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 ".

The Digital System Reform Review committee Technology-based Council for Promotion of Regulatory Reform (Part 3)

Last Updated:

Overview

  • Date and Time: Monday, March 17, 2025, from 11:00 a.m. to 12:30 p.m.
  • Location: Online
  • Agenda:
    1. Opening
    2. Business
      1. Explanation from the secretariat
        • Progress of "Technology-Based regulatory reform" and Current Approach
      2. Exchange of views
    3. Closing

Material

Minutes, etc.

Date and Time

Monday, March 17, 2025 (2025), from 11:00 a.m. to 12:30 p.m.

Location

Holding online

Members present

Chairman

Hiroshi Esaki (Professor, Graduate School of Information Science and Engineering, University of Tokyo)

Member

  • Yusaku Okada (Professor, Department of Management Engineering, Faculty of Science and Technology, Keio University)
  • Keiko Ogawa (Certified Public Accountant, Legtech Leader Partner, Banking Capital Market Leader, EY Strategy & Consulting Co., Ltd.)
  • OGINO Tsukasa (Representative Director, Important Equipment Coordination Security Council)
  • Taira Makoto Kato (Designated Associate Professor, Graduate School of Information Science and Engineering, University of Tokyo)
  • KAWAHARA Yoshihiro (Professor, Graduate School of Engineering, the University of Tokyo)
  • Yumi Kawabata (Journalist Strategic Innovation Specialist)
  • Taro Shimada (Representative Executive Officer, President and CEO, Toshiba Corporation)
  • Keisuke Toyoda (Designated Professor, Institute of Industrial Science)
  • NAKAGAKI Takao (Professor, Faculty of Science and Engineering, Waseda University)
  • Osamu Nakamura, Professor at Faculty of Environment and Information Studies
  • Ayumu Nagai (Representative Director and President, Astamuse Co.
  • Daiyu Nobori (Director, Cyber Technology Laboratory, Information-Technology Promotion Agency, Japan)
  • Kenji Hiramoto (Director, Information-Technology Promotion Agency, Japan digital infrastructure Center)

Minutes

Suga Director: Chairman Esaki time, I would like to open the third "Technology-based Council for Promotion of Regulatory Reform".

This time, members are participating online again. We will have a time to exchange opinions in the second half. It is a bit difficult to use, but as before, we will use Webex chat and receive comments as needed during the explanation, so please take care of it.

I would like to ask Mr. Ezaki, a professor of the Graduate School of Information Science and Engineering at the University of Tokyo, to continue to chair this committee.

Then, Chairman Ezaki, please take care of the proceedings from now on.

Chairman Ezaki: Thank you very much, .
My name is Ezaki, and I will be your chairman. I look forward to working with you again this time.

There seem to be some committee members who have not joined yet, but since it is time, I would like to start.

Today's agenda is as follows, first of all, I would like to ask the secretariat to report and explain how the technology-based regulatory reform is progressing and how to proceed for the time being.
Suga Director, please.

Suga Director: Chairman Esaki .

I would like to explain using the PowerPoint I shared with you.

As you are all familiar with the outline of the committee, I will skip to the next page, which summarizes the overall picture of regulatory reform and updates the progress in detail, so please refer to this page when you want to see the overall picture.

Turning to page 3, I would like to talk about the goals and issues of the committee. The committee was established in October 2022, and counting from there, although the name has changed, it will be held for the 11th time in total. Going back to the goal set at the time of the first meeting in 2022, I think it was quite important, but first, in order to accelerate the review of regulations and administrative services that do not conform to digital principles, what kinds of technologies are already available and how they can be used, they said that they would co-create a knowledge base.
In addition, I stated that I would like to expand the application of the same type of regulations not only by a certain government office but also horizontally, and that I would like to create a market that leads to procurement by the public and private sectors.

The third is the reevaluation of risks when using technology. I mentioned that we should create a cycle to reevaluate risks and constantly review the way regulations should be, including the occurrence of risks that are different from those we have been aware of until now, and the non-occurrence or reduction of risks that we have been concerned about until now.
Finally, I also stated that we would like to protect the lives of the people from risks while presenting more advanced development goals and leading to global market expansion.

On the next page, I will update the chairman and the list of members, and since there are no changes from the last time, I will proceed as it is.

We have three agenda items for today. On page 5, the first item is what we have verified so far this year, the progress of the technology map and catalog, the current status of the RegTech community, and what we can do in the future to promote the use of newly unlocked technologies. We are going to present new issues.

First of all, I would like to start with a quick review of what we have been doing since the time of the Digital Temporary Administrative Investigation Council as a whole, as it has been a little while since the last time. There are about 10,000 articles (9,669 articles) of analog regulations that Digital Agency has been able to identify or that the ministries and agencies in charge of the regulations have taught us. Most of them on the left side (about 8,600 articles) have been reviewed on the grounds that it is no problem to introduce new technologies without going through technical verification. At present, 97% of the reviews have been completed and the remaining number is about 180.

Going from there to the right, especially for heavy regulations such as safety regulations, the competent ministries and agencies answered that there is no problem with replacing digital technology with human work, and that it is necessary to verify whether the same or higher accuracy can be achieved. There were 1,043 articles. Of these, 457 articles on the left are the ones that Digital Agency coordinated all the competent ministries and agencies and conducted technology verification at once. This was almost completed last year, and this time, going further from there, although the regulations at the national level have already been reviewed, it took one year to conduct technology verification with more awareness of technology implementation at the level of local governments that are actually executing them. That report is today's (1).

The second point is that the volume of this report is larger than that of the previous report. In regard to Article 586 out of 1,043, at the stage of the roadmap, the government ministries and agencies in charge of the regulations said that they would conduct technical verification on their own without leaving it to Digital Agency. Digital Agency persistently followed up on this, and the report on the results is the second.

In addition, technical verification was conducted independently by each ministry and agency, and the results of the verification were shared one after another because such technology could be used in such cases, and the work to link the results to maps, etc. was done, which is the third.

Furthermore, this is not the end of the verification process. We would like you to review the regulations and clarify the interpretation of those that have been verified and given the green light. After that is done, we will post in the technology catalog that such technologies can be used. This year, 26 technologies that have been verified have been published. In addition to that, since the contact point is always open, including those that have been requested to be published in the catalog, there are about 50 additional publications per year. At present, 221 technologies have been registered in the technology catalog.

