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 System Reform Study Meeting (6th)

Overview

  • Date and time: Tuesday, June 11, 2024, from 10:00 to 11:30
  • Location: Online
  • Agenda:
    1. Opening
    2. Proceedings
      1. Progress of "Technology-based regulatory reform" and how to proceed for the time being
      2. Status of follow-up to the regulations on paper and in-person processes Review of the seven items and the status of follow-up to the process chart for the digital completion of administrative procedures
    3. Adjournment

Materials

Minutes

Secretariat (Dai): Now that everyone is here, we would like to begin the 6th Digital System Reform Review Meeting.

Again, members are invited to participate online.

In addition, I have heard that Mr. Iwamura and Mr. Uenoyama are absent today.

Now, I would like to ask you to discuss today's agenda. I would like to ask the chairman to proceed with the proceedings from now on. Thank you, Mr. Ahn.

Chairman: Mr. . Good morning, everyone.

I would like to start our discussion right away. Today's agenda consists of the following two items. Part 1 is "Progress of' Technology-based regulatory reform' and Immediate Ways to Proceed," and Part 2 is "Status of Follow-up to the regulations on paper and in-person processes Review of the Seven Items and Others and Status of Follow-up to the Process Chart for digital completion of Administrative Procedures."

First of all, I would like to ask Mr. Hitoshi Suga to explain "Progress of' Technology-based regulatory reform' and how to proceed for the time being."

Secretariat (Suga): We have asked Mitsubishi Research Institute Good morning. Nice to meet you.

I will explain based on Material 1 "Progress of' Technology-based regulatory reform' and Immediate Approaches," but as a reference material, Material 1 (Attachment 1) "List of Technology validation Projects in Fiscal 2023" is distributed. It is an extract from the Secretariat, but I would like you to listen to it by referring to it as necessary.

Regarding page 1, this is a material that has been updated from the material discussed at the Technology-based regulatory reform Promotion Committee on May 24.

On page 2, I would like to briefly review the overall progress. While asking each ministry to make a road map for regulations on paper and in-person processes reform, many people said that even if they were told that there could be alternatives to analog methods in technology and that there should be more useful technologies, they did not know whether there really were any or what they were. Even if there were, they did not know whether there were any from the viewpoint of security and effectiveness. In particular, if there was a safe validation, it would be impossible to suddenly ease the regulation. Therefore, we decided to ask ministries and agencies, which is under the jurisdiction of regulation, and others, who have requests in Digital Agency, to join us in a technical validation. regulation

In the meantime, we released the first version of Technology Map last October, and it has earned quite a few page views. In addition, we have posted the actual products and services corresponding to the technical labels posted on the map on our website in the form of a catalog. At present, the UI, including searchability, is still somewhat poor, partly due to the restrictions of the entire Digital Agency website, so we would like to improve it further this fiscal year.

Starting on page 5, I would like to look back on the Technology validation Project. Among the 32 projects, as you can see on the right, in ministries and agencies, which is under the jurisdiction of regulation, the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport, and Tourism, the Cabinet Office, the Ministry of the Environment, the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, and Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications participated in the project across ministries and agencies.

From page 6, we would like to introduce some interesting examples of technology in validation picked up by the secretariat.

First, in Type 3, we asked the Japan Building Equipment and Elevator Center to make a validation to see if it is possible to replace the visual inspection inspection of roller coasters and Ferris wheels with drones. As a result of the validation, we concluded that it is possible to ensure the accuracy equivalent to or higher than that of human inspection. In addition, if it is a high place, we need to install scaffolds after the park is closed, so it has been proven that it is efficient in terms of cost.

In addition, in the case of the SOHGO SECURITY SERVICES CO.,LTD. below that, the Minister Kono visited the site. In this case, a qualified person is responsible for inspecting the exterior wall of the apartment and the visual inspection, and the qualified person makes a judgment by looking at the images taken by the drones and the like remotely. Then, in high places, especially, the drones can be flown to the side, so it can be confirmed with more accurate images. In addition, the fact that qualified persons are flying around apartments nationwide is a bottleneck due to a labor shortage, and the effect of eliminating the need to move was confirmed.

In addition, regarding NTT DATA Corporation at the bottom, it is regulation that we have to go to the site to conduct a damage assessment survey of houses in the event of a flood. Can we substitute this with aerial images? From the aerial images, it seems that if the area and depth of the flood is more than 1.8 meters above the floor, it will be judged to be completely destroyed up to the second floor. It has been concluded that efficiency and speedup can be achieved by performing such judgments in a lump from the images. However, it has been extracted as local government that the Issue must operate the system.

Turning to page 7, again regarding the Japan Building Equipment and Elevator Center, these people are very interesting. I would like you to take a look at the reference materials. In fact, after the inspection, they were the only business operator who even made a proposal to change this article to a specific article. The content of the revision is quite simple, changing "visual inspection" to "visual inspection, etc.", but based on the results of the validation this time, they made a proposal to do it in nine places. I feel that a business operator who can go back and forth between technology and law is strong.

Returning to page 7, regarding the second case of the Japan Building Equipment and Elevator Center, as you name it, in the periodic inspection of elevators and elevators, we are currently inspecting them with people on board, but we are confirming whether it is possible to determine the operating status of brakes and switches with high accuracy remotely. It has been confirmed that it is possible to use a general-purpose product instead of a special mechanism and to shorten the inspection period. In addition, it has been evaluated that the safety of the inspector can be improved because the inspection can be performed only by operating the tool without touching the actual object.

