Preemption wonks beware: according to a district court in West Virginia, “the analysis in Fidelity Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n v. de la Cuesta, 458 U.S. 141 (1982), of the standard of review to be applied to preemptive agency regulations, id., is in direct conflict with the majority decision in Wyeth[v. Levine, 129 S. Ct. 1187 (2009)].” Smith v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP, 2:10-cv-00354, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26104, at *26-27 (S.D. W. Va. March 11, 2011). The Court explained that under the Wyeth analysis, the OCC regulations are entitled only to Skidmore deference because the NBA does not expressly confer preemptive rulemaking authority on the OCC. Id. at *16-*18. The Court further found that conflict rather than express preemption principles applied to the OCC regulations because those regulations merely codify NBA conflict preemption principles. Because the national bank had not explained how the application of a state UDAP statute obstructed the purposes and objectives of the NBA, the Court denied the national bank’s motion for summary judgment on preemption grounds.