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:
TANKARD et al. v. MITCHELL, Secretary of Labor.
No. 13766.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Aug. 11, 1954.
Robert M. Devitt, Long Beach, Cal., for appellants.
Stuart Rothman, Sol., Jeter S. Ray, Acting Sol., Bessie Margolin, Asst. Sol., William A. Lowe, Harold S. Saxe, Washington, D. C., Kenneth C. Robertson, Attys., Dept, of Labor, San Francisco, Cal., George E. Duemler, Atty., Dept, of Labor, Los Angeles, Cal., for appellee.
Before STEPHENS and CHAMBERS, Circuit Judges, and WALSH, District Judge.
PER CURIAM.
The ultimate question on this appeal is whether Tankard’s employees come within Section 16(c) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, c. 676, 52 Stat. 1060, 29 U.S.C. 201 et seq., as amended in 1949 by c. 736, 63 Stat. 910, 29 U.S.C.A. § 201 et seq. as to payment for overtime. That question turns upon whether Tankard knew or in reason should have known that a substantial quantity of scrap metal and paper sold by Tankard locally was purchased for and was shipped in interstate commerce. Warren-Bradshaw Drilling Co. v. Hall, 317 U.S. 88, 63 S.Ct. 125, 87 L.Ed. 83; Culver v. Bell & Loffland, 9 Cir., 146 F.2d 29.
There is ample evidence in the record to support the trial court’s finding in the affirmative on the latter question.
Affirmed.

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: 5