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 classify the scope of this business into one of the following categories: "local" (individual or family owned business, scope limited to single community; generally proprietors, who are not incorporated); "neither local nor national" (e.g., an electrical power company whose operations cover one-third of the state); "national or multi-national" (assume that insurance companies and railroads are national in scope); and "not ascertained".

Opinion:
ALEXANDER SMITH & SONS CARPET CO. v. HERRICK et al.
No. 454.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
July 13, 1936.
Burlingame, Nourse & Pettit, of New York City, and William J. Wallin, of Yonkers, N. Y. (Arthur E. Pettit, of New York City, of counsel), for appellant.
Charles Fahy, Gen. Counsel, National Labor Relations Board, and Robert B. Watts, Associate Gen. Counsel, both of Washington, D. C., and Robert S. Erdahl, for appellees.
Before MANTON, SWAN, and AUGUSTUS N. HAND, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Appellant is a carpet manufacturer with its sole manufacturing plant in Yonkers, N. Y., to which raw materials are shipped from outside New York State and from which appellant ships some finished products to customers outside New York State. The prayer in this suit is that appellees be enjoined from enforcement of the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C.A. § 151 et seq.) against the plaintiff, and from the further prosecution of, or the holding of hearings on, a complaint charging plaintiff with engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within section 8 (1-3) of the act (29 U.S.C.A. § 158 (1-3) by discharging employees for union activity and by coercing employees in their selection of representatives for collective bargaining. Some of the employees are on strike. For the reasons stated in E. I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co. v. Boland (C.C.A.) 85 F.(2d) 12, decided this day, the appellant has not shown that any irreparable injury will be suffered if this injunction is denied, and under the provisions of the National Labor Relations Act, it has an adequate, complete, and exclusive remedy at law on a petition to the proper court for a subpoena, or for the enforcement or review of any order the board may enter.
Decree affirmed.

Question: This question concerns the first listed appellant. The nature of this litigant falls into the category "private business (including criminal enterprises)". What is the scope of this business?

Choices:
local
neither local nor national
national or multi-national
not ascertained

Answer: 3