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:
I.T.O. CORPORATION OF BALTIMORE, Employer, and Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, Carrier, Petitioners, v. BENEFITS REVIEW BOARD, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Respondent, William T. Adkins, Respondent, International Longshoremen’s Association, Amicus Curiae. NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF STEVEDORES and California Stevedore & Ballast Co., Carolina Shipping Company, The Chesapeake Operating Company, Cilco Terminal Co., Inc., John T. Clark & Son of Boston, Bernard S. Costello, Inc., Dixie Stevedores, Inc., Eller & Company, Inc., Global Terminal & Container Services, Inc., Federal Marine Terminals, Inc., Gulf Stevedore Corp., Harrington & Company, Inc., Howland Hook Marine Terminal Corp., Independent Pier Co., International Great Lakes Shipping Co., International Terminal Operating Co., Inc., Lake Charles Stevedores, Inc., Lavino Shipping Co., Luckenbach Steamship Co., Inc., McCabe, Hamilton & Renny Co., Ltd., John W. McGrath Corp., Maher Terminals, Inc., Matson Terminals, Inc., Metropolitan Stevedore Co., Nacirema Operating Co., Inc., New Bedford Stevedoring Corp., Northeast Marine Terminal Co., Inc., Old Dominion Stevedoring Corp., John J. Orr & Son, Inc., Palmetto Shipping & Stevedoring Co., Inc., Pate Stevedoring Co., P. C. Pfeiffer Co., Inc., Pittston Stevedoring Corp., Port Stevedoring Company, Inc., Ryan-Walsh Stevedoring Co., Inc., Shippers Stevedoring Co., T. Smith & Son, Inc., Strachan Shipping Co., Transoceanic Terminal Corp., Universal Maritime Service Corp., Westfall Stevedore Co., Wilmington Shipping Co., Young and Company of Houston, Its member companies, Petitioners, v. BENEFITS REVIEW BOARD, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Respondent, William T. Adkins, Respondent.
Nos. 75-1051 and 75-1088.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted July 28, 1977.
Decided Sept. 22, 1977.
David R. Owen, Baltimore, Md. (Francis J. Gorman, Semmes, Bowen & Semmes, Baltimore, Md., on brief), for petitioners in No. 75-1051.
Donald A. Krach, Baltimore, Md. (William C. Stifler, III, Paul B. Lang, Niles, Barton & Wilmer, Baltimore, Md., Thomas D. Wilcox, Washington, D.C., on brief), for petitioners in No. 75-1088.
Linda L. Carroll, Atty., Washington, D.C. (William J. Kilberg, Sol. of Labor, Washington, D.C., Marshall H. Harris, Associate Sol., Philadelphia, Pa., George M. Lilly, Karen L. Gilbert, Attys., U.S. Dept. of Labor, Washington, D.C., on brief), for respondents in No. 75-1051.
Amos I. Meyers, Baltimore, Md. (Terry Paul Meyers, Baltimore, Md., on brief), for respondents in Nos. 75-1051 and 75-1088.
Before HAYNSWORTH, Chief Judge, and WINTER, BUTZNER, RUSSELL, WIDENER and HALL, Circuit Judges, sitting in banc.
PER CURIAM:
5We reversed the award made to William T. Adkins under the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act, 33 U.S.C. § 901 et seq., as amended in 1972, in I.T.O. Corp. of Baltimore v. Adkins, 529 F.2d 1080 (4 Cir.1975), modified in banc, 542 F.2d 903 (4 Cir.1976). Thereafter, the Supreme Court of the United States granted a writ of certiorari, vacated our judgment and remanded the cause “for further consideration in light of Northeast Marine Terminal Co., Inc. v. Caputo, 432 U.S. 249, 97 S.Ct. 2348, 53 L.Ed.2d 320 (1977).” 432 U.S. -, 97 S.Ct. 2967, 53 L.Ed.2d 1088 (1977).
Upon reconsideration, we are persuaded that the award to Adkins must be sustained because he satisfied both the status and situs requirements of the 1972 amendments to the Act, as interpreted in Northeast Marine, at the time that he was injured. We adhere to our view, however, that the Director, Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs, Department of Labor, is not a proper respondent in a petition for review under 33 U.S.C. § 921(c), although upon application and for good cause shown he may be permitted to intervene therein.
AFFIRMED.
As part of these appeals, we sustained awards to Donald D. Brown and Vernie Lee Harris by an equally divided court. Certiorari in their cases was denied. Maritime Terminals, Inc. v. Brown, — U.S.-, 97 S.Ct. 2972, 53 L.Ed.2d 1092 (1977).

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: 8