomes clear what is being measured, at a minimum, each installer will be able to identify what should be installed in order to perform the inspection continuously. While considering the possibility of reducing the cost by minimizing it, we would like to receive suggestions from various people. If possible, it seems that taking it to the continuous inspection will improve the safety as a whole rather than the current situation in which it has not been sufficiently inspected, so I would like to ask for your cooperation.

Secretariat (Takamatsu): .

We would appreciate it if you could send any additional questions to the Secretariat.

In addition, based on the opinions received from the members today, we may ask for additional consideration. Therefore, we ask for the cooperation of each ministry and agency.

Now, I would like to conclude the third part. Thank you very much to everyone at the Pharmaceutical and Environmental Health Bureau. The fourth part is about regular measurements related to occupational health and safety. Now, Mr. Takakura, Director of the Occupational Health Division of the Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare Labour Standards Bureau, will explain. Thank you.

Takakura, Director of Industrial Health: Thank you, First, I would like to talk about the Industrial Safety and Health Act and work environment measurement. In the first place, the main purpose of the Industrial Safety and Health Act is to ensure the safety and health of workers in the workplace, such as the prevention of industrial accidents and the establishment of standards for hazard prevention, in combination with the Labor Standards Act. Article 3 also stipulates that the safety and health of workers in the workplace must be ensured. The Industrial Safety and Health Act imposes obligations on various business operators for that purpose.

Specifically, what the employer must do to maintain or promote the safety of workers is from (I) to (iii) below the center. (I) is working environment management to maintain and manage the working environment in a good condition. (ii) is to manage the work itself. (iii) is health management to understand the health conditions of workers and take necessary measures. This is called the three management of industrial health, and the three on the lower left are to be integrated to ensure the health of workers. Rather than each management existing independently, the health of workers is secured by the relationship between the three. Therefore, this working environment measurement is treated as basic information for working environment management.

Various periodic surveys and measurements related to occupational health and safety are specified, but there are No. 1, No. 2, and No. 3 issues related to this. Regarding the significance and performance approach of having periodic surveys and measurements conducted without confirmation of compliance with standards, it is important to keep exposure low in order to prevent health problems among workers. To that end, it is necessary to correctly understand the status of the harmful factors, but as a result, it is essential to evaluate the value and take subsequent measures, or to take measures in advance so that the harmful factors do not rise, and the measurement itself or recording it itself is not the purpose.

The data and subsequent evaluation and measures, as well as preventive measures in advance, are important matters to be discussed by the Health Committee, which includes related parties, industrial physicians and other specialized staff members.

Regarding the second point, the neutrality of continuous monitoring and measurements, since the Industrial Safety and Health Act specifies minimum measures, it is specified that such measurements should be made with a minimum of such performances, but regarding measurements such as digitalization or continuous measurement, since the conventional method specifies the minimum, we believe that it is possible to issue a notification so that such measurements can be selected and performed as long as they are equivalent or superior to the minimum.

Regarding the advisability of substituting the periodic investigation and measurement of No. 3 by data accumulation, etc., the results of the work environment measurement must be the same regardless of when, by whom, or where the measurement is performed from the viewpoints of accuracy, objectivity, and reproducibility. Therefore, the work environment measurement standards have been established, so if the accuracy is equal to or higher than that, it does not hinder such a method.

As for the measurement interval, it is specified that the measurement should be performed once every few months, so it is acceptable to perform the measurement at a higher frequency.

Therefore, regarding the measurement record, only necessary matters such as the date and time of measurement and the results are specified, so it is not prohibited to record this frequency or other matters.

From that perspective, we have taken up the regulations on temperature and humidity set forth in the Ordinance on Industrial Safety and Health.

It is about the measurement of working environment such as temperature in hot work areas. This is specified in the Industrial Safety and Health Act and its Health Regulations, or the Working Environment Measurement Standards. I would like to omit the purpose and background of regulation because it overlaps with my previous explanation. However, I would like to repeat that it is necessary data to implement working environment management, which is one of the three management methods to ensure health.

Regarding the third item, the outline of the system, it is a provision that the temperature, humidity, and radiant heat must be measured once every half month or less for indoor workshops in hot, cold, or humid conditions.

When measurements have been made, measures must be taken as necessary based on the measurement results. When measures have been taken, the records thereof must be stored.

As for the measurement, it is specified that it should be an Asman draft hygrometer with a scale of 0.5 degrees or one with performance equal to or higher than this.

The current situation of the workplace is that it is set by a person appointed in the workplace because it is set by the employer and does not have a specific qualification.

I believe that the current PHASE will be 1 - (1), but in order to proceed with PHASE, it is necessary to provide notification, etc. on methods such as record and storage, which have not been specified until now in the case of constant measurement.

In fact, I think that the measurement itself will show that digital or continuous measurement is possible as a way of satisfying the current regulations, but I think that the issue is a little different from whether the regulation on the frequency itself will be extended or not, so our current idea is that PHASE3 does not fall under this in a strict sense.

On the next page, this is about the temperature, moisture, etc., of a general office, not a hot work area. The purpose and background of the regulation, the outline of the systems, etc., are almost the same.

In terms of temperature, humidity, etc., it is sufficient to use a thermometer with a scale of 0.5 degrees or a thermometer with equivalent or higher performance.

In many cases, these inspections are conducted by someone appointed in the workplace or by a building maintenance company. That's all I have to say.

