Germany stated that the proposed safeguard clause could undermine mutual recognition arrangement under the 1958 Agreement. Germany would bring back the proposal as a first draft for consideration.

OICA pointed out that the decision by the dispute settlement procedure stipulated in Article 10 should be applied to all Contracting Parties whereas the proposed safeguard clause would allow only one Contracting Party to behave differently. Therefore, OICA regarded the proposal as an unsatisfactory one.

Japan admitted that some kind of mechanism to prevent abuse of this safeguard clause would be necessary. Japan continued that any contracting Party might face a critical situation of withdrawal from IWVTA arrangement without this clause. Withdrawal of one Contracting Party would make both of leaving Contracting Party and remaining ones unhappy. Japan explained that this clause should not be used in cases other than exceptional ones where, e.g., Diet or Congress decided to impose specific safety requirements as countermeasures against excessive traffic accidents. Japan explained the case of rearview mirrors in Japan as an example. Japan regarded this safeguard clause as emergency measures and had no intention to use it for other purpose.

OICA welcomed the aim of Japanese proposal and agreed that some kind of revision with Article 4 would be necessary. OICA had no concrete proposal at the moment.

Germany understood the situation Japan is placed in. However, it is not possible to make its own requirements in Germany, whatever Deutscher Bundestag would say.

Japan stated that Japanese ordinary citizens would compare its Diet with European Parliament.