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:
REX CHAINBELT, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Claude S. BRINEGAR, Secretary, Department of Transportation, et al., Defendants-Appellants.
No. 74-1309.
United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.
Argued Feb. 11, 1975.
Decided March 10, 1975.
Thomas S. Moore, Atty., App. Section, Civ. Div., U. S. Dept, of Justice, Washington, D. C., for defendants-appellants.
Andrew O. Riteris, Edward W. Mentzer, Milwaukee, Wis., for plaintiff-appellee. ¡
Before PELL, Circuit Judge, TONE, Circuit Judge, and JAMESON, Senior District Judge.
Senior Judge William J. Jameson of the District of Montana is sitting by designation.
PER CURIAM.
The sole issue on this appeal is whether the judgment of the district court on remand is in accordance with the opinion of this court in Rex Chainbelt, Inc. v. Volpe, 486 F.2d 757 (7 Cir. 1973).
Rex Chainbelt, Inc., plaintiff-appellee, is engaged in the manufacture of concrete mixers which are designed to be mounted on truck chassis-cabs. Rex sells the mixers and normally installs the mixer on a chassis which is purchased by the customer from a manufacturer other than Rex.
In 1971 the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issued regulations under the authority of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 dealing with motor vehicles manufactured in two or more stages. Regulation 49 C.F.R. § 568.6(b) required Rex, as the final stage manufacturer (49 C.F.R. § 568.3), to certify that the entire vehicle — chassis-cab and mixer — conformed to all applicable federal motor safety standards.
In Rex Chainbelt, Inc. v. Volpe, supra at 761-762, this court concluded that the “Secretary has power under the Act to require manufacturers not working through distributors and dealers to certify their vehicles or their equipment,” but that “to the extent that the regulations require Rex to make the sole certification of compliance of the entire vehicle they must be declared invalid.” On remand, the district court entered the following judgment:
“Ordered and adjudged that Section 568.6(b) of Part 568 of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations is invalid because it contravenes the language of the National Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 ... to the extent that said Section is interpreted to require that a final stage manufacturer, as a concrete mixer manufacturer or his dealer or distributor, certify the compliance of the chassis-cab and its components to motor vehicle safety standards in those instances where the final-stage manufacturer mounts the mixer on a chassis-cab which has been purchased by the mixer customer from a source other than the final-stage manufacturer.”
Strictly speaking, the judgment is in accordance with this court’s order on remand. It appears, however, that it can be clarified to satisfy all the parties to this litigation. At oral argument counsel for the respective parties agreed that this court’s holding in Rex Chainbelt, Inc. v. Volpe “should be interpreted to mean that the Act requires that in instances where the customer purchases a chassis-cab from its manufacturer and thereafter the mixer from the mixer manufacturer, the ‘entire vehicle’ must be certified via two certifications, with the chassis-cab manufacturer certifying its chassis-cab, and with the mixer manufacturer certifying its mixer and the effect of the mounting, if any, to thus obtain effective certification of the ‘entire vehicle.’ ”
We agree and remand to the district court to add to the judgment the clarifying provision acceptable to the parties.

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