Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 127 / Monday, July 1, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 33839

assignee with the Treasurer, CCC, at the

address specified in the Contacts P/R.

(3) Receipt of the notice of assignment

will ordinarily be acknowledged to the

exporter and its assignee in writing by

an officer of CCC. In cases where a

financial institution is determined to be

ineligible to receive an assignment, in

accordance with paragraph (b) of this

section, CCC will provide notice thereof,

to the financial institution and to the

exporter issued the payment guarantee,

in lieu of an acknowledgment of

assignment.

(4) The name and address of the

assignee must be included on the

written notice of assignment.

(b) Ineligibility of financial

institutions to receive an assignment. A

financial institution will be ineligible to

receive an assignment of proceeds

which may become payable under a

payment guarantee if, at the time of

assignment, such financial institution:

(1) Is not in sound financial

condition, as determined by the

Treasurer of CCC;

(2) Owns or controls the entity issuing

the importer obligation; or

(3) Is owned or controlled by an entity

that owns or controls the entity issuing

the importer obligation.

(c) Ineligibility of financial

institutions to receive proceeds. A

financial institution will be ineligible to

receive proceeds payable under a

payment guarantee approved by CCC if

such financial institution:

(1) At the time of assignment of a

payment guarantee, is not in sound

financial condition, as determined by

the Treasurer of CCC;

(2) Owns or controls the entity issuing

the importer obligation; or

(3) Is owned or controlled by an entity

that owns or controls the entity issuing

the importer obligation.

(d) Alternative satisfaction of

payment guarantees. CCC may, with the

agreement of the exporter (or if the right

to proceeds payable under the payment

guarantee has been assigned, with the

agreement of the exporter’s assignee),

establish procedures, terms and/or

conditions for the satisfaction of CCC’s

obligations under a payment guarantee

other than those provided for in this

subpart if CCC determines that those

alternative procedures, terms, and/or

conditions are appropriate in

rescheduling the debts arising out of any

transaction covered by the payment

guarantee and would not result in CCC

paying more than the amount of CCC’s

obligation.

(e) Maintenance of records and access

to premises. (1) For a period of five

years after the date of expiration of the

coverage of a payment guarantee, the

exporter or the exporter’s assignee, as

applicable, must maintain and make

available all records pertaining to sales

and deliveries of and extension of credit

for agricultural commodities exported in

connection with a payment guarantee,

including those records generated and

maintained by agents, intervening

purchasers, and related companies

involved in special arrangements with

the exporter. The Secretary of

Agriculture and the Comptroller General

of the United States, through their

authorized representatives, must be

given full and complete access to the

premises of the exporter or the

exporter’s assignee, as applicable,

during regular business hours from the

effective date of the payment guarantee

until the expiration of such five-year

period to inspect, examine, audit, and

make copies of the exporter’s, exporter’s

assignee’s, agent’s, intervening

purchaser’s, or related company’s books,

records and accounts concerning

transactions relating to the payment

guarantee, including, but not limited to,

financial records and accounts

pertaining to sales, inventory,

processing, and administrative and

incidental costs, both normal and

unforeseen. During such period, the

exporter or the exporter’s assignee may

be required to make available to the

Secretary of Agriculture or the

Comptroller General of the United

States, through their authorized

representatives, records that pertain to

transactions conducted outside the

program, if, in the opinion of the GSM,

such records would pertain directly to

the review of transactions undertaken

by the exporter in connection with the

payment guarantee.

(2) The exporter must maintain the

proof of entry required by § 1493.490(b),

and must provide access to such

documentation if requested by the

Secretary of Agriculture or his

authorized representative for the fiveyear period specified in paragraph (e)(1)

of this section.

(f) Responsibility of program

participants. It is the responsibility of

all program participants to review, and

fully acquaint themselves with, all

regulations, Program Announcements,

and Notices to Participants issued

pursuant to this subpart. Applicants for

payment guarantees are hereby on

notice that they will be bound by any

terms contained in applicable Program

Announcements or Notices to

Participants issued prior to the date of

approval of a payment guarantee.

(g) Submission of documents by

principal officers. All required

submissions, including certifications,

applications, reports, or requests (i.e.,

requests for amendments), by exporters

or exporters’ assignees under this

subpart must be signed by a principal or

officer of the exporter or exporter’s

assignee or their authorized designee(s).

