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 second listed appellant. The nature of this litigant falls into the category "private organization or association". Your task is to determine what category of private associations best describes this litigant.

Opinion:
UNITED NEW YORK SANDY HOOK PILOTS ASSOCIATION and United New Jersey Sandy Hook Pilots Association, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Maurice H. STANS, Secretary of Commerce, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 238, Docket 72-1783.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
Argued Dec. 18, 1972.
Decided Dec. 19, 1972.
Copal Mintz, New York City (Maurice A. Krisel, Roman Beck, Krisel & Beck, New York City and John M. Drewry, New York City, of counsel), for plaintiffs-appellants.
Morton Hollander, Atty., United States Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. (Harlington Wood, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Gilbert S. Fleischer, Thomas G. Wilson, Attys., United States Department of Justice, Washington, D. C., Robert Morse, U. S. Atty., for the Eastern District of New York, Brooklyn, N. Y., of counsel), for defendants-appellees.
Before MOORE, MULLIGAN and TIMBERS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Appellants appeal from a judgment dismissing their complaint with prejudice upon motion and cross-motion for summary judgment and upholding the action of the Maritime Administration of the Department of Commerce in finding appellants’ proposed pilot station vessel not qualified for certain benefits under the Merchant Marine Act of 1970.
The proposed vessel, which is to serve as a pilot station ship to house those who pilot ships entering and leaving New York Harbor, does not come within the purposes of the Congressional enactment which bestowed tax benefits on vessels built “for operation in the United States foreign * * * trade”. 46 U.S.C. § 1177(a). A pilot station vessel neither operates in United States foreign trade nor adds to the “sealift capacity” of our merchant marine. The trial court correctly found that a pilot vessel does not come within the terms of section 1177(a) and hence is not entitled to the tax benefits which accompany the creation of a capital construction fund under that section.
Judgment affirmed.
The Senate Report accompanying the bill which was enacted as the Merchant Marine Act of 1970 emphasized that one of the results of the program the Act implemented would be to “provide an imperative emergency sealift capacity * * * ”. S.Rep.No.91-1080, 1970 Ü.S. Code Cong. & Ad.News 4195.

Question: This question concerns the second listed appellant. The nature of this litigant falls into the category "private organization or association". What category of private associations best describes this litigant?

Choices:
business, trade, professional, or union (BTPU)
other

Answer: 0