Also, although the number is small, what is important is the digital marketplace, which is written at the bottom as DMP. This is made by Digital Agency. When the national government or a local government procures SaaS services, the national government makes a contract in a lump sum so that it can be used in the form of a subscription, which is like a fast track for government procurement. There are not many SaaS equivalents here yet, but out of those listed in the catalog, those that can be listed on DMP should be linked. At present, four partnerships have been realized, and I expect that as more DMPs are launched, more will be listed and linked. The above is the overall picture.

I will go to the next page, but from here, I would like to report on the two technology demonstrations that we conducted this year. At first glance, they seem to be steady and unspectacular, but we have found very interesting results, so I would like to report them.

The first is plumbing. Under Article 12, Paragraph 4 of the Building Standards Act, regular visual inspections of plumbing in buildings, such as rainwater pipes and those around toilets, are regulated. Inspections are required to check for damage, corrosion, and deterioration. In response to a review of regulations by the Digital Temporary Administrative Investigation Council, it was made clear that inspections using a visual inspection method are also possible. This time, Machida City raised its hand and we worked together to verify whether non-destructive inspections using X-ray transmission inspection and other methods are included in this "visual inspection method."

Second, on the right, when a local government acquires public land, money is paid to the landowner as compensation for loss, and we conducted a verification in cooperation with Saitama Prefecture to see if it would be possible to conduct a digital survey of the property using LiDAR, etc., which is conducted every time by bringing a measure. In the first place, this is an outline based on a Cabinet decision, and it is not a law or anything, so it is a different approach from the previous Article 10,000. However, based on this outline, each prefecture has issued a number of manuals that provide more detailed methods, and practical work is being done according to them, and this time we confirmed the practicability of digital methods.

The results are summarized on the next page. If you have any questions later, I would like to report in more detail.

First, in the case of Machida City, we used three facilities actually owned by Machida City: a civic center, a nursery school, and a gymnasium. The pipes deteriorate over time, but we extracted three facilities that differ in how long ago they were built, and digitally diagnosed the pipes. In the case of visual inspection, only the outside can be seen, but in non-destructive inspection using X-ray transmission inspection or endoscope, the inside can be seen, so you can see all the scale and rust in the pipe. In addition, it has been confirmed that it is useful as an inspection method similar to visual inspection because it can check the whole including the front and back of the piping other than the part that is visually inspected, and that there are various advantages. To begin with, what is quite surprising is how the actual work is going now. Regarding the piping, I extracted a part of it and visually checked it. After a certain period of time, all the pipes, including those that are not damaged at all, are replaced at once. In other words, the current operation is to replace all the pipes, including those that are not damaged at all, all at once for a certain period of time. By analyzing the condition of the piping not qualitatively but quantitatively, we can clearly see that it is damaged here but not here, so we can update only the damaged part. Because it is a public facility, there are also users and residents. If such a facility is closed for a certain period of time for renewal, the burden on the users will be heavy. However, including that, the merit of being able to reduce the construction period is also big. From the viewpoint of local governments, including leveling the financial burden, depending on the facility, there will be a financial effect of several hundred million yen.
Machida City alone has nearly 50 facilities, so from next year on, they say they want to steadily take the budget and introduce technology into the field.

As for the second technical verification that we conducted with Saitama Prefecture, we asked two business operators to raise their hands and conduct two similar demonstrations. For the property survey work, iPadPro can be equipped with a LiDAR app, so we used a LiDAR sensor or installed a laser scanner. We were wondering if we could set up a process to create a digital 3D drawing of things that had been measured with an analog measure or things that had been checked with a convex or a tape measure, and then calculate automatically from it. It seems that the main players for this would be guarantee consultants, and we received suggestions from these people and conducted demonstrations together.

As a result, we were able to fully confirm the practicability and applicability of this technology. Of course, we were able to automatically identify and calculate some types of trees before, but we did not have enough model data of trees, so we had to wait for the accumulation of training data, but we were able to confirm the accuracy of most of the models. Furthermore, under the current regulations, it is ultimately essential to create two dimensional drawings. In fact, you do not need to add a function to spit out two dimensional drawings. You can obtain enough information from a three dimensional model. When you explain to the landowner, you can expect the effect that it is easier to convince the landowner by explaining that you are in such a situation with a three dimensional model rather than a two dimensional drawing drawn by hand on a graph paper. It seems that there are analog regulations that still require two dimensional drawings when preparing calculation materials, but you pointed out that this could lead to a review of regulations in this area. In fact, tomorrow, Saitama Prefecture will host a meeting to report on the results of this technology verification, and it is expected that local governments in the prefecture will be further informed.

Above are two reports on the technical verification conducted last year. From the next page, it is reported that the technical verification conducted not by Digital Agency but by the ministries and agencies in charge of the regulations was persistently followed up. We conducted a hearing on the situation in each of the 14 ministries and agencies concerned, and we received a report that the verification process has already been completed in some form in 98% of the 586 articles. At the end, only nine articles in Ministry of Justice still remain, accounting for 1.5% of the total, so we will follow them from time to time, but if you look at the table for other articles, most of them were not verified in the first place. It is 37.7%. When I asked what this means, they said that it was necessary to verify something that could be used only by using a remote conference system, but of course it was OK to use a remote conference system, so we decided not to verify it. It was confirmed that the regulatory review itself had been conducted, so we judged that it was also completed.

On the next page, I would like to report an example of a review of regulations after a proper technical verification on the far left. For example, on page 11, Ministry of the Environment issued several notifications to clarify the "Ministerial Ordinance to Provide Technical Standards for Municipal Solid Waste Disposal Facilities and Industrial Waste Disposal Facilities." This was sent to the head of the department in charge of the local government under the name of the section chief of Ministry of the Environment. In the document, eight types of technologies were defined for inspection of retaining walls, etc. at municipal solid waste disposal facilities, and a notification was issued in a table stating that these can be used for this provision. After clarifying the regulations, it was clarified that there are specific technologies that can be used as a result of the verification.

The second is the Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare on the upper right. According to the Industrial Safety and Health Law, boilers and other machinery are required to undergo regular inspections. A very long notice was issued on this matter, in which the technology was specified in detail, such as in which cases it is permissible to use this technology, and even if this technology is used, it is recognized that this process was implemented.

Next, at the bottom is the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism's enforcement regulations related to the Water Supply Law. The regulations were partially revised, and the standards for the maintenance and repair of water supply facilities were regulated to go to the site and conduct patrols and visual inspections. However, a notice was issued stating that remote patrols are included and that various new technologies may be used.

On the next two pages, the Digi-Agency is steadily listening to the results of the technology verification one by one from each ministry and reflecting them on the map. The areas added by the verification are shown in green, which gives the impression that there are quite a lot. On the contrary, there are some technologies that were found to be useless or unusable by the verification, and they are shown in red.