Next is the gas validation conducted by the RIKEN KEIKI CO.,LTD. It is mandatory to measure what kind of gas is generated once a day. The validation is to use an original calorimeter as an alternative to continuous monitoring. It has been confirmed that this accuracy can be measured at a satisfactory level, and that the accuracy can be maintained over a long period of time.

Next, at the bottom of the same page, there is an example of Morpho,Inc. AI Solutions. This is a case brought in by Oita prefecture, and the employees of the power plant of the Oita Prefecture Enterprise Bureau are patrolling the hydroelectric power plant with the contractor. What they are doing is, there are many analog instruments attached, and when they read the numbers in visual inspection, they tried to make the patrol work remote. They succeeded in reading 83.7%, and the error of the read number was 0.7%, which is confirmed to be equivalent to that of a person going to the site. Issue is when the place where the instruments are located is dark, and it is suggested by Issue that some lighting equipment may be necessary there.

Also, at the bottom of page 7, Persol Process & Technology Co., Ltd. would like to make some of the inspections of consumption and manufacturing equipment unmanned, so we asked them to make a drones and make a validation using a camera. It is important to ensure the angle and distance of the shooting, so it seems that fine-tuning skills are necessary, but the inspection of the equipment in the plant has a large potential market, so it seems that it is worth investing more. This time, we asked them to make a validation under the High-Pressure Gas Control Act, and they suggested that it could be applied horizontally to the periodic self-inspection under the High-Pressure Gas Safety Act.

On page 8, NTTe-DroneTechnology Co., Ltd. conducts observations and field surveys of Antarctic environments by visual inspection. The company conducted the validation mainly from the viewpoint of weather conditions, such as whether drones can be used as an alternative in cold places. The company realized minus 40 degrees in artificial climate chamber, and took the trouble to fly it during the snowy season in Hokkaido. The operation itself was problem-free, in other words, the technology was problem-free, and in some cases it was more efficient than a human survey. In addition, it even said that the added value is higher than that of a human survey because the data after taking a picture remains than that of a human survey, so that it can be modeled or an overhead image can be taken. regulation

The next is the largest joint demonstration by five companies jointly conducted by Oita prefecture. When designating a tree as a specific protected trees, it is mandatory to conduct a field survey, and we asked validation whether it can be replaced by digital. It was said that the information necessary for designation can be sufficiently collected remotely, but if it is possible to automatically determine the tree species, etc., there is still an overwhelming shortage of learning data. However, it is not necessary to do this only in Oita prefecture, but it is sufficient to accumulate data from all over Japan, so I think the problem of learning data will be solved in time. It was also shown that it is possible to constantly monitor whether the tree is tilted, but in rare cases, communication failures can be a bottleneck. When we try to replace various analog work with digital in the future, the case where communication and power are disrupted is always a bottleneck, especially when it is constant monitoring. Communication and power are becoming extremely important as infrastructure.

In addition, at the bottom of the same page, KDDI Smart drones Co., Ltd. had a validation across various regulation sites. They said that they were able to obtain information on most of them without going to the site, including the habitat status of animals in severe environments, complex terrain, and dark places in national parks, the status of use of parks, and how much parking is occupied. As a Issue, it is also interesting to note that there have been cases in which bird avoidance behavior occurred when drones was flown, and attention should be paid to the environmental impact. In addition, the expansion of LTE communication networks, the power consumption of cameras, and communication and power consumption will come out here, and these are the areas that will be Issue in the future.

On page 9, we introduce the details of our validation project of remote inspection of systems and facilities using cameras, remote inspection systems, and others.

At the top of page 10 is DataLabs Co., Ltd., Demonstration Type 9. Below that, Sharp Corporation and Shimizu Construction Co., Ltd. are conducting joint demonstrations, and the contents are almost similar. The inspectors are engaged in the inspection of reinforcing bars that are buried in the building with concrete by visual inspection or manual labor on site, and this is 3D modeled from point cloud data by a laser scanner. The MAEDA CORPORATION below is also conducting 3D modeling by taking pictures with a camera, etc., and it is said that both methods can be substituted. In addition, Sharp Corporation and Shimizu Construction Co., Ltd. are compatible with each other in terms of sufficient measurement speed, and it has been found that the number of people involved in the work is reduced by 50% and the work time is reduced by 63% compared to the conventional method. This seems to be quite effective. In addition, the added value of digitalization is that 3D data modeling may pave the way for the use of BIM in inspection, inspection, and repair management. You take a lot of pictures and don't know where they are, but you don't need to manage the location and save them, so I think this modeling is quite effective.

In addition, what is interesting about the cases of Sharp Corporation and Shimizu Corporation is that the method of comparing and confirming 3 d and BIM data may be very useful for determining the suitability of regulation inspection, and it may be necessary in the future. In other words, it may be possible to update and strengthen the reinforcement and improve the accuracy of the reinforcement inspection.

On page 11, Environmental Measurement Co., Ltd. built a constant monitoring system with sensors when treating wastewater leaked from mines. It says that power and radio waves are also required. As a result, it has become clear that the periodic inspection cycle can be extended for on-site work, and it is good to go to the site about once a week. In addition, it is possible to substitute manual water quality inspection, and the results are very typical that Issue is teacher data.

