opinion: GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS SERVICE, INC., Petitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent.
  No. 73-1434.
  United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
  Dec. 27, 1973.
  Max C. Richards (argued), Bilby, Thompson, Shoenhair & Warnoek, Tucson, Ariz., for petitioner.
  Elliott Moore, Asst. Gen. Counsel, W. L. Corbett (argued), National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D. C., Peter G. Nash, Gen. Counsel, and John S. Irving, Deputy Gen. Counsel, Patrick Hardin, Assoc. Gen. Counsel, of NLRB, Washington, D. C., James W. Mast, NLRB, Albuquerque, N. M., for respondent.
  Bruce Thoren, Arizona Director of Communications Workers of America, Phoenix, Ariz., for charging party.
  Before ELY and' SNEED, Circuit Judges, and SOLOMON, District Judge.
  Hon. Gus J. Solomon, Senior United States District Judge, Portland, Oregon, sitting by designation.
  OPINION
  PER CURIAM:
  The Board’s Decision and Order is reported at 201 N.L.R.B. No. 135.
  Our review of the record convinces us that the reasoning of the Board’s Decision was correct. Accordingly, and upon the basis of the Board’s reasoning, the Petition to Review is denied, the respondent Board’s Cross-Application is granted, and the Board’s Order will be
  Enfoi’ced.
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