Task: songer_casetyp1_9-3

What follows is an opinion from a United States Court of Appeals.
Your task is to identify the issue in the case, that is, the social and/or political context of the litigation in which more purely legal issues are argued. Put somewhat differently, this field identifies the nature of the conflict between the litigants. The focus here is on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis.
Your task is to determine the specific issue in the case within the broad category of "miscellaneous". 

PER CURIAM:
Petitioning for rehearing, the United States specifically disputes two statements made in our opinion:
1. “* * * section [1660.20(d)] requires the local board, after receiving such authorization, to meet and order the appellant to report for such civilian work.”
The United States contends that § 1660.20(d) does not require that a meeting be held after receipt of authorization ; that an order to report could be entered prior to authorization but subject to subsequent authorization and notice.
We agree. In this respect our opinion is modified by striking “after receiving such authorization.”
2. “At [the board] meeting [of March 14, 1966] no agreement as to a type of work in lieu of induction was reached by the board and appellant.”
The United States contends that under universal administrative construction of § 1660.20(d), and universal administrative practice, a determination that certain work is appropriate constitutes an implied order to report for such work, subject to authorization of the National Director and notice. Consequently at the meeting of March 14, 1966, an agreement as to work was reached and an implied conditional order to report was entered and the action of the clerk of the board was no more than ministerial implementation of the order.
The Government’s contention may have merit in an appropriate case. Here, however, the record is silent as to administrative construction and practice, or as to any understanding of the board in such respects from which it might be found that the critical exercise of administrative judgment had been made.
In this respect our opinion should be read as qualified by the state of the record.
With such modification and clarification of our opinion rehearing is denied.

Question: What is the specific issue in the case within the general category of "miscellaneous"?
A. miscellaneous interstate conflict
B. other federalism issue (only code as issue if opinion explicitly discusses federalism as an important issue - or if opinion explicity discusses conflict of state power vs federal power)
C. attorneys (disbarment; etc)
D. selective service or draft issues (which do not include 1st amendment challenges)
E. challenge to authority of magistrates, special masters, etc.
F. challenge to authority of bankruptcy judge or referees in bankruptcy
G. Indian law - criminal verdict challenged due to interpretation of tribal statutes or other indian law
H. Indian law - commercial disputes based on interpretation of Indian treaties or law (includes disputes over mineral rights)
I. Indian law - Indian claims acts and disputes over real property (includes Alaska Native Claims Act)
J. Indian law - federal regulation of Indian land and affairs
K. Indian law - state/local authority over Indian land and affairs
L. Indian law - tribal regulation of economic activities (includes tribal taxation)
M. other Indian law
N. international law
O. immigration (except civil rights claims of immigrants and aliens)
P. other
Q. not ascertained
Answer:

Answer: D