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:
A. O. SMITH CORPORATION, a New York corporation, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. PRE-FAB TRANSIT CO., Inc., an Illinois corporation, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 13128.
United States Court of Appeals Seventh Circuit.
Feb. 27, 1961.
Lyle E. Lipe, Stephenson & Lipe, Springfield, 111., for defendant-appellant.
Norman H. Quale, Milwaukee, Wis., Donald H. Sanborn, Springfield, 111., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before DUFFY, SCHNACKENBERG and KNOCH, Circuit Judges.
SCHNACKENBERG, Circuit Judge.
Pre-Fab Transit Co., Inc., an Illinois corporation, defendant, has appealed from a summary judgment which the district court entered against it in favor of A. O. Smith Corporation, a New York corporation, plaintiff
It is alleged in defendant’s brief that the pleadings (par. 4 of the complaint), depositions and admissions on file (par. 4 of the Roberson affidavit), show that there is a material question of fact and plaintiff is not entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.
Defendant, in summarizing its argument in this court, states that the district court erred in holding that the only conclusion that can be reached from the involved instruments is that the parties contracted in writing for the purchase and sale of two tractors with trailers, that the record contains evidence that the parties did not manifest mutual assent to the terms contained in the instrument designated “Bill of Sale” and its accompanying letter dated December 2, 1960, and that the granting of summary judgment precludes admission of evidence to show the purpose for execution of the instrument designated as “Bill of Sale” and therefore was erroneous. Defendant’s brief adds that the pleadings, depositions and admissions on file show that there is a material question of fact and plaintiff is not entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Defendant is in no position to urge these points upon us because it has failed to comply with the rules of this court requiring that the relevant parts of the record be reproduced in an appendix. Our rule 16(b), 28 U.S.C.A., provides:
“(b) Contents of Appendices.
“The appendix to the main brief of the appellant * * * shall contain the judgment, * * * appealed from * * * and such other parts of the record as are deemed necessary by the appellant * * * fairly to present the issues on appeal. * * * If appellant * * * raises a question of the sufficiency, of the evidence to support a finding, ruling, order, verdict or judgment, he shall include in the appendix all evidence pertinent thereto.”
For that reason, the judgment of the district court is affirmed.
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