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:
Jacob LICHTER and Jennie Lichter, d/b/a The Southern Fireproofing Company, Appellants, v. B. MIFFLIN HOOD COMPANY, Appellee.
No. 11370.
United States Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit
May 19, 1952.
R. R. Kramer, Erma G. Greenwood, and Andrew jo.-son, Knoxville, Tenn., for appellants.
McAllester & McAllester, Chattanooga, Tenn., for appellee.
Before ALLEN, MARTIN and MILLER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
This appeal was heard upon the record, briefs, and oral argument of counsel for respective parties;
And the Court being of the opinion that the findings of fact of the District Judge,, as set out in his Memorandum Opinion of November 22, 1950, 106 F.Supp. 220, are supported by the evidence and are not clearly erroneous;
And the Court agreeing with the conclusions of law applicable thereto as also set forth in said Memorandum Opinion; Travelers Ins. Co. v. Sides, 184 Tenn. 663, 202 S.W.2d 815; Lytle v. Clopton, 149 Tenn. 655, 261 S.W. 664; Helms & Willis v. Uni-coi County, 166 Tenn. 639, 64 S.W.2d 200.
It is ordered that the judgment of the District Court be 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