What follows is an opinion from a United States Court of Appeals.
Intervenors who participated as parties at the courts of appeals should be counted as either appellants or respondents when it can be determined whose position they supported. For example, if there were two plaintiffs who lost in district court, appealed, and were joined by four intervenors who also asked the court of appeals to reverse the district court, the number of appellants should be coded as six.
When coding the detailed nature of participants, use your personal knowledge about the participants, if you are completely confident of the accuracy of your knowledge, even if the specific information is not in the opinion. For example, if "IBM" is listed as the appellant it could be classified as "clearly national or international in scope" even if the opinion did not indicate the scope of the business. 

Your task concerns the first listed appellant. The nature of this litigant falls into the category "federal government (including DC)", specifically "other agency, beginning with "F" thru "N"". Your task is to determine which specific federal government agency best describes this litigant.

Opinion:
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD v. PLANTERS MFG. CO., Inc.
No. 4463.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Aug. 29, 1939.
For prior opinion, see 105 F.2d 750.
Ruth Weyand, Atty., National Labor Relations Board, of Washington, D. C. (Charles Fahy, Gen. Counsel, Robert B. Watts, Associate Gen. Counsel, and Mortimer B. Wolf, Bertram Edises, and Ramey Donovan, Attys. National Labor Relations Board, all of Washington, D. C., on the brief), for petitioner.
Gerould M. Rumble, of Norfolk, Va. (Rumble & Rumble, of Norfolk, Va., on the brief), for respondent.
_ Before PARKER and NORTHCOTT, Circuit Judges, and WYCHE, District Judge.
PER CURIAM.
The petition for rehearing filed herein presents no point not already fully considered; and we see no reason to change the decree enforcing the order of the Board. With respect to the reinstatement of the thirteen employees, however, it may be well to make clear that such reinstatement does not mean that they must .be furnished employment at a period when due to the seasonal nature of the respondent’s business no employment is available, but merely that they be restored to their former position and given work when other like employees are given work. Likewise, the order with respect to back pay does not mean that the employees are to be paid wages for the entire period that has elapsed since their discharge, but merely that they shall be paid what they would have earned during that period if they had not been discharged, taking into account the seasonal character of the employer’s business. This we understand to be the intent and meaning of the Board’s order. Should attempt be made, as respondent fears, to apply the order otherwise, the action of the Board will be subject to review upon petition properly filed with this Court.
Petition denied.

Question: This question concerns the first listed appellant. The nature of this litigant falls into the category "federal government (including DC)", specifically "other agency, beginning with "F" thru "N"". Which specific federal government agency best describes this litigant?

Choices:
Food & Drug Administration
General Services Administration
Government Accounting Office (GAO)
Health Care Financing Administration
Immigration & Naturalization Service (includes border patrol)
Internal Revenue Service (IRS)
Interstate Commerce Commission
Merit Systems Protection Board
National Credit Union Association
National Labor Relations Board
Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Answer: 9