The next page is the catalog linked to the map. For example, when the label "drone" is on the technology map, if you look at the catalog, you can see what kind of drone inspection services are specifically available. This year, 52 items were received in the flow, and if you look at the breakdown on the far right, there were 26 items that were asked to list our services as usual, and then 17 and 9 items were added, and they are listed in the catalog as highly reliable technologies and services that have been technically verified.

In the future, of course, we would like to include the products and services that are the result of the technical verification we conducted with Machida City and Saitama Prefecture in this catalog under the Fast Track program. In the future, we would like to include the results of the use of these technologies in the catalog, if there are any specific examples of their use, as these technologies are being introduced.

The next page is the portal site. The technologies and services related to Digital Agency created by revising analog regulations are posted on Digital Agency's website in the form of a portal. We are making several detailed usability improvements, for example, we will be able to search and narrow down the display. As I said earlier, technologies that have completed technical verification, technologies, and elemental technologies are particularly valuable, and we have added a function to highlight such technologies, or to display a list of verification projects and catalogs related to the content of regulations and elements of each technology on the technology map.

At present, we are maintaining this with fairly manual work, but in the future, if possible, we would like to make the work related to this map and catalog as lean as possible to keep it as long and thin as possible. There are quite a few approaches such as requesting a catalog revision other than new posting, but for these, we would like you to use the posting function and complete the process from application to posting online next fiscal year.

Next, in ②, I will explain about the RegTech community. You may wonder what it is, but on the next page, the Digital Technology Agency originally created maps and catalogs with considerable depth, and created a community on Slack to connect related business operators, government agencies in charge of regulations, and people who are obligated to comply with regulations. On the next page, thanks to that, the number of registered Slack members has increased, and now it has reached 536. At first, we called it the RegTech Consortium, but it has become a more casual community that shares the daily business concerns of local governments, so we decided to change the name to the RegTech Community, and we changed the name in the middle.

On the next page, you can see the results of the RegTech Meet, one of the hit projects. When the community was established, it was held every week, but from then on, it is held about once every two months, focusing on a theme. For example, at the event held in Yokkaichi City in May last year, there was an approach from companies in the Yokkaichi industrial complex, and they shared their concerns about the utilization of digital technology as they had many specific issues like this, and Yokkaichi City hosted a meeting to do something about it, and the issues were resolved.

Next, in November last year, Handa City and Central Japan Airlines in Aichi prefecture introduced an example of differential analysis of satellite images related to taxation of fixed asset tax, and received feedback that there were inquiries from other local governments.

The most recent meeting was held in February this year. Shijonawate City introduced electronic voting in local elections for the first time in quite a long time. There was a boom in electronic voting in the past, but it did not spread. There was no market, so companies were attracted to it. However, in Shijonawate City, there were so many invalid ballots in handwriting, so they proposed to implement electronic voting in order to eliminate it, and they could not find a business operator, so we, the secretariat, in the RegTech community, threw it out, and Kyocera raised its hand with enthusiasm, and it was a very ideal case that the matching was realized.

Next is the last item. What we have to focus on from now on is the promotion of the introduction of open technologies.
Up to revising analog regulations, the national government can do it, but it is expected that the ban on specific technologies will be lifted and their use will begin as a result of individual regulatory reviews. However, there have been too many regulatory reviews at once, and we have not received enough information on the differences in changes, such as what can be used at specific sites. For example, if you look at the results of the project with Saitama Prefecture, which I introduced earlier, the guarantee consultant is an important player in the acquisition of public land, but we have a feeling that many processes are currently stuck in a situation where the introduction of new technologies will not progress in practice even if the regulations change, unless the guarantee consultant is willing to replace the work that is currently done visually or measured using a measure with digital. I think there is a possibility that the current practice is analog to the extent that the regulatory authorities do not necessarily expect.

Therefore, the review of the regulations has almost been completed, and I would like to go to the next step, but I would like to devise a way of communicating to the appropriate people how to identify the digital technologies used in the lifting of the ban and how to convey that information or that the regulations have already been reviewed. This is the next challenge.

On the next page, first of all, I introduced several notifications and notices issued as a result of independent technical verification by ministries and agencies in Ministry of the Environment and Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare. If you look at them carefully, they are very specific and good. However, notifications and notices are issued by a specific government department to a specific department within the administration, so in fact, even if you search the Internet, that information does not come out. Therefore, I once again asked each ministry and agency about what kind of notifications and notices they issue to revising analog regulations, and at the moment, I have collected about 1,400. Each of these documents is a very valuable document, and if you look at them carefully, you can understand very well at least what kind of technology the national authorities think will be involved in what kind of work. Based on this, I think we can consider providing information necessary for the introduction of specific technologies to be lifted. If necessary, I think it is more meaningful to hear from the ministries and agencies in charge of the regulations than from Digital Agency, so I would like to consider asking for their cooperation.

As I wrote one reference example, the notifications and notices issued by Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications to local governments regarding the survey on the current status of fixed assets, which is conducted based on Article 408 of the Local Tax Act, are very substantial, and I think it can be a model. For example, satellite images may be considered coarse, but they are firmly attached with sample images saying that they can be seen so well, and since the name of the company is written in Samne on the image, it seems that local governments around the country are collecting inquiries about the company. The document "Results of the Fact-finding Survey on the Current Status of Quasi-National Assets and Advanced Cases" is not available on the Internet, but I think it is a very valuable document. After collecting these things thoroughly, I am now aware of the problem that I would like to consider some way of delivery without letting them sleep at our place.

On the next page, in addition to providing very granular information, I would like to consider a system to provide an overview of the changes taking place as a whole. In fact, I don't know if you are aware of it, but the revising analog regulations Status Dashboard is already available on the Digital Agency website. You can skip it from this QR code, and it shows the progress in an easy-to-read format. I would like to firmly link technology-related information to this in the future.

On the next page, I will explain the future schedule. Rather than the timing of a large-scale regulatory review, it will be a very steady process after that, so I would like to work on it in a sustainable manner while being aware of the standardization, rulemaking, and formalization of operations.

Finally, on the next page, although it is not necessary to limit myself to this, I would like to ask you to discuss a few things today or give me some advice, so I consulted with the chairman and wrote the points of discussion.

First of all, the revising analog regulations that the government can promote has already been completed by 97%, and I would like to move on to the implementation phase of the lifting of the ban. If you have any specific advice on what kind of efforts are effective in addition to the measures we have just presented, I would like to receive it.

