The OCC has issued a bulletin (2018-14) setting forth core lending principles and policies and practices for short-term, small-dollar installment lending by national banks, federal savings banks, and federal branches and agencies of foreign banks.

In issuing the bulletin, the OCC stated that it “encourages banks to offer responsible short-term, small-dollar installment loans, typically two to 12 months in duration with equal amortizing payments, to help meet the credit needs of consumers.”  The bulletin is intended “to remind banks of the core lending principles for prudently managing the risks associated with offering short-term, small-dollar installment lending programs.”

By way of background, the bulletin notes that in October 2017, the OCC rescinded its guidance on deposit advance products because continued compliance with such guidance “would have subjected banks to potentially inconsistent regulatory direction and undue burden as they prepared to comply with the [CFPB’s final payday/auto title/high-rate installment loan rule (Payday Rule).”]  The guidance had effectively precluded banks subject to OCC supervision from offering deposit advance products.  The OCC references the CFPB’s plans to reconsider the Payday Rule and states that it intends to work with the CFPB and other stakeholders “to ensure that OCC-supervised banks can responsibly engage in consumer lending, including lending products covered by the Payday Rule.”  (The statement issued by CFPB Acting Director Mulvaney applauding the OCC bulletin further reinforces our expectation that the CFPB will work with the OCC to change the Payday Rule.)

When the OCC withdrew its prior restrictive deposit advance product guidance, we commented that the OCC appeared to be inviting banks to consider offering the product.  The bulletin appears to confirm that the OCC intended to invite the financial institutions it supervises to offer similar products to credit-starved consumers, although it suggests that the products should be even-payment amortizing loans with terms of at least two months.  It may or may not be a coincidence that the products the OCC describes would not be subject to the ability-to-repay requirements of the CFPB’s Payday Rule (or potentially to any requirements of the Payday Rule).

The new guidance lists the policies and practices the OCC expects its supervised institutions to follow, including:

  • “Loan amounts and repayment terms that align with eligibility and underwriting criteria and that promote fair treatment and access of applicants.  Product structures should support borrower affordability and successful repayment of principal and interest in a reasonable time frame.”
  • “Analysis that uses internal and external data sources, including deposit activity, to assess a consumer’s creditworthiness and to effectively manage credit risk.  Such analysis could facilitate sound underwriting for credit offered to consumer who have the ability to repay but who do not meet traditional standards.”

While the OCC’s encouragement of bank small-dollar lending is a welcome development, the bulletin contains potentially troubling language.  The OCC’s “reasonable policies and practices specific to short-term, small-dollar installment lending” also include “[l]oan pricing that complies with applicable state laws and reflects overall returns reasonably related to product risks and costs.  The OCC views unfavorably an entity that partners with a bank with the sole goal of evading a lower interest rate established under the law of the entities licensing state(s).”  (emphasis added).  This statement raises at least two concerns:

  • The OCC’s reference to “[l]oan pricing that complies with applicable state laws” is confused (or likely to cause confusion).  Federal law (12 U.S.C. Section 85) governs the interest national banks may charge.  It authorizes banks to charge the interest allowed by the law of the state where they are located, without regard to the law of any other state.  The OCC should clarify that it did not mean to suggest otherwise.
  • The OCC’s unfavorable view of bank-nonbank partnerships, where the “sole goal [is] evading” state-law rate limits, could be read to call into question a valuable distribution channel for bank loans.  While the context is “specific to short-term, small-dollar installment lending,” this apparent hostility to bank-model relationships should be of concern to all banks that partner with third parties, including fintech companies, to make loans under Section 85.  The statement in question seems at odds with the broad view of federal preemption enunciated by the OCC with respect to the Madden decision. 

 

The U.S. Department of Justice announced earlier this week that it has reached an agreement with KleinBank, a state-chartered Minnesota bank, to settle the redlining lawsuit that the DOJ filed against the bank in January 2017, only a week before President Trump’s inauguration.  The agreement represents the first fair lending settlement entered into by the DOJ under the Trump administration.

