51. The expert from OICA introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2021/11, an amendment proposal to the ACSF of Category C provisions, with the main aim to include a truck-trailer data transmission. He proposed that the industry would invite for a specific workshop to discuss this until June 2021. He announced that OICA was targeting the adoption of an amendment proposal on this matter at the September 2021 session of GRVA.

73. GRVA noted that some inaccuracies were detected by the secretariat in the recent amendment to UN Regulation No. 79, as noted in GRVA-11-43, and agreed to consider a corrigendum or a supplement at its next session.

27. GRVA received a progress report from the expert from United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Co-Chair of the Special Interest Group on UN Regulation No. 157 (GRVA-12-36) on the activities of the group. He introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2022/3 and ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2022/4, aimed at proposing provisions addressing lane change manoeuvres and increasing the maximum design speed of ALKS, up to 130 km/h.

28. The expert from Germany introduced GRVA-12-20. She announced that some discussions were still taking place and that a revised document would be produced in the course of the week. The expert from EC recalled that the document had been discussed by the IWG on EDR/DSSAD and considered by GRSG, as it had been initially drafted as an amendment to UN Regulation No. 160 (EDR). He explained that following discussions, it was advised that the provisions should be inserted in UN Regulation No. 157, and that therefore the document had then been submitted to the Special Interest Group on UN Regulation No. 157. The expert from CLEPA confirmed that the industry did not have issues with the proposal but that a few last-minute clarifying amendments to the document were necessary. The expert from AAPC mentioned that he would circulate the proposal among his members, with the aim to provide feedback, if possible, during the week.

29. Later in the week, GRVA considered a revised document (GRVA-12-20/Rev.1). The expert from the United States of America, Co-Chair of the IWG on EDR/DSSAD, requested the possibility for her group to review the revised proposal, at a meeting taking place one working day after GRVA. Accordingly, GRVA agreed to keep the text contained in the document in square brackets.

30. GRVA reviewed GRVA-12-51 and GRVA-12-51/Rev.1 (note: document not available) prepared during the week and requested the secretariat to submit GRVA-12-52 (based on formal documents ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2022/3, ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2022/4 and informal documents GRVA-12-34, GRVA-12-35, GRVA-12-20/Rev.1 (including square brackets) to WP.29 and AC.1 for consideration and vote at their June 2022 sessions, subject to final review by GRVA at its May 2022 session.

66. The expert from OICA introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2022/6, introducing clarifications and correcting omissions. GRVA adopted it as amended by GRVA-12-43 (reproduced in Annex III) and requested the secretariat to submit it, as draft supplement for the 03 and 04 series of amendments to UN Regulation No. 79, to WP.29 and AC.1 for consideration and vote at their June 2022 sessions.

66. The expert from OICA introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2022/6, introducing clarifications and correcting omissions. GRVA adopted it as amended by GRVA-12-43 (reproduced in Annex III) and requested the secretariat to submit it, as draft supplement for the 03 and 04 series of amendments to UN Regulation No. 79, to WP.29 and AC.1 for consideration and vote at their June 2022 sessions.

48. The expert from OICA introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2021/8 as amended by GRVA-09-37 on continued support of ACSF of Category B1 when the boundary conditions are exceeded. The proposal received comments from the experts from France and UK. GRVA agreed to resume consideration of this proposal at its next session.

48. The expert from OICA introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2021/8 as amended by GRVA-09-37 on continued support of ACSF of Category B1 when the boundary conditions are exceeded. The proposal received comments from the experts from France and UK. GRVA agreed to resume consideration of this proposal at its next session.

67. The expert from OICA introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2021/12 proposing an alternative HMI for remote control parking in UN Regulation No. 79.

68. The expert from UK noted that, under the current provisions, a remote served as interface and, that in the alternative HMI proposed, the human would serve as interface. He inquired about the safety mechanism in place to make sure that the driver knows how to stop controlling and moving the vehicle.

69. The expert from Germany proposed that the Task Force could review the proposal and the question raised. The experts from France and the Netherlands supported Germany.

