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:
GREAT LAKES STEEL CORPORATION, a Delaware Corporation, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, Interstate Commerce Commission, the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company, Erie Railroad Company, and the Pennsylvania Railroad Company, Intervening Appellees.
No. 12189.
United States Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit.
Feb. 12, 1955.
Hill, Essery, Lewis & Andrews, James McEvoy, Jr., and Harry D. Fenske, Detroit, Mich, (argued by Edward T. Goodrich, Detroit, Mich.), for appellant.
Herbert Brownell, Jr., Atty. Gen., Fred W. Kaess, Detroit, Mich., E. M. Reidy, I.C.C., Washington, D. C., Willis T. Pierson, Cleveland, Ohio, E. A. Kaier, Philadelphia, Pa., Frank H. Cole, Jr., Cincinnati, Ohio, and Dyer, Angell & Meek, Detroit, Mich, (argued by Ellis v. Gregory, Washington, D. C., for Interstate Comm. Comn. and by Frank H. Cole, Jr., Cincinnati, Ohio, for Railroads) for appellees.
Before ALLEN, MARTIN and Mc-ALLISTER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
This case came on to be heard upon the record and briefs and oral argument of counsel;
And it appearing that the District Court afforded argument and reargument upon the case and carefully considered the record as a whole;
And it appearing that upon the record considered as a whole substantial evidence exists supporting the order of the Commission;
And it appearing that the District Court properly applied the applicable law. Cf. Universal Camera Corp. v. N.L.R.B., 340 U.S. 474, 71 S.Ct. 456, 95 L.Ed. 456:
It Is Ordered that the judgment of the District Court, 115 F.Supp. 31, be and it hereby is affirmed.

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