Task: sc_authoritydecision

What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the bases on which the Supreme Court rested its decision with regard to the legal provision that the Court considered in the case. Consider "judicial review (national level)" if the majority determined the constitutionality of some action taken by some unit or official of the federal government, including an interstate compact. Consider "judicial review (state level)" if the majority determined the constitutionality of some action taken by some unit or official of a state or local government. Consider "statutory construction" for cases where the majority interpret a federal statute, treaty, or court rule; if the Court interprets a federal statute governing the powers or jurisdiction of a federal court; if the Court construes a state law as incompatible with a federal law; or if an administrative official interprets a federal statute. Do not consider "statutory construction" where an administrative agency or official acts "pursuant to" a statute, unless the Court interprets the statute to determine if administrative action is proper. Consider "interpretation of administrative regulation or rule, or executive order" if the majority treats federal administrative action in arriving at its decision.Consider "diversity jurisdiction" if the majority said in approximately so many words that under its diversity jurisdiction it is interpreting state law. Consider "federal common law" if the majority indicate that it used a judge-made "doctrine" or "rule; if the Court without more merely specifies the disposition the Court has made of the case and cites one or more of its own previously decided cases unless the citation is qualified by the word "see."; if the case concerns admiralty or maritime law, or some other aspect of the law of "             nations other than a treaty; if the case concerns the retroactive application of a constitutional provision or a previous decision of the Court; if the case concerns an exclusionary rule, the harmless error rule (though not the statute), the abstention doctrine, comity, res judicata, or collateral estoppel; or if the case concerns a "rule" or "doctrine" that is not specified as related to or connected with a constitutional or statutory provision. Consider "Supreme Court supervision of lower federal or state courts or original jurisdiction" otherwise (i.e., the residual code); for issues pertaining to non-statutorily based Judicial Power topics; for cases arising under the Court's original jurisdiction; in cases in which the Court denied or dismissed the petition for review or where the decision of a lower court is affirmed by a tie vote; or in workers' compensation litigation involving statutory interpretation and, in addition, a discussion of jury determination and/or the sufficiency of the evidence.

Mr. Justice Douglas
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Section 311 (a) of the Interstate Commerce Act, 49 U. S. C. § 911 (a), gives the Commission power to grant “temporary authority” to a common carrier by water or a contract carrier by water to institute service for which “there is an immediate and urgent need.” And the section provides that the temporary authority “shall be valid for such time as the Commission shall specify, but not for more than an aggregate of one hundred and eighty days.”
Section 9 (b) of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U. S. C. § 1008 (b), provides that “In any case in which the licensee has, in accordance with agency rules, made timely and sufficient application for a renewal or a new license, no license with reference to any activity of a continuing nature shall expire until such application shall have been finally determined by the agency.”
The question in the case is whether this provision of the Administrative Procedure Act authorizes the Commission to extend a temporary authority granted under §311 (a) of the Interstate Commerce Act for more than 180 days.
On May 5, 1955, Pan-Atlantic filed with the Commission an application for a permanent certificate of public convenience and necessity as a common carrier by water. The Commission, upon finding an immediate and urgent need for the service, issued on May 18, 1955, to Pan-Atlantic temporary authority to operate as a common carrier by water between various ports of the United States for a period of 180 days. The Commission did not conclude the proceedings on the application before the expiration of the 180-day period. Accordingly, prior to the expiration of the 180-day period and on application by Pan-Atlantic, it authorized Pan-Atlantic to continue to perform the water carrier service authorized by the temporary authority until further order of the Commission, but not beyond the time the application for a permanent certificate had been finally determined. The appellees, who are seven railroads, opposed this extension before the Commission and then instituted this suit in the District Court to vacate the Commission’s order which authorized the continuance of the temporary authority beyond the 180-day period.
The District Court held for the appellees, 144 F. Supp. 53, feeling bound by the prior decision of that court in Stone’s Express, Inc. v. United States, 122 F. Supp. 955, though two of the three judges indicated that were stare decisis not to control, they would sustain the Commission. 144 F. Supp., at 54. The case is here by appeal. 28 U. S. C. § 1253. We noted probable jurisdiction. 352 U. S. 914.
We sustain the Commission in its assertion of authority to extend this temporary authority beyond 180 days.
“License” as used in the Administrative Procedure Act includes “the whole or part of any agency permit, certificate, approval, registration, charter, membership, statutory exemption or other form of permission.” § 2 (e). A temporary authority granted under § 311 (a) of the Interstate Commerce Act would seem to be a “permit” or “certificate” under the Administrative Procedure Act. “Licensee,” as used in the sentence of § 9 (b) which we have quoted, would seem, therefore, to include one who holds a temporary permit under § 311 (a). It is argued that “license” in that section includes only those that are permanent. But we see no justification for that narrow reading. A permit for 180 days covers an “activity of a continuing nature.”
Section 9 (b) of the Administrative Procedure Act is a direction to the various agencies. By its terms there must be a license outstanding; it must cover activities of a continuing nature; there must have been filed a timely and sufficient application to continue the existing operation ; and the application for the new or extended license must not have been finally determined.
Each of these conditions is satisfied in the present case; and we see no reason why the provisions of this later Act may not be invoked to protect a person with a license from the damage he would suffer by being compelled to discontinue a business of a continuing nature, only to start it anew after the administrative hearing is concluded. That has been the Commission’s consistent construction of the law; and we think it is the correct one. Section 9 (b) of the Administrative Procedure Act contains a new rule that supplements the prior authority granted by § 311 (a) of the Interstate Commerce Act. Initially, the Commission can do no more than issue a temporary authority good for 180 days. But once the conditions of § 9 (b) are satisfied, an extension in the interests of economy and efficiency is authorized.
The Commission advises us that the combined time required for the administrative proceedings on an application for a certificate and for judicial review almost inevitably exceeds 180 days. Courts have no authority to issue these permits. See United States v. Carolina Carriers Corp., 315 U. S. 475, 489-490. Unless the authority is vested in the Commission by §9 (b), the operation, no matter how essential or necessary, must be discontinued at the end of 180 days. We think such a reading of the law would mutilate the administrative system which Congress created by the two Acts. Where the remedy for an evil is clear, the remedial provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act should be given full effect. See Wong Yang Sung v. McGrath, 339 U. S. 33, 41. We conclude that an harmonious reading of § 311 (a) and § 9 (b) requires the latter to be read as supplementing the former and to be construed as applying to temporary as well as to permanent licenses.
Reversed.
That case became moot after probable jurisdiction had been noted by this Court. See 350 U. S. 906.
See 13 Fed. Reg. 4150 for the rules of the Commission governing these extensions.

Question: What is the basis of the Supreme Court's decision?
A. judicial review (national level)
B. judicial review (state level)
C. Supreme Court supervision of lower federal or state courts or original jurisdiction
D. statutory construction
E. interpretation of administrative regulation or rule, or executive order
F. diversity jurisdiction
G. federal common law
Answer:

Answer: D