70. GRVA invited the expert from OICA to liaise with France, Germany and the Netherlands, and also to discuss the proposal at the task force meetings.

GRVA requested the secretariat to submit ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2021/12 as amended by GRVA-10-39 (as amended in session) to WP.29 and AC.1 for consideration and vote at their November 2021 sessions, subject to final review by GRVA at its September 2021 sessions.

67. The expert from OICA introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2021/12 proposing an alternative HMI for remote control parking in UN Regulation No. 79.

68. The expert from UK noted that, under the current provisions, a remote served as interface and, that in the alternative HMI proposed, the human would serve as interface. He inquired about the safety mechanism in place to make sure that the driver knows how to stop controlling and moving the vehicle.

69. The expert from Germany proposed that the Task Force could review the proposal and the question raised. The experts from France and the Netherlands supported Germany.

70. GRVA invited the expert from OICA to liaise with France, Germany and the Netherlands, and also to discuss the proposal at the task force meetings.

GRVA requested the secretariat to submit ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2021/12 as amended by GRVA-10-39 (as amended in session) to WP.29 and AC.1 for consideration and vote at their November 2021 sessions, subject to final review by GRVA at its September 2021 sessions.

67. The expert from OICA introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2021/12 proposing an alternative HMI for remote control parking in UN Regulation No. 79.

68. The expert from UK noted that, under the current provisions, a remote served as interface and, that in the alternative HMI proposed, the human would serve as interface. He inquired about the safety mechanism in place to make sure that the driver knows how to stop controlling and moving the vehicle.

69. The expert from Germany proposed that the Task Force could review the proposal and the question raised. The experts from France and the Netherlands supported Germany.

70. GRVA invited the expert from OICA to liaise with France, Germany and the Netherlands, and also to discuss the proposal at the task force meetings.

GRVA requested the secretariat to submit ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2021/12 as amended by GRVA-10-39 (as amended in session) to WP.29 and AC.1 for consideration and vote at their November 2021 sessions, subject to final review by GRVA at its September 2021 sessions.

51. The expert from OICA introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2021/11, an amendment proposal to the ACSF of Category C provisions, with the main aim to include a truck-trailer data transmission. He proposed that the industry would invite for a specific workshop to discuss this until June 2021. He announced that OICA was targeting the adoption of an amendment proposal on this matter at the September 2021 session of GRVA.

50. The expert from AVERE introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2021/10 proposing revised amendments to the ACSF of Category C provisions (time range during which the lane change manoeuvre is initiated) in UN Regulation No. 79. The experts from UK, European Commissions and Japan supported the proposal. The expert from Korea supported the proposal and indicated that a longer time than the one proposed would be preferable. The expert from the Netherlands opposed to the proposal for the same reasons as the one expressed in September 2020. The expert from Norway also opposed to the proposal. He wondered about the possible benefits of stretching the limits. The expert from France supported the proposal but pointed out inconsistencies in the drawing compared to the provisions in the text. The expert from OICA supported the proposal. The expert from AVERE provided answers to the statements and questions raised. The Chair asked if all doubts were cleared. The experts from the Netherlands, Sweden, Germany and Finland still had reservations to the proposal but agreed that it could be further discussed at a task force meeting.

99. The Chair of GRVA presented draft amendment proposals contained in documents ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2021/72 and ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2021/82 as amended by WP.29-184-05, reproduced in Annex VI, under agenda items 4.8.1 and 4.8.2., to amend UN Regulation No. 79. The World Forum recommended their submission to AC.1 for voting.

GRVA received a progress report of the Task Force on Advanced Driver Assistant Systems (ADAS).

GRVA requested the secretariat to submit ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2021/82 as amended by GRVA-10-38 (as amended in session) to WP.29 and AC.1 for consideration and vote at their June 2021 sessions. The corresponding WP.29 document is informal document WP.29-184-05.

67. The expert from OICA introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2021/12 proposing an alternative HMI for remote control parking in UN Regulation No. 79.

