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 "state government (includes territories & commonwealths)". Your task is to determine which category of state government best describes this litigant.

Opinion:
STATE OF TEXAS, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES of America and Interstate Commerce Commission, Respondents.
No. 83-4542.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
April 23, 1984.
Walter Davis, Asst. Atty. Gen., Austin, Tex., for petitioner.
H. Glenn Scammel, John J. Powers, III, John P. Fonte, U.S. Dept, of Justice, Washington, D.C., for respondents.
Hugh L. McCulley, Houston, Tex., for intervenor Southern Pacific Trans. Co.
Before RUBIN, JOHNSON and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
ALVIN B. RUBIN, Circuit Judge:
Southern Pacific Transportation Company filed an - amendment to a contract for transporting limestone within the State of Texas with the Texas Railroad Commission. It also filed a contract summary containing the information required by the ICC rules. The contract summary, which is available to the public, did not disclose the exact rates charged by Southern Pacific or the origin and destination of all movements. The contract contained the full terms of Southern Pacific’s agreement with the limestone shippers, but this document was confidential. The Railroad Commission rejected the contract summary because it did not include all “essential terms of the contract,” basing its action on the same interpretation of the Act adopted by the state’s Rail Rate Board in a case involving a contract filed by Burlington Northern Railroad Company, decided by us today. State of Texas v. United States, 730 F.2d 409 (5th Cir.1984) (Burlington Northern).
Southern Pacific filed a petition with the ICC seeking reversal of the Railroad Commission decision, in accordance with the statutory procedure. The ICC granted Southern Pacific’s petition, finding that the Railroad Commission’s rejection violated federal standards and procedures. Texas then sought judicial review.
Texas challenges the ICC action on essentially the same grounds considered by us in Parts V and VI of our opinion in Burlington Northern. It also challenges the ICC’s exclusion of origins and destinations from the “essential terms” required to be included in the contract summary.
The ICC asserts that we lack jurisdiction over this petition insofar as it challenges the substantive validity of the ICC’s contract rate rules. We rejected this contention in Part IV of Burlington Northern.
While, therefore, we take jurisdiction of this petition, for the reasons stated in Burlington Northern, we DENY it.
. 49 U.S.C. § 10713(b) (Supp. V 1981).
. 49 U.S.C. § 11501(c) (Supp. V 1981).

Question: This question concerns the first listed appellant. The nature of this litigant falls into the category "state government (includes territories & commonwealths)". Which category of state government best describes this litigant?

Choices:
legislative
executive/administrative
bureaucracy providing services
bureaucracy in charge of regulation
bureaucracy in charge of general administration
judicial
other

Answer: 6