<s>[INST] The next text is a question of a member of the European parliament:"The Mont Blanc tunnel is operated by a European Economic Interest Grouping (EEIG), created on the basis of Council Regulation (EEC) No2137/85 of 25July1985 and owned in equal shares by an Italian company and a French company. There is a convention between the two countries (the Lucca convention of 2006) which provides that calls to tender for public works contracts for maintaining the safety of the tunnel should be issued alternately on the basis of Italian and French law. In 2012 the EEIG issued a call for tenders for safety works under a procedure governed by French law (the same call for tenders had previously been issued in 2006 based on Italian law and in 2009 based on French law). According to this latest call for tenders, the estimated value of the contract, net of VAT, is in the order of EUR12million for 3years, while the previous tender procedures (2006 and 2009) had starting prices of EUR14600000 and EUR15000000 respectively and were subject to Italian law (in 2006) and French law (in 2009).  The reduction in value does not appear to be justified, given the many extremely serious incidents, such as the fire of March1999.  Can the Commission answer the following questions:      1.  Is it aware of these matters, and does it intend to carry out a transparent evaluation — based on the information made available by the awarding authority and the criteria applied — to avoid the negative consequences that could arise from a drastic reduction in the sums devoted to safety?      2.  Was this decision taken on the basis of the criteria of Directive2004/18/EC on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts, particularly Article9 of that directive, which establishes methods for calculating the estimated value of public contracts?      3.  Does it consider that the reduction in the sum devoted to safety can be regarded as reasonable for maintaining an adequate level of safety for European citizens passing through the tunnel?"
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>
The Mont Blanc tunnel is operated by a European Economic Interest Grouping (EEIG), created on the basis of Council Regulation (EEC) No2137/85 of 25July1985 and owned in equal shares by an Italian company and a French company. There is a convention between the two countries (the Lucca convention of 2006) which provides that calls to tender for public works contracts for maintaining the safety of the tunnel should be issued alternately on the basis of Italian and French law. In 2012 the EEIG issued a call for tenders for safety works under a procedure governed by French law (the same call for tenders had previously been issued in 2006 based on Italian law and in 2009 based on French law). According to this latest call for tenders, the estimated value of the contract, net of VAT, is in the order of EUR12million for 3years, while the previous tender procedures (2006 and 2009) had starting prices of EUR14600000 and EUR15000000 respectively and were subject to Italian law (in 2006) and French law (in 2009).  The reduction in value does not appear to be justified, given the many extremely serious incidents, such as the fire of March1999.  Can the Commission answer the following questions:      1.  Is it aware of these matters, and does it intend to carry out a transparent evaluation — based on the information made available by the awarding authority and the criteria applied — to avoid the negative consequences that could arise from a drastic reduction in the sums devoted to safety?      2.  Was this decision taken on the basis of the criteria of Directive2004/18/EC on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts, particularly Article9 of that directive, which establishes methods for calculating the estimated value of public contracts?      3.  Does it consider that the reduction in the sum devoted to safety can be regarded as reasonable for maintaining an adequate level of safety for European citizens passing through the tunnel?