The second point is that local governments are the key to accelerating the implementation of open technologies. Local governments are rich in the potential of DX, and I think there are places where the pace of introduction of technology has been decided specifically there. The second question is how we should approach and support them. As I will explain in the next page, there was a serious incident related to the infrastructure of the sewage system in Yashio City, Saitama the other day. In response to this, the Prime Minister issued instructions at the 9th Digital Administrative and Fiscal Reform Council, and I will read out the blue letters in the instructions. "As for infrastructure, on January 28, there was a serious accident in Saitama Prefecture. In order to cope with the aging of water and sewerage infrastructure and to make business operations by local governments sustainable, I would like you to make this an urgent task. I would like to ask Minister of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism Nakano and Minister for Internal Affairs and Communications Murakami to significantly advance the goal of implementing DX technology nationwide in the next five years or so, including the detection of water leaks using satellite data and drones, and the inspection of underground pipeline interiors. I would like to ask them to implement DX technology promptly, starting with local governments that can do so, so that it can be standardized and implemented nationwide in about three years. In addition, with regard to the maintenance of not only water supply and sewerage systems, but also the entire infrastructure of local governments, I would like you to actually work on revising the rules so that on-site operations, which tend to rely on visual observation, can be made more accurate through the use of digital technology and the on-site burden can be reduced while ensuring safety. As the Prime Minister has issued specific instructions to this point, I am glad that this is one of the achievements and milestones of the activities of the Digital Ad Hoc Administrative Investigation Committee, and the document says that the next issues are coming into view.

Regarding the third and final point, although the color of the background has changed a little, compared to the beginning when the digital regulatory reform started and the map catalog started to be made, the biggest change was the introduction speed of AI. Originally, AI could be used, so of course the map says AI, but the impact is bigger than what we expected at that time. The third point is that if you have any thoughts on how to consider the elements of AI for the next phase of analog Rincho, I would like to ask you.

That's all the explanation from the secretariat. Thank you very much.

Chairman Ezaki: Thank you very much, .

There may be some committee members who thought what they were doing during their one year absence, but they have been doing it steadily, and as you said at the end, 97% of the reviews have been completed. In the sense that many of the things discussed in this discussion are becoming available, in a comprehensive sense, the map actually worked very well, according to the report.

Lastly, the Secretariat's recognition is that we have entered a very specific phase of implementation.

Lastly, to be honest, when we started this discussion on AI, we were having fun with the ChatGPT coming out at last. But in the sense that AI technology is already ready to be used for business use, the phase has changed since we first reviewed it. If you have any very good ideas, I would like you to input them, and we would like to take the next phase in response to the budget requests and measures from Digital Agency and other ministries and agencies. This is what Mr. Suga requested.

Now, it will be time for you to exchange your views. If you have any comments or questions on this matter, please let me know. Please let me know by direct speech button, chat, or voice. If you wish, please do so.

Mr. Shimada, please.

Shimada: . This is Shimada from Toshiba.

Right now, this committee is a committee that promotes technology-based regulatory reform, and I believe that the starting point of this is the assumption that digitalisation is not progressing because there are regulations. Currently, for example, 97% of regulations have been lifted, but implementation has not progressed, so I believe it has become clear that the problem was not the regulations. As I have been saying since the beginning of this committee, there was a lack of incentives. In other words, there was a problem with the private sector in terms of whether they could make money by taking responsibility even if they took risks.

That is to say, what is the reason for the lack of progress despite the absence of regulations? This is my two hypotheses, or rather, I heard from people who are actually doing it, but there is no incentive. The point is, for example, in the earlier talk about piping, it is more profitable to have the piping replaced, so from the supplier side, there is no incentive to actively do it.
So, when I think about it that way, I think that it is good for the Japanese country that digitalisation advances, and it is very good for the people as a whole, but I think it would be nice to interview the people who are providing the information about what the next real hurdle is.

The point is that when the problem disappears, when the real problem becomes clear, how to solve the real problem must be clarified in order. As far as I am listening to the current story, it sounds like everyone thinks that it is because they do not know. I wonder if it is true, so I think it is better to be interviewed.

Second, I think it is almost a matter of human resources that the DX of local governments does not work. There are not many people who can give a proper answer when I go to consult with them. If there is no solid CDO or something like that in local areas, I think it will be difficult for the recipient to take the budget and carry out the reform.

As for the third AI, the LLM from the U.S. cannot be directly applied to infrastructure. Rather, it is important to use the information from infrastructure to improve the accuracy of AI in Japanese infrastructure.
Considering that, I think the best way to make progress in this discussion is to think about how to make the current Japanese infrastructure data available to the AI. That's all.

I'm sorry, I have a few things to say first, but I'm afraid I'll have to leave the room later.

Chairman Ezaki: Thank you very much, .

Suga Director: Chairman Esaki .

Our initial assumption was that once the regulations were reviewed, the rest would fall into place freely. This is clearly not the case. On the other hand, the review of regulations was meaningless. Looking at the documents from the ministries and agencies that we received, we have come to understand that they said it was impossible. In that sense, I think the review was a necessary first step.

I believe that Mr. Shimada has been saying for a long time that there is no incentive for the implementation not to progress on the ground even if we only review the regulations. We have been communicating with business operators through technical catalogs, but we have not fully understood what exactly the incentive is as a model. Of course, there may be an aspect that we have not been able to get our true feelings out because we are being held back by the government. On top of that, I feel that there are not many people who have a fixed idea of what the real necessary incentive is. If there is anyone who can be introduced, I would like to talk to him, so I would appreciate your cooperation again.

I agree with you on other points.

Shimada: I don't mean to criticize, but I think it's a good thing that the problem will be revealed, but I was just making a slight prediction. This is the same reason as the private DX, where there are many people who don't buy it even though they wish they could use it. The people who publish catalogs and the like are the ones who sell it, so I think it's important to see what kind of incentives there are for the people who are sold, so I think I can introduce them. That's all.

Chairman Ezaki: Thank you very much, .

With regard to the third point, the Government of Japan has a broad direction of private LLM, or industrial LLM with full awareness of the sovereign nature of data. Therefore, what to do about LLM that is not public LLM and what to do about the anchor of data trust and corporate trust at that time are very important issues. Therefore, as Mr. Shimada said, I think Japan has to work on these issues.

Shimada: government to do is to issue guidelines on how to recognize the right to use data. There is no ownership of data. However, it has been said for a long time that there is a custom to issue this data. However, from various stakeholders, there is an idea of the right to use, which is actually OK to use, and I think that data will not be distributed for a long time unless discussions on this are deepened.

Chairman Ezaki: Thank you very much, .