68. The expert from UK noted that, under the current provisions, a remote served as interface and, that in the alternative HMI proposed, the human would serve as interface. He inquired about the safety mechanism in place to make sure that the driver knows how to stop controlling and moving the vehicle.

69. The expert from Germany proposed that the Task Force could review the proposal and the question raised. The experts from France and the Netherlands supported Germany.

70. GRVA invited the expert from OICA to liaise with France, Germany and the Netherlands, and also to discuss the proposal at the task force meetings.

GRVA requested the secretariat to submit ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2021/12 as amended by GRVA-10-39 (as amended in session) to WP.29 and AC.1 for consideration and vote at their November 2021 sessions, subject to final review by GRVA at its September 2021 sessions.

99. The Chair of GRVA presented draft amendment proposals contained in documents ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2021/72 and ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2021/82 as amended by WP.29-184-05, reproduced in Annex VI, under agenda items 4.8.1 and 4.8.2., to amend UN Regulation No. 79. The World Forum recommended their submission to AC.1 for voting.

71. The expert from OICA introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2021/13. He recalled that Risk Mitigation Functions related provisions would need to be adopted because safety systems that were type-approved in the past could no longer being able to receive a type approval under the 03 series of amendments to UN Regulation No. 79. He explained that the proposed lane change related provisions were still under discussion and could be deleted as an interim solution, if deemed necessary by GRVA.

72. The expert from Japan stated than Risk Mitigation Functions were important systems for the sake of safety, he added that Japan contributed to the proposal, that Japan supported it as an interim solution and that Japan would contribute to further activities, as necessary.

73. The expert from France expressed support for the working document. He stated that he would need more time to study the informal document amending it, as it had been recently submitted. He proposed to finalize the discussion at the next session.

74. The expert from Germany inquired whether systems already type-approved under the 02 series of amendment to UN Regulation No. 79 were including lane changing features.

75. The expert from OICA explained that existing systems could already perform a lane change. He recalled that the date B (as defined in the guidelines for transitional provisions in ECE/TRANS/WP.29/1044/Rev.2) of the transitional provisions for the 03 series was 1 September 2021 and that, therefore, the adoption should not be delayed.

76. The expert from CLEPA confirmed this information.

77. The expert from UK stated the benefits of such functions but also the lack of clarity on the HMI robustness.

78. The expert from Sweden stated that he had no clear position as he was still considering traffic safety impact of such systems.

79. The expert from Norway stated that he supported these emergency systems. He asked to OICA whether there would be risks associated to Risk Mitigation Function (RMF) that GRVA should know about.

80. The expert from OICA explained that zero risk did not exist but that OICA was not aware of any critical situation or crash induced by these systems: OICA was not aware of any police report giving a hint in that situation. He responded to the expert from UK that paragraph 6.1.6.3.2. would address the statement made on HMI.

81. The expert from Germany explained that systems without lane change were type approved as corrective steering function, which was not really intended like this. Therefore, she could support provisions for RMF without lane change. She stated that allowing systems with lane change was a precedent, a situation that wasn’t clear. She wondered if this should be allowed for all vehicle categories, on all road types. She inquired about pedestrian safety implications. OICA responded that these elements would be clarified through the assessment imposed by Annex 6, on the fault and non-fault conditions. Following the consultations held during the week, the expert from OICA introduced GRVA-09-43, aimed at addressing the comments received.

82. Following the discussion and positions expressed by the experts from the European Commission, France, Germany, Japan, Netherlands, Norway, Russian Federation, Sweden, UK, GRVA concluded that removing such systems from the market was an issue.

83. GRVA agreed to forward the proposal in GRVA-09-43 as supplement to the 03 series of amendments to UN Regulation No. 79 for consideration and vote by WP.29 and AC.1, subject to reconfirmation by GRVA at its next session, in order to allow a potential solution to be developed until June 2021. GRVA noted the reservations expressed by some delegations due to the fact that the technical discussion was not completed and agreed that the document could be amended until June 2021.

