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:
SCHUYLKILL TRANSIT COMPANY, Appellant, v. Walter J. ROTHENSIES, Former Collector of Internal Revenue, First District of Pennsylvania, Joseph F. J. Mayer, Former Acting Collector of Internal Revenue, First District of Pennsylvania, and Francis R. Smith, Collector of Internal Revenue, First District of Pennsylvania.
No. 11131.
United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit.
Argued Feb. 4, 1954.
Decided Feb. 17, 1954.
Bernard V. Lentz, Philadelphia, Pa. (Fred Bremier, Jr., Thomas Raeburn White, White, Williams & Scott, Philadelphia, Pa., on the brief), for appellant.
Loring W. Post, Washington, D. C. (H. Brian Holland, Asst. Atty. Gen., Ellis N. Slack, Sp. Assts. to Atty. Gen., William C. Thompson, Asst. U. S. Atty., Philadelphia, Pa., on the brief), for ap-pellee.
Before GOODRICH, McLAUGHLIN and HASTIE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
This is a suit to recover for a tax payment which the taxpayer says was not properly exacted from it. It has to do with the question whether a loss was to be treated as an ordinary loss or charged as a capital loss. The district court decided the case against the taxpayer and rendered a thoroughly considered opinion in so doing, D.C.E.D.Pa. 1953, 115 F.Supp. 594. We do not have anything to add to that opinion.
The judgment will 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