In cases where the designee is acting on

behalf of the principal or the officer, the

signature must be accompanied by:

Wording indicating the delegation of

authority or, in the alternative, by a

certified copy of the delegation of

authority; and the name and title of the

authorized person or officer. Further,

the exporter or exporter’s assignee must

ensure that all information/reports

required under these regulations are

submitted within the required time

limits. If requested in writing, CCC will

acknowledge receipt of a submission by

the exporter or the exporter’s assignee.

If acknowledgment of receipt is

requested, the exporter or exporter’s

assignee must submit an extra copy of

each document and a stamped selfaddressed envelope for return by U.S.

mail. If courier services are desired for

the return receipt, the exporter or

exporter’s assignee must also submit a

self-addressed courier service order

which includes the recipient’s billing

code for such service.

(h) Officials not to benefit. No

member of or delegate to Congress, or

Resident Commissioner, shall be

admitted to any share or part of the

payment guarantee or to any benefit that

may arise therefrom, but this provision

shall not be construed to extend to the

payment guarantee if made with a

corporation for its general benefit.

(i) OMB control number assigned

pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction

Act. The information requirements

contained in this part (7 CFR part 1493,

subpart D) have been approved by the

Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) in accordance with the

provisions of 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35 and

have been assigned OMB Control

Number 0551–0037.

Signed this 25th day of June 1996 at

Washington, DC.

Mary T. Chambliss,

Acting General Sales Manager, Foreign

Agricultural Service and Acting Vice

President, Commodity Credit Corporation.

[FR Doc. 96–16674 Filed 6–28–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–10–P
33840 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 127 / Monday, July 1, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

Animal and Plant Health Inspection

Service

9 CFR Parts 112 and 113

[Docket No. 94–046–2]

Viruses, Serums, Toxins, and

Analogous Products; Marek’s Disease

Vaccines

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health

Inspection Service, USDA.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: We are amending the

standard requirements for Marek’s

disease vaccines by including vaccines

prepared from any of the three Marek’s

disease virus serotypes, and by defining

the identity, safety, and efficacy

requirements for vaccines prepared from

each serotype or combinations of

serotypes. We are also amending the

requirements for labeling Marek’s

disease vaccines. These amendments are

necessary based on the evolution of

virus serotypes in the field, advances in

the development of vaccines that are

currently prepared to prevent the

disease, and advances in the methods

for evaluating such vaccines. The effect

of this rule will be to save license

applicants time by clarifying and

codifying the guidelines developed for

licensing these products over the past

several years.

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 31, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr.

David Espeseth, Deputy Director,

Veterinary Biologics, BBEP, APHIS,

4700 River Road Unit 148, Riverdale,

MD, 20737–1237, (301) 734–8245.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Veterinary biologics are regulated

under the Virus-Serum-Toxin Act of

1913, as amended by the Food Security

Act of 1985 (21 U.S.C. 151–159,

hereinafter referred to as the Act). In

accordance with the Act, the Animal

and Plant Health Inspection Service

(APHIS) promulgates standard

requirements that establish the purity,

safety, potency, and efficacy

requirements for these products.

The current standard requirements in

§ 113.330 (hereinafter referred to as the

regulations) for licensing Marek’s

disease vaccines were promulgated at a

time when only Serotype 3 Marek’s

disease vaccines were prepared. Also,

the standard requirements did not

include the evaluation of vaccine

efficacy. Since that time, vaccines for

Serotypes 1 and 2 have been developed,

very virulent forms of the field virus

have emerged, and other advances in

our understanding of this virus have

occurred. In response to these changes,

APHIS has developed guidelines over

the past several years for licensing these

products.

On May 9, 1995, we published in the

Federal Register (60 FR 24584–24587,

Docket No. 94–046–1) a proposal to

amend the standard requirement for

Marek’s disease vaccines to include

Serotypes 1 and 2, and to codify

appropriate efficacy standards and

guidelines which license applicants

have utilized.