On page 12, at the bottom of the page, the NEC Corporation and the Electrical Construction Technology Training Center mainly challenged us to prevent inappropriate behavior such as fraud and spoofs by using facial recognition. From the test and training side, this is the most important request. The detection rate of questions about inappropriate behavior such as falling asleep was 99.1%, which is well above the 98% standard for appropriate evaluation. We have even received suggestions that it will be important in the future to automate identity verification and to take measures to automatically stop the training content when inappropriate behavior is detected.

On page 13, I would like to summarize the projects of Technology validation as described above. There were various broad suggestions. First of all, the pros and cons of using digital technology are that accuracy becomes more precise. You can see and take pictures that people could not do before. And safety is overwhelmingly improved when inspectors are elderly or go to expensive places due to a labor shortage. There are both time and cost. There are two sides: the cost increases and the human cost can be overwhelmingly reduced. In particular, time reduction was seen as an effect.

On the other hand, in terms of disadvantages or Issue, including the fact that it is not possible to introduce it at this point, there were some cases where the technology was not distributed sufficiently and was still in the development stage. In addition, if you try to use a new technology, a new approval procedure will be required, which will be an operation cost. The technology itself is simply not spread yet, so it will be expensive. In addition, there were many cases where the learning data was insufficient and the automatic judgment of AI was not as accurate as expected. I think it can be solved by accumulating learning data, but in terms of cost, if there is a merit, it is possible to think of a way of regulation in which high-precision inspections should be prioritized even if they are expensive. This is the opinion of the Technology-based regulatory reform Promotion Committee.

Also, from page 14, we are putting the projects in the Technology validation on the map. It is enough to look at it for a moment, but it is divided into five pages where you can see what kind of technology was demonstrated in which field by each of the 32 projects.

Based on that, I will skip to page 19, but I have mashed up the whole thing, and on the map, compared to the potential of the technology that we had figured out until now, I have shown the parts that were additionally clarified to be usable here in the red frame. The technologies highlighted in yellow are the ones that we did not put on the map in the first place, but were proposed and added in validation this time.

On page 20, the vertical axis is the second pattern 2, but the content is the same.

This is the summary of validation. On page 21, there is a category that we were very concerned about, and there were no effective proposals. This is 41 provision out of the total of 460, so 8.9% of them had no effective proposals, and furthermore, they did not come out even after the second public offering. I followed up with hearings and questionnaires quite persistently to see if there were any points that should be improved. On page 22, in conclusion, some technologies seem to exist to a certain extent, and there is a possibility that proposals might potentially come out, but in many cases, the market seems to be small. In other words, although we have technologies, even if we make a development for such a special inspection, it does not spread from there. The validation range is in a special environment, so the market does not spread. In places where it is difficult to always install sensors, such as under the ground, in ordinary homes, and on ships, it is difficult to take advantage of the advantages of digital technology. You said earlier that there is an extremely large potential market for equipment inspection in factories, and we made a decision to enter based on this. So, to put it in a Technology Map approach, it is true that even if the ministries and agencies under the jurisdiction of regulation opens a regulation, effective proposals cannot be made unless there is spread in the market or possibility of diversion. This was the biggest learning.

Other than that, the more detailed the performance, including the error rate, is specified by ministries and agencies, which is under the jurisdiction of regulation, the easier it is to validation. We have communicated with ministries and agencies, which is under the jurisdiction of regulation, to the extent possible at the time of the public offering, and we have made efforts to put it in writing. However, some people said that they still did not understand it well. In addition, there were some logistical aspects such as that the period of proposal was short as a way of our business, or that we could not gather resources within the company even if they said so suddenly.

So, it did not seem that there were any major blind spots to be improved. In addition, originally, ministries and agencies, which is under the jurisdiction of regulation, said that it would like to open regulation to new technologies by all means, and we had a hypothetical idea that there was a possibility that we could be useful by displaying in some kind of map where technologies had not come out. However, it seems that this is not the case, and it seems that it is not possible to create Technology Map in areas where there are needs for alternative technologies, so we would like to postpone the creation of such maps.

That was the report of Technical validation.

Next, on page 24, we have already completed the public offering of the technology catalog, and the technology catalog corresponding to the initial items we wanted to publish is now on the Internet.

On page 25, we have received many applications from start-up companies. SU companies are the number of start-up companies, and a considerable number of them are listed in the Technology Catalog. Start-up companies seem to be using their products for sales on the Digital Agency website, and there is a need for them. Even now, we are still recruiting, and we continue to receive requests for publication.

From page 26, we are compiling the results of the public offering of technology catalogs. We are grateful for the many applications, such as 41 and 59. Many of the answers were that security conducts vulnerability inspections based on its own standards or that it does not conduct vulnerability inspections in the first place. Within the technology-based regulatory reform Promotion Committee, we were asked to conduct vulnerability inspections at least in accordance with these international standards.

In addition, in the case of foreign companies, it has been pointed out that they will be asked about the amount of compensation in the event of any damage caused by the use of technology, what the exemption is like, and whether there is any reserve property. It is included in the question items in the catalog, but there are many people who almost never pay compensation. There was only one company that wanted to keep the liability property used for the relief of users private, and there were some that did not answer in the first place.

On page 28, in addition to the number of cases listed in the technology catalog, we received nearly 600 inquiries alone in the catalog solicitation, and there were many things to learn in conversation with such companies possessing technology.