Once again, I will remove the cap from the chair. I am currently the chair of the committee of the trust that Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry and Digital Agency are working together, and there is a consensus, with the participation of the Japan Federation of Economic Organizations (Keidanren), that data-ownership rights should be discarded and that data-linkage in supply-chain management should be properly done in terms of data-usage rights. We are now at the point where we are going to globally disseminate this consensus.

Shimada: Is that so? If that is the case, I would like to say one more thing. For example, I think that guidelines that are absolutely necessary, such as making CO2 visible, should be issued as a right to use. That's all.

Chairman Ezaki: Thank you very much, At the ASEAN Summit Meeting, creating a footprint of the environmental supply chain was included in the agenda, and we are going to do it as a priority use case.

Shimada: No more.

Chairman Ezaki: Thank you very much, .

What is important is that all the committee members speak out on various occasions, so I think it is very important that we speak out with the same understanding on various occasions. If we can share Mr. Shimada's idea that incentives and leadership at the top are important, and if we can get everyone to speak out in the same way, that is what I shared with Mr. Suga during the meeting. Thank you.

Next, Mr. Ogawa, please raise your hand.

Member Ogawa: Thank you, . I will show you my face.

Thank you for your report earlier. I was surprised that the review was completed by 97%, which is a very good figure. I am very happy that this report was made in a very short period of time and close to 100%.

I would like to share three points with you, Mr. Shimada.

The first is the promotion of the introduction of open technologies. The second is how the PDCA (Plan, Do, Check, and Act) cycle (a method of problem improvement that repeats Plan, Do, Check, and Act) will be organized for actual operational problems. The third is about the portal site.

First of all, I think there are two points in promoting the introduction of open-door technologies.

I think the first point is to strengthen the function of collecting and providing information. Earlier, I was very helpful in introducing examples of plumbing facilities and examples of valuation of fixed assets. I myself have been serving as a fixed asset councilor of a city for nine years and have experienced field surveys, and I feel firsthand how much this technology will contribute.
In fact, including this case, I think it is necessary to visualize and KPI the evaluation of the effects of utilization and practicability so that everyone can understand to a certain extent. In the future, the number of target technologies will increase, and in terms of their persuasiveness and publicity ability, we will visualize the effects as easily as possible. For example, we will define and visualize safety, cost reduction, accuracy improvement, and improvement of citizens' lives to a certain extent. I think it is difficult to implement open technologies simply through incentives and self-help efforts. In some cases, the central government will be involved, and I think it is extremely important to support such open technologies with high KPIs by giving priority to subsidies and other measures for horizontal development.

The second point is, as you mentioned earlier about technology literacy, I think it is difficult to promote literacy only in the field, or there are issues such as vested rights. Therefore, for example, we will develop group training programs including regular information provision meetings and case studies. In addition, I think it is very important to have personnel exchange programs and personnel support from the central government so that we can cooperate among different municipalities. I think you mentioned earlier that CDOs may be necessary, but this is extremely important. Given the situation where the field is always busy, there is no money, and there are not enough people, I think it is important for each local government to build a strategic digital promotion and governance system to a certain extent. In order to promote such a system, it may be effective to provide subsidies or voluntarily match the competition principles among local governments, for example, by disclosing, comparing, and visualizing the KPI achievement rate mentioned earlier.

Next, I believe that when we finally enter the implementation stage, various issues will arise. How to share such information? I believe that there are two layers of information sharing.

The first is a mechanism for timely information sharing and cooperation with the central government and for giving solid feedback to each local government based on the central PDCA cycle.

Second, each local government manages its own individual issues and follows the PDCA cycle. I think it is important that the two tiers of the PDCA cycle, the central and local governments, are organically connected.

Finally, I was asking about the portal site because I thought it was wonderful. It is expected that the number of target technologies will increase in the future, and I think it will be very effective in terms of promoting the development of technology catalog functions in the future.

At the same time, the pace of technological innovation is very rapid and rapid. Therefore, the technology that was considered to be the best yesterday will soon be replaced by the next technology. I don't think we can ignore the dynamic part. In consideration of the obsolescence of such technological innovation, I think it is necessary to consider the process of technology replacement in the future. For example, I think it is necessary to consider it over the medium to long term, such as a constant cycle evaluation process by experts on the first technology. That's all from me. Here's your change.

Chairman Ezaki: Thank you very much, .

I think it was about my current job and following up on Mr. Shimada's talk.

There are still many committee members, so I would like to hear the opinions of other committee members. Do you have any?

Suga Director: Chairman Esaki has made a post as usual, so please do it if you don't mind.

Member Noboru: Hello, , my name is Noboru. Long time no see. I am in an environment where I cannot use my camera for my own reasons, so I will only listen to your voice.

I think it is very wonderful that this measure has progressed smoothly and the coverage ratio has been met quite well, and I have great respect for Digital Agency's operating capacity. I would like to make a few comments about the local government's DX and AI.

The details are as I pasted in the chat column. First of all, I think there are two types of AI. One is cloud-based AI, the other is public-based AI, and the other is local-based AI. The first is cloud-based AI. For example, OpenAI has very high-quality functions. However, I think there are difficulties in terms of the confidentiality of business secrets and personal data, reproducibility, clarification of responsibilities, and high costs.
Recently, I participated in another committee's compilation of a contract checklist for the use and development of AI in Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, and even in this final report, there is a description that various precautions are necessary regarding the confidentiality of cloud-based AI and the handling of personal data.

Also, I found out that not many major AI providers have read the terms and conditions for cloud-based OpenAI for enterprises, so I read them all at the end of last year, and there were a lot of concerns about personal data, security, and confidentiality, so I also submitted them to the METI committee.

Next, I would like to talk about a promising local AI. For example, a machine can be bought at the hands of an administrative agency such as a local government and run on GPUs. Unfortunately, the quality control function is insufficient at this stage. What is insufficient is that the GPUs that run on hand, such as the GeForceRTX4090 or 5090, which can be bought for less than one million yen in NVDA, are geeky. They are quite fast, but they have a large memory and a limited number of tokens. They cannot load all the pre-trained data, and they require quantization. The accuracy is low. In the case of the first cloud type, due to the multiplexing effect of many more expensive GPUs running, the cost varies even if a very large amount of memory is used. This is the second disadvantage. However, the advantage is that it is confidential or repeatable, clarifies responsibility, and the cost is also the best. Looking at the second one, this year is like the first year of the second local AI, and it seems that there will be a major evolution within two to three years.

Finally, I would like to share a very noteworthy example of the combination of Municipal DX and this local AI. The employees of a city hall in Kanagawa have prepared a NVDA GeForce and two reasonably decent machines for less than one million yen, and a local AI using an open-source AI and GPUs, which is similar to the ChatGPT-4, although it is not really catching up, the ChatGPT-4. It is older than the o1 and others, but they are making it in the city hall with the aim of having the same performance. It is supported by the IPA from the back. I think it is worth noting.

