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 respondent. 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.

Opinion:
Vernon M. ELLIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Elliott L. RICHARDSON, Secretary of Health, Education & Welfare, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 72-2952
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Jan. 4, 1973.
H. H. Gearinger, Chattanooga, Tenn., for plaintiff-appellant.
John W. Stokes, Jr., U. S. Atty., Atlanta, Ga., Kathryn Baldwin, Eric B. Chaikin, Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., for defendant-appellee.
Before THORNBERRY, COLEMAN and INGRAHAM, Circuit Judges.
Rule 18, 5 Cir.; See Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Co. of New York et al., 5 Cir., 1970, 431 F.2d 409.
PER CURIAM:
Appellant instituted this action in the district court seeking to review a denial of social security disability benefits. The district court issued an order of dismissal which was timely followed by appellant's Rule 59 motion to reconsider. Such motion was denied. Appellant filed another motion to reconsider under Rule 59 based upon substantially the same grounds as urged in the earlier motion. The second motion was likewise denied.
Pursuant to Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure 4(a), appellant had sixty days from the entry of the order of dismissal to file a notice of appeal. The filing of the first Rule 59 motion terminated the running of the time for the appeal, but the second such motion based upon the same grounds did not.
In this case appellant had sixty days from the denial of his first Rule 59 motion in which to file notice of appeal. Having failed to do so, we are therefore without jurisdiction to consider the merits of his claim and accordingly this appeal is hereby dismissed.
. Fed.R.Civ.P. 59.

Question: This question concerns the first listed respondent. 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?

Choices:
Department of Agriculture
Department of Commerce
Department of Defense (includes War Department and Navy Department)
Department of Education
Department of Energy
Department of Health, Education and Welfare
Department of Health & Human Services
Department of Housing and Urban Development
Department of Interior
Department of Justice (does not include FBI or parole boards; does include US Attorneys)
Department of Labor (except OSHA)
Post Office Department
Department of State
Department of Transportation, National Transportation Safety Board
Department of the Treasury (except IRS)
Department of Veterans Affairs

Answer: 5