<s>[INST] The next text is a question of a member of the European parliament:"LastMay, without having issued apublic call for tenders, the agreement between the company holding the concession for the Brescia-Padova motorway and the Azienda Nazionale Autonoma Strade (ANAS), the public agency responsible for managing Italy's national road network, was extended for afurther nine years (until 2011).  Under the """"""""Ciampi-Costa"""""""" directive(1) motorway concessions may be extended, by way of exception, only in order to settle existing disputes (failure to adjust charges, recognition of the work carried out in connection with the 1990 World Cup and the Columbus celebrations in 1992 and any other disputes on which the opinion of the State legal advisory office must be requested). In this case, however, the justification put forward for the extension was the construction of new motorway links, including the A31 """"""""Valdastico motorway"""""""" which would link Vicenza to Rovigo (A4-A31 interchange) by a60-km road link. This motorway is additional to the Valtrompia motorway, which is also included in the Brescia-Padova concession company's financial plan and was the subject of my earlier question to the Commission (4047/00)(2).  Does the Commission not consider that the renewal of this concession is incompatible with Directives 92/50/EEC, 93/37/EEC and 89/440/EEC(3)?  Does the Commission consider it admissible to justify this extension, without apublic call for tenders being issued, on the basis of atransfer of investment to the construction of anew motorway?  Irrespective of the need for aroad axis through the valley in question, does the Commission not consider that accepting such apolicy of exchanges between concession holders and the public authorities in favour of new motorways undermines the priority objective of redressing the balance between road and rail transport in the European Union?    (1)Directive of the Minister of Public Works and the Minsiter for the Treasury, the Budget and Economic Planning of 20October 1998, Protocol No 011790 of the Ministry for the Treasury.  (2)The investments authorised under the concession company's financial plan amount to atotal of ITL 2466 billion (€ 1 273 million).  (3)Published in OJ L 209, 24.7.1992, OJ L 199, 9.8.1993 and OJ L 210, 21.7.1989."
Analyze carefully the text and assign it to the most relevant policy area among those listed below. Do not explain your answer and return only a number.
Policy area numbers: 1 = Macroeconomics
2 = Civil Rights, Minority Issues and Civil Liberties
3 = Health
4 = Agriculture and Fisheries
5 = Labour, employment and pensions
6 = Education
7 = Environment
8 = Energy
9 = Immigration
10 = Transportation
12 = Law and Crime
13 = Social welfare
14 = Regional and Urban issues and Planning
15 = Banking, finance and domestic commerce issues
16 = Defence
17 = Space, science, technology, and communications issues
18 = Foreign trade
19 = International affairs and foreign aid
20 = Governance and government
21 = Public Lands, Water Management and Territorial Issues
23 = Culture and media
[/INST]. Answer = [10]. </s>
LastMay, without having issued apublic call for tenders, the agreement between the company holding the concession for the Brescia-Padova motorway and the Azienda Nazionale Autonoma Strade (ANAS), the public agency responsible for managing Italy's national road network, was extended for afurther nine years (until 2011).  Under the """"""""Ciampi-Costa"""""""" directive(1) motorway concessions may be extended, by way of exception, only in order to settle existing disputes (failure to adjust charges, recognition of the work carried out in connection with the 1990 World Cup and the Columbus celebrations in 1992 and any other disputes on which the opinion of the State legal advisory office must be requested). In this case, however, the justification put forward for the extension was the construction of new motorway links, including the A31 """"""""Valdastico motorway"""""""" which would link Vicenza to Rovigo (A4-A31 interchange) by a60-km road link. This motorway is additional to the Valtrompia motorway, which is also included in the Brescia-Padova concession company's financial plan and was the subject of my earlier question to the Commission (4047/00)(2).  Does the Commission not consider that the renewal of this concession is incompatible with Directives 92/50/EEC, 93/37/EEC and 89/440/EEC(3)?  Does the Commission consider it admissible to justify this extension, without apublic call for tenders being issued, on the basis of atransfer of investment to the construction of anew motorway?  Irrespective of the need for aroad axis through the valley in question, does the Commission not consider that accepting such apolicy of exchanges between concession holders and the public authorities in favour of new motorways undermines the priority objective of redressing the balance between road and rail transport in the European Union?    (1)Directive of the Minister of Public Works and the Minsiter for the Treasury, the Budget and Economic Planning of 20October 1998, Protocol No 011790 of the Ministry for the Treasury.  (2)The investments authorised under the concession company's financial plan amount to atotal of ITL 2466 billion (€ 1 273 million).  (3)Published in OJ L 209, 24.7.1992, OJ L 199, 9.8.1993 and OJ L 210, 21.7.1989.