opinion: TI BROADCASTING, INC., Appellant v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, Appellee, Frank Alvin Delle, Jr., and Donald G. Fisher, d/b/a Voice of Middlebury, Intervenor.
  No. 20339.
  United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.
  Argued Nov. 15, 1966.
  Decided Dec. 13, 1966.
  Mr. Howard Jay Braun, Washington, D. C., with whom Mr. Peter Shuebruk, Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for appellant.
  Mr. John H. Conlin, Associate Gen. Counsel, F. C. C., with whom Messrs. Henry Geller, Gen.-, Counsel, and Joseph A. Marino, Atty., F. C. C., were on the brief, for appellee. Mrs. Lenore G. Ehrig, Counsel, F. C. C., also entered an appearance for appellee.
  Mr. Lauren A. Colby, Washington, D. C., for intervenor.
  Before Wilbur K. Miller, Senior Circuit Judge, and Fahy and Tamm, Circuit Judges.
  PER CURIAM.
  Appellant, licensee of Radio Station WIPS of Ticonderoga, New York, challenges orders of the Federal Communications Commission granting the application of intervenor Voice of Middlebury, for a first local radio station in Middle-bury, Vermont. The application of intervenor was filed with the Commission on March 2, 1961, appellant’s petition to deny or designate the application for hearing was filed approximately a year later, and the Commission’s appealed-from orders were issued on April 20, 1966 and July 20, 1966.
  Having initially through its own inadvertences deprived appellant of the opportunity to respond to three amendments filed by Voice, the Commission reviewed appellant’s substantive arguments, set forth in its petition for reconsideration, regarding the materials in the amendments, “in the same manner as if they had been received” before the Commission’s original decision. Following such review the Commission denied the petition for reconsideration. The Commission’s corrective action also adequately disposes of appellant’s attack upon specific procedural rules of the Commission, challenged for the first time on appeal.
  Upon consideration of all the pleadings and data set forth by appellant on other issues, we agree with the Commission’s reconsidered determination that no evidentiary hearing was required in this case.
  Affirmed.
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 business (including criminal enterprises)", specifically "other". Your task is to determine what subcategory of business best describes this litigant.
choices: medical clinics, health organizations, nursing homes, medical doctors, medical labs, or other private health care facilities private attorney or law firm media - including magazines, newspapers, radio & TV stations and networks, cable TV, news organizations school - for profit private educational enterprise (including business and trade schools) housing, car, or durable goods rental or lease entertainment: amusement parks, race tracks, for profit camps, record companies, movie theaters and producers, ski resorts, hotels, restaurants, etc. information processing consulting security and/or maintenance service other service (including accounting) other (including a business pension fund) unclear