On page 29, we are working to ensure that the results of Technology validation, which I introduced at the beginning, are also included in the Technology Catalog. The technologies used in Technology validation are, in a sense, a group of technologies that have a high probability of being used with the highest accuracy. On page 30, based on the results of validation, we are adding new requirements that may be necessary and reflecting them in the Technology Catalog. Currently, 23 out of 32 technologies are said to be included in the Catalog. We have reached 70% now, but actually it was half at the end of last month, so we may proceed further.

The portal site is from page 31, and Technology Map is now posted in PDF format. To make it more accessible, what we did first was to confirm consent to the terms of use by pop-up on the Digital Agency website, and to add a function that explains each item when you mouse over. This function was added by CTO Fujimoto.

In addition, on page 33, the Technology Catalog is currently available in Excel, but we would like to improve the search function a little. Now, free word search and filtering are available, but we would like to further enhance the extensibility.

After page 35, we have a consortium. Thanks to you, the number of participants is now 460. On page 37, in particular, what has contributed to the increase in the number of participants is that the most popular content is a small event called RegTech Meet, an online gathering where people in local government and other places share their experiences in using technology in this way. As a result, the number of consortium participants has increased, and the active participation rate and commitment have also increased. I am grateful.

That's all about the consortium.

On page 46, in the entire work beginning with the Digital Ad Hoc Consultation, we explained that we would further strengthen the yellow parts in the future, but in this report, the part written in red, "validation technologies will be published in catalogs one by one," has already been started.

On page 47, I would like to conclude by explaining what we will focus on this fiscal year. As requested at the RegTech meet, local governments has brought in a lot of regulation in small pieces, and there is also a spread of needs. This time, we will extract two. We will ask Machida City and the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism to participate as observers in the regulation under the Building Standards Act to see if sensors can be used for periodic validation of building equipment.

Second, Saitama prefecture proposed an example that the fact that it is decided at the level of public notice and instruction called "Outline of Compensation Standards for Loss due to Acquisition of Public Land" limits the possibility of using technology at the site. When expropriating public land, the amount of compensation must be calculated, and at that time, we would like to use LiDAR and other data to simplify the investigation by going to the site. We would like to do validation.

On page 48, as I explained earlier, we will leverage and improve the technology catalog, portal site, and consortium little by little, so I have posted the schedule on page 49.

Sakurai-san, if you have one last word, please let me know briefly.

Secretariat (Sakurai): My name is Sakurai, and I was mainly in charge of Technical validation in Digital Agency, .

As for the Technical validation, I believe it is as explained by Mr. Sukashi, but regarding the 32 projects, a considerable number of people concerned, including demonstration projects, our agency, Mitsubishi Research Institute, which was in between and supported us, and ministries and agencies, which is under our jurisdiction, are making efforts, and the results are finally compiled as a report. For those who are interested, more detailed information is also published on the website of our agency, so if you could take a look at it, I think there would be very useful information, so I would appreciate it very much.

.

Secretariat (Suga): We have asked Mitsubishi Research Institute .

That's all.

Chairman: Mr. , Mr. Sakurai, thank you very much.

Last November, RegTechDay was held quite gorgeously, and I had the opportunity to talk about it. I said that there is something called Technology Map and it is interesting, and I said that I would fill in the technology catalog, which is the content of it, more and more. At that time, I said to the outside world that I would fill in the technology catalog while honestly thinking that it would really be filled in, but I realized that it really was filled in.

Secretariat (Suga): We have asked Mitsubishi Research Institute Thank you very much.

Chairman: Mr. . Also, I think that it was within the scope of my expectations that an established company, for example, a company related to NTT, would be involved. I beg to differ, but I felt very encouraged by the fact that a company whose name I had never heard of was promoting technology development or thinking about such a thing.

Another thing that I think was good is that you were also analyzing why there were no proposals. I also learned a very big lesson. It is natural to say so, but as a company, we cannot do things that cannot be scaled. I was listening to you, thinking that how to lead to that scaling is also Issue from now on. Thank you very much.

Then, I would like to ask a member of Inadani.

Inadani Member: .

First of all, as the chairman said, my first impression was that I was surprised or very excited when I read this material. My first impression was that I was really surprised that I could do this much, and at the same time, I thought very much that if I could do this much, I would like to dream about it in the future. As you said in your comment earlier, I am honest that you have compiled it so well, and it is really amazing. I thought that I would like to continue to do this.

There have already been several comments from Minister Suga, including that this issue is related to Issue, and there are quite a few comments from Minister Suga that overlap with this issue. I would like to comment on the points that I have noticed in order.

First of all, it is a question of how to realize the performance standards. In particular, I think you said that risk assessment or reevaluation may be necessary at that time, so the system, process, or method for that will probably be a framework that must be considered across ministries and agencies, rather than being done by one ministry or agency. I felt that if advanced technologies such as AI are to be utilized more and more, the framework and process for risk assessment must also be considered across ministries and agencies.

It may be rude to say this, but when creating regulation, there are places where regulation has been created in response to specific events. On the other hand, I think that regulation's future approach will probably need to be more data-based, based on evidence, like EBPM. In that case, the framework, and in particular the method of cost-benefit analysis, must be considered in light of the issue of state compensation on the part of ministries and agencies when it comes to this kind of regulation issue, so I think that it is necessary to proceed while sorting out such issues. In that case, I thought that I would have to think about using cost-benefit analysis appropriately depending on the situation, while sorting out the issues that came up in the discussion on the creation of rules for automated driving that I participated in with Councilor Suga.

