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.

Opinion:
W. Willard WIRTZ, Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor, Appellant, v. CHESAPEAKE BAY FROSTED FOODS CORPORATION, a corporation, Appellee.
No. 9265.
United States Court of Appeals Fourth Circuit.
Argued April 21, 1964.
Decided Aug. 19, 1964.
Jacob I. Karro, Deputy Asst. Sol., U. S. Dept, of Labor, Washington, D. C. (Charles Donahue, Sol. of Labor, Bessie Margolin, Associate Sol. of Labor, Beate Bloch and Anastasia T. Dunau, Attys., and Jeter S. Ray, Regional Atty., U. S. Dept, of Labor, Washington, D. C., on the brief), for appellant.
Wm. B. McLeod, Whitestone, Va. (Am-mon G. Dunton and Dunton, McLeod & Simmons, Whitestone, Va., on the brief), for appellee.
Before HAYNSWORTH and BELL, Circuit Judges, and CRAVEN, District Judge.
PER CURIAM.
For the reasons stated in the opinion of the District Court, we hold that the defendant was engaged in the processing of oysters, shrimp, scallops, fish and crabmeat within the meaning of § 213(b) (4) of the Fair Labor Standards Act, and is thus exempt from the overtime, but not from the minimum wage, provisions of that Act, as amended. We need add nothing to what Judge Michie said in his opinion, except to advert briefly to one contention the Secretary advances here.
It is clear that oysters, large shrimp and crabmeat cannot be refrozen and retain their quality. They must be breaded and processed when fresh, so that the defendant’s operations must be geared to the seasons when they run and are available. This is substantially true also of scallops. It is not true, however, of small shrimp or of fish for processing into fish sticks, and the defendant buys substantial quantities of prefrozen fish and small shrimp.
The Secretary suggests that while the defendant’s processing of oysters, crab-meat, scallops and large shrimp may fall within the Congressional intention to partially exempt those processes which are dependent upon the vicissitudes of the catch, its processing of prefrozen small shrimp and fish is not.
General consideration of the necessity of prompt processing of fresh seafoods well may underlie the Congressional purpose, but the exemption the Congress provided is not so narrow. This is manifest in the exemption of those engaged in storing, packing for shipment and distributing frozen seafoods, operations which may have no, or only a remote, relation to harvesting seasons. We find in the statutory exemption no basis for a distinction between those employees who-process and handle previously frozen fish and small shrimp and those other employees of the same employer who handle and process exclusively the much larger volume of previously unfrozen products-of the sea.
Affirmed.
. Wirtz v. Chesapeake Bay Frosted Foods Corporation, E.D.Va., 220 F.Supp. 586.
. 29 U.S.C.A. § 213(b) (4).
. 29 U.S.C.A. § 207.
. 29 U.S.C.A. § 206.
. These account for a relatively small proportion of the defendant’s business, however. Its leading product is breaded oysters.

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?

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: 10