opinion: INDEPENDENT U.S. TANKER OWNERS COMMITTEE, et al. v. Samuel K. SKINNER, in his capacity as Secretary of the United States Department of Transportation, et al. American Petrofina, Incorporated, Appellants. and consolidated cases.
  Nos. 88-5313, Civ. A. 87-1685 and Civ. A. 87-2102.
  United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.
  April 9, 1990.
  Before BUCKLEY and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and GEORGE H. REVERCOMB, District Judge for the District of Columbia.
  Sitting by designation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 292(a).
  ORDER
  PER CURIAM.
  Upon consideration of appellee Overseas Shipholding Group, Inc.’s motion to recall and modify the mandate, the responses thereto, and the reply, it is
  ORDERED by the court that the motion to recall and modify the mandate be granted. See Dilley v. Alexander, 627 F.2d 407, 410-11 (D.C.Cir.1980). It is
  FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED by the court that the judgment of the District Court appealed from in these cases be reversed, in accordance with the opinion of the court filed August 22, 1989 (884 F.2d 587 (D.C.Cir.1989)) and these cases be remanded to the District Court for resolution of appellees’ National Environmental Policy Act claims.
  The Clerk is directed to issue, forthwith, a certified copy of this order to the Clerk of the District Court in lieu of formal mandate.
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 "trade". Your task is to determine what subcategory of business best describes this litigant.
choices: auto, auto parts, auto repairs chemical drug food oil, natural gas, gasoline textile, clothing electronic alcohol or tobacco general merchandise other  unclear