We solicited comments concerning

our proposal for 60 days ending July 10,

1995. We received two comments by

that date. They were from an association

of poultry producers and a poultry

producer. Both commenters agreed with

the need for the establishment of

standard requirements for vaccines

prepared from any of the three Marek’s

disease virus serotypes. Both

commenters were in favor of the rule as

proposed.

In preparing the final rule, APHIS

observed that it is necessary to clarify

the appropriate use of the group 4

controls in § 113.330, paragraphs

(c)(1)(4) and (c)(4), to assess the severity

of serotype 1 virus challenge in an

immunogenicity test. The proposed rule

specified that ‘‘at least’’ (i.e., ‘‘greater

than or equal to’’) 20 percent of the

birds in group 4 must have lesions for

a valid test after serotype 1 virus

challenge in birds vaccinated with a

serotype 3 vaccine (see § 113.330,

paragraph (c)(4)). For a satisfactory

serotype 3 vaccine immunogenicity test,

the proposed rule specified that 80

percent of vaccinated birds must be free

of lesions (see § 113.330, paragraph

(c)(5)). Stated another way, 20 percent of

the vaccinated birds may have lesions

for a satisfactory serotype 3 vaccine

immunogenicity test.

When the severity of virulence of the

challenge virus for a serotype 1 or 2

vaccine in group 4 controls is equal to

that for serotype 3 vaccine, the result

would be inconsistent with a claim to

aid in the prevention of disease against

a very virulent serotype 1 virus (see

§ 113.330(c)(5)). If the birds in group 4

show 20 percent or fewer lesions, the

challenge virus is deemed not

sufficiently virulent and the test is

declared invalid.

Therefore, proposed § 113.330(c)(4) is

amended to read ‘‘greater than’’ (in

place of ‘‘at least’’) 20 percent of

vaccinated birds in group 4 controls

must have lesions for a valid

immunogenicity test after challenge

with more virulent serotype 1 virus. The

amendment to proposed § 113.330(c)(4)

should not hold the vaccine producer to

a higher standard than was originally

proposed. This is because the proposed

rule specified that the group 4 control

would not apply to the case of a

serotype 3 vaccine challenge virus that

requires that 20 per cent of the

vaccinated birds have lesions (see

§ 113.330(c)(1)(iv)). Thus, the

amendment to § 113.330(c)(4) is

consistent with APHIS’ original intent

that immunogenicity tests for serotype 1

and 2 vaccines be based on challenge

viruses more virulent than that for

serotype 3 vaccines.

Therefore, based on the rationale set

forth in the proposed rule and this

document, we are adopting the

provisions of the proposal as a final rule

with the change discussed in this

document.

Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory

Flexibility Act

This rule has been reviewed under

Executive Order 12866. The rule has

been determined to be not significant for

purposes of Executive Order 12866 and,

therefore, has not been reviewed by the

Office of Management and Budget.

The amendments to the standard

requirements for Marek’s disease

vaccines codify guidelines developed

for licensing these products over the

past several years. These amendments

affect all (currently a total of eight)

manufacturers of Marek’s disease

vaccines, some of which may be small

businesses. By clarifying licensing

requirements for Marek’s disease

vaccines, the rule will save time during

the application process and will not

cause an adverse economic impact on

industry.

Under these circumstances, the

Administrator of the Animal and Plant

Health Inspection Service has

determined that this action will not

have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small entities.

Executive Order 12372

This program/activity is listed in the

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance

under No. 10.025 and is subject to

Executive Order 12372, which requires

intergovernmental consultation with

State and local officials. (See 7 CFR part

3015, subpart V.)

Executive Order 12778

This final rule has been reviewed

under Executive Order 12778, Civil

Justice Reform. It is not intended to

have retroactive effect. This rule would

not preempt any State or local laws,

regulations, or policies, unless they

present an irreconcilable conflict with

this rule. There are no administrative

procedures that must be exhausted prior
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 127 / Monday, July 1, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 33841

to a judicial challenge to the provisions

of this rule.

Paperwork Reduction Act

This rule contains no new

information collection or recordkeeping

requirements under the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501

et seq.).

