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, Petitioner, v. TENNESSEE-CAROLINA TRANSPORTATION, Inc., Respondent.
No. 12351.
United States Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit.
Oct. 25, 1955.
Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Owsley Vose, Washington, D. C., for petitioner.
Judson Harwood, Nashville, Tenn., Charles D. Lockett, Knoxville, Tenn., for respondent.
Before SIMONS, Chief Judge, and ALLEN and McALLISTER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
This case came on to be heard upon petition of the National Labor Relations Board for enforcement of its order against respondent issued June 21, 1954:
And it appearing that the principal issue in the case is whether the union offered to bargain in good faith;
And it appearing that the union representative testified that the contracts submitted by the union to the trucking companies are identical, that the pay rates for the employees provided in the contract as to pickup and delivery, as to over-th e-road drivers, as to office employees, are uniform with respect to working conditions and rates of pay;
And it appearing that respondent offered to prove that all of the contracts of the union with all of the trucking companies are uniform and that there is no possibility of negotiating on a contract with this union except by signing the uniform contract, but the examiner refused to permit further testimony;
And it appearing that the evidence excluded was material and that the failure to receive and consider it is a denial of due process, National Labor Relations Board v. Burns, 8 Cir., 207 F.2d 434;
It Is Ordered that the case be remanded to the National Labor Relations Board with instructions to reopen the proceedings and to permit respondent to introduce the evidence proffered and also to introduce evidence upon the point whether or not the clerical office in Knoxville was transferred to Nashville because of the increased cost of operation under the union uniform contract for clerical workers. Cf. National Labor Relations Board v. Adkins Transfer Co., Inc., 6 Cir., 226 F.2d 324.

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