Secretariat (Takamatsu): . Do you have any comments or questions? Mr. Ochiai, please.

Ochiai Member:

Takakura, Director of Industrial Health: Thank you, Thank you for your opinion. As you understand, we think that is fine. Therefore, it is not supposed to be an obstacle, so in terms of how to show it, as I explained in the middle, temperature and humidity are how to measure it, whether it is abnormal or not, and subsequent measures, in other words, adjusting the temperature. As for that, it is a simple story, so it is easy to organize the discussion into a story of measurement only. In terms of other regulations, the method of actual measurement is the same, and the situation, location, and environment are quite diverse, and the workplace is very diverse. The method of work is also diverse, and among them, the measurement itself, the subsequent evaluation, and the measures are automatically or constantly measured, and what kind of impact they will have, depending on the item, will require quite complex examination.

Therefore, in the first place, in terms of the concept of equal or higher and frequency in the regulations of measurement, I think that the concept of digital utilization can be shown by using temperature as a sample.

Ochiai Member: Thank you very much. Of course, I think temperature is relatively easy to measure, and while it is easy to do, there are things that are not so easy, so I thought you were right that everything is not that easy. However, I don't think it was a story that PHASE3 would be useless unless everything was changed. In addition, I thought that you were thinking in a direction that is quite consistent with the idea of improving productivity as a whole by increasing the number of parts that do not require human resources by replacing the parts that can be done digitally.

Today, I think there was a part where the Digital Agency side slightly changed the explanation of the division between PHASE2 and PHASE 3. However, in any case, I thought that it was being advanced very positively, so I would like you to make some efforts in the writing and operation of the regulations and talk with the Secretariat. I would like to ask for your continued support.

Takakura, Director of Industrial Health: Thank you, .

Secretariat (Takamatsu): , please.

Member Inadani: Thank you very much, . Actually, I have the same feeling as Mr. Ochiai, and it is more about the mechanism of the law. The goals that we want to realize in regulation are quite clear, and in the process of crushing them, numerical values such as temperature and humidity are obtained. If so, I would rather say that this overlaps with the comments I have made elsewhere, but if we can create a mechanism in which business operators, or maybe not just direct business operators, have proper incentives to improve the working environment for workers, and explain that there are various working environments, and that we manage them in various working environments in this way, based on various data, etc., I think that the problem of how to substitute each item with digital technology is a completely different dimension from the problem of agile governance, which we are originally aiming to realize, that is, regulation's way of doing things that conforms to digital principles. I think that we are doing things from such a perspective, so I think it would be good to do it in such a way.

Secretariat (Takamatsu): Thank you very much. Based on the opinions we received today, we may ask each ministry and agency to consider additional measures. I would like to consult with you carefully about the future direction. Thank you very much, everyone at the Labor Standards Bureau. Now, I would like to return the progress to Dr. Annen.

Deputy Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Thank you very much. That's all for the hearing. Do you have any comments or opinions throughout?

Time has passed, but I had a request to the Secretariat. I believe that the story of constant monitoring of CFCs that I mentioned earlier was highly evaluated by everyone. I totally agree with it, but it is strange to say that it is strange in a way, but I think that it is a mechanism in which a sensor is attached to a tank and communication is made from the sensor. It takes time and effort to development and install the sensor, which costs money, so I wonder how it was done. The stakeholders include air-conditioning equipment manufacturers and CFC manufacturers, and there is a business called an electrical installation company or an equipment company that provides equipment. And of course, there are owners of air-conditioning equipment and people who actually do business, but no matter where I look, there is no one who is particularly troubled by the fact that CFCs have leaked. The ozone layer is troubled, and no one is troubled in the sense that they will die if I inhale them directly. Since CFCs are cheap, it should not be a big deal if they leak a little and need to be filled in a little earlier. But in a way, I wonder why there was an incentive to make such an advanced effort.

I think it was probably the manufacturers of refrigeration and air-conditioning equipment who led this. I don't know what their incentives were. I thought that if I knew what I didn't know, it would be possible to apply it to various places. If possible, I would like you to investigate it. I'm sorry to sound like an abuse of authority by the Vice Chairman, but that's all.

Secretariat (Takamatsu): I understand. I would like to confirm what led to this flow.

Deputy Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. I'm sorry. Thank you very much. Finally, I would like to hear a few words from State Minister Kobayashi.

Senior Vice-Minister for Digital : Thank you very much. I think we were able to have a very meaningful discussion. I also thought that the CFC story that just became a topic of conversation was very symbolic and good. As Dr. Annen said, I hope we can find a point that can be decomposed a little and developed horizontally.

In any case, I would like to do it with a little ingenuity, including the expression at the beginning. I believe that thanks to your opinions, some of the ministries and agencies have become a little clearer, so I would like to ask for your continued support. Thank you all for your hard work.

Deputy Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. . Finally, the Secretariat will explain about the holding of the next Working Group meeting.

Secretariat (Takamatsu): We would like to hold the next Working Group meeting on Wednesday, March 23, at 4:00 p.m. Thank you very much. In addition, we believe that there is no content that is not suitable for public disclosure regarding today's proceedings, so we would like to prepare the minutes later and disclose them after everyone has checked them.

In addition, if you do not have any particular objections to today's materials, we would like to disclose all of them on the Digital Extraordinary Administrative Advisory Committee website. Thank you for your participation today.

Deputy Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. . With that, we conclude the sixth meeting. Thank you very much.