[Senate Report 115-91]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                                                             Calendar No. 117


115th Congress    }                                         {   Report
                                SENATE                          
1st Session       }                                         {   115-91
_______________________________________________________________________

                                     

                                                      

                                     

                    SPOOFING PREVENTION ACT OF 2017

                               __________

                              R E P O R T

                                 of the

           COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION

                                   on

                                 S. 134
                                 
                                 

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]



                  June 6, 2017.--Ordered to be printed
                  
                  
                  
                  
                                _________ 
                                   
                     U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
 69-010                     WASHINGTON : 2017       
                  
                  
                  
                  
                  
       SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
                     one hundred fifteenth congress
                             first session

                   JOHN THUNE, South Dakota, Chairman
 ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi         BILL NELSON, Florida
 ROY BLUNT, Missouri                  MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
 TED CRUZ, Texas                      AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota
 DEB FISCHER, Nebraska                RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut
 JERRY MORAN, Kansas                  BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii
 DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska                 EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
 DEAN HELLER, Nevada                  CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey
 JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma            TOM UDALL, New Mexico
 MIKE LEE, Utah                       GARY C. PETERS, Michigan
 RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin               TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin
 SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West           TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois
    Virginia
 CORY GARDNER, Colorado               MARGARETWOODHASSAN,NewHampshire
 TODD C. YOUNG, Indiana               CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO, Nevada
 
                       Nick Rossi, Staff Director
                 Adrian Arnakis, Deputy Staff Director
                    Jason Van Beek, General Counsel
                 Kim Lipsky, Democratic Staff Director
           Christopher Day, Democratic Deputy Staff Director
           
           
           
           



                                                        Calendar No. 17
                                                        
115th Congress   }                                            {    Report
                                 SENATE
 1st Session     }                                            {    115-91

======================================================================



 
                    SPOOFING PREVENTION ACT OF 2017

                                _______
                                

                  June 6, 2017.--Ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

Mr. Thune, from the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, 
                        submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                         [To accompany S. 134]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

    The Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, to 
which was referred the bill (S. 134) to expand the prohibition 
on misleading or inaccurate caller identification information, 
and for other purposes, having considered the same, reports 
favorably thereon with an amendment (in the nature of a 
substitute) and recommends that the bill (as amended) do pass.

                          Purpose of the Bill

    S. 134 would provide the Federal Communications Commission 
(FCC or Commission) with updated authority to address 
``spoofing'' in the United States. Specifically, the FCC would 
be empowered to combat spoofing originating from international 
locations, by text message and by other voice communications 
services. It also would direct the FCC, in conjunction with the 
Federal Trade Commission (FTC), to assess and make available 
resources and measures the public can use to protect themselves 
from spoofing.

