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:
Georgia CUNNINGHAM, for herself, and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Mitchell Cunningham, Deceased, and as Guardian Ad Litem for the Minor Children of the Parties, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 85-3791.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted Feb. 13, 1986.
Decided April 15, 1986.
Leonard J. Haxby, Butte, Mont., for plaintiff-appellant.
Phyllis Jackson Pyles, Dept, of Justice, Washington, D.C., for defendant-appellee.
Before WALLACE and SKOPIL, Circuit Judges, and HENDERSON, District Judge.
The Honorable Thelton E. Henderson, United States District Judge for the Northern District of California, sitting by designation.
SKOPIL, Circuit Judge:
Georgia Cunningham appeals from a district court’s dismissal of her cause of action brought under the Federal Torts Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2674 (“FTCA”). We affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS BELOW
Mitchell Cunningham was an employee at the Stauffer Chemical Company Phosphate Plant (“Stauffer Plant") in Silverbow County, Montana. On August 14, 1982 Cunningham was sprayed with raw phosphorous. He died the following day.
The Stauffer Plant is subject to inspection and regulation by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”), Department of Labor. OSHA conducted two safety and ten health inspections of the Stauffer Plant between 1973 and 1982. The Stauffer Plant received no OSHA citations prior to 1982. Thereafter, OSHA conducted a post-accident inspection and cited the Stauffer Plant for several deficiencies.
Georgia Cunningham brought a cause of action against the United States under the FTCA, contending OSHA safety inspectors failed to exercise reasonable care in performing their inspections of the Stauffer Plant. She argued the deficiencies found in the post-accident inspection would have been identified and remedied by the plant prior to the fatal accident if OSHA had conducted its prior inspections properly.
The district court, 625 F.Supp. 1016, granted the government’s motion to dismiss on the grounds that the action was barred by the discretionary function exception. Cunningham appeals.
DISCUSSION
A party may bring a cause of action against the United States only to the extent it has waived its sovereign immunity. United States v. Orleans, 425 U.S. 807, 814, 96 S.Ct. 1971, 1975, 48 L.Ed.2d 390 (1976). A party bringing a cause of action against the federal government bears the burden of demonstrating an unequivocal waiver of immunity. Holloman v. Watt, 708 F.2d 1399, 1401 (9th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 958, 104 S.Ct. 2168, 80 L.Ed.2d 552 (1984).
A court lacks jurisdiction over a cause of action if the federal government’s alleged negligence is “based on the exercise or performance or the failure to exercise or perform a discretionary function or duty on the part of a federal agency or an employee of the Government, whether or not the discretion involved be abused.” 28 U.S.C. § 2680(a). See Dalehite v. United States, 346 U.S. 15, 33, 73 S.Ct. 956, 966, 97 L.Ed. 1427 (1953).
The nature of the conduct involved governs whether the so-called discretionary function exception applies. United States v. S.A. Empresa de Viacao Aerea Rio Grandense (“Varig Airlines"), 467 U.S. 797, 104 S.Ct. 2755, 2764-65, 81 L.Ed.2d 660 (1984). “[T]he basic inquiry ... is whether the challenged acts of a government employee — whatever his or her rank — are of the nature and quality that Congress intended to shield from tort liability.” Id. The purpose of the exception is to prevent judicial second-guessing of administrative decisionmaking based on social, economic, and political policy. Id. 104 S.Ct. at 2765. “ ‘[I]f judicial review would encroach upon this type of balancing done by an agency, then the exception would apply.’ ” Chamberlin v. Isen, 779 F.2d 522, 523 (9th Cir.1985) (quoting Begay v. United States, 768 F.2d 1059, 1064 (9th Cir.1985)).
Georgia Cunningham claims OSHA was negligent in conducting its inspections. OSHA safety inspections are similar to those discussed in Varig Airlines. In Varig Airlines, the Civil Aeronautics Agency allegedly negligently inspected and certified an aircraft that did not meet minimum fire safety standards. 104 S.Ct. at 2758. The Supreme Court found that a negligent failure to inspect falls within the discretionary function exception. Varig Airlines, 104 S.Ct. at 2768. The Court emphasized that the manufacturer has “the duty to ensure that an aircraft conforms to FAA safety regulations ... while the FAA retains the responsibility for policing compliance.” Id. at 2768. The same is true for companies operating under the directives of OSHA. The employer has the statutory responsibility for maintaining a safe workplace. 29 U.S.C. § 654(a).
This court, in Natural Gas Pipeline Co. v. United States, 742 F.2d 502, 504-05 (9th Cir.1984) found that FAA’s alleged failure to discover aircraft defects and to adequately monitor aircraft safety was protected by the discretionary function exception. The same is true in this case for OSHA’s alleged failure to adequately monitor the Stauffer Plant. Both OSHA’s decision to review the employer’s compliance with safety standards and its actual inspections of the Stauffer Plant are discretionary functions. Congress has left to OSHA’s discretion the establishment of safety standards and the enforcement of those standards. “When an agency determines the extent to which it will supervise the safety procedures of private individuals, it is exercising discretionary regulatory authority of the most basic kind.” Varig Airlines, 104 S.Ct. at 2768. See also Be-gay, 768 F.2d at 1064 (decision whether to implement safety regulations in uranium mines is within Varig’s coverage).
The acts of OSHA inspectors in executing agency directives are protected by the discretionary function exception. See Varig Airlines, 104 S.Ct. at 2768; Dalehite, 346 U.S. at 36 (“acts of subordinates in carrying out the operations of government in accordance with official directions cannot be actionable”); see also Begay, 768 F.2d at 1064.
AFFIRMED.

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