In addition, when we do this kind of regulation, how do we think about the interpretation of "similarly"? In other words, when we substitute people, they are at the same level. If we do not think about the same level on a risk basis, I think we will get stuck somewhere.

One thing that I found interesting this time is that I remember receiving functional decomposition such as recognition, judgment, and execution when it is done on a technology basis. I think functional decomposition is very good, and what was interesting this time is that this is more than human but this may be less than human. I think there are various parts that appear in each phase. At that time, there may be a way to re-create each regulation one by one for each phase, but on the other hand, it will cost a lot. If so, when we look at the set, it is good to evaluate this part and this part by risk because it is positive or the same as a whole. If we look at the package, it will be necessary when we think about horizontal development, or if we look at the package, it will be used for other parts. I think such situations will increase more and more. I thought it would be interesting to consider that kind of idea and the method of risk evaluation when looking at the package.

This time, there were many things that were quantitatively evaluated in demonstration projects, and I was very moved by them, and I felt that they were good, so I think it would be very good if we could aim for rationalization and quantification of the entire regulation by utilizing such things. However, as I said earlier, I think it is absolutely necessary to consider them in a cross-sectional manner.

In addition, from the perspective of technical validation, I think it is also an extremely important issue that people in demonstration projects made suggestions that it would be better to revise laws and regulations. As technology progresses faster, we can do this kind of thing on the ground, but we are worried about regulation here and cannot use it or get it accepted. It is often said that we are a multi-stakeholder, but in order to change regulation quickly, it is absolutely necessary to collect such voices properly, so we must think about how to utilize them in the future. In other words, it is necessary to incorporate such voices from within regular business operations, as well as such projects, and from that perspective, I felt that it is necessary to think about how to improve the system for ministries and agencies to incorporate and respond to such recommendations. I think it is the most wasteful thing that the incentive to make recommendations is removed. I think it is very unfortunate that we make recommendations but do not get anything back. I think it would be good to think about a mechanism to increase the enculpation and commitment of such people.

As for the business as a whole, it is related to what you have been doing for a long time, but it has become clear this time that it is necessary to strengthen the communication infrastructure, and to develop the infrastructure aspect of the data sharing and collaboration infrastructure. Also, as I believe this is related to horizontal expansion, we are trying to create a mechanism to share data and collaborate across industries and companies, such as the Uranus Ecosystem. By utilizing such a system, there is a possibility that dormant demand will be noticed in the future. Therefore, I think it is necessary to advance this. The problems of high introduction and operation costs and the inability to find a market may have been discussed a little before, but if it becomes possible to improve performance and safety, or if the market is potentially large, or if the positive externalities are large, I think it is necessary to discuss a cost-benefit analysis of the type that should be promoted because the cost may be high now but will be reduced this much in the medium to long term, with a view to providing government support.

Also, I am sorry that there are so many of them. I am so stimulated and excited, but I believe it is important to advance this part so that the cost of the approval procedure can be digital completion. I believe that by conducting such a project, it will be possible to see that the bottleneck can be eliminated by advancing digital completion here. Regarding the approval of drones flight areas, which you pointed out, as an overseas example, there is a Swiss country that is experimenting with running an algorithm to automatically allocate flightable areas using so-called auction theory. So, this may also be done by ReAMO and others, but I believe that development demonstration projects, which is related to such a method, will be further advanced if it is utilized.

As for security, I think it is as you pointed out. We will work a little harder to create a reliable unified standard. In that case, I wonder if it is necessary to work on the concept of liability law and the concept of regulation at the same time.
In addition, I think there are some comments that are a little concerned about the location of legal responsibility at the time of the accident and the possibility of enforcement of the Liability Act, so I thought it would be necessary to sort out these matters in a cross-sectional manner by using the accumulated discussions so far.
Although I have said various things in a scatterbrained manner, my current situation is that I am deeply moved by the great progress being made overall. Although I have said various things, I would be grateful if you would consider it positively.
That's all from me. Thank you very much.

Chairman: Mr. .

The members of Inadani must be excited.

Inadani Member: You're so excited. It's so funny.

Chairman: Mr. I understand that very well. No wonder. I was also excited.

Inadani Member: This is really interesting because it is a great time for legal scholars.

Chairman: Mr. Technology is changing regulations.

Inadani Member: That's right. It's amazing.

Chairman: Mr. Ochiai, please.

Ochiai Member: Thank you very much. I would also like to make a few points.

First of all, as Member Inadani said and Member Annen agreed, I believe that we have achieved truly excellent results. I believe that there are very few countries where RegTech is discussed in such a comprehensive manner in a cross-cutting field, so I think that efforts on the same theme as this are being made with seven priority items, which are quite advanced, and eight items, if you include floppy disks. The floppy disk part was delayed, so I think that other parts are becoming particularly excellent efforts.

One thing is, there are various Issue and others that have emerged in the course of the demonstration this time, but first of all, overall, the point of view that the review was conducted on a technology basis in a horizontal exhibition worked extremely well, or I think it was most wonderful that we were able to make it by clearly showing examples. Information and communication technology itself is easy to lead to a story that it can be used in any field in a horizontal exhibition, so I think it is a theme that is easy to follow a cross-sectional and comprehensive review in this way more than other technical fields. This time, we talked about seven items, but next time we find a Issue, we should work on it in the same way. In short, it is not just discussing each issue at the regulatory reform Promotion Council and the National Strategic Special Zones, but I think it has become clear that it is quite efficient in society to conduct a cross-sectional review after going to validation, where such things can be used as technology. I hope that this will lead to people recalling and using a similar scheme when people from Digital Agency and the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, who have taken the lead in other situations, are involved.

