Task: songer_respond1_1_2

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 respondent. 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".

PER CURIAM.
This case is before us on petition by the National Labor Relations Board for enforcement of an order against respondents issued May 15, 1947. 73 N.L.R.B. 1085. See also 64 N.L.R.B. 869. Petitioner presented its case to us by brief and oral argument. Respondents submitted on the record, filed no brief, and were not represented .at the argument in this court. Under the circumstances, we do not deem it incumbent upon us to render an extended opinion. .We shall do no more than announce the conclusions we have arrived at upon examination of the record.
The factual basis for the Board’s jurisdiction is sufficiently shown. Under the somewhat unusual circumstances appearing, we agree with the finding and conclusion of the Board that each of the respondents is an employer within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 151 et seq. We sustain the Board’s findings as to the commission of unfair labor practices by respondents. In so far as questions relating to the remedy are now open to respondents in view of the restricted scope of their exceptions at the administrative level to the findings and recommendations of the Board’s trial examiner, we deem the terms of the order to be appropriate and within the authority of the Board.
A decree will be entered enforcing the order of the Board.

Question: This question concerns the first listed respondent. The nature of this litigant falls into the category "private business (including criminal enterprises)". What is the scope of this business?
A. local
B. neither local nor national
C. national or multi-national
D. not ascertained
Answer:

Answer: D