The DOJ’s complaint, which related to the bank’s residential mortgage lending business, alleged that KleinBank violated the Fair Housing Act and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act by engaging in a pattern or practice of unlawful redlining of the majority-minority neighborhoods in the Minneapolis-St. Paul metropolitan area.  From 2010 to at least 2015, the bank was alleged to have avoided serving the credit needs of individuals seeking residential mortgage loans in majority-minority census tracts in the Metropolitan Statistical Area encompassing Minneapolis and St. Paul (MSA).

The redlining claim was based, in part, upon an allegation that KleinBank established and maintained a discriminatory Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) assessment area that was “horseshoe-shaped,” “include[d] the majority white suburbs, and carve[d] out the urban areas of Minneapolis and St. Paul that have higher proportions of minority populations.”  Specifically, the complaint alleges that the bank’s main CRA assessment area excluded 78 of 97 majority-minority census tracks in the MSA, “all but two of which are located in Hennepin and Ramsey Counties.”  The DOJ alleged that, in addition to the main CRA assessment area of the bank, the “proper CRA assessment area would include the entirety of Hennepin and Ramsey Counties.”

Unlike other redlining lawsuits that the DOJ had recently filed when it sued KleinBank, the DOJ’s action against KleinBank was contested by the bank which issued a statement in which it vigorously disputed the alleged redlining claims and called them an “unprecedented reach by the government.”  Although supported by the American Bankers Association, the Independent Community Bankers Association, the Minnesota Bankers Association, and forty other state bankers associations, the bank’s motion to dismiss the complaint was unsuccessful.

Under the settlement agreement, the DOJ agrees to jointly stipulate with KleinBank to the dismissal of the lawsuit and KleinBank agrees to take various actions including:

  • Opening one full-service brick and mortar office within a majority-minority census track within Hennepin County
  • Continuing to develop partnerships with community organizations to help establish a presence in majority-minority census tracks in Hennepin County
  • Employing a full-time Community Development Officer who is a member of management to oversee the development of the bank’s lending in majority-minority census tracks in Hennipin County
  • Spending a minimum of $300,000 on advertising, outreach, education, and credit repair initiatives over the next 3 years
  • Providing at least 2 outreach programs annually for real estate brokers and agents, developers, and public or private entities already engaged in residential and real estate-related business in majority-minority census tracks in Hennepin County to inform them of the products offered by KleinBank
  • Investing a minimum of $300,000 over 3 three years in a special purpose credit program that will offer residents of majority-minority census tracks in Hennepin County home mortgage  and home improvement loans on a more affordable basis than otherwise available from KleinBank, with such more affordable terms to be provided through one or more of the following means:
    • Originating or brokering a loan at an interest rate that is at least 1/2 of a percentage point (50 basis points) below the otherwise prevailing rate
    • Providing a direct grant of a portion of the loan amount for the purpose of down payment assistance, up to a maximum of 3.5%
    • Providing closing cost assistance in the form of a direct grant of a minimum of $500 and a maximum of $1,500
    • Paying the initial mortgage insurance premium on loans subject to mortgage insurance
    • Using other means approved by the DOJ

Most notably, unlike previous redlining settlements, such as those involving Hudson City Savings Bank and BankcorpSouth Bank, the KleinBank settlement does not require the bank’s payment of a civil money penalty.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit has rejected a trade group’s attempt to invalidate a November 2016 FTC opinion in which the agency concluded that outbound telemarketing calls made using soundboard technology are subject to the prior written consent requirement for robocalls in the FTC’s Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR).

The TSR’s robocall written consent requirement applies to “any outbound telephone call that delivers a prerecorded message.”  The FTC’s 2016 opinion revoked a 2009 opinion in which it had concluded that because soundboard technology allows the caller and recipient to have a two-way conversation, such calls were not subject to the TSR’s robocall consent requirement.  (In calls using soundboard technology, the caller can play pre-recorded audio clips in response to the call recipient’s statements and break in to the call when needed to speak directly to the recipient.)  The FTC changed its position in response to an increasing number of consumer complaints that consumers were not receiving appropriate responses to their questions and comments and live operators were not intervening in the calls as well as evidence that callers using soundboard technology were handing more than one call at a time.  In its 2016 opinion, the FTC made the revocation of its 2009 opinion effective on May 12, 2017 so that industry would have time to make the changes necessary to bring itself into compliance.

