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 respondents in the case that fall into the category "state governments, their agencies, and officials". 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.

Opinion:
UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA, Appellant, v. AMAX ALUMINUM MILL PRODUCTS, INC., Appellee.
No. 24928.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Nov. 4, 1971.
Carl B. Frankel (argued), Pittsburgh, Pa., Michael H. Gottesman, Washington, D. C., Jerome Smith, Los Angeles, Cal., Bernard Kleiman, Chicago, Ill., for appellant.
Roy E. Potts (argued), George P. Parker, Jr., of Kindel & Anderson, Los Angeles, Cal., for appellee.
Before MERRILL, ELY, and TRASK, Circuit Judges.
ELY, Circuit Judge:
The appellant (Union) sought, under section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947, 29 U.S.C. § 185, a judgment modifying and confirming an arbitration award rendered under a collective bargaining agreement between it and the appellee (Company). The District Court denied the motion to modify and to confirm the award and granted the Company’s motion to vacate the award. The Union appeals.
Prior to April 1, 1968, the Company’s Riverside, California, plant had four of its six time clocks calibrated so that an employee who clocked in between 6:54 а. m. and 7:00 a. m. would register 7.0 on his time card. At precisely 7:00 a. m., the impression registered would change to 7.1. If the employee left between 2:54 and 3:00 p. m., the card would show 15.0. The other two time clocks were calibrated such that the card of the employee checking in at the above times would register б. 9 and 14.9. By posted notice on April 1, 1968, the Company changed the four clocks to register as did the last two described. The notice also required the employees to clock in at or before the scheduled starting time and to clock out at or after the scheduled quitting time. Under the old policy, employees were permitted to clock out when relieved or released, which could be up to six minutes prior to the actual shift termination time. The result to the employees in the areas covered by the four clocks was that an employee reporting and leaving on time would show 8.1 hours rather than 8.0 hours of elapsed time on his time card. This meant that an employee must be on the company premises past the time clock between eight hours and eight hours and twelve minutes, whereas he had previously been required to be on the premises between seven hours and fifty-four minutes and eight hours and six minutes. The employees filed a grievance, claiming that the new policy on recording time within the plant violated the collective bargaining agreement between the Company and the Union. Unable to resolve their dispute, the parties submitted the problem to an arbitrator, pursuant to provisions in the collective bargaining agreement.
The arbitrator found that
“the Company has not been paying overtime to employees whose clock hours show more than eight. I shall hold, therefore, that as the notice now stands it does violate the agreement in that it implicitly enunciates a policy that overtime will not be paid for time required to be worked under its application in excess of eight per day. I will, therefore [,] require the notice either to be withdrawn or to be amended to entitle employees whose clock hours show in excess of eight on any day to claim such time, and to provide that hours clocked in compliance with the memorandum will create a presumption of entitlement. This will apply retroactively in that any employee whose time clock recorded hours have shown in excess of eight hours by reason of compliance with the Notice may claim payment.”
In arriving at this conclusion, the arbitrator looked to a portion of the collective bargaining agreement which stated that “overtime shall be paid for all hours worked in excess of eight (8) hours in any one twenty-four (24) hour period.” He defined “work” as “being on Company premises on the job site side of the time clock,” and he then determined that time registered on a time card was simply prima facie evidence of actual time registered and elapsed. Thus, he reasoned that the employee should receive overtime pay if the elapsed time on the card showed more than eight hours unless the Company could show that the employee worked less than that time. The Company removed the notice in question and, under its interpretation of the arbitrator’s award, refused to grant back pay. The Union, believing that the award clearly ordered back overtime pay, petitioned the court for a modification and confirmance of the award. In its answer to this petition, the Company argued that the arbitrator exceeded his powers and that the award should be vacated. The district judge granted the motion to vacate because it appeared to him that the arbitrator had grounded his award upon subjective concepts of industrial justice instead of the agreement and the relevant industry and shop law.