The link I pasted is a blog post written by two of them in government officials every day. At the bottom of this blog post, they write about unpacking the machine, connecting the GPU, and installing the OS, which other local government officials can refer to and reproduce.

Then, I think we can say the following. Local AI naturally evolves in two to three years, but I think it is impossible for local governments to develop the core, the deepest part of the AI by themselves in order to make full use of it. However, existing AI engines can be called up in various ways. For example, in the case of inspection automation in this case, video data is divided into still images, which are called up one after another as images in the AI, and the results are compiled in another AI. The scripting part, which is an adhesive use, is an important know-how that will be creatively created in each local government in the future. If know-how is found in one local government, it will be shared with other local governments and can be used nationwide.

In this case, what is important is not to say that we absolutely have to realize this by some kind of planning principle or by investing a lot of money. Rather, as in the case of the local government in question, by combining consumer-class inexpensive GPUs that can be purchased at the consumable level, they will feel like playing with them whenever they want. Since the word "play" is not good, I think we should rephrase it in various ways, such as trial and error. If we can create a system in which technology related to AI naturally arises from within the local government in such a way, I thought that the second and third points of the current discussion would move forward. That is all.

Chairman Ezaki: Thank you very much, .

This is the topic of discussion by the Government, and we know the examples of the local governments concerned, so I was told that it would be a good idea to stay in the discussion for a longer period of time in order to better disseminate the information we discussed.

Since a lot of time has passed, Mr. Nagai, who is raising his hand now, please do it.

Suga Director: Chairman Esaki Mr. Nagai was scheduled to leave the room at twelve o'clock. Is he all right? You gave us a chat.

Chairman Ezaki: Thank you very much, has already left the room. Then, please respond to the email of apology from the office.

Then, Mr. Nakagaki, please.

Nakagaki member: I'm Nakagaki .

I am currently working on two electrical security issues related to Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, and I would like to report and comment on these issues.

There are some overlaps with Mr. Shimada. First of all, we are currently conducting the Smart Security Promotion Committee. Three and a half years have passed, and the goal was 20 items, but now we have published 22 technical catalogs.

On the other hand, there were various points of reflection, and there was a data-ownership barrier between developers and facility owners. As expected, there was no proposal for the use of advanced AI. The basic policy of this committee is to strive to support the promotion of implementation after sorting out the factors that hinder the spread of effective technologies that have been slow to spread. However, in addition to the regulatory barrier, I think there are psychological barriers to becoming a first mover throughout the industry, and I feel that there is a sense of hesitation, so there are some areas where progress has been slow.

In addition, in line with the partial revision of the High-Pressure Gas Safety Law, the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism has launched the Certified Advanced Safety Implementer Program. This program has four goals. Among them, the Minister of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism certifies companies that meet the requirements for the use of technology and measures for cyber security, and the Minister of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism can reduce the time required for various notifications and supervision. As for thermal power plants, in September last year, three major companies, JPOWER Generation Service Co., Ltd., Shikoku EPCo., Ltd., and Chugoku Electric Power Co., Ltd., were certified. I think this is a good example of regulatory reform taking the lead and accelerating digitalisation further.

In this way, I don't know if the major companies are the best or better, but they will show their practices, and if they are doing it, I expect some companies will follow them.

You mentioned the shortage of human resources, but that is also true. These three companies are also conducting education on the use of digital technology at related electric power companies, and I expect that these companies will expand their activities to a wider range of people by expanding their activities to other companies. That is all.

Chairman Ezaki: Thank you very much, . Thank you for sharing specific examples from the electric power industry.

Also, as Committee Member Nagai also stated in the chat, I would appreciate it if you could take a look at it. He also stated that it is very important to provide examples that worked as incentives.

Mr. Nakamura, who is also chatting with me, please.

NAKAMURA: Thank you, chat, I think that digitalisation is a tool for each job.

The non-destructive inspection of water pipes that I mentioned earlier is at a completely different level in terms of its purpose. In other words, we should inspect more accurately than we used to do by visual inspection, and we should manage the number of pixels mentioned earlier as more data. In other words, for each purpose, we should consider what we can do with current technology. This phase should be done.

I think that the fact that you have investigated and considered the possibility of digitalisation of the existing work so far has been a really wonderful output, but I think it is important that the next phase is to firmly match the purpose of each inspection to the current level.

The most important thing in digitalisation is that information can be shared. In other words, without information digitalisation, information cannot be shared. All documents to be submitted should be digital. In addition, I think it would be good to have activities such as preparing data formats.

.

Chairman Ezaki: Thank you very much, .

Suga Director: Chairman Esaki .

I would like you to summarize this later. That's right, Mr. Nakamura. This is not a matter of digital supremacy. When we examine it, for example, the pipe inspection I mentioned earlier, from the perspective of the local government, or at least from the position of being in charge of the budget, it seems that we can postpone the final expenditure itself to 18 years later while replacing the pipes little by little, even though the renovation cost of 500 million or 600 million was suddenly huge. I think this is a very high performance in terms of money. On the other hand, on the other hand, as Mr. Nagai and Mr. Shimada said, from the perspective of those who are doing it as a business now, it is not an incentive at all, or it will only mean that there will be no work, so of course it is important to show what else we could have done.

However, in the first place, the purpose of regulation is certainly a business, but before that, there must have been a purpose of maintaining safety, and I think that the most efficient and shortest means to that end are coming out one after another, so the more we return to the purpose, the better we should use this technology, I think.

When I demonstrated the purpose of this, I realized that it would be environmentally friendly, that it would be possible to reduce costs, and that it would improve accuracy by this much. So, I was thinking that there might be one more reason for the regulatory authorities to be more specific, saying that if we use the most advanced technology, we should be able to achieve this level of accuracy.

On the other hand, the notifications issued by the ministries and agencies in charge of the regulations are rather restrictive. They go so far as to say that such advanced technologies "may be used," but they do not encourage such use. Furthermore, they do not say that they should aim for accuracy that cannot be achieved without using such technologies. If anything, we were able to confirm that the downside risk is not due to the use of digital technology, so I thought that the overall tone was still that it was acceptable to use such technologies within that range.

NAKAMURA: Thank you, .

The ministries and agencies are the representatives of the people, so the money business of companies should be considered by companies, so I will definitely clarify the purpose. Of course, if it is possible to make it cheaper, it is good to have less tax, but I think it is time for Digital Agency to take the next step in the direction that we have to do what is called accuracy in the next phase, or if such data is not released in digital form, it is impossible for us to manage it. Thank you in advance.