The district court determined that the FTC’s 2016 opinion was a reviewable “final agency action” but rejected the trade group’s claim that the FTC’s action violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) because the FTC did not follow the notice and comment process.  According to the district court, because the 2009 opinion revoked by the 2016 opinion was clearly an “interpretive rule” rather than a “legislative rule,” the FTC’s “decision to rescind that opinion did not change the fundamental character of the agency’s action and transform an interpretive rule into a legislative one.”  As a result, the FTC was not required to follow the APA notice and comment procedures before issuing the 2016 opinion.

The district court also ruled on the trade group’s claim that subjecting soundboard technology to the TSR robocall written consent requirement violated the First Amendment because it constituted an impermissible content-based restriction on the speech of the trade group’s members engaged in charitable fundraising.  Having found the restriction, which distinguished between calls to new donors and calls to prior donors or members of the non-profit on whose behalf the calls were made, to be relationship-based rather than content-based and therefore only subject to intermediate First Amendment scrutiny, the district court concluded that the restriction  satisfied such scrutiny because it was narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest (namely, “protecting against unwarranted intrusions into a person’s home or pocket”).

The D.C. Circuit, ruling on the trade group’s appeal, concluded that the 2016 opinion did not constitute a “final agency action.”  As a result, the D.C. Circuit vacated the district court’s opinion and dismissed the trade group’s complaint for failure to state a claim under the APA.  According to the D.C. Circuit, the 2016 opinion did not satisfy one of the two conditions for “final agency action” established by the U.S. Supreme Court in its 1997 decision in Bennett v. Spear.  The D.C. Circuit determined that the condition that the FTC’s action represent “the consummation of agency decisionmaking” was not satisified because the opinion was informal, expressing the views of the FTC staff, and did not represent “the conclusive view of the Commission.”  The D.C. Circuit also concluded that because the trade group’s First Amendment claims were pleaded only as APA claims, it was required to dismiss such claims “for want of a final agency action.”

The title of the FTC’s blog posting about the D.C. Circuit decision, “Decision bolsters FTC position on soundboard tech FTC staff,” suggests that the FTC staff believes the decision provides support for its view.  The press release reminds marketers that “the message…has not changed,” namely that “FTC staff regard calls using soundboard technology as robocalls for TSR purposes.  This means that companies must have each consumer’s express written consent before calling and that fundraisers can only use soundboard technology to solicit charitable contributions from previous donors: no robocalls to new donors.”

The use of soundboard technology also raises TCPA compliance issues.  In addition to generally prohibiting autodialed calls to wireless numbers without the called party’s prior express written consent, the TCPA generally prohibits calls to wireless numbers using ” an artificial or prerecorded voice.”  The TCPA also prohibits telemarketing calls to residential numbers using “an artificial or prerecorded voice” without the called party’s prior express written consent.

 

 

Yesterday, a coalition of numerous trade organizations, including, among others, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the American Bankers Association, the Consumer Bankers Association, and the Mortgage Bankers Association, filed a Petition for Declaratory Ruling with the Federal Communications Commission (the “FCC”), seeking clarification of the definition of “automatic telephone dialing system” (“ATDS”) under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”).  Specifically, Petitioners request that, in light of the D.C. Circuit’s recent guidance on this topic in ACA International v. FCC, the FCC (1) confirm that to be an ATDS, equipment must use a random or sequential number generator to store or produce numbers and dial those numbers without human intervention, and (2) find that only calls made using actual ATDS capabilities are subject to the TCPA’s restrictions.

The Petition sets the stage for its request by explaining that the TCPA’s original purpose was to prevent a specific type of abusive call by telemarketers, but that its implementation has resulted in a whirlwind of litigation against legitimate businesses attempting to lawfully communicate with their customers.  The Petition further asserts that the current state of TCPA litigation is hurting businesses, not helping consumers, and instead is just serving as a boondoggle for plaintiffs’ lawyers.  The Petitioners then urge the FCC to use the D.C. Circuit’s recent decision in ACA as an opportunity to rationalize the dysfunctional TCPA landscape.