List of Subjects

9 CFR Part 112

Animal biologics, Exports, Imports,

Labeling, Packaging and containers,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

9 CFR Part 113

Animal biologics, Exports, Imports,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

Accordingly, 9 CFR parts 112 and 113

are amended as follows:

PART 112—PACKAGING AND

LABELING

1. The authority citation for part 112

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 21 U.S.C. 151–159; 7 CFR 2.22,

2.80, and 371.2(d).

2. Section 112.7 is amended by

adding paragraph (m) to read as follows:

§ 112.7 Special additional requirements.

* * * * *

(m) In the case of biological products

containing Marek’s disease virus, all

labels shall specify the Marek’s disease

virus serotype(s) used in the product.

PART 113—STANDARD

REQUIREMENTS

3. The authority citation for part 113

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 21 U.S.C. 151–159; 7 CFR 2.22,

2.80, and 371.2(d).

4. Section 113.330 is revised to read

as follows:

§ 113.330 Marek’s Disease Vaccines.

Marek’s disease vaccine shall be

prepared from virus-bearing tissue

culture cells. Only Master Seed Virus

which has been established as pure,

safe, and immunogenic shall be used for

preparing the production seed virus for

vaccine production.

(a) The Master Seed Virus shall meet

the applicable requirements prescribed

in § 113.300, and the requirements

prescribed in this section. The identity

test required in § 113.300(c) shall be

conducted in a serotype-specific manner

by a method acceptable to APHIS. Each

lot of Master Seed Virus shall also be

tested for pathogens by the chicken

embryo inoculation test prescribed in

§ 113.37, except that, if the test is

inconclusive because of a vaccine virus

override, the chicken inoculation test

prescribed in § 113.36 may be

conducted and the virus judged

accordingly.

(b) Safety test. The Master Seed Virus

shall be nonpathogenic for chickens as

determined by the following procedure:

(1) Specific pathogen free chickens or

embryos, negative for Marek’s disease

virus antibodies, and from the same

source, shall be isolated into the

following groups:

(i) Group 1. At least 50 test subjects

shall be inoculated with 10 times as

much viable virus as will be contained

in one dose of vaccine, by the route

recommended for vaccination.

(ii) Group 2. At least 50 test subjects

shall be injected with a very virulent

Marek’s disease virus provided or

approved by APHIS, at a dosage level

that will cause gross lesions of Marek’s

disease in at least 80 per cent of the

chickens within 50 days.

(iii) Group 3. Fifty uninoculated

controls. For in ovo studies, this group

should receive a sham inoculation of

diluent.

(iv) Group 4. For studies evaluating

Serotype 1 Master Seed Viruses, a group

of 50 uninoculated control chickens

shall be housed in contact with the

group 1 vaccinated chickens.

(2) At least 40 chickens in each group

shall survive to 5 days of age. All

chickens that die shall be necropsied

and examined for lesions of Marek’s

disease and cause of death. The test

shall be judged according to the

following criteria:

(i) At 50 days of age, the remaining

chickens in group 2 shall be killed and

examined for gross lesions of Marek’s

disease. If at least 80 percent of this

group do not develop Marek’s disease,

the test is inconclusive and may be

repeated.

(ii) At 120 days of age, the remaining

chickens in groups 1, 3, and 4 shall be

weighed, killed, and necropsied. If less

than 30 of the chickens in group 3

survive the 120 day period, or if any of

the chickens in group 3 have gross

lesions of Marek’s disease at necropsy,

the test is declared inconclusive. If less

than 30 chickens in groups 1 and 4

survive the 120 day period; or if any of

the chickens in groups 1 and 4 have

gross lesions of Marek’s disease at

necropsy; or if the average body weight

of the chickens in groups 1 or 4 is

significantly (statistically) different from

the average in group 3 at the end of the

120 days, the lot of Master Seed Virus

is unsatisfactory.

(3) For tests involving in ovo

inoculation, hatchability results shall

also be reported for each group.

(c) Immunogenicity. Each lot of

Master Seed Virus used for vaccine

production shall be tested for

immunogenicity at the highest passage

level allowed for the product, and the

virus dose to be used shall be

established as follows:

(1) Specific pathogen free chickens or

embryos, negative for Marek’s disease

antibodies, and from the same source,

shall be isolated into the following

groups:

(i) Group 1. A minimum of 35 test

subjects shall be inoculated with the

vaccine, using the recommended route,

at 1 day of age for chicks or 18 days of

embryonation for embryos. The dose

used shall be established by 5 replicate

virus titrations conducted by a cell

culture system or other titration method

acceptable to APHIS.

