Task: songer_genapel2

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 is to determine the nature of the second listed appellant. If there are more than two appellants and at least one of the additional appellants has a different general category from the first appellant, then consider the first appellant with a different general category to be the second appellant.

PER CURIAM.
Respondent Secretary of Labor has moved to dismiss as untimely Hoerner Waldorf’s petition for review of an order of the Occupational Safety & Health Review Commission (OSHRC).
Hoerner Waldorf was cited in 1978 for a safety violation and had a hearing before an administrative law judge (ALJ). On June 26, 1979, the ALJ formally notified the company of his decision upholding the citation. His notice recited that it “will become the final order of the Commission pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 661(i) on July 26, 1979 unless a member of the Commission directs that it be reviewed.” (Emphasis in original). On July 31, 1979 the OSHRC Executive Secretary notified Hoerner Waldorf that the company’s petition for discretionary review was received by the Commission on July 20, and
“The petition having come on to be considered by the individual Commission Members and no Commission Member having directed review, the petition is deemed to be denied and the decision of the [ALJ] is a final order of the Commission.
Hoerner Waldorf filed its petition for review with this court on October 17, 1979.
Under 29 U.S.C. § 660(a), a party “aggrieved by an order of the Commission issued under [29 U.S.C. § 659(c)] may obtain review of such order in [an appropriate court of appeals] by filing in such court within sixty days following the issuance of such order a written petition praying that the order be modified or set aside.” According to Hoerner Waldorf, the Commission’s order in this case was the July 31 notification and this “order” did not become “final” for 30 days following its issuance, see 29 U.S.C. § 659(c). The company would then calculate the sixty day period for petitioning for judicial review from August 30, making the October 17 petition timely.
This argument proves too much. The report of the ALJ became the “final order of the Commission” on July 26. 29 U.S.C. § 661(i). July 26 was therefore the latest possible date of the “issuance of such order,” 29 U.S.C. § 660(a), from which the sixty day period for petitioning for review is calculated. September 24 being the last day for petitioning under § 660(a), the October 17 petition in this case was too late.
The petition is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
The relevant statutory provision might possibly be read as beginning the time for petitioning for judicial review at the issuance of the ALJ’s report, here June 26. See 29 U.S.C. §§ 661(i), 660(a), 659(c). Such an interpretation would be anomalous, however, permitting petitioning for review of a non-final administrative order. The Secretary in this case and the Fifth Circuit, United States v. Fornea Road Boring Co., 565 F.2d 1314, 1316 & n. 3 (1978), take the view that the time for petitioning begins at the point where the ALJ’s order becomes the final order of the Commission. See 29 U.S.C. § 661(i).

Question: What is the nature of the second listed appellant whose detailed code is not identical to the code for the first listed appellant?
A. private business (including criminal enterprises)
B. private organization or association
C. federal government (including DC)
D. sub-state government (e.g., county, local, special district)
E. state government (includes territories & commonwealths)
F. government - level not ascertained
G. natural person (excludes persons named in their official capacity or who appear because of a role in a private organization)
H. miscellaneous
I. not ascertained
Answer:

Answer: I