opinion: PENNSYLVANIA GLASS SAND CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent.
  No. 26326.
  United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.
  Oct. 21, 1968.
  Max Nathan, Jr., New Orleans, La., Robert Lewis, New York City, for petitioner.
  Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Washington, D. C., for respondent.
  Before COLEMAN, GOLDBERG and GODBOLD, Circuit Judges.
  PER CURIAM:
  At 3:23 p. m. on June 28, 1968, petitioner filed a petition to review a Board order in this court. Prior to that time, at 9:17 a. m. of the same day, the charging party before the Board, General Teamsters and Allied Workers Local Union No. 992, had filed a petition to review the same order in the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.
  Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2112(a), respondent filed with this court a motion to transfer this cause to the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. The motion to transfer is granted.
  Our grant of the motion is without prejudice to the rights of petitioner to move the District of Columbia Court of Appeals to dismiss the Union’s petition on the grounds that it is not an aggrieved party, or to request that Circuit to transfer the entire case back to this court, or to any other Circuit, for the “convenience of the parties in the interest of justice.” 28 U.S.C. § 2112(a).
  . 28 U.S.C.A. § 2112(a):
  “If proceedings have been instituted in two or more courts of appeals with respect to the same order the agency, board, commission, or officer concerned shall file the record in that one of such courts in which a proceeding with respect to such order was first instituted. The other courts in which such proceedings are pending shall thereupon transfer them to the court of appeals in which the record has been filed. For the convenience of the parties in the interest of justice such court may thereafter transfer all the proceedings with respect to such order to any other court of appeals.”
  . See J. P. Stevens & Co. v. N. L. R. B., 388 F.2d 892 (4 Cir.1967); Truck Drivers, etc., Local 728, Teamsters v. N. L. R. B„ 128 U.S.App.D.C. 216, 386 F.2d 643 (1967); International Union, United Automobile, etc. v. N. L. R. B., 126 U.S.App.D.C. 11, 373 F.2d 671 (D.C.Cir. 1967); Insurance Workers International Union v. N. L. R. B., 124 U.S.App.D.C. 8, 360 F.2d 823 (1966); Eastern Airlines v. C. A. B., 122 U.S.App.D.C. 375, 354 F.2d 507 (1965) ; Salerno-Megowen Biscuit Co. v. N. L. R. B., 7 Cir. [No. 15,165, June 17, 1965], mot. for reconsideration denied [No. 15,165, Sept. 1965] ; Ball v. N. L. R. B., 299 F.2d 683 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 369 U.S. 838, 82 S.Ct. 868, 7 L. Ed.2d 843 (1962); Local 2674, United Brotherhood of Carpenters v. N. L. R. B., 47 LRRM 2688 (D.C.Cir. 1960).
  . If the D.C. Circuit granted a motion to dismiss, petitioner could request that this cause be returned to this court on the ground that it is the only reviewing court in which a valid petition was filed.
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 "unclear". Your task is to determine what subcategory of business best describes this litigant.
choices: auto industry chemical industry drug industry food industry oil & gas industry clothing & textile industry electronic industry alcohol and tobacco industry other unclear