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 "other agency, beginning with "S" thru "Z"". Your task is to determine which specific federal government agency best describes this litigant.

Opinion:
UNITED STATES v. WHITE.
No. 6298.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
March 30, 1931.
Geo. J. Hatfield, U. S. Atty., and Hubert Wyckoff, Jr., and H. A. Van Der Zee, Asst. U. S. Attys., all of San Francisco, Cal.
Alvin Gerlack, of San Francisco, Cal., for appellee.
Before RUDKIN, WILBUR and SAWTELLE, Circuit Judges.
RUDKIN, Circuit Judge.
The complaint in this case contained an allegation similar to the allegation found in the complaint in United States v. Ranes (C. C. A.) 48 F.(2d) 582, decided this day, alleging that on February 23, 1929, application was made to the Veterans’ Bureau for the payment of insurance benefits on account of total permanent disability. This allegation was denied by tbe answer, and no evidence was offered at the trial tending to prove the date upon which proof of total permanent disability was received or furnished, if at all. A letter from the Veterans’ Bureau, under date of June 19, 1929, disallowing the claim for insurance benefits, was received in evidence, in which it was stated that the letter was evidence that a disagreement existed under the provisions of the World War Veterans’ Act, but no reference was made to the date upon which the proof was received. The action was tried by the court without a jury. The court found that the plaintiff has been totally and permanently disabled since September 1, 1927, and gave judgment for all insurance benefits accruing since that date. It will thus be seen that the court awarded judgment for installments accruing for about eighteen months prior to the receipt of proof of disability. For the reasons stated in the Ranes Case, supra, this was error, for which the judgment must be reversed.
The judgment is therefore reversed and the case is remanded, with instructions to take further testimony as to the date of receipt "of due proof of total permanent disability, and to enter judgment in favor of the plaintiff for installments accruing not exceeding six months prior to that date.

Question: This question concerns the first listed appellant. The nature of this litigant falls into the category "federal government (including DC)", specifically "other agency, beginning with "S" thru "Z"". Which specific federal government agency best describes this litigant?

Choices:
Securities & Exchange Commission
Small Business Administration
Veterans Administration

Answer: 2