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. UNITED HATTERS, CAP & MILLINERY WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION, AFL-CIO, Respondent.
No. 14287.
United States Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit.
April 6, 1962.
Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. General Counsel, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D. C., John C. Getreu, Director 9th Region, N. L. R. B., Cincinnati, Ohio, Duane B. Beeson and Joseph C. Thackery, Washington, D. C., for appellant.
Herbert L. Segal, Louisville, Ky., Isadore Katz, Lieberman, Katz & Aronson, New York City, for appellee.
Before CECIL and O’SULLIVAN, Circuit Judges, and KALBFLEISCH, District Judge.
ORDER.
It appearing to the Court that by order of June 6, 1961, 6 Cir., 290 F.2d 591, the Court struck from its order of March 17, 1961, 6 Cir., 288 F.2d 436, the following language: “Upon the objection of the respondent to the use of the words ‘or any other employer’ as used in the order, the Court finds that the respondent made no specific objection to the board to the use of these words in the examiner’s interim report, and that the question cannot now be raised in this Court. Section 160(e), Title 29 U.S.C.”; and by said order of June 6, 1961, held in abeyance pending the decision of the Supreme Court, in National Labor Relations Board v. Ochoa Fertilizer Corporation et al., the questions of modification of the order of the board by striking the phrase “or any other employer” and whether or not proper objection was made;
And it further appearing to the Court that the case of National Labor Relations Board v. Ochoa Fertilizer Corporation et al. has now been decided (368 U.S. 318, 82 S.Ct. 344, 7 L.Ed.2d 312), it is hereby ordered that the objection to the phrase “or any other employer” be overruled for the reason hereinbefore stated in the order of March 17, 1961, and that said phrase remain in the order as heretofore enforced by the original order of this Court. National Labor Relations Board v. Cheney California Lumber Co., 327 U.S. 385, 389, 66 S.Ct. 553, 90 L.Ed. 739.

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