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)". Your task is to determine which category of federal government agencies and activities best describes this litigant.

Opinion:
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, and International Union, United Automobile Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (U.A.W.), AFL-CIO, Intervenor, v. GENERAL AUTOMATION MFG., INC., Respondent.
No. 18696.
United States Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit.
April 18, 1969.
Ronald Wm. Egnor, N.L.R.B., Washington, D. C., Arnold Ordman, General Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate General Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. General Counsel, Paul J. Spielberg, Attys., N.L.R.B., Washington, D. C., on brief, for petitioner.
Edward J. Simerka, Cleveland, Ohio, V. Jay Einhart, Carl H. Clark, Stanley, Smoyer & Schwartz, Cleveland, Ohio, George B. Wells, Detroit, Mich., on brief, for respondent.
Jordan Rossen, Detroit, Mich., Stephen I. Sehlossberg, John A. Fillion, Bernard F. Ashe, Stanley Lubin, Detroit, Mich., on brief, for intervenor.
Before CELEBREZZE and PECK, Circuit Judges, and GORDON, District Judge.
Honorable James F. Gordon, United States District Judge for the Western District of Kentucky, sitting by designation.
ORDER.
This cause came on to be heard upon the record on appeal and the briefs and arguments of counsel, and upon due consideration thereof and of the factual situation as set out in the record and the report of the case, 167 N.L.R.B. No. 66, it appears to the Court that the findings and order of the Board are supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole.
Now, therefore, it is ordered that the order of the Board be, and it is, hereby enforced.

Question: This question concerns the first listed appellant. The nature of this litigant falls into the category "federal government (including DC)". Which category of federal government agencies and activities best describes this litigant?

Choices:
cabinet level department
courts or legislative
agency whose first word is "federal"
other agency, beginning with "A" thru "E"
other agency, beginning with "F" thru "N"
other agency, beginning with "O" thru "R"
other agency, beginning with "S" thru "Z"
Distric of Columbia
other, not listed, not able to classify

Answer: 4