99. The Chair of GRVA presented draft amendment proposals contained in documents ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2021/72 and ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2021/82 as amended by WP.29-184-05, reproduced in Annex VI, under agenda items 4.8.1 and 4.8.2., to amend UN Regulation No. 79. The World Forum recommended their submission to AC.1 for voting.

GRVA received a progress report of the Task Force on Advanced Driver Assistant Systems (ADAS).

GRVA requested the secretariat to submit ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2021/82 as amended by GRVA-10-38 (as amended in session) to WP.29 and AC.1 for consideration and vote at their June 2021 sessions. The corresponding WP.29 document is informal document WP.29-184-05.

48. The expert from OICA introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2021/8 as amended by GRVA-09-37 on continued support of ACSF of Category B1 when the boundary conditions are exceeded. The proposal received comments from the experts from France and UK. GRVA agreed to resume consideration of this proposal at its next session.

71. GRVA adopted ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2021/8, as amended by GRVA-11-17 (reproduced in Annex III), and requested the secretariat to submit it, as draft supplements for the 02, 03 and 04 series of amendments to UN Regulation No. 79, to WP.29 and AC.1 for consideration and vote at their March 2022 sessions.

50. The expert from AVERE introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2021/10 proposing revised amendments to the ACSF of Category C provisions (time range during which the lane change manoeuvre is initiated) in UN Regulation No. 79. The experts from UK, European Commissions and Japan supported the proposal. The expert from Korea supported the proposal and indicated that a longer time than the one proposed would be preferable. The expert from the Netherlands opposed to the proposal for the same reasons as the one expressed in September 2020. The expert from Norway also opposed to the proposal. He wondered about the possible benefits of stretching the limits. The expert from France supported the proposal but pointed out inconsistencies in the drawing compared to the provisions in the text. The expert from OICA supported the proposal. The expert from AVERE provided answers to the statements and questions raised. The Chair asked if all doubts were cleared. The experts from the Netherlands, Sweden, Germany and Finland still had reservations to the proposal but agreed that it could be further discussed at a task force meeting.

50. The expert from AVERE introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2021/10 proposing revised amendments to the ACSF of Category C provisions (time range during which the lane change manoeuvre is initiated) in UN Regulation No. 79. The experts from UK, European Commissions and Japan supported the proposal. The expert from Korea supported the proposal and indicated that a longer time than the one proposed would be preferable. The expert from the Netherlands opposed to the proposal for the same reasons as the one expressed in September 2020. The expert from Norway also opposed to the proposal. He wondered about the possible benefits of stretching the limits. The expert from France supported the proposal but pointed out inconsistencies in the drawing compared to the provisions in the text. The expert from OICA supported the proposal. The expert from AVERE provided answers to the statements and questions raised. The Chair asked if all doubts were cleared. The experts from the Netherlands, Sweden, Germany and Finland still had reservations to the proposal but agreed that it could be further discussed at a task force meeting.

47. The expert from OICA introduced GRVA-07-24, with provisions for the approval of systems providing manoeuvring assistance in low speed driving situations aimed at reducing damages and injuries. The expert from Japan commented that the 2 m/s² value seemed high. GRVA agreed to resume consideration of this item at its February 2021 session.

99. The Chair of GRVA presented draft amendment proposals contained in documents ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2021/72 and ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2021/82 as amended by WP.29-184-05, reproduced in Annex VI, under agenda items 4.8.1 and 4.8.2., to amend UN Regulation No. 79. The World Forum recommended their submission to AC.1 for voting.

GRVA requested the secretariat to submit ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2021/12 as amended by GRVA-10-39 (as amended in session) to WP.29 and AC.1 for consideration and vote at their November 2021 sessions, subject to final review by GRVA at its September 2021 sessions.

51. The expert from OICA introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2021/11, an amendment proposal to the ACSF of Category C provisions, with the main aim to include a truck-trailer data transmission. He proposed that the industry would invite for a specific workshop to discuss this until June 2021. He announced that OICA was targeting the adoption of an amendment proposal on this matter at the September 2021 session of GRVA.