In addition, regarding the results shown in the Technology validation Project for fiscal 2023 on page 13, I think it was very good that the accuracy was refined. I think it is becoming clear that there are two parts: one is better done by people, including improving safety, and the other is better done by technology and AI. I think that will be an extremely important perspective in terms of regulatory reform in a society with a declining population in the future. I would like to see further dissemination and enlightenment of such utility.

On the other hand, I would like to think about how to organize the cost part. There is also a reduction in time cost in the utility area, and on the other hand, there are points to note in the utilization of technology and the cost in Issue. In addition, it is important to discuss which part is more reasonable as a cost, including the part to reduce the number of people who are finally counted as positive, the number of man-hours for technology operation, and the cost for responding to drones, such as approval of regulation flight procedures. I think it is important to explicitly state that there are costs for responding to and operating regulation. I think it is important to review regulatory reform in the future to determine whether the purpose of validation is actually balanced with the cost. In addition, I think it is an extremely important consideration when deciding whether to respond to regulation by using technology. In that sense, I believe that the cost, the relationship with regulation, and the relationship with technology will be further analyzed in the future, and various discussions will be advanced in the next fiscal year and beyond, so I hope that you will deepen it through such efforts. regulation

In addition, there was a story about a type for which there was no effective proposal on page 22. I think that the part of marketability, which was discussed in the previous installment, is very important. On the other hand, marketability itself is also difficult due to the progress of technology, or if you want to completely substitute it, or if you want to adapt it to the field, it is always difficult. So, when it becomes possible to use it as it is, the prospect of use becomes clear, or when it becomes possible to use it in combination with other technologies, I think that there is a possibility that it will spread extremely explosively. I think that there is a possibility that it will be actually used later, while firmly recognizing the simple marketability itself at this point in time. In fact, various digital technologies themselves are difficult to use depending on the country, so they did not spread at first, but after a while, when the environment is set up to make it easier to use, it will be possible to use it in various countries. I think that there is such a part only in Japan, so I think that there are cases in which the technology cannot be finally used unless the timing is right, but I think that this was not a wrong point to focus on, so even so, I think that there was a significant aspect in the sense that we thoroughly reviewed it and invested in the possibility for the future.

Finally, I think it is extremely wonderful that the RegTech Consortium has been active. Creating such a community, especially in relation to advanced technology, has not been possible in Japan so far. On the other hand, for example, in FinTech, it is necessary to create such a community in the United Kingdom or in Singapore so that it can be accessed by the government. I think that the community plays an extremely important role in advancing policies and promoting related businesses. In that sense, I think this initiative is extremely wonderful. In particular, in relation to the initial Digi-in, I think it was wonderful that major economic organizations were involved. Therefore, I would like to encourage those who provide technology, as well as Keidanren and Doyukai, which are members of Iwamura, to find opportunities to collect various requests again and reflect them in their future activities.

That's all for me.

Chairman: Mr. .

Member Masashima, please.

Mr. Masashima: I think the Mitsubishi Research Institute of .

My policy is to commit to the results of the crossover from planning to implementation, so from that point of view, I would like to talk about what I felt and what I noticed in this report.

From the perspective of spreading the practice as much as possible, I meet actual people from private sector in various places such as business. There are three main segments: startups, large companies, and young people. Each of them is working with communities interested in doing something about regulation and creating rules. When they share their awareness of the problem and talk about what they can do, we recommend them to join the RegTech Consortium. They tell us that this is an interesting place where tech people can get involved in the rules. They also tell us that people who are investing can get information on which technologies in regulation can be used here, and we call people with various attributes here.

According to what I saw today, the number of people is increasing steadily, so I feel it is very wonderful, and I still feel that it is Issue to invite various people in a way that has a little more diversity in attributes. I would like to continue to strengthen activities to invite people who are interested in this area. I am listening to various opinions from people who actually joined the area, and I am asked about the activities and whether there were any benefits. In general, they are popular. There have been no opportunities to directly share Issue with local people, such as cafes and meat shops, so I am very grateful for this. In reality, there are many people who are inspired when they think of new models. One thing is that I would like you to establish such projects one after another and continue them as good content.

Also, in order to maintain the community, I think community managers are vitally important, so I wonder if they are currently hiring community managers and entrusting them to someone else via Mitsubishi Research Institute.

Secretariat (Suga): We have asked Mitsubishi Research Institute .

Mr. Masashima: I think the Mitsubishi Research Institute of has been asked to do this, but it seems that how to empower community managers is somewhat indirect from the government in the form of outsourcing. One point is that if you strengthen your engagement with the people who are working as community managers, you may feel that the community will be more active, and you may feel that you are actually talking with them or going to see meat.

The rest is what I feel about the various measures that are actually being taken now. Japan is not very good at drawing a big picture and moving, but when it comes to drawing once, cutting it into small pieces, and implementing it, Japan's strengths are immediately demonstrated. Japan is a country that works very hard on small things, so in fact, doing a lot of small things and achieving impressive results is in a sense unique to Japan, and I feel that there are parts that are exactly in line with the plan. If we develop this on multiple fronts, phase transition will occur due to the collection of many small things, and I think the big strategy is to create a state in which other countries cannot catch up, and it will be like why other countries are doing this. I feel that we can reach that point.

