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)", specifically "transportation". Your task is to determine what subcategory of business best describes this litigant.

Opinion:
A/R SELJAN, Paul Jebsen and M/V STOLT SILDRA, Appellants, v. PIONEER LEASING CORP. et al., Appellees.
No. 26095.
United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.
Jan. 29, 1969.
Rehearing Denied March 5, 1969.
B. D. McKinney, Houston, Tex., for appellants; Baker, Botts, Shepherd & Coates, Houston, Tex., of counsel.
James E. Ross, Blades, Crain, Slator,-Winters & Ross, Gus A. Schill, Jr., Carl O. Bue, Jr., Royston, Rayzor & Cook, Houston, Tex., for appellees; Alfred L. Deaton III, Houston, Tex., of counsel.
Before GOLDBERG and MORGAN, Circuit Judges, and LIEB, Judge.
PER CURIAM:
This is an interlocutory appeal from the District Court’s determination of liability in a marine collision which occurred at Lynchburg Bend in the Houston Ship Channel. The factual and legal issues center on the actions of three vessels: the outbound M/V GEORGIA GIRL (a tug pushing two barges carrying fertilizer), the outbound M/V STOLT SILDRA (a loaded tanker), and the inbound SS EVILIZ (a dry cargo vessel). Through a misunderstanding of whistle signals and corresponding maneuvers of the several vessels, a minor collision involving the SS EVILIZ and the lead barge of the M/V GEORGIA GIRL flotilla occurred. In viewing the events transpiring down stream, the M/V STOLT SILDRA, fearing that the damaged barge contained flammable chemicals, put her engines full ahead and attempted to “thread the needle” to get by the congested situation. This action, however, forced the SS EVILIZ to full ahead in order to avoid a collision with the tanker. By taking such action, the SS EVILIZ was able to narrowly avoid a collision with the M/V STOLT SILDRA, but was unable to avoid ramming the barge again. This time the barge was so severely damaged that it sank.
The District Court determined that the actions of the M/V STOLT SILDRA and the M/V GEORGIA GIRL were the proximate cause of the collisions and the ensuing damage, thereby exonerating the SS EVILIZ. The finding of fault is a fact issue to which the clearly erroneous rule is applicable. The record is replete with evidence to support the District Court’s determination of fault. The ruling of the District Court is affirmed.

Question: This question concerns the first listed appellant. The nature of this litigant falls into the category "private business (including criminal enterprises)", specifically "transportation". What subcategory of business best describes this litigant?

Choices:
railroad
boat, shipping
shipping freight, UPS, flying tigers
airline
truck, armored cars
other
unclear

Answer: 1