Turning to their specific requests, the Petitioners argue that the FCC should not deviate from the straightforward text of the TCPA in defining ATDS.  Thus, Petitioners contend that for equipment to constitute an ATDS, it must be able to generate numbers in either random order or sequential order, be able to store or produce those numbers, and be able to dial those numbers.  The Petitioners also request the FCC to make clear that if human intervention is required in generating the list of numbers to call or in making the call, then the equipment in use is not an ATDS.

In addition, the Petitioners argue that the FCC should make clear that the ATDS functions must be actually – not theoretically – present and active in a device at the time the call is made.  Thus, a device that requires alteration to add auto dialing capability is not an ATDS.  Rather, the capability must be inherent or built into the device for it to constitute an ATDS.  For example, if a smartphone required downloading an app or changing software code to gain autodialing capabilities, the smartphone would not qualify as an ATDS.

Finally, the Petitioners request that the FCC clarify that a caller must use the statutorily defined functions of an ATDS to make a call for liability to attach.  As such, a device’s potential capabilities would not be relevant to determining whether it is an ATDS, because the inquiry will focus only on the functions actually used to make the call or calls in question.

The Petitioners repeatedly urge the FCC to take prompt and speedy action on their Petition.  Significantly, the FCC is now controlled by Republicans, two of whose dissents from the FCC’s 2015 TCPA Declaratory Ruling and Order demonstrate that they strongly prefer a narrow interpretation.  We will keep a close watch on the progress of the Petition, and report on developments as they occur.

On May 7, 2018, in Arlington, Virginia, the FDIC will host a forum, “Use of Technology in the Business of Banking.”  Registration is required to attend.  The forum will also be webcast live and recorded for on-demand access after the event.

The FDIC’s notice states that panels at the forum  “will focus on emerging technologies that are transforming banking operations, the impact of emerging technologies on retail banking, including new and innovative delivery channels, enhanced customer experiences, economic inclusion; and consumer financial data access—balancing rights and security.”

It further states that the forum “will bring together representatives from banks that use or are considering using emerging technologies, representatives from firms offering emerging technologies, representatives from bank trade associations, thought leaders on the use of technology in the business of banking, leaders of consumer and community organizations, and representatives from federal and state financial regulatory agencies.”

Following a remand from the D.C. federal district court, Department of Education (ED) Secretary Betsy DeVos has issued an order restoring the Accrediting Council for Independent Colleges and Schools’ (ACICS) status as a federally recognized accrediting agency.

ACICS accredits for-profit colleges, whose access to federal student loan funds is contingent on becoming, and remaining, accredited by a “nationally recognized accrediting agency,” as determined by ED. Although not the sole basis for his decision, Secretary DeVos’ predecessor, John B. King, had revoked ACICS’ recognition in 2016 after concluding, with reference to schools such as Corinthian and ITT Educational Services, that ACICS lacked sufficient mechanisms to monitor the results of state and federal agency enforcement actions brought against schools and to deny accreditation to those schools found to have been engaged in fraudulent conduct or to have otherwise violated applicable law.

Secretary DeVos’ recent order means that ACICS’ status as a federally recognized accrediting agency is restored effective December 12, 2016 (the date Secretary King terminated ACICS’ recognition) and that ED will conduct a further review of ACICS’ petition for recognition. ACICS-accredited institutions now may have to decide whether to wait for the outcome of ED’s review or continue pursuing their in-process applications with other accreditors.

The review of ACICS’s 2016 petition will include consideration of material that the D.C. federal district court concluded had been improperly omitted during the 2016 proceeding as well as additional, related material ACICS wishes to submit. According to U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton’s March 23 opinion, ED had violated the Administrative Procedure Act in 2016 by failing to consider during ACICS’ recognition proceeding: (1) supplemental information, submitted by ACICS at ED’s request, largely concerning ACICS’ standards for “problem schools,” and (2) evidence of ACICS’ placement verification and data integrity programs and procedures.

After ED had terminated ACICS’ recognition in 2016, it directed ACICS-accredited institutions to find a new accrediting agency by June 12, 2018. Under the terms of Provisional Program Participation Agreements they signed with ED, ACICS-accredited institutions were required to submit an application to a new accrediting agency by June 12, 2017 and host a site visit by the new agency by February 28, 2018. ED was authorized to: (1) terminate federal student aid funding for new students if an institution failed to meet either deadline and (2) require a letter of credit or other financial guarantee (equal to at least 10% of the institution’s Title IV volume from the prior completed award year) if an institution failed to meet the second deadline or obtain an extension.