After you have done this, you are now using PDCA. You are working on what to do with the parts that did not work well. I think you are working on what Issue is. If you arrange Issue side by side, I think you can create some abstractions for each Issue. It is not so much for each ministry and agency, but for each Issue, it is likely to happen in any ministry or agency's regulation or any regulation. I can organize this. Then, I think we will consider a solution for it. If this solution works, it will become a response manual or a piece of knowledge on how to respond. If it is documented or abstracted, it will be circulated to various people, including ministries and agencies and private sector. If this is connected to the overall activity, the activity will accelerate. I think it will go back and forth between concrete and abstract, and I think I would like to do this.

Second, I would like to ask you to do this in the area of so-called deep tech, especially in the area of sensors. What is happening in various places now is the use of generative AI. It will be used in the area of communication, as I believe it is like a guidance, and we would like to steadily deploy so-called AI agents. It seems that we are using it internally, but our next strategy is to keep it at the point of contact with customers in the form of AI agents for customers. What problems will occur when we enter that world has become relatively clear in the discussions of people who are thinking of promoting some AI agents. In fact, I think this is almost the same as the story of digitalization in regulation.

For example, there are various rules such as the Business Law does not allow discriminatory treatment when communicating with customers, and does not allow judgment using sensitive information. When an AI agent is used, of course, what information is obtained is controlled properly. What kind of output is produced and whether it can be judged to be compliant in relation to regulation for the time being is a qualitative matter for the rules, so it is unclear. The authorities that are conducting regulation do not understand this, so we are actually controlling it. In this situation, we need to talk about what percentage the rate should be within, but I think there are only a few areas where we can reach this level. I think automated driving is working hard, but the same is the part where AI is used for communication with customers, and in fields where businesses are restricted in various ways in terms of communication with customers, I feel that the question of how to be compliant has yet to be addressed. Of course, it is important to do well in the AI Business Guidelines, etc., but if there is no level at which we can share qualitative and quantitative recognition with the authorities about what a compliant state is, I feel that things will not actually progress. It seems that we are doing essentially the same thing as what digitalization in regulation is doing with sensors and the like, so I think it is extremely important to extend the points of digitalization in regulation to parts where people tend to see things with qualitative rules, such as communication, as well as the deep world that is being done now. Therefore, I would like to ask you to consider this as the next point of implementation in regulation's planning. generative AI

The third point is similar to the first and second points, but we are doing various things in this way, and our eyes are on it, but on the other hand, there is still the practice of regulation doing classic things unconsciously. In particular, when an incident occurs and we have to do it in a responsive manner, when the regulation authorities consider adding some rules, they can't stand unless they do it to this extent, and it often happens that the perspective of the evidence base disappears. One example is that as Ochiai members said, we tend to do something excessive that ignores the cost. How do we put a wedge against it? Most officials give up saying it is the cost of democracy, but it seems that this country is losing the national power to bear the cost without giving up. I think we need to think about an approach method that can properly include the perspective of regulation's digitalization and the fact that we will not do anything meaningless when we have to strengthen some rules in response to such accidents. If the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism can't stand and start doing strange things and incur extra costs when there is a fuss about the automobile fraud this time, I felt that if there is a manual for how to take measures in response to scandals and accidents in this one pattern, we can solve the problem that the government can't stand or provide a framework that does not fall into it.

That's all.

Chairman: Mr. .

You made a wide range of comments. Counselor Suga, what do you think? Please tell us if you have any response at this point.

Councilor Suga: Thank you very much for your continuous encouragement and for your efforts to expand the RegTech Consortium.

To summarize broadly, I think you said that we should bring cross-industry or cross-field cost-benefit analysis to the field of compliance in regulation. There were similar opinions in the technology-based regulatory reform Promotion Committee, so I would like to think about how to do it.

.

Chairman: Mr. Thank you very much.

Next, I would like to move on to agenda item 2. It is "Follow-up on the regulations on paper and in-person processes Review of the Seven Items, etc. and Follow-up on the Process Chart for the digital completion of Administrative Procedures." Counselor Dai will give an explanation.

Secretariat (Dai): First of all, before I give an explanation, the status of the follow-up has not yet been disclosed. It is planned to be disclosed soon, but under the circumstances, we would like to disclose the materials of the Review Meeting while monitoring the status of the follow-up.

Now, I would like to start explaining the content. On page 2, this is the situation at the time of the previous follow-up. The upper part is based on regulation based on law, and the lower part is based on notifications, notices, and circulars. I will briefly explain the situation above. Regarding regulation based on law, of the approximately 10,000 provision identified, a total of 6,364 items required review, but a total of 2,581 items were reviewed by the previous follow-up. The items subject to this follow-up are surrounded by a red frame. A total of 1,798 items were scheduled to be completed by March this year, but this number is the number of items subject to follow-up.

Those based on the notifications below are arranged in the same way, and a total of 1,758 cases need to be reviewed, and as of the previous follow-up, 1,038 cases have been completed, and 198 cases were subject to the review this time.