(ii) Group 2. A minimum of 35

nonvaccinated test subjects shall be

held as challenge controls.

(iii) Group 3. A minimum of 25

nonvaccinated test subjects shall be

held as nonchallenge controls.

(iv) Group 4. Except for studies

evaluating vaccines which contain only

a Serotype 3 virus as the Marek’s

disease fraction, a minimum of 35

chicks shall be vaccinated at 1 day of

age with a licensed Serotype 3 vaccine,

in order to document the severity of the

very virulent challenge.

(2) At least 30 chickens in groups 1,

2, and 4, and at least 20 chickens in

group 3, shall survive to 5 days of age.

All chickens in groups 1, 2, and 4 shall

be challenged at 5 days of age in the

following manner:

(i) For studies evaluating vaccines

which contain only a Serotype 3 virus

as the Marek’s disease fraction, groups

1 and 2 shall be inoculated with a

standard virulent challenge virus

provided or approved by APHIS.

(ii) For all other Marek’s disease

vaccines, groups 1, 2, and 4 shall be

inoculated with a very virulent

challenge virus provided or approved by

APHIS.

(3) All chickens shall be observed

until 7 weeks of age, necropsied, and

examined for grossly observable lesions

consistent with Marek’s disease. All

chickens dying before the end of the 7

week observation period shall be

necropsied and evaluated for gross

lesions of Marek’s disease. Any

chickens not so examined shall be

scored as positive for Marek’s disease.

(4) For a valid test, at least 80 percent

of the chickens in group 2 must develop

grossly observable lesions, none of the

chickens in group 3 shall develop
33842 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 127 / Monday, July 1, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

grossly observable lesions, and (when

included) greater than 20 percent of the

chickens in group 4 must develop

grossly observable lesions.

(5) For a valid test to be considered

satisfactory, at least 80 percent of the

chickens in group 1 must remain free of

grossly observable lesions. The

appropriate product claim resulting

from a satisfactory test would be to aid

in the prevention of Marek’s disease, for

vaccines containing only a Serotype 3

virus as the Marek’s disease fraction, or

to aid in the prevention of very virulent

Marek’s disease, for all other vaccines.

(d) Test requirements for release. Each

serial and subserial shall meet the

applicable requirements prescribed in

§ 113.300. The identity test required in

§ 113.300(c) shall be conducted in a

serotype-specific manner by a method

acceptable to APHIS. Final container

samples of completed product shall also

meet the requirements in paragraphs (d)

(1), (2), and (3) of this section. Any

serial or subserial found unsatisfactory

by a prescribed test shall not be

released.

(1) Purity test. The chicken embryo

inoculation test prescribed in § 113.37

shall be conducted, except that, if the

test is inconclusive because of a vaccine

virus override, the chicken inoculation

test prescribed in § 113.36 may be

conducted and the virus judged

accordingly.

(2) Safety test. At least 25 one-dayold, specific pathogen free chickens

shall be injected, by the subcutaneous

route, with the equivalent of 10 chicken

doses of virus (vaccine concentrated

10X). The chickens shall be observed

each day for 21 days. Chickens dying

during the period shall be examined,

cause of death determined, and the

results recorded.

(i) If at least 20 chickens do not

survive the observation period, the test

is inconclusive.

(ii) If lesions of any disease or cause

of death are directly attributable to the

vaccine, the serial is unsatisfactory.

(iii) If less than 20 chicks survive the

observation period and there are no

deaths or lesions attributable to the

vaccine, the test may be repeated one

time, Provided, that if the test is not

repeated, the serial shall be declared

unsatisfactory.

(3) Potency test. The samples shall be

titrated using a cell culture system or

other titration method acceptable to

APHIS. For vaccines composed of more

than one Marek’s disease virus serotype,

each fraction shall be titrated in a

serotype-specific manner.

(i) Samples of desiccated vaccine

shall be incubated at 37°C for 3 days

before preparation for use in the

potency test. Samples of desiccated or

frozen vaccine shall be reconstituted in

diluent according to the label

recommendations, and held in an ice

bath at 0°C to 4°C for 2 hours prior to

use in the potency test.