We have concluded that the arbitrator correctly fulfilled his duty as outlined in the Supreme Court's trilogy of arbitration opinions and that he properly arrived at his conclusions by relying upon the express provisions of the contract and the industrial common law. See Anaconda Co. v. Great Falls Mill & Smeltermen’s Union, 402 F.2d 749 (9th Cir. 1968). He resolved the simple question, submitted by the parties, of whether or not the time clock notice violated the collective bargaining agreement. It was his duty to find facts and interpret, define, and apply any ambiguities in the contract. See, e. g., Holly Sugar Corp. v. Distillery, Rectifying, Wine & A.W.I.U., 412 F.2d 899 (9th Cir. 1969); Safeway Stores v. American Bakery & Confectionery Workers Int’l Union, 390 F.2d 79 (5th Cir. 1968). As the Supreme Court emphasized,
“the question of interpretation of the collective bargaining agreement is a question for the arbitrator. It is the arbitrator’s construction which was bargained for; and so far as the arbitrator’s decision concerns construction of the contract, the courts have no business overruling him because their interpretation of the contract is different from his.”
United Steelworkers of America v. Enterprise Wheel & Car Corp., 363 U.S. 593, 599, 80 S.Ct. 1358, 1362, 4 L.Ed.2d 1424, 1429(1960). Here, the district judge should not have substituted his interpretation of the facts or the contract provisions for that of the arbitrator. See Dallas Typographical Union v. A. H. Belo Corp., 372 F.2d 577 (5th Cir. 1967). “[I]f, on its face, the award represents a plausible interpretation of the contract in the context of the parties’ conduct, judicial inquiry ceases and the award must be affirmed.” Holly Sugar, supra 412 F.2d at 903. Accordingly, on the facts of this case, the judgment must be reversed.
As to the Union’s petition to modify and confirm the award, we agree that the arbitrator’s remedy is subject to but one proper interpretation, i. e., that there should be back overtime pay for the past violation in addition to the Company’s correction of the contract violation by either rescinding the notice or amending it to grant overtime. Restitution is a reasonable remedy in a contract violation situation of this nature. Thus, the award should be modified and confirmed as the Union requested, and, upon remand, the District Court will enter its order to that effect.
Reversed and remanded.
. United Steelworkers of America v. Enterprise Wheel & Car Corp., 363 U.S. 593, 80 S.Ct. 1358, 4 L.Ed.2d 1424 (1960); United Steelworkers of America v. Warrior & Gulf Nav. Co., 363 U.S. 574, 80 S.Ct. 1347, 4 E.Ed.2d 1409 (1960); United Steelworkers of America v. American Mfg. Co., 363 U.S. 564, 80 S.Ct. 1343, 4 L.Ed.2d 1403 (1960).
. We find it unnecessary to decide whether or not, under the United States Arbitration Act, tiie Company’s request to vacate the arbitration award was untimely. See 9 U.S.C. § 12. We do note that our court may have indicated its preference for the view that this Act is a part of the substantive federal law governing suits under section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act. See Local 13, I.L.W.U. v. Pacific Maritime Ass’n, 441 F.2d 1061, 1064 (9th Cir. 1971).
. The arbitrator’s award stated:
“a. The Company may withdraw the notice; or,
b. The Company may amend the notice by adding the following: ‘Employees who, in eomplience [sic] with this notice, register time clock hours in excess of eight per day may claim pay for the overtime. Time clocked in com-plience [sic] with this Notice in excess of eight per day (after deducting any unpaid time) creates a presumption that the employee has worked the indicated amount of overtime.’ c. The presumption indicated in (b) above exists from the time of posting of the notice, and individual employees may make retroactive claims for overtime from April 1, 1968. These claims, if made, shall be paid unless it can be shown, in the individual case, that the employee did not work the amount of overtime indicated by his time card.”

Question: What is the total number of respondents in the case that fall into the category "state governments, their agencies, and officials"? Answer with a number.

Choices:

Answer: 0