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 "sub-state government (e.g., county, local, special district)", specifically "other". Your task is to determine which specific substate government agency best describes this litigant.

Opinion:
OMAHA POLLUTION CONTROL CORPORATION, a corporation, Plaintiff, The City of Omaha, Nebraska, a Municipal corporation, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CARVER-GREENFIELD CORPORATION, a corporation, and Fred S. Carver, Inc., a corporation, DefendantsAppellees.
No. 74-1951.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted May 13, 1975.
Decided May 16, 1975.
Rehearing and Rehearing En Bane Denied June 10, 1975.
Kent N. Whinnery, Asst. City Atty., Omaha, Neb., for appellant.
John T. Dolan, Crummy, Del Deo, Dolan & Purcell, Newark, N. J., for Carver-Greenfield.
Bruce H. Brodkey, Omaha, Neb., for Fred S. Carver.
Before HEANEY and STEPHENSON, Circuit Judges, and SMITH, Senior District Judge.
TALBOT SMITH, Senior District Judge, Eastern District of Michigan, sitting by designation.
PER CURIAM.
Based on the record presented, the order of the District Court granting the defendants’ motion for summary judgment against the City of Omaha is not appealable. The District Court granted the motion on the basis that
* * * Section 2-318 of the Uniform Commercial Code (Rev.Neb.Stat. Section 90-2-318) precludes the City of Omaha’s reliance on the third-party beneficiary theory to prove either express or implied warranty because of the Code’s limitations of warranties to “natural persons.”
It appears from the face of the complaint, however, that the City of Omaha has advanced and still asserts common law theories of recovery that have not been considered by the District Court. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
The complaint in this case was filed on November 20, 1970. The matter, thus, should be tried properly on remand.

Question: This question concerns the first listed appellant. The nature of this litigant falls into the category "sub-state government (e.g., county, local, special district)", specifically "other". Which specific substate government agency best describes this litigant?

Choices:
City of, county of, etc. - in corporate capacity - criminal case
city of, county of, etc. - in corporate capacity - civil case
Other sub-state activity
not ascertained

Answer: 1