On page 3, I would like to ask what the results of the follow-up are. First of all, with regard to the cases based on law and other prefectures, of the 1,798 cases in total, 1,729 cases were reported as having been reviewed. It is a bit unfortunate that 69 cases were reported as having not been reviewed, but we have consulted with the ministries and agencies in charge and have set a new review deadline.

In the table on the right, there were about 22 cases in which it was reported that the review was completed ahead of schedule, although they were not subject to the follow-up this time. Adding these cases to those for which the follow-up had been completed by the previous review and those for which the review had been completed, a total of about 4,330 cases have been reviewed.

On page 4, there were 198 cases based on notifications, but 168 cases were reviewed and 30 cases were not reviewed. For the cases that have not been reviewed, we discussed the new timing with the ministries and agencies in charge, and we have received a response that the review will basically be completed by June.

On page 5, we have integrated the follow-up situation that I just explained into the overall situation. As for the follow-up based on law and others, a total of 4,332 cases have been confirmed to have been completed this time. This is about 70% of the cases that need to be reviewed. Of the remaining 2,032 cases, 1,932 cases have been confirmed to have been completed this month, which was the target period when the process chart was created. As for these cases, as soon as the follow-up that was targeted this time is completed, follow-up will begin again.

Page 6 shows the overall situation in regulation based on notifications, etc. The red boxes indicate that the review has been completed for 1,206 cases so far, and about 70% of the cases that need to be reviewed have been completed. The remaining 552 cases, of which 545 cases are scheduled to be completed by June, will be followed up immediately.

Pages 7 and 8 are specific examples, so I will omit the explanation, but page 7 is an example of regulation based on law, which was completed this time.

Page 8 is the regulation based on the notice, etc., and it is an example of what has been reviewed this time, so please take a look at it.

Page 9 is about the follow-up of the process chart for the digital completion of administrative procedures. There are more than 10,000 applications and 1,260 procedures in total per year, and after receiving opinions at the Study Group last December, we created a process chart for the digital completion of administrative procedures, and the ministries and agencies responsible for each procedure are working on the basis of this. In fiscal 2023, there were about 39 cases until March this year, so we followed up on them. On the right, there are plus and minus figures in red, but when we followed up on them, they fell a little backward, or on the contrary, fell forward, and the timing was clarified, so we wrote down the total in red, including plus and minus figures. In the end, 39 cases this time were covered, but 42 cases were found to have actually been implemented, and about 700 cases had already been implemented, so the total is 742, and 1,260 cases in total, so a little less than 60% of the cases were online, and digital completion has already been implemented. In addition, our tentative target was the end of this fiscal year and the end of next fiscal year, so the 368 cases will be completed at this point, and we plan to follow up on them at the end of fiscal 2024, the end of fiscal 2025, and at each milestone, although some cases will exceed that.

At the bottom of page 9, I would like to give you two examples of online migration. Please take a look at them.

That's all for my explanation.

Chairman: Mr. . It is a plain story, but it is very good that it seems to be progressing steadily.

I believe you basically stated that you would like to receive a report, but if you have any particular comments, please let me know.

Would that be all right?

Then, I would like to ask you about the status of follow-up.
So that's all for today's agenda.

Finally, I would like to hear a few words from Director General Tomiyasu.

Director-General Tomiyasu: I am Tomiyasu from Digital Agency, . Thank you for your continuous support.

Today, I reported on the current status of the former Digital Extraordinary Administrative Advisory Committee and the current Digital System Reform Study Group. I would like to introduce the current status of the initiatives that we have been promoting while receiving various opinions from everyone, such as the Technology-based regulatory reform Technology validation Project, Technology Map, the Technology Catalog, and the Consortium. I also received various opinions.

In addition, I have reported the actual status of the review work of each ministry as of the end of March on the road map for regulations on paper and in-person processes, which is about 10,000 provision. As you can see, the review work as of the end of June still remains. I believe there are various Issue here, so I would like to make sure to do that. Depending on the situation, I believe there will be a situation where we will continue to proceed with the guidance of the members. Thank you very much.

As you said, this time, we will review the systems that each ministry has. I believe that the method of thoroughly reviewing the common parts that are difficult for each ministry to do alone was very effective. We will continue to work as a horizontal department, and we will promote DX at each ministry as the regulatory reform Promotion Office and the Secretariat of the Digital Administrative and Fiscal Reform Council, so we will firmly promote DX.

This time, I would like to summarize Priority plan in Digital Agency. This time, regulations on paper and in-person processes will be reviewed based on digital principles, and systems and operations will be premised on digital or data utilization. In that sense, I would like to appeal that we should proceed while maintaining consistency in the trinity of systems, operations, and digital data. I would like to strongly appeal to each ministry what you have discussed and guided at this review meeting, and I would like to make a strong appeal in Priority plan.

We would like to continue to receive various guidance from you in the future. Thank you very much.

Thank you for your time today.

Chairman: Mr. , thank you very much.

Then, I would like to ask the secretariat to explain about the next review meeting.

Secretariat (Dai): Finally, I would like to explain the schedule and handling of the minutes of the next review meeting.

The secretariat will contact you later about the schedule of the next review meeting.

Regarding today's proceedings, we will prepare the minutes later and make them public after everyone checks them.

In addition, based on the status of the announcement of today's agenda, we will disclose the materials on the website of the Digital System Reform Review Committee.

That's all. Thank you very much for joining us today.

Chairman: Mr. .

With that, we conclude the 6th Digital Related System Reform Review Meeting. Thank you very much, everyone.