What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to identify whether administrative action occurred in the context of the case prior to the onset of litigation. The activity may involve an administrative official as well as that of an agency. To determine whether administration action occurred in the context of the case, consider the material which appears in the summary of the case preceding the Court's opinion and, if necessary, those portions of the prevailing opinion headed by a I or II. Action by an agency official is considered to be administrative action except when such an official acts to enforce criminal law. If an agency or agency official "denies" a "request" that action be taken, such denials are considered agency action. Exclude: a "challenge" to an unapplied agency rule, regulation, etc.; a request for an injunction or a declaratory judgment against agency action which, though anticipated, has not yet occurred; a mere request for an agency to take action when there is no evidence that the agency did so; agency or official action to enforce criminal law; the hiring and firing of political appointees or the procedures whereby public officials are appointed to office; attorney general preclearance actions pertaining to voting; filing fees or nominating petitions required for access to the ballot; actions of courts martial; land condemnation suits and quiet title actions instituted in a court; and federally funded private nonprofit organizations.

Opinion:
ARNOLD TOURS, INC., et al. v. CAMP et al.
No. 602.
Decided November 23, 1970
Per Curiam.
Petitioners are 42 independent travel- agents doing business in Massachusetts. They ask for declaratory and injunctive relief against the Comptroller of the Currency and the South Shore National Bank. They seek to invalidate a ruling by the Comptroller that, incidental to their banking. services, national banks may provide travel services for their customers. Petitioners allege that as a result they have lost substantial business and profits and stand to lose even greater business in the future. They contend the Comptroller exceeded his authority when he authorized national banks to provide travel services.
The District Court dismissed the complaint for lack of standing and the Court of Appeals affirmed. 408 F. 2d 1147 (CAI 1969.). Following our decisions last Term in Association of Data Processing Service Organizations, Inc. v. Camp, 397 U. S. 160, and Barlow v. Collins, 397 U. S. 159, we vacated and remanded the case for reconsideration (397 U. S. 315) and the Court of Appeals reaffirmed its previous decision.
Here, as in Data Processing, we are concerned with § 4 of the Bank Service Corporation Act, 76 Stat. 1132, 12 U. S. C. § 1864. In Data Processing we did not rely on any legislative history showing that Congress desired to protect data processors alone from competition. Moreover, we noted a growing trend “toward enlargement of the class of people'who may protest administrative action.” 397. U. S., at 154. We held that § 4 “arguably brings a competitor within the zone of interests protected by it.” Id., at 156. Nothing in the opinion limited § 4 to protecting only competitors in the data-processing field. When national banks begin to provide travel services for their customers, they compete with travel agents no less than they'compete with data processors when they, provide data-processing services to their -customers.
Accordingly the writ of certiorari is granted, the judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Reversed and remanded.
The Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Harlan would set the case for argument.
Paragraph 7475 of the Comptroller’s Manual for National Banks provides: “Incident to those powers vested in them under 12 U. S. C. .24, national banks may provide travel services for their customers and receive compensation therefor. Such services may include the sale of trip insurance and the rental of automobiles, as agent for a local rental service. In connection therewith, national banks may advertise, develop, and extend such travel services for the purpose of attracting customers to the bank.”
“No bank service corporation may engage in any activity other than the performance of bank services for banks.”
The only legislative history of the Bank Service Corporation Act mentioned in the opinion was that § 4 was a “ ‘response t.o the fears expressed by a few senators, that without such a prohibition, the bill would have -enabled “banks to engage in a nonbanking activity,” S. Rep. No. 2105 [87th Cong;, 2d-Sess., 7-12] (Supplemental views of Senators Proxmiire, Douglas, and Neuberger), and thus constitute “a serious exception to the accepted public policy which strictly limits banks to banking.” .(Supplemental views of . Senators Muskie and Clark).’ ” 397 U. S., at 155.
The final question under Data Processing, whether judicial review of the administrative decision has been precluded,' was specifically' Tesolved against the Comptroller in that case. 397 U, S., at 157.

Question: Did administrative action occur in the context of the case?

Choices:
No
Yes

Answer: 1