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:
Richard TURNER, Individually and as Agent for the Black Youth Club, and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, Petitioners, v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION and the United States of America, Respondents, Radio Station WSNT, National Association of Broadcasters, Intervenors. Richard TURNER, Individually and as Agent for the Black Youth Club, et al., Appellants, v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, Appellee, Radio Station WSNT, Inc., National Association of Broadcasters, Intervenors.
Nos. 74-1298, 74-1299.
United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.
Argued 17 April 1975.
Decided 23 June 1975.
Paul Gewirtz, Washington, D. C., with whom Joseph Onek, Washington, D. C., was on the brief for petitioners.
Joseph A. Marino, Associate Gen. Counsel, Federal Communications Commission, with whom Ashton R. Hardy, Gen. Counsel and C. Grey Pash, Jr., Counsel, Federal Communications Commission were on the brief, for respondent. R. Michael Senkowski, Counsel, Federal Communications Commission also entered an appearance for respondent.
John B. Summers, Washington, D. C., was on the brief for intervenor, National Association of Broadcasters. John Borsari and George R. Borsari, Jr., Washington, D. C., entered appearances for intervenor Radio Station WSNT, Inc. A.
Before MacKINNON and WILKEY, Circuit Judges, and JAMESON, Senior District Judge for the District of Montana.
Sitting by designation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 294(d).
Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge WILKEY.
WILKEY, Circuit Judge:
Richard Turner and others filed a petition in 1970 before the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) seeking to deny renewal of the license of WSNT, Inc., to operate WSNT-AM in Sanders-ville, Georgia. Petitioners alleged racial discrimination in WSNT’s operation and ' a failure adequately to serve the entire Sandersville community, which is 60 percent black. In an opinion and order dated 11 March 1971, the FCC designated WSNT’s renewal application for hearing pursuant to section 309(e) of the Communications Act. Prior to the scheduled hearing, the petitioners and the licensee reached a settlement and as a result petitioners urged that WSNT’s renewal application be granted. Petitioners also requested that WSNT be required to reimburse the legal expenses incurred in prosecuting the petition to deny. At the same time that it granted WSNT’s renewal application, the Commission denied Turner’s request that WSNT be ordered to reimburse its expenses, on the authority of KCMC, Inc.
While Turner’s appeal of the Commission's denial was pending, this court, in Office of Communication of United Church of Christ v. FCC, reversed the KCMC decision. Upon the joint request of the parties, Turner’s appeal was remanded to the Commission for further consideration in light of the opinion in United Church of Christ.
On remand the Commission concluded that it was without legal authority to require WSNT to reimburse Turner’s expenses and that reimbursement was not warranted on the facts of this case. While conceding that its powers under sections 4(i) and 303(r) of the Communications Act were broad, it was persuaded that the authority to order reimbursement of legal expenses should not be implied “absent specific statutory authority.” The Commission in its opinion dealt with the issue as follows:
[T]he shifting of attorney’s fees is not a new concept. The fact is that fee shifting was well known to Congress when the Act was adopted, and Congress did not choose to number it specifically among the Commission’s regulatory tools. Moreover, any attempt to infer such power from general grants of authority has to be considered in the light of the traditional rule in this nation’s courts against awards of attorney’s fees, the strict limitations on the Commission’s powers under the Act to require broadcast li•censees to pay out money, and the fact that Congress has not hesitated in other circumstances to authorize fee awards explicitly when it has determined such authorization to be warranted.
18. The federal courts have awarded attorney’s fees in certain classes of cases not covered by statute, and Turner argues by analogy that the Commission has authority to do the same thing. But the “foundation” for this practice in the courts is “the original authority of the ■ chancellor to do equity in a particular situation,” Spra-gue v. Ticonic National Bank, 307 U.S. 161, 166, 59 S.Ct. 777, 780, 83 L.Ed. 1184 (1939), and the Commission has no such equitable authority. Instead, the Commission must find its authority in its enabling statutes. Regents v. Carroll, 338 U.S. 586, 70 S.Ct. 370, 94 L.Ed. 363 (1949); Illinois Citizens Committee v. FCC, supra.
We affirm the Commission’s order. Congress, and not the Commission, can authorize an exception to the “American Rule” that litigants bear the expense of their litigation. The reasoning of the Supreme Court in Alyeska Pipeline Co. v. Wilderness Society is fully applicable to litigation before the Federal Communications Commission. Congress has no more extended a “roving commission” to the FCC than it has to the Judiciary “to allow counsel fees as costs or otherwise whenever the [Commission] might deem them warranted.” The Commission in its opinion noted that “Congress has not hesitated in other circumstances to authorize fee awards explicitly when it has determined such authorizations to be warranted.” In fact, two provisions of the Communications Act specifically provide for the award of attorney’s fees in court litigation.
In conclusion, we wish clearly to distinguish our prior opinion in United Church of Christ. It is one thing to approve a voluntary agreement in which a litigant has agreed to reimburse his adversary his expenses and attorney’s fees in an appropriate case. It is quite another for an agency to order a litigant to bear his adversary’s expenses. Before an agency may so order, it must be granted clear statutory power by Congress.
Affirmed.
. Radio Station WSNT, Inc., 27 F.C.C.2d 993 (1971).
. 25 F.C.C.2d 603 (1970).
. 150 U.S.App.D.C. 339, 465 F.2d 519 (1972).
. 45 F.C.C.2d 377 (1974).
. 45 F.C.C.2d at 381-82 (footnotes omitted).
. - u.S. -, 95 S.Ct. 1612, 44 L.Ed.2d 141 (1975). '
. Id. at-, 95 S.Ct. at 1623.
. 47 U.S.C. § 206, relating to actions against common carriers, was a part of the original Communications Act. 47 U.S.C. § 331(b) was a part of the 1973 sports anti-blackout amendment. 47 U.S.C. § 206 is mentioned in note 33 of the Alyeska opinion as an example of a statutory exception to the American rule. - U.S. at-, 95 S.Ct. 1612, n.33, 43 U.S.L.W. at 4568 n.33.

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: 1