Chairman Ezaki: Thank you very much, .

There are not so many messages from ministries and agencies, so Digital Agency will take the leadership and include them in the messages. Some people say that the messages should be sent out from what kind of mind, I think.

Then, Mr. Ogino, please.

Member OGINO: 's 97% was a very good result, and I think all that is left is to do. In the RegTech meeting earlier, I heard about the tablet voting for the Shijonawate City election at the end. In fact, I am from Shijonawate City, so I have heard a lot of stories from people around me, but I didn't think this issue was mentioned here. When I heard the stories from the field, there were three stakeholders: those who planned, those who operated, and those who made it. The planning person listened to a lot of stories at RegTech, and I think the planning was done while thinking about the election system so far. On the other hand, I think they worked hard on the development in response to it, but I don't think there was a person who operated it or another stakeholder there. In fact, I heard that they were paid attention to by city council members other than those from surrounding Osaka, and they looked into it and inspected it.

Then, there are good points and bad points. The problem is, as other people said earlier, there must be some suffering to be done first, but if only suffering is seen in it, the second cannot be seen. I think it would be better to have a few approaches to firmly present best practices somewhere. Of course, I am a promoter, so when I hear many stories about it, I support them, but I hope that Digital Agency will think about how to take out best practices, including technical catalogs.

In terms of failure cases, I would say it is difficult, but I have done it, but this is the challenge, and I hope it will become a RegTech meeting that will show a positive way to do more. That's all.

Chairman Ezaki: Thank you very much, , please.

Suga Director: Chairman Esaki After all, even if there is a good one, it is very difficult to operate, and according to what I heard, we have to have a lot of staff at the site, so it is not worth the cost. However, the relief was that the goal was to eliminate invalid votes, which was social justice, and it was achieved, so I think it was a very big step, but I also thought it was a case where we realized the problem of the wide range of players when implementing technology in the field and the fact that the people we are caught by are just a small part of the stakeholders.

.

Chairman Ezaki: Thank you very much, I'm sorry, Mr. Okada told me in a chat that he has to leave at 15 minutes, so please do it even for a moment.

Mr. Okada: My name is Okada . Thank you very much for your time.

There are four points written in the chat, but there are two points. One is the order requirements I mentioned before. If you don't write the performance requirements in the order, it will be difficult to adopt new technologies.

We have been saying for a long time that we should place performance orders, but in the end, we don't know where to say it effectively. There are many people who agree, but when we finally get to the person who places the order, they mostly place the same order because they don't know how to write it. Therefore, I think we need to clarify how to place performance orders and how to write them. However, I haven't come up with any concrete good ideas yet.

Another point is about the data that Mr. Shimada also mentioned. In particular, when it comes to safety, there are many ways to say that they want to keep it private or don't want to show it. Therefore, I think it is important to sort out the idea of a database that is supposed to be used within a limited framework and consider how to use the data so that infrastructure owners can feel secure. However, what kind of framework should be used to make infrastructure owners feel secure? I think we have no choice but to obtain it through interviews with various stakeholders.

Neither of them has a clear concrete plan, but I wrote it because I thought it was a matter to be solved. That's all.

Chairman Ezaki: Thank you very much, .

Let's all try to persuade those people with the same words.

Well, I let Mr. Suga stop in the middle, but please respond to this and Mr. Okada's talk.

Suga Director: Chairman Esaki Thank you, I have already talked and I have been receiving many comments one after another, if you don't mind. Thank you.

Chairman Ezaki: Thank you very much, , Mr. Kawabata, please.

Mr. Kawabata: As for the content of the study itself, I think it was an important achievement that the concept and framework were properly organized.

On the other hand, I expect that there will be more specific issues when it comes to social implementation. I think that it can be called widespread only when basic local governments and local small and medium-sized enterprises in each region adopt it. As you all said, I think that whether it can be made user-friendly, including the interface, and the cost of implementation will be issues in the future.

However, the fact that it has been systematized itself is important. The framework and goals will be considered at the national level, and the order will be to create a path that will be easy for basic local governments and local SMEs to introduce. From that perspective, I recognize that the fact that we were able to present the overall framework and goals at this conference has been summarized as a result for a while. In addition, I think that we should communicate these efforts and the knowledge we have gained so far, in other words, we should firmly conduct public relations. By sharing information, we can raise motivation and awareness that it is something that should be done as a whole. While reforming awareness, we will look at interfaces that are easy to implement and costs. I thought that what we need to do in the future is to make it possible for not only large companies but also local businesses to participate in it.

Thank you for your careful consideration, including the details.

Chairman Ezaki: Thank you very much, .

Then, Mr. Kawahara, please.

Kawahara: and other members of the committee have already mentioned several things, but I would like to take your time. First of all, I think it is wonderful that many regulations have led to reform. Even though I have personally been involved in several DXs and regulatory reform, I am very impressed that if I take the lead in Digital Agency, I can do it on this scale.

On the other hand, there was a self-evaluation that public relations were still insufficient, but I believe that information exchange to share best practices is indispensable for the promotion and dissemination of such things, so I am looking forward to having you do that.

In terms of future developments, I also feel that it will be important to properly investigate what kind of information is available and to guarantee with some rules whether or not access to that information can be properly obtained when using digital technology for regulatory reform. I think that open data is quite difficult in many cases, but I think that making it possible for those who have responsibilities and rights to access it after taking appropriate procedures will promote such things in the future.

Regarding AI, Mr. Noboru and others pointed out several things. What we need to pay attention to is that when the study started, the mainstream of AI technology and recognition technology was that once a logic that could be judged as A was constructed, it was always returned as A. However, recently, AI that returns probabilistic words has become mainstream, and after a few months, the version changes and the behavior of judgment and recognition can be completely different from before. I think we need to be a little cautious about incorporating it into the regulatory reform. I think it would be better to discuss and work on regulations using AI more intensively. That's all.

Chairman Ezaki: Thank you very much, .

Now, Mr. Hiramoto, please.

Hiramoto Member: This is Hiramoto from IPA.

Thank you very much for the wonderful presentation today. I found it interesting and wonderful that we were able to achieve very good results, but since there are good examples of this, I think it would be better to consider global expansion. If this is done, it will be used overseas, which will advance technological innovation and lead to further regulatory reform, so I think it would be good to release more and more of these things. That is the first point.

Also, in terms of AI, when I talk with people overseas, I think there will be discussions on various layers, such as whether it is better to use AI on the cloud, on the edge, or on the edge server, in the form of cloud-edge AI. I thought it would be good if we could sort out the discussions around here.

