Task: songer_appel1_3_3

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.
When coding the detailed nature of participants, use your personal knowledge about the participants, if you are completely confident of the accuracy of your knowledge, even if the specific information is not in the opinion. For example, if "IBM" is listed as the appellant it could be classified as "clearly national or international in scope" even if the opinion did not indicate the scope of the business. 

Your task concerns the first listed appellant. The nature of this litigant falls into the category "federal government (including DC)", specifically "cabinet level department". Your task is to determine which specific federal government agency best describes this litigant.

PER CURIAM.
This case is before the court on remand from the United States Supreme Court, which reversed this court’s prior judgment. See Donovan v. United Transportation Union, 748 F.2d 340 (6th Cir.1984), rev’d sub nom. Cuyahoga Valley Railway Co. v. United Transportation Union, — U.S. -, 106 S.Ct. 286, 88 L.Ed.2d 2 (1985).
In 1976 the Secretary of Labor filed a complaint with the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission citing the Cuyahoga Valley Railway Company for violations of the Occupational Safety and Health Act, 29 U.S.C. § 651 et seq (1982). The union representing the employees of the company moved to intervene. At a hearing before an administrative law judge, the Secretary moved to vacate the citation on jurisdictional and other grounds, which motion was granted by the ALJ. The Commission took discretionary review and, in 1982, reversed, remanding the case to the AU for consideration of the union’s objections to withdrawal of the complaint. The proceedings below have been stayed pending the outcome of this appeal.
In its prior opinion, this court upheld the Commission’s power to review the Secretary’s decision to withdraw the citation, 748 F.2d at 343, and affirmed the Commission’s decision. Id. at 347. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the Secretary has the sole authority to issue or withdraw a citation. 106 S.Ct. at 288.
Since the Commission did not have jurisdiction to review once the Secretary had decided to withdraw the citation, the Commission’s decision must be VACATED, see Donovan v. International Union, Allied Industrial Workers (Whirlpool), 722 F.2d 1415 (8th Cir.1983), and the cause REMANDED for appropriate proceedings.

Question: This question concerns the first listed appellant. The nature of this litigant falls into the category "federal government (including DC)", specifically "cabinet level department". Which specific federal government agency best describes this litigant?
A. Department of Agriculture
B. Department of Commerce
C. Department of Defense (includes War Department and Navy Department)
D. Department of Education
E. Department of Energy
F. Department of Health, Education and Welfare
G. Department of Health & Human Services
H. Department of Housing and Urban Development
I. Department of Interior
J. Department of Justice (does not include FBI or parole boards; does include US Attorneys)
K. Department of Labor (except OSHA)
L. Post Office Department
M. Department of State
N. Department of Transportation, National Transportation Safety Board
O. Department of the Treasury (except IRS)
P. Department of Veterans Affairs
Answer:

Answer: K