65. The expert from OICA recalled the purpose of ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2021/11 (aimed to include truck-trailer data transmission in the Automatically Commanded Steering Functions (ACSF) of Category C provisions in UN Regulation No. 79) and introduced a revised proposal (GRVA-12-19). GRVA adopted GRVA-12-19 and requested the secretariat to edit it and to submit it, as draft supplement for the 03 and 04 series of amendments to UN Regulation No. 79, to WP.29 and AC.1 for consideration and vote at their June 2022 sessions.

67. The expert from OICA introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2021/12 proposing an alternative HMI for remote control parking in UN Regulation No. 79.

68. The expert from UK noted that, under the current provisions, a remote served as interface and, that in the alternative HMI proposed, the human would serve as interface. He inquired about the safety mechanism in place to make sure that the driver knows how to stop controlling and moving the vehicle.

69. The expert from Germany proposed that the Task Force could review the proposal and the question raised. The experts from France and the Netherlands supported Germany.

70. GRVA invited the expert from OICA to liaise with France, Germany and the Netherlands, and also to discuss the proposal at the task force meetings.

49. The expert from OICA introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2021/9 as amended by GRVA-09-30. She announced that the amendment to the tolerance in square bracket was withdrawn. GRVA adopted the proposal (without the amendment to the tolerance in para. 5.6.4.7.) and requested the secretariat to submit it to WP.29 and AC.1 for consideration and vote at their June 2021 sessions.

67. The expert from OICA introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2021/12 proposing an alternative HMI for remote control parking in UN Regulation No. 79.

68. The expert from UK noted that, under the current provisions, a remote served as interface and, that in the alternative HMI proposed, the human would serve as interface. He inquired about the safety mechanism in place to make sure that the driver knows how to stop controlling and moving the vehicle.

69. The expert from Germany proposed that the Task Force could review the proposal and the question raised. The experts from France and the Netherlands supported Germany.

70. GRVA invited the expert from OICA to liaise with France, Germany and the Netherlands, and also to discuss the proposal at the task force meetings.

71. The expert from OICA introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2021/13. He recalled that Risk Mitigation Functions related provisions would need to be adopted because safety systems that were type-approved in the past could no longer being able to receive a type approval under the 03 series of amendments to UN Regulation No. 79. He explained that the proposed lane change related provisions were still under discussion and could be deleted as an interim solution, if deemed necessary by GRVA.

72. The expert from Japan stated than Risk Mitigation Functions were important systems for the sake of safety, he added that Japan contributed to the proposal, that Japan supported it as an interim solution and that Japan would contribute to further activities, as necessary.

73. The expert from France expressed support for the working document. He stated that he would need more time to study the informal document amending it, as it had been recently submitted. He proposed to finalize the discussion at the next session.

74. The expert from Germany inquired whether systems already type-approved under the 02 series of amendment to UN Regulation No. 79 were including lane changing features.

75. The expert from OICA explained that existing systems could already perform a lane change. He recalled that the date B (as defined in the guidelines for transitional provisions in ECE/TRANS/WP.29/1044/Rev.2) of the transitional provisions for the 03 series was 1 September 2021 and that, therefore, the adoption should not be delayed.

76. The expert from CLEPA confirmed this information.

77. The expert from UK stated the benefits of such functions but also the lack of clarity on the HMI robustness.

78. The expert from Sweden stated that he had no clear position as he was still considering traffic safety impact of such systems.

79. The expert from Norway stated that he supported these emergency systems. He asked to OICA whether there would be risks associated to Risk Mitigation Function (RMF) that GRVA should know about.

80. The expert from OICA explained that zero risk did not exist but that OICA was not aware of any critical situation or crash induced by these systems: OICA was not aware of any police report giving a hint in that situation. He responded to the expert from UK that paragraph 6.1.6.3.2. would address the statement made on HMI.

