opinion: CITIZENS FOR AN ORDERLY ENERGY POLICY, INC., Vance L. Sailor, Eena-Mai Franz, John J. Foley and Dorothy V. Sheehan, Plaintiffs-Appellants, Long Island Lighting Company and the Shoreham-Wading River Central School District, Intervenors-Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. The COUNTY OF SUFFOLK and Peter F. Cohalen, Defendants-Appellees.
  Nos. 570, 571, 573, Docket 85-7321, 85-7323, 85-7325.
  United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
  Argued Dec. 18, 1986.
  Decided March 9, 1987.
  Lucinda Low Swartz, Kensington, Md. (Ronald A. Zumbrun, Pacific Legal Foundation, Sacramento, Cal., of counsel), for plaintiff-appellant Citizens for an Orderly Energy Policy, Inc.
  K. Dennis Sisk, New York City (Adeeb Fadil, Hunton & Williams, New York City, W. Taylor Reveley, III, Kathy E.B. McCleskey, Hunton & Williams, Richmond, Va., Anthony F. Earley, Jr., Long Island Lighting Co., Hicksville, N.Y., of counsel), for Intervenor-plaintiff-appellant Long Island Lighting Co.
  J. Scott Greer, Poughkeepsie, N.Y. (Lou Lewis, Poughkeepsie, N.Y., of counsel), for Intervenor-plaintiff-appellant ShorehamWading River Central School Dist.
  David A. Brownlee, Pittsburgh, Pa. (Michael J. Lynch, Kenneth M. Argentieri, Kirkpatrick & Lockhart, Pittsburgh, Pa., Herbert H. Brown, Lawrence C. Lanpher, Kirkpatrick & Lockhart, Washington, D.C., Martin B. Ashare, Suffolk County Dept, of Law, Hauppaug, N.Y., of counsel), for defendants-appellees.
  Before TIMBERS, MESKILL and KEARSE, Circuit Judges.
  PER CURIAM:
  This is an appeal from a judgment entered March 21, 1986, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, Altimari, J., dismissing the claims of plaintiff Citizens for an Orderly Energy Policy (Citizens) and intervenors Long Island Lighting Company (LILCO) and Shoreham-Wading River Central School District (District) under Fed.R. Civ.P. 12(b). Citizens, LILCO and District allege that the County of Suffolk passed certain resolutions which violate and are preempted by the Atomic Energy Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2011 et seq. (1982). They also complain that Suffolk’s resolutions violate 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1982) on statutory, due process and equal protection grounds.
  We affirm the judgment below substantially for the reasons set forth in the district court’s opinion, 604 F.Supp. 1084 (E.D.N.Y.1985), and write solely to address appellants’ contention that the district court based its decision on the erroneous assumption that LILCO would receive, without difficulty, an operating license from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
  BACKGROUND
  The events giving rise to the litigation in the district court are set forth in the district court opinion, 604 F.Supp. at 1087-89, and we assume familiarity with them. Less than one month after the district court issued its decision, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s licensing board denied LILCO’s application for an operating license on the ground that Suffolk’s refusal to cooperate rendered LILCO’s proposed radiological emergency plan inadequate. Long Island Lighting Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1) LBP-85-31, 22 N.R.C. 410 (August 26, 1985). On appeal, the Commission reversed the licensing board’s decision and remanded, directing the board to assume that, in an actual emergency, Suffolk would act responsibly and would use LILCO’s plan as the best source of information and options for its emergency response. Long Island Lighting Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1) CLI-86-13 (July 24, 1986). The licensing board has not yet issued its final decision on LILCO’s application.
  DISCUSSION
  Appellants contend that the district court based its decision on the incorrect perception that Suffolk’s resolutions would not impede LILCO’s application process. As noted above, the Commission’s licensing board initially denied LILCO’s application due to a determination, subsequently reversed by the Commission, that Suffolk’s resolutions prevented LILCO from submitting an adequate emergency plan. Appellants contend that the district court’s alleged misperception of the effect of Suffolk s resolutions on the licensing process somehow requires reversal.
  Appellants misread the district court’s opinion. The court did not base its decision on the assumption that LILCO would receive an operating license. Rather, the district court simply recognized that Suffolk’s resolutions do not prevent LILCO from applying for its license. 604 F.Supp. at 1094, 1097-98. The court further noted that only the licensing board, not Suffolk, could deny LILCO’s application. We find no support for appellants’ contention that the district court based its decision on the assumption that LILCO would receive an operating license.
  The opinion below requires no further elaboration. Suffolk has not affirmatively prevented LILCO from pursuing its license. Suffolk simply has refused to cooperate. LILCO’s remedies lie in attacking any improper affirmative act Suffolk might take to obstruct LILCO in the application process.
  The judgment of the district court is affirmed.
instruction: 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.
  Your task is to identify the state of the first listed state or local government agency that is an appellant.
choices: not Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachussets Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New New New New North North Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode South South Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Wisconsin Wyoming Virgin Puerto District Guam not Panama