Judge Walton’s March 23rd ruling is another significant win for ACICS, which one year ago convinced the D.C. Circuit to affirm the federal district court’s denial of the CFPB’s petition to enforce a Civil Investigative Demand (CID) issued to ACICS. In that opinion, the D.C. Circuit concluded the CID failed to adequately describe the nature of the unlawful conduct under investigation. It did not reach the broader question of whether the CFPB had jurisdiction to investigate the accreditation process based on the possible connection to ACICS-accredited schools’ lending practices.

The U.S. Department of the Treasury has issued a memorandum in which it makes recommendations to modernize the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA).  The memorandum was directed to the primary CRA regulators, consisting of the OCC, the Federal Reserve, and the FDIC.

In preparing the memo, Treasury obtained input from the primary CRA regulators and close to 100 stakeholders representing community and consumer advocates, academics and think tanks, financial institutions, trade associations, and law firms, among others.  The organizations and individuals who provided input to Treasury are listed in Appendix B to the memo.

Treasury began its memo with the observation that regulatory and performance expectations under the CRA have not kept pace with the substantial organizational and technological change experienced by the U.S. banking industry since the CRA’s enactment in 1977.  Treasury believes changes are needed to the CRA’s administration for the CRA to achieve its intended purpose in an environment that now includes interstate banking, mortgage securitization, and internet and mobile banking.  According to Treasury, its memo focuses on “regulatory and administrative changes that are consistent with the original intent of CRA, including common sense reforms that reduce the complexity and burden on banks, regulators, and community advocates.”

Treasury’s recommendations include:

  • Revisiting the approach for determining assessment areas to include not only areas where a bank is physically located, but also low- and moderate-income (LMI) communities outside of the bank’s physical footprint and in areas where the bank accepts deposits and does substantial business.  Treasury believes this framework would allow banks to receive credit for CRA activity within their branch and deposit-taking footprint, and also for investments in other LMI communities and identified areas.
  • Increasing clarity and flexibility in examination procedures, including:
    • Making changes to CRA eligibility determinations to: expand the types of loans, investments, and services eligible for CRA credit; establish clearer standards for eligibility for CRA credit, with greater consistency and predictability across each of the regulators; and simplify record-keeping procedures designed to make eligibility updates more regular and timely
    • In connection with revisiting CRA’s definition of assessment area, considering reforms to the process for establishing a bank’s performance context so as to make such determinations less subjective and more consistent
    • Establishing clear criteria for grading CRA loans, investments, and services so as to use less subjective evaluation techniques and make the actual “measurement” of CRA activity, like other regulatory standards, reportable in a clear and transparent manner
    • Establishing a modernized, forward-looking approach to the Service Test used in CRA examinations of large banks to recognize the reduced relevance of physical branches due to the ongoing adoption of alternative delivery channels
  • Improving the examination process, including:
    • Standardizing CRA examination schedules
    • Making changes concerning downgrades for violations of consumer protection laws, such as:
    • Adopting uniform guidance that considers whether there is a logical nexus between a bank’s CRA rating and evidence of discriminatory or illegal practices in the bank’s CRA lending activities while also giving consideration to the bank’s remediation efforts
    • Not delaying CRA performance evaluations due to pending consumer protection law investigations or enforcement actions
    • Having the FDIC and Federal Reserve adopt policies and procedures that are generally aligned with changes adopted by the OCC in November 2017 for evaluating various applications by banks with less than satisfactory CRA ratings
    • Clarifying that a community benefit plan is just one tool for demonstrating how a bank will meet community convenience and needs but is not required
    • Allowing banks to store the public file required by the CRA electronically on the bank’s website, with access to a physical copy of such information provided upon request
  • Taking various other steps, including:
    • Giving community development loans the same annual consideration as community development investments
    • Evaluating the approach used for bank affiliates to ensure that performance evaluations accurately reflect the overall bank’s CRA-eligible activity
    • Reviewing how certain public welfare investments are treated in a Comprehensive Capital Analysis and Review
    • Monitoring the impact of the emergence of nonbanks

Since the CRA is implemented through regulations issued by the OCC, Federal Reserve, and FDIC for the banks they supervise, the ball is now in those agencies’ courts to make specific regulatory proposals either individually or collectively.

