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 "state government (includes territories & commonwealths)", specifically "executive/administrative". Your task is to determine which specific state government agency best describes this litigant.

Opinion:
The BALTIMORE AND OHIO RAILROAD COMPANY, d/b/a One of the Chessie System Railroads; the Baltimore and Philadelphia Railroad Company, d/b/a One of the Chessie System Railroads, Mount Clare Properties (Delaware), Inc; and Chessie Motor Express, Inc. v. Charles M. OBERLY, III, Attorney General of the State of Delaware and John E. Wilson, III, Secretary of the Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control of the State of Delaware. Appeal of Charles M. OBERLY, III and John E. Wilson, III.
No. 85-5272.
United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
Argued Nov. 18, 1985.
Decided Jan. 27, 1986.
William E. Manning (argued), David S. Swayze, Prickett, Jones, Elliott, Kristol & Schnee, Wilmington, Del., for appellees.
F. Henry Habicht, II, Asst. Atty. Gen., Land and Natural Resources Div., Lawrence R. Liebesman, Environmental Defense Section, Land and Natural Resources Div., U.S. Dept, of Justice, Washington, D.C., for EPA.
John J. Polk (argued), Deputy Atty. Gen., Dept, of Justice, Wilmington, Del., for State of Delaware.
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SLOVITER and MANSMANN, Circuit Judges.
OPINION OF THE COURT
PER CURIAM:
In this appeal, we are presented with the question of whether the Delaware noise control statute and its regulations, as applied to activities at an interstate railroad facility, are preempted by the Federal Noise Control Act of 1972, even though the federal agency had not promulgated regulations to control noise emissions from rail-yard property lines, which included refrigerated rail cars and refrigerated trailers and containers (trailer on flat car/containers on flat car — TOFC/COFC). 7 Del.C. § 7101 et seq:; Noise Control Act of 1972, § 17, 42 U.S.C. § 4916.
We hold that the application of the Delaware noise control statute to the interstate railroad facility in issue is preempted by the federal noise control statute for the reasons noted in Judge Stapleton’s opinion. Baltimore and Ohio R. Co. v. Oberly, 606 F.Supp. 1340 (D.Del.1985). In addition, we note that, at our request, the General Counsel of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) filed a memorandum of law addressing the EPA’s views as to whether the Delaware statute is preempted. The EPA also agreed that section 17 of the Noise Control Act preempts the Delaware standard where EPA has adopted federal standards regulating noise from railroad facilities and, further, has considered and then declined to prescribe a federal property line standard for railroad facilities on the ground that it is unnecessary.
Accordingly, the judgment of the district court will be affirmed.

Question: This question concerns the first listed appellant. The nature of this litigant falls into the category "state government (includes territories & commonwealths)", specifically "executive/administrative". Which specific state government agency best describes this litigant?

Choices:
Governor
Attorney General
Secretary of State
Other Administrative Officer NOT detailed below
not ascertained

Answer: 1