Also, I think it is a great idea to issue notifications. In times of disasters, it is always difficult to find notifications and notices, which is a problem. Therefore, I would appreciate it if you could make it open data from a broader perspective. Also, some of them are written quite freely, so I think it will be easier to use them by using data formats. That's all.

Chairman Ezaki: Thank you very much, .

It might be a very good practice to create a private LLM in Digital Agency and think about the proper handling of information. If Digital Agency creates an LLM that writes well even the heart of the notice as Commissioner Nakamura said, it might be very cool. In the end, it was my wish.

Mr. Kato and Mr. Toyoda, who have not yet spoken, do you have any questions?

Member KATO: No, it's about the same as everyone else, but what President Shimada said at the beginning was that I came here to look back again and determine the purpose, or I thought it would be good to do that at a high level. Now, I'm looking at the technology-based Council for Promotion of Regulatory Reform web page, but it's true that there is no goal-like description here, so from the perspective of the busy committee members, I don't think the parties who usually do this will get lost, but when we are called once in a while to give opinions, I think that the purpose or, if possible, how to write the purpose, who is the persona and what is the goal of the persona, and in order to do that, the need, in other words, what is the goal of the persona, is our job, and if the need is met, the goal of the persona will be achieved, and if the goal of the persona is achieved, the persona will be happy, so after listening to the discussion for an hour and a half today, I thought it would be nice to have something like what is often called agile goal-setting written somewhere.

Chairman Ezaki: Thank you very much, .

Mr. Toyoda, what can I do for you?

TOYODA: Thank you, .

I would like to keep it simple, but thank you for everything.

First of all, in terms of the name, or rather, in terms of its dissemination, no matter how right you say it, it doesn't spread very easily, so we will give it a name that is easy to understand and promote it more. For example, close to us, PLATEAU by the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism is overwhelmingly more widespread than projects in other countries, and I think this is largely due to the fact that it is promoted with a name. Although it itself has quite a structural problem, to be honest, I think it is included as an engine of dissemination at the point when the vitality of the private sector has entered the base in the first place. Even though PLATEAU has a structural problem that requires the government to spend money from above, the rate of people who have an image of it is very high. In this sense, I thought again that it is coming at the necessary timing to give it a name and promote it properly.

Also, I think what Mr. Shimada said at the beginning is true, but when we are doing various things in the field, in the end, when we get involved in regulatory reform or deregulation, the biggest hurdle is not the administration side, but in fact the internal regulations of private companies, especially large companies in the Showa. It is the actual feeling of the field that it is very often the case that people inside the field give up on it because it does not pass if they go up. Based on this material, I provided a template to break through it, and I thought that if I used that template, I would be able to raise it from the inside, and if I made something that people above me could talk about, there would be a part that would move forward realistically. That's all.

Chairman Ezaki: Thank you very much, .

So that means you all work together to spread the same language in different ways.
We have time, but actually the secretariat is preparing a demonstration of the portal site, so it's a short time, but is it possible?

Suga Director: Chairman Esaki , can you do that? I'm sorry. We received a lot of different opinions, so the timing of the presentation was wrong. However, Mr. Kawabata pointed out that the UI should be raised.

Dr. Hirono: In , I would like to briefly hold a demonstration.

As I explained on slide 15 of the handout, I would like to explain the content of this year's enhancements to the portal site, including a demonstration. If you would like to see the portal site at hand, there is a QR code in the handout, so please open it there.

First, this is the top page of the portal site. If you go down a little, there is a link called Pattern 1 on the technology map. The functions I am going to introduce are implemented in the same way in Pattern 1 and Pattern 2.

Then, I would like to click on Pattern 1. As you can see, the technology map is quite long, and it was very difficult to find where it corresponded to our own regulations.

On the other hand, this year we have a search condition button. If you click this, you can search the map by the competent government agency or article. As a trial, we will search by Article 7 of the Building Standard Act. If you enter a string and select all the related articles and search, only the parts related to Article 7 of the Building Standard Act will come out like this. Article 7 is a regulation related to the completion inspection of buildings, so only the parts you see are filtered out.

As for the highlighted areas, the component technologies that have been verified are shown in yellow. As for the non-highlighted component technologies, it is obvious that they can be used without verification.

Next, let me scroll down a little more. Below the technology map, there is a list of technology verification projects related to the provisions specified in the search criteria. The selected project is a link, and if you click on it, you can go to the page that summarizes the relevant technology verification. In addition, the column of products and services utilized is also a link, and if you click on it, you can go to the relevant technology catalog page.

Next, regarding the function described in ② of the handout, if you click on the data content necessary for management on the technology map, you can see a list of elemental technologies mapped on the technology map like this. Here, each of them is an accordion, and we will expand the camera for trial. When we expand it, a list of technology verification businesses using camera technology and a list of links of products and services will come out again. The list of technology verification businesses will be the same as the one under the technology map I explained earlier. The list of products and services will jump to the page of the list of products and services of the corresponding type in the technology catalog. Also, on this screen, only the information about the clause specified in the search criteria will be displayed.

Lastly, I just clicked on the data content required for management, but you can also click on the elemental technology. If you click on the camera as a trial, the same screen will come up, and this time, you can show that only the camera comes up.

Now that the demonstration is over, we have narrowed down the technology map by specifying the provisions related to analog regulations and the ministries and agencies in charge. It will be much easier to find the technologies that can be used and their verification results, as well as the products and services that can be introduced after reviewing the regulations. We would appreciate it if you could use the technology map.

.

Chairman Ezaki: Thank you very much, .

As expected, they worked hard and I wanted to introduce them to you. It was just the time I was given, but judging from the UI of the country so far, I think they worked very hard to make it, and they think they will make it more expensive and better. If you praise them, I think they will work harder. Thank you very much.

There were some teachers who said that my progress was slow and those who left in the middle were only chatting, but I would like to include the chat statements in the minutes, and the secretariat will respond accordingly. Thank you very much.

It's the time you gave me, so I'd like to give the microphone to Mr. Suga in the office.

Suga Director: Chairman Esaki , thank you very much.

I would like to contact you again regarding the next meeting of the committee.

I will also treat the proceedings as usual.
As for the documents, if you don't have any particular objection, in principle, all of them are open to the public.

Thank you very much for attending the committee meeting today.

Chairman Ezaki: Thank you very much, .

With that, I would like to conclude today's meeting of the Committee. Thank you very much for all the constructive suggestions you have given me for my next task.

Well then, I'd like to call it a day. Thank you very much.