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:
COMMERCIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF NEWARK, NEW JERSEY, Appellant, v. A. B. FERGUSON, and Maryland Casualty Company, Intervenor, Appellees.
No. 18419.
United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.
Jan. 13, 1961.
Rehearing Denied Feb. 18, 196L
John L. Pitts, Stafford & Pitts, Alexandria, La., for appellant.
Jack Rogers, William R. Tete, Rogers & McHale, Lake Charles, La., for appellees.
Before TUTTLE, Chief Judge, and BROWN and WISDOM, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
In this personal injury suit the appellant, against which judgment was rendered on a jury verdict, contends that the plaintiff’s admitted conduct amounted to negligence as a matter of law and that such contributory negligence barred recovery. We disagree.
The plaintiff poured gasoline, which he took from a tank of defendant’s assured which was marked “diesel,” into a bucket and ignited it. An explosive fire followed, of course. After the fire had been put out with no injury to plaintiff, the plaintiff then poured some more of the gasoline into the same bucket. It ignited and exploded either from the heat already transferred to the bucket or because smoldering particles were left in the bucket. This explosion injured the plaintiff. Even though it was possible that Ferguson would again proceed to light the gasoline, which would, of course, be gross negligence in light of what had just occurred, this is not what caused the injury. There is nothing in the record to indicate that Ferguson knew that the gasoline would become ignited upon being put into the bucket. There was no proof that there were any sparks or embers in the bucket or what temperature in such a container would cause an explosion from heat alone. The proven facts are not such as would warrant our concluding as a matter of law that Ferguson was negligent. Cf. Texas & Pacific Railway Co. v. Laborde, 5 Cir., 257 F.2d 587; United States F. & G. Co. v. McCullough, 5 Cir., 202 F.2d 269.
The judgment is 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