81. The expert from Germany explained that systems without lane change were type approved as corrective steering function, which was not really intended like this. Therefore, she could support provisions for RMF without lane change. She stated that allowing systems with lane change was a precedent, a situation that wasn’t clear. She wondered if this should be allowed for all vehicle categories, on all road types. She inquired about pedestrian safety implications. OICA responded that these elements would be clarified through the assessment imposed by Annex 6, on the fault and non-fault conditions. Following the consultations held during the week, the expert from OICA introduced GRVA-09-43, aimed at addressing the comments received.

82. Following the discussion and positions expressed by the experts from the European Commission, France, Germany, Japan, Netherlands, Norway, Russian Federation, Sweden, UK, GRVA concluded that removing such systems from the market was an issue.

83. GRVA agreed to forward the proposal in GRVA-09-43 as supplement to the 03 series of amendments to UN Regulation No. 79 for consideration and vote by WP.29 and AC.1, subject to reconfirmation by GRVA at its next session, in order to allow a potential solution to be developed until June 2021. GRVA noted the reservations expressed by some delegations due to the fact that the technical discussion was not completed and agreed that the document could be amended until June 2021.

71. The expert from OICA introduced ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRVA/2021/13. He recalled that Risk Mitigation Functions related provisions would need to be adopted because safety systems that were type-approved in the past could no longer being able to receive a type approval under the 03 series of amendments to UN Regulation No. 79. He explained that the proposed lane change related provisions were still under discussion and could be deleted as an interim solution, if deemed necessary by GRVA.

72. The expert from Japan stated than Risk Mitigation Functions were important systems for the sake of safety, he added that Japan contributed to the proposal, that Japan supported it as an interim solution and that Japan would contribute to further activities, as necessary.

73. The expert from France expressed support for the working document. He stated that he would need more time to study the informal document amending it, as it had been recently submitted. He proposed to finalize the discussion at the next session.

74. The expert from Germany inquired whether systems already type-approved under the 02 series of amendment to UN Regulation No. 79 were including lane changing features.

75. The expert from OICA explained that existing systems could already perform a lane change. He recalled that the date B (as defined in the guidelines for transitional provisions in ECE/TRANS/WP.29/1044/Rev.2) of the transitional provisions for the 03 series was 1 September 2021 and that, therefore, the adoption should not be delayed.

76. The expert from CLEPA confirmed this information.

77. The expert from UK stated the benefits of such functions but also the lack of clarity on the HMI robustness.

78. The expert from Sweden stated that he had no clear position as he was still considering traffic safety impact of such systems.

79. The expert from Norway stated that he supported these emergency systems. He asked to OICA whether there would be risks associated to Risk Mitigation Function (RMF) that GRVA should know about.

80. The expert from OICA explained that zero risk did not exist but that OICA was not aware of any critical situation or crash induced by these systems: OICA was not aware of any police report giving a hint in that situation. He responded to the expert from UK that paragraph 6.1.6.3.2. would address the statement made on HMI.

81. The expert from Germany explained that systems without lane change were type approved as corrective steering function, which was not really intended like this. Therefore, she could support provisions for RMF without lane change. She stated that allowing systems with lane change was a precedent, a situation that wasn’t clear. She wondered if this should be allowed for all vehicle categories, on all road types. She inquired about pedestrian safety implications. OICA responded that these elements would be clarified through the assessment imposed by Annex 6, on the fault and non-fault conditions. Following the consultations held during the week, the expert from OICA introduced GRVA-09-43, aimed at addressing the comments received.

82. Following the discussion and positions expressed by the experts from the European Commission, France, Germany, Japan, Netherlands, Norway, Russian Federation, Sweden, UK, GRVA concluded that removing such systems from the market was an issue.

83. GRVA agreed to forward the proposal in GRVA-09-43 as supplement to the 03 series of amendments to UN Regulation No. 79 for consideration and vote by WP.29 and AC.1, subject to reconfirmation by GRVA at its next session, in order to allow a potential solution to be developed until June 2021. GRVA noted the reservations expressed by some delegations due to the fact that the technical discussion was not completed and agreed that the document could be amended until June 2021.