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. BOOT-STER MANUFACTURING COMPANY, Inc., Respondent.
No. 18440.
United States Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit.
Jan. 21, 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, William Wachter, Atty., N.L.R.B., Washington, D. C., on brief, for petitioner.
Wilson Sims, Nashville, Tenn., for respondent.
Before McCREE and COMBS, Circuit Judges, and McALLISTER, Senior Circuit Judge.
PER CURIAM.
In this action the Board requests enforcement of an order based on findings that Boot-Ster Manufacturing Company violated Sections 8(a) (1), 8(a) (3), and 8(a) (5) of the National Labor Relations Act. The Board’s findings and order are reported at 165 N.L.R.B. No. 47. The Board is not seeking enforcement of the bargaining provisions of the order because the union subsequently advised the regional director that it no longer wishes to represent the company’s employees.
In N.L.R.B. v. Boot-Ster Manufacturing Company, 361 F.2d 325 (1966), this Court granted enforcement of a Board order based on findings of Sections 8(a) (1) and 8(a) (5) violations.
The order as it now stands stems from the Board’s finding that employee Lewis was interrogated about his union sympathies and warned not to persist in his union activities. Shortly afterwards, he was discharged and the Board found that the discharge was motivated by Lewis’s union activity.
Upon consideration, we are of the opinion that, while this Court might have reached a contrary result if it were authorized to make de novo findings, the Board’s order is supported by substantial evidence. N.L.R.B. v. Interurban Gas Corp., 317 F.2d 724 (6th Cir. 1963).
Accordingly, enforcement of the Board’s order with respect to Sections 8(a) (1) and 8(a) (3) violations is granted.

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