With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". escrow accounts. The Flagg court extensively discussed the OTS’s authority to promulgate 12 C.F.R. § 560.2, and concluded that the preemption regulation was well within HOLA’s broad grant of authority to the OTS. Id. at 183-84. According to the court in Flagg, 12 C.F.R. § 560.2 reflects Congress’s goal of “provid[ing] a consistent nationwide playing field while giving individual institutions a level of flexibility.” Id. at 184. As Flagg makes clear, the OTS possessed the authority to promulgate 12 C.F.R. § 560.2 for the purpose of preempting state laws that the agency believes burden the ability of federal savings associations to exercise their federally-granted powers free from burdensome state regulation. See id. at 183; see also de la Cuesta, 458 U.S. at 153-54, 102 S.Ct. 3014 (<HOLDING>). a. The Applicability of 12 C.F.R. § 560.2 The

A: recognizing that when an agency promulgates a regulation that is intended to preempt state law the regulation should not be disturbed unless there is evidence that it is contrary to congressional intent
B: holding that a secretarys interpretation of a departments regulation is controlling unless plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation
C: holding that where a regulation could not fairly be read to have spoken at all on an issue an agencys proposed interpretation of the regulation as it pertained to that issue was not a reasonable interpretation of the regulation
D: recognizing that a treaty is a supreme law of the land and therefore generally not subject to state regulation absent congressional cessation
A.