NAIC QJ・RJ 評価プロセス案（2019 年 9 月 4 日付け）への意見
和文

英文

総論
NAIC の QJ・RJ 評価プロセス案に対し、意見を表明する機会をい The General Insurance Association of Japan (GIAJ) appreciates theただき、感謝する。

opportunity to comment on the proposed revisions to the Process
for Evaluating Qualified and Reciprocal Jurisdictions.

QJ・RJ 評価プロセス案は、これまで損保協会が求めてきた規制の We note that the proposed revisions incorporate principles such as
整合性や公正性、効率性の確保、規制の重複の確保の排除などの consistency with existing rules, fair treatment among insurers,
考え方に沿ったものと考えている。

efficiency of supervision, and removal of duplicative regulations,which the GIAJ has been seeking.

今後の、QJ の RJ 認定や Certified reinsurer 認定手続きも、透明で We expect the actual evaluation processes regarding the Reciprocal
効率的なプロセスで進むことを期待する。

Jurisdictions to which Qualified Jurisdictions are to be subjected
and criteria which will be applied on Certified Reinsurers to betransparent and efficient.

各論

QJ・RJ 評価プロセス案の個別箇所や今後の個別手続きについて、 We wish to submit some comments on the proposed revisions to以下のとおりコメントする。

I.

individual paragraphs and the future evaluation processes.

最後の段落の“recognize key NAIC solvency initiatives, including The sentence in the last paragraph, “recognize key NAIC solvency
group supervision and group capital standards,”との記載はモデル initiatives,including

group

supervisionandgroup

capital

法・規制では見られない表現であり、予断を排す観点から、モデ standards”, does not seem to be used in the Credit for Reinsurance
ル規制 Section 9.B.(3)(c)および本文書の III. 13. c. iii.と表現を揃 Model Law (#785) and Regulation (#786). From the standpoint of
え 、 ”recognize the U.S. state regulatory approach to group eliminating any prejudgments, we propose aligning the phrase withsupervision and group capital,”とすべきである。

Section 9.B.(3)(c) in #786 and III. 13. c. iii. in this proposed-1-NAIC QJ・RJ 評価プロセス案（2019 年 9 月 4 日付け）への意見
revision. Specifically, it should be rewritten as follows: ”recognize
the U.S. state regulatory approach to group supervision and groupcapital”
I.

また、最後の段落に”receive similar treatment as that provided

Also, another sentence in the same paragraph, ”receive similar

under the EU and UK Covered Agreements”とあるが、曖昧な表現 treatment as that provided under the EU and UK Coveredと考える。RJ である限りにおいて、EU・UK と同じ権利が認めら Agreements”, seems ambiguous. Those jurisdictions which are RJれるべきである。よって、“当該箇所は”the same treatment as that should be given the same treatment whether they conclude Coveredof the EU and UK”とすべきである。なお、カバードアグリーメン Agreement with the US or not. Therefore, we propose revising itトの締結・非締結による意図せざる法解釈上の差が生じる場合 to ”the same treatment as that of the EU and UK”. Where it isは、”substantially the same treatment as that of the EU and UK”と necessary to cater for unintended legal interpretations caused byすることが考えられる。

conclusion/non-conclusion of Covered Agreement, we propose
revising it to ”substantially the same treatment as that of the EUand UK”.

II. 3.

”recognize the states’ approach to group supervision, including The sentence “recognize the states’ approach to group supervision,group capital,”との記載について、予断を排す観点から、モデル規 including group capital” does not seem to be used in the Credit for制 Section 9.B.(3)(c)および本文書の III. 13. c. iii.と表現を揃 Reinsurance Model Law (#785) and Regulation (#786). From theえ 、 ”recognize the U.S. state regulatory approach to group standpoint of eliminating any prejudgments, we propose aligningsupervision and group capital,”とすべきである。

the phrase with Section 9.B.(3)(c) in #786 and III. 13. c. iii. in this
proposedrevision.

Specifically,itshouldberewritten

asfollows: ”recognize the U.S. state regulatory approach to groupsupervision and group capital”
II. 7.

“assuming insurer”の認定と各州間の一貫性を促進するパスポート We welcome a reference to the “passporting” process which
制度への言及を歓迎する。

facilitates multi-state recognition of assuming insurers and-2-NAIC QJ・RJ 評価プロセス案（2019 年 9 月 4 日付け）への意見
encourages uniformity among states.
III.12.c.

“a yearly due diligence review”は、当該国の保険監督規制の「大き We note that “a yearly due diligence review” will be performed toな変更」の有無を確認するために毎年行うものと認識している determine whether ‘significant changes’ that might affect theirが、詳細になりすぎず、効率的に行われることを期待する。「大き status as Qualified Jurisdictions exist. We expect the review will notな変更」として何を想定しているか等、今後、具体的なレビュー be too specific and will be performed efficiently. We would like theの方法が決定次第、内容をオープンにしていただきたい。

NAIC to clarify what will be assumed to be ‘significant changes’ assoon as the specific process of the review is determined.

III.13.a.

“utilize such processes and procedures as outlined in the From the standpoint of the efficiency of the regulations, we support
immediately-preceding paragraphs 1 – 12 of Section III. Procedure the sentences below: “utilize such processes and procedures as
for Evaluation of Non-U.S. Jurisdictions such as the Qualified outlined in the immediately-preceding paragraphs 1 – 12 of Section
Jurisdiction Working Group deems is appropriate.”との記載につい III. Procedure for Evaluation of Non-U.S. Jurisdictions such as theて、規制の効率性の観点から支持する。

III.13.b.

Qualified Jurisdiction Working Group deems appropriate.”“until there has been sufficient United States experience with that At the same time, we propose clarifying to the extent possible fromjurisdiction and its Certified Reinsurers that the Working Group the standpoint of clarity of regulation, what are required in “untilbelieves it is appropriate to progress from collateral reduction to there has been sufficient United States experience with thatcollateral elimination”や” Nothing in this process requires a finding jurisdiction and its Certified Reinsurers that the Working Group
that a Qualified Jurisdiction meets the standards for recognition as a believes it is appropriate to progress from collateral reduction toReciprocal Jurisdiction, and the Qualified Jurisdiction Working collateral elimination” and ”Nothing in this process requires aGroup may base such recommendation on factors not specifically finding that a Qualified Jurisdiction meets the standards forincluded in this process”とあるが、規制の透明性の観点から当該要 recognition as a Reciprocal Jurisdiction, and the Qualified
件についても可能な限り明確化すべきである。

Jurisdiction Working Group may base such recommendation on
factors not specifically included in this process”.

-3-NAIC QJ・RJ 評価プロセス案（2019 年 9 月 4 日付け）への意見
III.13.d.

過去の市中協議でコメントしたように、規制の効率性の観点か In line with the points we made in our past comments, from theら、グループ監督の制限が実質的に担保されていることを確認す standpoint of efficiency, it should be sufficient if the recognition of
れば十分と考える。

the U.S. state regulatory approach to group supervision by Qualified
Jurisdictions is secured in effect.

その他

今後の、日本を含む非カバードアグリーメント国の QJ 更新・RJ We would like the NAIC to clarify the future process and schedule
認定の進め方（含む時間軸）について、明らかにしていただきた which Qualified Jurisdictions not subjected to an in-force Covered
い。

Agreement including Japan will go through, with regard to a yearly
due diligence review of Qualified Jurisdictions and review of
Qualified Jurisdictions as Reciprocal Jurisdictions.

-4-