Task: songer_numresp

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.
Your specific task is to determine the total number of respondents in the case. 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.

ON MOTION TO DISMISS
PER CURIAM:
This petition seeks review of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s (“OSHA”) final standard regulating hazard communication. 29 C.F.R. § 1910.1200. The standard was filed in the Office of the Federal Register on August 19, 1987, and was published on August 24, 1987. See 52 Fed.Reg. 31,852 (1987). OSHA has moved to dismiss the petition as untimely since it was filed on October 20, 1987, sixty-one days after the filing of the standard in the Office of the Federal Register.
Section 6(f) of the OSH Act, 29 U.S.C. § 655(f), provides that:
[a]ny person who may be adversely affected by a standard issued under this section may at any time prior to the sixtieth day after such standard is promulgated file a petition challenging the validity of such standard with the United States court of appeals for the circuit wherein such person resides or has his principal place of business, for a judicial review of such standard.
(Emphasis added). The government contends that the date of issuance is synonymous with the date of promulgation, and it relies on the following regulation:
A rule promulgating, modifying, or revoking a standard, or a determination that a rule should not be promulgated, shall be considered issued at the time when the rule or determination is officially filed in the Office of the Federal Register. The time of official filing in the Office of the Federal Register is established for the purpose of determining the prematurity, timeliness, or lateness of petitions for judicial review.
29 C.F.R. § 1911.18(d) (emphasis added).
The Second Circuit has issued a recent opinion on the issue of when an OSHA standard is promulgated for purposes of determining the timeliness of a petition for review. See United Technologies Corp. v. OSHA, 836 F.2d 52 (2d Cir.1987). In United Technologies, the court concluded that an OSHA standard is promulgated on the date of publication in the Federal Register. We agree, at least in the absence of a valid OSHA regulation fixing some other date.
Section 1911.18(d) was adopted in response to this court’s opinion in Industrial Union Dep’t, AFL-CIO v. Bingham, 570 F.2d 965 (D.C.Cir.1977). Industrial Union involved the issue of whether a petition for review is premature if it is filed before the challenged regulation is filed in the Office of the Federal Register. This court invited OSHA to issue regulations defining when a standard is “issued” for .purposes of marking the inception of the filing period as required by 29 U.S.C. § 655(f). Id. at 970-71, 976 n. 12. The resulting regulation, 29 C.F.R. § 1911.18(d), clarified when a standard is “issued,” not when it is “promulgated.”
OSHA may well have the power to equate the date of promulgation with the date of issuance, but it has not done so. It is clear from a reading of 29 U.S.C. § 655(f) that Congress intended to treat the date of issuance differently from the date of promulgation. Based on the plain meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 655(f), the ordinary usage of the term promulgate, and the lack of any specific agency regulation defining the date of promulgation, we conclude that an OSHA standard is promulgated on the date that it is published in the Federal Register. Accordingly, respondent’s motion to dismiss is hereby denied.

Question: What is the total number of respondents in the case? Answer with a number.
Answer:

Answer: 1