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 v. ELIZABETH ARDEN, Inc.
No. 146.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
Dec. 20, 1943.
Robert B. Watts, Gen. Counsel, Howard Lichtenstein, Asst. Gen. Counsel, and Ida Klaus, and Sidney L. Davis, all of Washington, D. C., and Martin I. Rose, of New York City, for petitioner.
Townley, Updike & Carter, of New York City (J. Howard Carter, of New York City, Joseph B. Duggan, of Poughkeepsie, and Weymouth D. Symmes, of New York City, of counsel), for respondent.
Before SWAN, AUGUSTUS N. HAND, and CLARK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Petition by National Labor Relations Board for enforcement of its order directing the respondent to cease and desist from certain unfair labor practices and to take certain affirmative action. The only question before us is whether the evidence supports the Board’s finding that Arden did not disestablish the “Association”, which was admittedly a company dominated union, but continued it in existence under the name of the “Independent”. Without reciting the evidence, it will suffice to say that the Board’s finding is supportable. See National Labor Relations Board v. Standard Oil Co., 2 Cir., Nov. 1, 1943, 138 F.2d 885. Paragraph 2(c) of the order is modified by adding the following suffix: “but the employees are free to organize any union they choose, whether or not it is affiliated with a national union.” See Westinghouse Electric & Mfg. Co. v. National Labor Relations Board, 2 Cir., 112 F.2d 657, 661; National Labor Relations Board v. Standard Oil Co., supra. As thus modified the order is affirmed and enforcement 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