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)". Your task is to determine what category of business best describes the area of activity of this litigant which is involved in this case.

Opinion:
THE NIDARHOLM. NIDAROS v. OXFORD PAPER CO.
Circuit Court of Appeals, First Circuit.
December 11, 1929.
No. 2335.
For former opinion, see 34 F.(2d) 442.
Robert E. Goodwin, of Boston, Mass. (Robert R. Duncan and Goodwin, Proctor & Hoar, all of Boston, Mass., on the brief), for appellant.
Nathan W. Thompson, of Portland, Me. (Woodman, Whitehouse, Skelton & Thompson, of Portland, Me., on the brief), for appellee.
Before BINGHAM, Circuit Judge, and MORTON and MORRIS, District Judges.
PER CURIAM.
The duty of the master of the steamer with respect to dangerous loading or stowage is fully recognized in our opinion holding her liable.
None of the decisions referred to by the petitioner on the question of its own fault covers or even closely resembles this case, which appears to be rather unusual in its facts. The installation of the cribbing was not a supplying of equipment or fittings necessary to secure cargo coming within the reasonable capacity afforded by the ship’s structure, but an enlargement of her structural capacity for carrying goods beyond what she could otherwise naturally and reasonably take. This the ship was not required to provide in the absence of special agreement. As the installation in this case was made by the charterer, it was under the duty of exercising due care and skill that the containers were properly constructed; and it is not excused for its failure in those respects by the facts that the master did not objeet to the way in which the containers were built, and permitted the vessel to go to sea with them.
Petition denied.

Question: This question concerns the first listed appellant. The nature of this litigant falls into the category "private business (including criminal enterprises)". What category of business best describes the area of activity of this litigant which is involved in this case?

Choices:
agriculture
mining
construction
manufacturing
transportation
trade
financial institution
utilities
other
unclear

Answer: 4