apply. 3 . Nelson’s amendment did not alter the issues in the case. A national bank is subject to the usury laws of the state in which it is located, see 12 U.S.C. § 85, and if the national bank charges interest in excess of that rate, the usury penalties of 12 U.S.C. § 86 apply rather than state law. Thus while Nelson’s amendment changed his counterclaim to reflect the correct penalty, it did not alter the pertinent factual question: whether Union had charged him excessive interest. 4 . The district court correctly concluded that while the federal usury ceilings of § 86a, if applicable, might permit a given interest charge, the right to charge any interest at all is created by the loan contract, not federal law. See, e.g., Superior Oil Co. v. Pioneer Corp., 706 F.2d 603 (5th Cir.1983) (<HOLDING>). Thus the court held that it lacked
holding that an agencys policy shift reallocating the burden of proof from natural gas importers to parties opposing importation was based on a reasonable interpretation of the natural gas act holding that although the ngpa authorizes certain price ceilings for natural gas it is the gas sales contract not federal law that creates the right to receive any price at all holding that the natural gas act did not completely preempt state law claims within its scope and thus the federal court did not have removal jurisdiction over the contract price dispute filed in state court recognizing the need for natural gas supply as a substantial public interest holding that the market price is understood to mean the current market price being paid for gas at the well where it is produced