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 appellants in the case that fall into the category "private business and its executives". If the total number cannot be determined (e.g., if the appellant is listed as "Smith, et. al." and the opinion does not specify who is included in the "et.al."), then answer 99.

Opinion:
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. WATSON-RUMMELL ELECTRIC COMPANY, Respondent.
No. 86-5247.
United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
Argued Feb. 12, 1987.
Decided April 1, 1987.
Elliott Moore, Deputy Associate General Counsel, N.L.R.B., John Burgoyne, Margaret Bezou (argued), Washington, D.C., Emil C. Farkas, Director, Region 9, N.L.R.B., Cincinnati, Ohio, for petitioner.
Julius Rather, Danny, Morgan and Rather, Lexington, Ky., Richard L. Wyatt (argued), John Gamble, Atlanta, Ga., for respondent.
Before MERRITT and MILBURN, Circuit Judges, and PECK, Senior Circuit Judge.
MERRITT, Circuit Judge.
The National Labor Relations Board applies for enforcement of its order against Watson-Rummell Electric Company. Under the terms of that order, Watson-Rum-mell is required to give retroactive effect to an expired collective bargaining agreement and to cease and desist from any future violations of the terms of that agreement or of the National Labor Relations Act. Watson-Rummmell contests enforcement primarily on the ground that it was entitled to repudiate the contract unilaterally because of its special status as a construction industry employer under § 8(f) of the NLRA, 29 U.S.C. § 158(f). We now enforce the Board’s order as to all relief for the period preceding June 1, 1982, and remand to the Board for the limited purpose of determining the applicability of § 8(f) and the effect of such an exemption on the relief ordered.
Watson-Rummell Electric Company employs approximately eight workers to perform electrical contracting services for the construction industry in Lexington, Kentucky. By virtue of a letter of assent dated October 22, 1975, Watson-Rummell became a member of a multi-employer bargaining group that represents electrical contractors in the Lexington area: the Central Kentucky Chapter of the National Electrical Contractors Association, Inc. (NECA). By becoming a member of the NECA group, Watson-Rummell also became a party to the collective bargaining agreement then in effect between NECA and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local No. 183. The letter of assent specified that in order to withdraw from the NECA, an employer had to give notice to both the NECA and the union at least 150 days before the anniversary date of the collective bargaining agreement then in effect.
Three distinct time periods are relevant to the task of assessing Watson-Rummell’s duties towards its employees and their union. The first begins with the signing of the original letter of assent in October, 1975, and continues until the employer effected a timely withdrawal from the bargaining unit on May 31, 1982. The second period begins at the date of this withdrawal and ends with the expiration of the collective bargaining agreement on May 31, 1983. The last period runs from June 1, 1983 to present, thus covering the employer’s post-expiration duties. These periods are described below as the pre-withdrawal, post-withdrawal, and post-expiration periods respectively.
The Board found that the employer did not effect a timely withdrawal from the NECA until June 1,1982, and that Watson-Rummell was bound by the terms of the collective bargaining agreement until it expired on June 1, 1983. In holding Watson-Rummell to the terms of that contract during the post-withdrawal period, the Board necessarily found that withdrawal from the multi-employer bargaining unit did not affect the employer’s duties toward its employees while the collective bargaining agreement was in effect. In addition, the Board found that the employer was prohibited under § 9(a) of the NLRA from making unilateral changes in contract terms during the post-expiration period. As a result, the Board’s order mandated relief extending through all three periods.
Watson-Rummell takes issue with each of these findings by the Board. Specifically, the employer argues that the Board erred by not properly considering evidence that it withdrew from the NECA prior to June 1, 1982. Watson-Rummell also argues that withdrawal from the NECA extinguished its obligations under the collective bargaining agreement as of the date of withdrawal, without regard for the expiration date of the collective bargaining agreement. The first of these arguments questions relief ordered by the Board for the period from June 1, 1981 to June 1, 1982. The second attacks the remedies instituted by the Board for the post-withdrawal and post-expiration periods.
As for Watson-Rummell’s first argument, there is substantial evidence in the record to support the Board’s finding that withdrawal did not occur before June 1, 1982. The terms of the contract specified a method for terminating participation in the multi-employer bargaining group. That method was not complied with until the letter of December 27, 1981 was received by both the NECA and the union. Furthermore, the employer’s conduct during the period in question was not sufficient to communicate an intent to withdraw from the NECA or repudiate the collective bargaining agreement. Under these circumstances, the Board correctly found that the employer was a member of the NECA group and thereby bound by the collective bargaining agreement until June 1, 1982.
The contractual obligations of the company in the post-withdrawal and post-expiration periods are not so clear. Watson-Rum-mell has consistently and vigorously contested any contractual duties whatsoever in these periods. Although counsel below did not specifically allege Watson-Rummell’s § 8(f) status as an excuse, the employer now explicitly relies upon this special exemption. The Board counters by arguing that counsel’s failure to allege this status specifically below bars its consideration in this court by virtue of § 10(e) of the NLRA, 29 U.S.C. § 160(e). See Woelke & Romero Framing v. NLRB, 456 U.S. 645, 102 S.Ct. 2071, 72 L.Ed.2d 398 (1981).
We reject the Board’s contention that Watson-Rummell has waived any claim to § 8(f) status because of a failure to invoke its protection specifically below. The specificity required for a claim to escape the ban imposed by § 10(e) is that which will “apprise the Board of an intention to bring up the question.” May Stores v. NLRB, 326 U.S. 376, 386-87 n. 5, 66 S.Ct. 203, 209 n. 5, 90 L.Ed. 145 (1945). A general objection combined with special circumstances may be sufficient to constitute notice. Id.
In this case, the Board should have considered the applicability of § 8(f) to Watson-Rummell. The AU found that Watson-Rummell was “an electrical contractor in the construction industry.” Joint Appendix at 135. Watson-Rummell consistently asserted that it was under no duty whatsoever to honor the contract beyond May 31, 1981. Furthermore, the testimony offered before the Board regarding Watson-Rummell’s operations suggests strongly that it is a § 8(f) employer, and this testimony should have prompted the Board to inquire further into the applicability of the special exemption.
Although we hold that WatsonRummell provided sufficient notice regarding its § 8(f) claim to prevent a waiver, the record before us is insufficient to decide whether the employer is in fact entitled to the exemption and how its contractual duties would be altered. Under Jim McNeff, Inc. v. Todd, 461 U.S. 260, 103 S.Ct. 1753, 75 L.Ed.2d 830 (1983), the employer’s obligations under a collective bargaining agreement are arguably subject to unilateral repudiation at any time before the union demonstrates majority support. Id. at 271-72, 103 S.Ct. at 1759. Although this holding appears to discharge the employer from any liability during the post-withdrawal and post-expiration periods, we do not know if the union established majority support at any time prior to WatsonRummell’s repudiation. Accordingly, we must remand to the Board to consider the applicability of § 8(f) in the present case, and the effect this exemption would have on relief ordered past May 31, 1982.
The portion of the Board’s order mandating relief for the period prior to June 1, 1982 is hereby enforced. That portion of the order extending beyond June 1, 1982 is not enforced and the case is remanded to the Board for additional proceedings as outlined in the opinion above.
. Since Watson-Rummell admitted that it was bound by the collective bargaining agreement and its employees were represented by the union until June 1, 1981, the employer’s duties during this period are not in dispute. See Joint Appendix at 66, 94.

Question: What is the total number of appellants in the case that fall into the category "private business and its executives"? Answer with a number.

Choices:

Answer: 0