(ii) For a serial or subserial to be

eligible for release, each serotype

contained in the vaccine shall have a

virus titer per dose which is at least 3

times greater than the number of plaque

forming units (pfu) used in the

immunogenicity test prescribed in

paragraph (c) of this section, but not less

than 1000 pfu per dose.

(iii) When tested (without the pretest

incubation of desiccated products) at

any time within the expiration period,

each serotype contained in the vaccine

shall have a virus titer per dose which

is at least 2 times the number of pfu

used in the immunogenicity test, but not

less than 750 pfu per dose.

Done in Washington, DC, this 25th day of

June 1996.

Donald W. Luchsinger,

Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant

Health Inspection Service.

[FR Doc. 96–16710 Filed 6–28–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE

CORPORATION

12 CFR Part 324

RIN 3067–AB77

Agricultural Loan Loss Amortization

AGENCY: Federal Deposit Insurance

Corporation (FDIC).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: As part of the FDIC’s

systematic review of its regulations and

written policies under section 303(a) of

the Riegle Community Development and

Regulatory Improvement Act of 1994

(CDRI), the FDIC is removing its

regulation governing agricultural loan

loss amortization. This action is needed

to eliminate the regulation when it

becomes obsolete on January 1, 1999.

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 1, 1999.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Robert W. Walsh, Manager, Planning

and Program Development, (202) 898–

6896, Division of Supervision; Susan

van den Toorn, Counsel, (202) 898–

8707, Legal Division, FDIC, 550 17th

Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20429.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FDIC

is conducting a systematic review of its

regulations and written policies. Section

303(a) of the CDRI (12 U.S.C. 4803(a))

requires each federal banking agency to

streamline and modify its regulations

and written policies in order to improve

efficiency, reduce unnecessary costs,

and eliminate unwarranted constraints

on credit availability. Section 303(a)

also requires each federal banking

agency to remove inconsistencies and

outmoded and duplicative requirements

from its regulations and written

policies.

As part of this review, the FDIC is

removing 12 CFR part 324. This action

is appropriate because the regulation

implemented legislation which

permitted agricultural banks to amortize

qualified agricultural loan losses

incurred only between 1984 and 1991

with a resulting amortization period not

to exceed seven years. Consequently,

this regulation will become obsolete at

the end of the permissible amortization

period. Therefore, the FDIC is

eliminating the rule effective January 1,

1999. The Office of the Comptroller of

the Currency (OCC), as part of its

Regulation Review Program, has

previously reviewed its regulation on

Agricultural Loan Loss Amortization, 12

CFR part 35, and determined that the

regulation becomes obsolete on January

1, 1999. The OCC issued a proposed

rule on February 8, 1995 (60 FR 7467)

and a final rule on May 24, 1995 (60 FR

27401) to remove its regulation on

January 1, 1999. The Federal Reserve

Board (FRB) has under consideration a

similar proposal with regard to 12 CFR

208.15.

Title VIII of the Competitive Equality

Banking Act of 1987 (Act), Pub. L. 100–

86, 101 Stat. 635 (1987), added 12

U.S.C. 1823(j) in an attempt to alleviate

some of the financial pressures then

facing agricultural banks. In particular,

12 U.S.C. 1823(j) permits an agricultural

bank to amortize over a period not to

exceed seven years: (1) Any loss on a

qualified agricultural loan that the bank

would otherwise be required to show on

its annual financial statement for any

year between December 31, 1983, and

January 1, 1992; and (2) any loss

resulting from the reappraisal of

property that the bank owned or

acquired between January 1, 1983, and

January 1, 1992, in connection with a

qualified agricultural loan. The FDIC

implemented this statutory provision by

promulgating 12 CFR part 324 with a

final rule published on November 2,

1987 (52 FR 41968). Pursuant to section

1823(j)(3) of the Act, the OCC and the

FRB issued substantively similar

regulations. See, 12 CFR part 35 and 12

CFR 208.15 respectively.

Because the statute requires that a loss

occur on or before December 31, 1991,

to qualify, and that the amortization

period may not exceed seven years, the

program becomes obsolete on January 1,