Task: songer_r_fed

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.
In some cases there is some confusion over who should be listed as the appellant and who as the respondent. This confusion is primarily the result of the presence of multiple docket numbers consolidated into a single appeal that is disposed of by a single opinion. Most frequently, this occurs when there are cross appeals and/or when one litigant sued (or was sued by) multiple litigants that were originally filed in district court as separate actions. The coding rule followed in such cases should be to go strictly by the designation provided in the title of the case. The first person listed in the title as the appellant should be coded as the appellant even if they subsequently appeared in a second docket number as the respondent and regardless of who was characterized as the appellant in the opinion.
To clarify the coding conventions, consider the following hypothetical case in which the US Justice Department sues a labor union to strike down a racially discriminatory seniority system and the corporation (siding with the position of its union) simultaneously sues the government to get an injunction to block enforcement of the relevant civil rights law. From a district court decision that consolidated the two suits and declared the seniority system illegal but refused to impose financial penalties on the union, the corporation appeals and the government and union file cross appeals from the decision in the suit brought by the government. Assume the case was listed in the Federal Reporter as follows:
United States of America,
Plaintiff, Appellant
v
International Brotherhood of Widget Workers,AFL-CIO
Defendant, Appellee.
International Brotherhood of Widget Workers,AFL-CIO
Defendants, Cross-appellants
v
United States of America.
Widgets, Inc. & Susan Kuersten Sheehan, President & Chairman
of the Board
Plaintiff, Appellants,
v
United States of America,
Defendant, Appellee.
This case should be coded as follows:Appellant = United States, Respondents = International Brotherhood of Widget Workers Widgets, Inc., Total number of appellants = 1, Number of appellants that fall into the category "the federal government, its agencies, and officials" = 1, Total number of respondents = 3, Number of respondents that fall into the category "private business and its executives" = 2, Number of respondents that fall into the category "groups and associations" = 1.
Note that if an individual is listed by name, but their appearance in the case is as a government official, then they should be counted as a government rather than as a private person. For example, in the case "Billy Jones & Alfredo Ruiz v Joe Smith" where Smith is a state prisoner who brought a civil rights suit against two of the wardens in the prison (Jones & Ruiz), the following values should be coded: number of appellants that fall into the category "natural persons" =0 and number that fall into the category "state governments, their agencies, and officials" =2. A similar logic should be applied to businesses and associations. Officers of a company or association whose role in the case is as a representative of their company or association should be coded as being a business or association rather than as a natural person. However, employees of a business or a government who are suing their employer should be coded as natural persons. Likewise, employees who are charged with criminal conduct for action that was contrary to the company policies should be considered natural persons.
If the title of a case listed a corporation by name and then listed the names of two individuals that the opinion indicated were top officers of the same corporation as the appellants, then the number of appellants should be coded as three and all three were coded as a business (with the identical detailed code). Similar logic should be applied when government officials or officers of an association were listed by name.
Your specific task is to determine the total number of respondents in the case that fall into the category "the federal government, its agencies, and officials". If the total number cannot be determined (e.g., if the respondent is listed as "Smith, et. al." and the opinion does not specify who is included in the "et.al."), then answer 99.

