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 "private business (including criminal enterprises)", specifically "manufacturing". Your task is to determine what subcategory of business best describes this litigant.

Opinion:
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. INTERNATIONAL CREDIT SERVICE, a Division of Lucas County Credit Bureau, Inc., Respondent.
No. 79-1212.
United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
Jan. 6, 1981.
Elliott Moore, Allison Brown, Deputy Associate Gen. Counsel, N.L.R.B., Stephen Mayer, Washington, D.C., Bernard Levine, Director, Region 8, N.L.R.B., Cleveland, Ohio, Allison Brown, Washington, D.C., for petitioner.
Frederick R. Post, Lubisky & Post, Toledo, Ohio, for respondent.
Before LIVELY and MARTIN, Circuit Judges, and MARKEY, Judge.
Honorable Howard T. Markey, Chief Judge, United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals, sitting by designation.
ORDER
This case is before the Court on the application of the National Labor Relations Board for enforcement of its order issued against International Credit Service, a division of Lucas County Credit Bureau, Inc., of Toledo, Ohio on February 12, 1979, and reported at 240 N.L.R.B. No. 102. The Board found the company violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by refusing to execute the collective bargaining agreement, by unilaterally implementing employee wage increases, by engaging in direct dealing with the employees, and by refusing to furnish within a reasonable time wage information requested by the Union. The order requires the company to cease and desist from engaging in those unfair labor practices, and from in any way interfering with, restraining, or coercing the employees in the exercise of the rights under the Act. Affirmatively the company was ordered to execute the written agreement.
The NLRB certified the Toledo Printing Pressman and Assistants’ Union No. 55, an affiliate of the International Printing & Graphic Communications Union, AFL-CIO in March, 1977. Negotiations on a collective bargaining contract began shortly thereafter. The Union’s chief negotiator was Fred Larson, an International Representative. The employer was represented by the President of the company, J. W. Orrin. The record establishes that at the initial bargaining session Orrin acknowledged his authority to represent the company. He stated he chose not to have his attorney present. Orrin testified and claims here he made it clear that negotiations were not to be considered final until his attorney had reviewed the contract. Mr. Larson testified that Orrin merely requested he be allowed to submit the final agreement to his attorney at the conclusion of the bargaining sessions.
After the negotiations were completed and Orrin was in possession of the contract and a set of office rules in the form of a separate document, incorporated by reference in the contract as requested by Orrin upon learning the office rules had been left out of the contract, the papers were sent to the attorney. The union members became impatient with the delay in signing the documents and threatened to strike. Orrin expressed concern over the contents of certain articles in the contract, stating some contained substantive terms not agreed upon during the negotiations.
Larson suggested wage increases be implemented to avert the strike, subject to approval by the employees. The employees rejected the wage increase. Orrin initiated the wage increase without employee approval. The employees went on strike. Or-rin continued to refuse to sign the contract and the office rules. A meeting was held and the contract was reviewed point by point. Orrin continued to insist discrepancies existed and refused to sign.
The existence of an agreement is a question of fact, and it is the Board’s function to determine whether the employer refuses to sign and honor the bargain produced by the negotiations. N.L.R.B. v. Strong, 393 U.S. 357, 361, 89 S.Ct. 541, 544, 21 L.Ed.2d 546 (1969); N.L.R.B. v. Truck-drivers Union No. 100, 532 F.2d 569, 571 (6th Cir. 1976), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 859, 97 S.Ct. 160, 50 L.Ed.2d 137 (1977); Arco Electric Company v. N.L.R.B., 618 F.2d 698, 699 (10th Cir. 1980). We should enforce the Board’s order if we find substantial evidence supports the finding that an agreement was reached. Adams Potato Chips, Inc. v. N.L.R.B., 430 F.2d 90 (6th Cir. 1970). Upon careful review of the record, we do not believe that a final agreement was ever reached by the parties in this case. Discrepancies between notations made by Orrin and the agreement in its final form are too apparent to satisfy us that certain substantive terms in the contract are reflective of agreements made during the bargaining session. However, it is our further conclusion that the company did engage in the other unfair labor practices cited. We therefore deny enforcement of the order insofar as it directs the company to execute the written agreement, but enforce it in all other respects.

Question: This question concerns the first listed appellant. The nature of this litigant falls into the category "private business (including criminal enterprises)", specifically "manufacturing". What subcategory of business best describes this litigant?

Choices:
auto
chemical
drug
food processing
oil refining
textile
electronic
alcohol or tobacco
other
unclear

Answer: 8