opinion: SUN OIL COMPANY, Petitioner, v. FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION, Respondent.
  No. 15271.
  United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit.
  Argued Oct. 22, 1965.
  Decided Nov. 8, 1965.
  Phillip D. Endom, John A. Ward, III, Philadelphia, Pa., Charles F. Heidrick, J. Colbert Peurifoy, Dallas, Tex., Robert E. May, Louis Flax, May, Shannon & Morley, Washington, D. C., for Sun Oil Co., Martin A. Row, Dallas, Tex., of counsel,
  Peter H. Schiff, Richard A. Solomon, Gen. Counsel, Howard E. Wahrenbrock, Sol., Robert L. Russell, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Herzel H. E. Plaine, Atty., F. P. C., Washington, D. C., for respondent.
  Before McLAUGHLIN, FORMAN and GANEY, Circuit Judges.
  PER CURIAM.
  The Commission's Regulations under the Natural Gas Act, Section 154.91 et seq. relating to producers rates provide that independent producers subject to the Commission’s jurisdiction file their contracts as rate schedules. Section 154.93 defines pricing provisions that are permissible, prohibits all other types of price changing clauses and specifies that contracts which are executed after April 2,1962, and which contain impermissible price changing clauses shall be rejected. We are completely satisfied that those said Regulations are reasonable and apply directly to the issue before us. We affirmatively find that petitioner’s present application for a certificate of convenience and necessity depends upon a contract containing impermissible price changing provisions. The record in this matter affords convincing basis to support the decision of the Commission in rejecting the application. Pan American Petroleum Corporation v. Federal Power Commission, 352 F.2d 241 (10 Cir. op. filed October 18, 1965); Superior Oil Co. v. Federal Power Commission, 322 F.2d 601 (9 Cir. 1963), cert. den. 377 U.S. 922, 84 S.Ct. 1219, 12 L.Ed.2d 215 (1964), rehearing den. 377 U.S. 960, 84 S.Ct. 1625, 12 L.Ed. 2d 504 (1964); Federal Power Commission v. Texaco, Inc., 377 U.S. 33, 84 S. Ct. 1105, 12 L.Ed.2d 112 (1964).
  There is obviously no authentic Constitutional question presented by this litigation.
  The order of the Federal Power Commission will be 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 "mining". Your task is to determine what subcategory of business best describes this litigant.
choices: oil and gas coal metals other  unclear