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:
Earn DAVIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. John W. GARDNER, Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 17690.
United States Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit
May 27, 1968.
William C. Kibbey, Grayson, Ky., for appellant.
Moss Noble, Asst. U. S. Atty., Lexington, Ky., George I. Cline, U. S. Atty., Lexington, Ky., on brief for appellee.
Before McCREE and COMBS, Circuit Judges, and WEINMAN, District Judge.
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from a judgment of the District Court affirming the Appeals Council of the Department of Health, Education and Welfare, which denied appellant’s application for disability insurance benefits and a declaration of disability under the Social Security Act, §§ 223, 216. The only question is whether appellant has the ability “to engage in any substantial gainful activity” within the meaning of § 223(d) (1) (A) of the Act.
Appellant filed an application with the Secretary in 1960, alleging disability from May 1, 1958. The hearing examiner found that, although appellant could not return to strenuous labor, his impairments were not so severe as to render him unable to engage in any substantial gainful activity and denied the application for benefits. Appellant’s request for review of the hearing examiner’s decision was denied by the Appeals Council. Review was obtained in the District Court and the case was remanded to the Secretary with directions that findings be made as to “what plaintiff can do, and what employment opportunities are there for a man who can do only what plaintiff can do.”
A hearing was held following remand and the appellant gave further testimony; a vocational consultant also testified. The consultant listed several jobs available which he believed appellant could perform and for which he could meet employment requirements. He based his statements on appellant’s age, work experience, impairments, and limited education. The hearing examiner found that appellant had been unable to engage in substantial gainful activity with any degree of regularity since May, 1958. It was his recommended decision that appellant be found-by the Appeals Council to have established that he is entitled to a period of disability and to disability insurance benefits. The recommended decision of the hearing examiner was rejected by the Appeals Council. The decision of the Appeals Council that appellant did not qualify for benefits was reviewed by the District Court and approved. This appeal followed.
The Appeals Council’s decision cited 20 CFR § 404.1502(h), which provides that work activity may be “substantial” though it is on a part-time basis and is less responsible or gainful than that in which the claimant was engaged before the onset of his impairment. Appellant does not contest the validity of the regulation. The Council made the following finding:
“The claimant had the remaining functional capacity to perform * * * many light jobs enumerated by the vocational consultant * * * and a reasonable number of such jobs were available, not only nationally but in claimant’s geographical area, throughout such period.”
Courts are bound by the findings of the Secretary if they are supported by substantial evidence. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Appellant’s only meritorious argument against the vocational consultant’s suggestions as to work activity which he can perform is that, while the jobs may be available nationally, there is no evidence they are available in the vicinity of appellant’s residence.
During the pendency of this action, § 223 of the Social Security Act was amended in 1967 to read as follows:
“[A]n individual * * * shall be determined to be under a disability only if his physical or mental impairment or impairments are of such severity that he is not only unable to do his previous work but cannot, considering his age, education, and work experience, engage in any other kind of substantial gainful work which exists in the national economy regardless of whether such work exists in the immediate area in which he lives, or whether a specific job vacancy exists for him, or whether he would be hired if he applied for work.”
The amendment applies to this action. Public Law 90-248, 81 Stat. 821, § 223 (e).
There is substantial evidence to support the findings of the Appeals Council regardless of this amendment to the Act. In any event, the amendment has nullified appellant’s argument that there is no evidence of gainful work opportunities for him in the area in which he lives. The test under the 1967 amendment is whether such work exists in the national economy and “work which exists in the national economy” is defined in the amendment to mean “work which exists in significant numbers either in the region where such individual lives or in several regions of the country.”
The Secretary’s decision being supported by substantial evidence, the judgment of the District Court is affirmed.

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