Task: songer_casetyp1_7-3-5

What follows is an opinion from a United States Court of Appeals.
Your task is to identify the issue in the case, that is, the social and/or political context of the litigation in which more purely legal issues are argued. Put somewhat differently, this field identifies the nature of the conflict between the litigants. The focus here is on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis.
Your task is to determine the specific issue in the case within the broad category of "economic activity and regulation - misc economic regulation and benefits". 

PER CURIAM:
The district judge, D.C., 325 F.Supp. 523, enjoined the Comptroller of the Currency from issuing a certificate to Wachovia Bank and Trust Company, N. A. evidencing approval of the establishment of a branch bank in the Hickory Plaza Shopping Center, Catawba County, North Carolina, and enjoined Wach-ovia from opening the branch. Relief was granted because of the Comptroller’s express declination to make the findings required by N.C.G.S. § 53-62 (b) which, in First-Citizens Bank and Trust Company v. Camp, 409 F.2d 1086 (4 Cir. 1969), we held he was required to make in order to permit the establishment of a branch bank in North Carolina. The Comptroller and Wachovia appeal, and we affirm.
In addition to requesting us to reconsider our decision in First-Citizens, the Comptroller advances as a ground for reversal the argument that he is not bound to consider the North Carolina “need and convenience” test for the establishment of a branch bank, because it is his duty to exercise his discretion under federal law to permit the establishment of branch banks in the light of federal policies expressed in the federal antitrust statutes to foster competition; and he has concluded that “[t]he entry of Wachovia * * * into the Hickory/Catawba County area * * will bring another strong and able competitor to the Hickory banking market * * * [and] will stimulate the existing banks to maintain and improve their services in an effort to maintain their market shares.” The short answer to this contention is that we perceive no conflict between the policies of the federal antitrust statutes and the North Carolina “need and convenience” test for the establishment of a branch bank, particularly where, as here, the Comptroller has also found that “[t]here is no evidence that Wachovia’s entry will damage the stability of any banks in the area.” See North Carolina ex rel. Banking Commission v. Bank of Rocky Mount, N.C. App., 182 S.E.2d 625 (1971).
We reaffirm our holding in First-Citizens. See, as additional support, First National Bank in Plant City v. Dickinson, 396 U.S. 122, 130, 131, 90 S.Ct. 337, 24 L.Ed.2d 312 (1969). And we reiterate that the Comptroller “was bound by North Carolina’s ‘need and convenience’ and ‘solvency of the branch’ criteria” as set forth in § 53-62(b). 409 F.2d at 1091. From this it follows, as the district judge concluded, that when the Comptroller expressly declined to make the findings required by § 53-62(b), although he made numerous other findings, he acted arbitrarily and capriciously in approving Wachovia’s application to establish a branch in the Hickory Plaza Shopping Center; and his action was correctly enjoined.
Affirmed.

Question: What is the specific issue in the case within the general category of "economic activity and regulation - misc economic regulation and benefits"?
A. social security benefits (including SS disability payments)
B. other government benefit programs (e.g., welfare, RR retirement, veterans benefits, war risk insurance, food stamps)
C. state or local economic regulation
D. federal environmental regulation
E. federal consumer protection regulation (includes pure food and drug, false advertising)
F. rent control; excessive profits; government price controls
G. federal regulation of transportation
H. oil, gas, and mineral regulation by federal government
I. federal regulation of utilities (includes telephone, radio, TV, power generation)
J. other commercial regulation (e.g.,agriculture, independent regulatory agencies) by federal government
K. civil RICO suits
L. admiralty - personal injury (note:suits against government under admiralty should be classified under the government tort category above)
M. admiralty - seamens wage disputes
N. admiralty - maritime contracts, charter contracts
O. admiralty other
Answer:

Answer: C