opinion: ORDER
  PER CURIAM.
  The Clerk is directed to file appellants’ lodged petition for reconsideration. The allegations in support of appellants’ petition are that new evidence has come to light to the effect that the Secretary of Labor has in fact been furnishing information to the Department of Justice which is derived from the Secretary’s inquiries under the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act. But these allegations, even if true, do not undermine the basis of our affirmance of the judgment of the District Court. That basis was that there were no issues of fact requiring exploration, inasmuch as the Secretary expressly affirmed his purpose to exercise the authority given him by Congress to supply to the Attorney General “such evidence developed in the performance of his functions under this Act as may be found to warrant consideration for criminal prosecution under the provisions of the Act or other Federal law.” 29 U.S.C. § 527. Neither was there anything before the court to indicate that the Secretary, in auditing appellant Union’s affairs because of the information which had come to his attention, was doing other than properly carrying out his- investigatory functions under the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act. The purpose of that investigation could not be rendered illegal by the mere allegation that the Secretary would conform to the command of Congress that he disclose incriminating evidence to the nation’s chief law officer.
  Wherefore on consideration of the foregoing, it is
  Ordered by the court that appellants’ petition for reconsideration is denied.
instruction: 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 organization or association", specifically "business, trade, professional, or union (BTPU)". Your task is to determine what subcategory of private association best describes this litigant.