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:
Maurice WEINHART, Individually, and d/b/a Federal Scrap Iron and Metal Company, Appellant, v. ÆTNA INSURANCE COMPANY, a Connecticut Corporation, Boston Insurance Company, a Massachusetts Corporation, et al., Appellees.
No. 13062.
United States Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit.
Oct. 16, 1957.
Joseph A. Luyekx, Detroit, Mich., for appellant.
Davies & Moesta, Detroit, Mich., Rod-man C. Moesta, Detroit, Mich., of counsel, for appellees.
Before SIMONS, Chief Judge, and ALLEN and MILLER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Following a fire on May 7,1952, on the third floor of a business building in Detroit, Michigan, the appellee insurance companies paid to the owners of the building $18,485 under their policies of insurance to cover the cost of repairs for the damage caused by the fire. As subrogees of the owners, the appellees brought this action against the appellant to recover the amounts so paid, alleging that the fire was caused by his negligence.
In preparing the building for new tenants, the owners had contracted with the appellant for the removal by him of certain pipe in the building, which passed through wood floors and ceilings. In doing the work appellant used an acetylene torch. On the day of the fire appellant’s employees quit work at 3:30 p. m. and left the premises between 3:30 p. m. and 4:00 p. m. The fire was discovered and reported to the Fire Department at 8:34 p. m. There was no eye witness as to how the fire started.
The District Judge, trying the case without a jury, found that the appellant did not use proper care in operating the acetylene torch; that the fire was caused by sparks given off in the operation of the torch coming in contact with the pipe on the third floor of the building ; that a small fire had been started by one of appellant’s employees a day or two previous to the fire involved in this case, which was called to his attention and was put out by an employee of the owners of the building; that the appellant did not make a proper inspection of the premises after using the torch to determine whether or not any sparks given off by the metal were still smouldering before leaving the property; and that the fire was caused by the negligence of the appellant or his workmen. He also found that the owners of the building used proper care, under the circumstances, to protect their own property and were not contributorily negligent. He gave judgment for the appellees in the amount of $18,485, from which this appeal was taken.
Although there was some conflict in the evidence, the findings of fact upon which the finding of negligence is based are supported by the evidence and are not clearly erroneous. Witnesses available to appellant who could have testified about the facts in dispute were not offered by appellant, with the resulting inference that their testimony would have been unfavorable. Shuell v. London Amusement Co., 6 Cir., 123 F.2d 302, 306.
The finding that negligence on the part of appellant was the cause of the fire was a justifiable conclusion from the basic facts, and not being clearly erroneous must be accepted on this review. United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 394, 68 S.Ct. 525, 92 L.Ed. 746; Rich v. Pappas, 6 Cir., 229 F.2d 308, 313.
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