OPINION OF THE COURT
PER CURIAM:
This is an application by the National Labor Relations Board (Board) for enforcement of its order against Respondent, Local No. 42, International Association of Heat & Frost Insulators & Asbestos Workers (Union).
As found by the Board, the three insulation contractors in Wilmington, Delaware had negotiated as a multi-employer unit previous to 1970, with each employer signing the final contract with the Union separately. In anticipation of the 1970 contract negotiations, they joined the Allied Construction Industries Division of the Delaware Contractors’ Association, Inc. (DCA), a trade association; DCA then formed the Insulation Trade Group, a subdivision composed exclusively of the three contractors. These contractors desired the association to negotiate and execute the upcoming contracts with the Union. Both DCA and the employers notified the Union of this intention. When negotiations began on May 19, 1970, the Union objected to the substitution of DCA as the contracting party. Although it continued these objections in subsequent bargaining sessions, the Board found these insufficient to nullify the acceptance evidenced by the Union’s negotiations with DCA on substantive elements of the contract. While it noted that substantial progress had been made on various provisions, it focused particularly upon the tentative term in the contract recognizing DCA as the contracting party.
On July 14, 1970, the existing contract expired, and the Union struck the contractors. DCA issued a press release detailing the bargaining positions of the parties, contrary to the past practice of secrecy during negotiations. Because of this, the Union refused to bargain further with DCA and insisted that all future negotiations be between the Union and the employers themselves, as in the past.
DCA filed a complaint with the Board, charging the Union with refusal to negotiate, in violation of § 8(b)(3) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended [29 U.S.C. § 158(b)(3) (1971)]. After a hearing, the Trial Examiner concluded that the Union had never accepted DCA as a negotiating party and dismissed the complaint; he premised the dismissal upon his finding that the continuing objections by the Union nullified any manifested acceptance of DCA as a party. The Board reversed, ordering the Union to sign a contract with DCA, upon request, identical to the one executed with the three employers, but incorporating a provision designating DCA as the bargaining and contracting agent for the three. It is this order which it now seeks to have us enforce.
Once a party agrees to multiemployer unit bargaining, it cannot withdraw its assent during negotiations absent special conditions or mutual consent of the parties. Cf. NLRB v. John J. Corbett Press, 401 F.2d 673 (2d Cir. 1968); see also NLRB v. Dover Tavern Owners’ Ass’n, 412 F.2d 725 (3d Cir. 1969) . A corollary is that once assent is given to the inclusion of a party, it cannot be withdrawn during negotiations absent similar conditions. However, a peculiar twist is presented here. While the Board found that the Union continued to object to DCA as the bargaining party, it also found that the Union had negotiated with DCA on specific terms of the contract, manifesting by its actions acceptance of DCA as the contracting party. This finding, which directly contradicted the Trial Examiner’s, was the premise for the Board’s reversal. Therefore, the critical issue before this court is whether the Board properly exercised its powers in making this determination.
The Board has the power to draw different conclusions from evidentiary facts presented to the Trial Examiner, as it did here. See International Union of Elec., Radio and Machine Workers, A.F.L.-C.I.O. v. NLRB, 273 F.2d 243, 247 (3d Cir. 1959). In turn, this court must determine whether the Board’s decision is supported by substantial evidence on the record. See Universal Camera Corp. v. NLRB, 340 U.S. 474, 71 S.Ct. 456, 95 L.Ed. 456 (1951). Utilizing these two standards, we find that the Board validly exercised its power in reversing the Trial Examiner and that its findings were substantially supported by the record.
Three additional issues raised by the Union merit short discussion. First, the Union contends that substitution of DCA as signatory party was a subject for negotiation. The Board’s order requiring it to execute a contract with DCA, it claims, undermines the collective bargaining process. However, the Board found that the Union had accepted DCA as the contracting party; consequently, its order merely remedies the unfair labor practice committed by the Union. Secondly, the Union contends that since DCA was not a party to the final contract, the association had no standing to file a complaint with the Board over its wrongful exclusion. The Union claims the Act grants standing only to an “aggrieved party”; therefore, the Board rule which grants standing to “any party” exceeds the statutory grant and is invalid. This court previously has upheld the validity of the Board’s rule. See NLRB v. Television & Radio Brdcstg. Studio Employees, 315 F.2d 398 (3d Cir. 1963). Thirdly, the Union contends that since the final contracts, as signed, failed to include a stipulation preserving DCA’s rights before the Board, DCA and the employers have waived their right to a Board-enforced remedy. However, absent an express waiver of § 8 rights, none will be inferred. See Timken Roller Bearing Co. v. NLRB, 325 F.2d 746 (6th Cir. 1963), cert. denied, 376 U.S. 971, 84 S.Ct. 1135, 12 L.Ed.2d 85 (1964). The Union has not shown any express waiver here.
After examining the record, we have concluded that a modification of the Board’s order must be made. Prior to the Union’s refusal to negotiate with DCA, the parties agreed the signatory party for the employers would be the Insulation Trade Group of DCA, composed exclusively of the three area insulation contractors. This limitation was agreed upon to ameliorate the Union’s fears that signing with DCA would require it to furnish its members to all association members upon demand. This necessarily was one of 'the elements which induced the acceptance by the Union of DCA found by the Board. Therefore, the order requiring the Union to execute a contract with DCA will be modified to require the Union to execute it solely with the Insulation Trade Group, Allied Construction Industries Division of DCA.
The order of the Board will be enforced as modified herein.

Question: What is the total number of respondents in the case that fall into the category "the federal government, its agencies, and officialss"? Answer with a number.
Answer:

Answer: 0