Earlier this week, by a party-line 34-26 vote, the House Financial Services Committee passed H.R. 4861, a bill seemingly intended to ease restrictions on short-term, small-dollar loans made by depository institutions.  The bill is part of the efforts of House Republicans to provide greater regulatory relief to banks than would be provided by S. 2155, the banking bill passed by the Senate last week.  We expect that Jeb Hensarling, who chairs the House Committee, will attempt to make the bill part of a final banking bill.

H.R. 4861 would nullify the FDIC’s November 2013 guidance on deposit advance products, which effectively precludes FDIC-supervised depository institutions from offering deposit advance products.  (The FDIC supervises state-chartered banks and savings institutions that are not Federal Reserve members.)  We had been sharply critical of that guidance, as well as the OCC’s substantially identical guidance as to national banks.  However, in October 2017,  just hours after the CFPB released its final rule on payday, vehicle title, and certain high-cost installment  loans (CFPB Rule), the OCC rescinded its guidance on deposit advance products.  Because the FDIC has not yet followed suit, H.R. 4861 would remove a regulatory impediment to state-chartered banks and savings institutions offering one form of small-dollar lending to their customers.

H.R. 4861 would require the federal banking agencies to promulgate regulations within two years “to establish standards for short-term, small-dollar loans or lines of credit made available by insured depository institutions.”  The standards must “encourage products that are consistent with safe and sound banking, provide fair access to financial services, and treat customers fairly.”  The regulations would preempt any state laws “that set standards for [such loans or lines of credit]” and would override the CFPB Rule for insured depository institutions that become subject to H.B. 4861 regulations.  (Insured and uninsured credit unions would gain relief from the CFPB Rule even before regulations are adopted.)

Presumably, the “standards” under H.B. 4861 regulations could include interest rate standards.  Thus, federal banking agencies supportive of short-term, small-dollar loans could authorize interest rates higher than the insured depository institutions could otherwise charge under applicable federal law.  Unfortunately, as it is currently drafted, H.R. 4861 could be interpreted to allow the banking agencies to establish rate limits that are more restrictive than the limits that currently apply under federal law.  Accordingly, we would hope that the final bill will clarify that it does allow the federal banking agencies to impair existing rate authority under applicable federal law, including Section 85 of the National Bank Act, Section 27 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, and Section 4(g) of the Home Owners’ Loan Act.

 

 

As we previously reported, on March 23, 2018 in Washington, D.C., the FTC and FCC will co-host a joint policy forum that will cover recent policy changes and enforcement actions as well as the agencies’ efforts to encourage private sector technological solutions.  We believe the event will be of interest to clients who launch legitimate account management or marketing campaigns from autodialers as well as those whose names have been misappropriated by fraudulent telemarketers.

Because it comes on the heels of the D.C. Circuit’s March 16 decision addressing a number of critical issues involving the Telephone Consumer Protection Act’s restrictions on the use of autodialers, the forum is likely to include a discussion of the decision.  Ballard has issued a legal alert summarizing the decision and will hold a webinar on April 3, 2018 in which the participants will address the decision’s implications and its potential impact on pending and future TCPA litigation.  (Our legal alert includes a link to register for the webinar.)

The tentative agenda and other information about the event, including how to access a live video feed, can be found here.

 

The decision last week by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit on petitions seeking review of the Federal Communications Commission’s 2015 Declaratory Ruling and Order implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) represents a partial victory for the industry.

In the decision, the D.C. Circuit reversed the FCC’s guidance on the definition of an automatic telephone dialing system going back to 2003, leaving only the TCPA’s statutory definition.  That definition does not, on its face, include predictive dialers.

The decision creates some uncertainty about TCPA liability for calls to reassigned numbers.  In addition, callers continue to face the challenge of capturing revocations sent by consumers using methods other than those prescribed by the caller.

On April 3, 2018, from 12 p.m. to 1 p.m. ET, Ballard Spahr attorneys will hold a webinar—The D.C. Circuit’s TCPA Decision: What It Means to Your Business.  The webinar registration form is available here.

Click here for the full alert.