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, v. PAY LESS DRUG STORE OF PENDLETON, INC., Respondent.
No. 73-2268.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
March 29, 1974.
Elliott Moore, Acting Asst. Gen. Counsel, NLRB, Washington, D. C., Elwood C. Strumpf, Officer in Charge, NLRB, Portland, Or., for petitioner.
Jack B. Schwartz, Sabin, Newcomb, Sabin & Meyer, Portland, Or., for respondent.
Before ELY, WRIGHT and GOODWIN, Circuit Judges.
OPINION
PER CURIAM:
The petitioning Board’s Decision and Order is reported at 203 NLRB No. 10. The Board’s Order was based upon its conclusion that the respondent had violated section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by refusing to bargain with the certified representative of the respondent’s employees. The reason for the respondent’s refusal was its view that the election of the bargaining representative was invalid and that the Board therefore acted improperly in certifying the particular union as the statutory bargaining representative. The respondent leveled six objections to the conduct of the election, all of which were overruled after having been considered by a Hearing Officer and the Board. We are not persuaded that the Board’s resolution of the objections, which principally involved factual issues, were not supported by substantial evidence. Accordingly, the Board’s Order will be
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