                          Background and Needs

    As the FCC noted over 5 years ago, ``[i]ncreasingly, bad 
actors are altering or manipulating caller ID information--
known as caller ID spoofing--to further a wide variety of 
malicious schemes, from identity theft to placing false 
emergency calls to SWAT teams. Using spoofing services 
accessible through the web or prepaid cards, anyone can 
inexpensively mask the origin of a call with fake caller 
identification information.''\1\ Although the FCC has 
promulgated rules to address spoofing, there has been increased 
spoofing coming from outside the United States. In testimony 
before the Committee, then-FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler noted that 
he had himself been spoofed by a party claiming to be the 
Internal Revenue Service: ``This was a U.S. number, but it was 
coming from abroad.''\2\ Former FCC Commissioner Jessica 
Rosenworcel stated, ``[t]hat fraud has moved offshore. It's now 
coming from international locations.''\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\Federal Communications Commission (FCC), ``Consumers Gain New 
Protections against Fraudulent Call ID `Spoofing,''' News Release, June 
23, 2011, at https://www.fcc.gov/document/consumers-gain-new-
protections-against-fraudulent-caller-id-spoofing.
    \2\U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation, Oversight of the Federal Communications Commission, 
114th Congress, 2nd session, March 2, 2016, S.Hrg 114-607.
    \3\Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The increase in fraud committed through spoofing is not 
limited to calls originating from overseas. As communications 
technologies have evolved, so has spoofing activity. In recent 
years, spoofing scams in the United States have used text 
messaging services and other alternative voice communications 
services. One 2014 survey estimated that spoofing fraud 
affected 17.6 million Americans over the 12 months preceding 
the survey, with that fraudulent activity costing them $8.6 
billion.\4\ That same survey indicated that the actual amount 
of fraud was likely higher than these numbers revealed given 
the reluctance of many to report that they were victims of 
fraud. One story last year recounted the experience of a 
Tennessee resident who committed suicide after losing thousands 
of dollars to a Jamaican lottery scam perpetrated using caller 
ID spoofing.\5\
    Congress first addressed the practice of caller ID spoofing 
in the Truth in Caller ID Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-331; 124 
Stat. 3572).\6\ That Act directed the FCC to prepare a report 
making recommendations to Congress on whether additional 
legislation is necessary to prohibit the provision of 
inaccurate caller identification information in technologies 
that are successor or replacement technologies to 
telecommunications service or IP-enabled voice service.\7\ The 
FCC's report recommended such additional legislation, in 
particular with respect to expanding the agency's jurisdiction 
to pursue spoofing originating from overseas, as well as 
spoofing activity using text messaging services and other voice 
communications services not already covered by the law.\8\ 
Congress has yet to update the Communications Act of 1934 (47 
U.S.C. 151 et seq.) in response to those recommendations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\Weisbaum, Herb, ``Americans Lost $8.6 billion to Phone Fraud in 
last Year, Survey Suggests,'' Today, August 27, 2014, at http://
www.today.com/money/americans-lost-8-6-billion-phone-fraud-last-year-
survey-1D80108259.
    \5\Drash, Wayne, ``Driven to Death by Phone Scammers,'' CNN, 
October 7, 2015, at http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/07/us/jamaica-lottery-
scam-suicide.
    \6\Public Law 111-331; codified at 47 U.S.C. Sec. 227(e).
    \7\47 U.S.C. Sec. 227(e)(4).
    \8\FCC Report: Caller Identification Information in Successor or 
Replacement Technologies, June 22, 2011, at https://apps.fcc.gov/
edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1089A1.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          Legislative History

    S. 134 was introduced on January 12, 2017, by Senators 
Nelson, Fischer, Klobuchar, and Blunt, and was referred to the 
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the 
Senate. On January 24, 2017, the Committee met in open 
Executive Session and, by voice vote, ordered S. 134 reported 
with an amendment (in the nature of a substitute). The 
Committee approved an amendment by Senator Nelson stating that, 
except as otherwise provided, a ``text message'' would not 
include a message sent over an IP-enabled messaging service to 
another user of the same messaging service.
    On January 10, 2017, Representatives Meng, Barton, and 
Lance introduced H.R. 423, the Anti-Spoofing Act of 2017, a 
bill substantially similar to S. 134. On January 23, 2017, the 
House of Representatives agreed to that Act by roll call vote, 
398 to 5. On January 24, 2017, H.R. 423 was received by the 
Senate and referred to the Committee.
    S. 134 is substantially similar to legislation previously 
reported favorably by the Committee in 2016. In the 114th 
Congress, Senators Nelson and Fischer introduced S. 2558, the 
Spoofing Prevention Act of 2016. On April 27, 2016, the 
Committee held an Executive Session during which S. 2644, the 
FCC Reauthorization Act of 2016, was considered. That bill, 
containing an amended version of S. 2558, was ordered reported 
favorably, by voice vote, with an amendment (in the nature of a 
substitute).
    A similar bill, H.R. 2669, the Anti-Spoofing Act of 2015, 
was introduced in the House of Representatives by 
Representatives Meng, Barton, and Lance on June 4, 2015. On 
November 14, 2016, H.R. 2669, as amended, was agreed to in the 
House of Representatives by a roll call vote, 382 to 5, and was 
received by the Senate on November 15, 2016. The House of 
Representatives-passed version of H.R. 2669 was substantially 
similar to the version of S. 2558 that was passed by the 
Committee as part of S. 2644.

                            Estimated Costs

    In accordance with paragraph 11(a) of rule XXVI of the 
Standing Rules of the Senate and section 403 of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Committee provides the 
following cost estimate, prepared by the Congressional Budget 
Office:

S. 134-Spoofing Prevention Act of 2017

    Under current law, the Federal Communications Commission 
(FCC) has the authority to levy penalties and criminal fines 
against individuals who use fake information about a caller's 
identification to defraud or harm another. S. 134 would expand 
that authority to include the use of text messages and would 
apply the authority to violators outside of the United States 
if the recipient is within the United States. The bill also 
would direct the FCC to develop consumer education materials 
that provide information for consumers on identifying 
fraudulent caller activities. Finally, S. 134 would direct the 
Government Accountability Office (GAO) to conduct a study on 
actions taken by the FCC to combat the provision of inaccurate 
caller information and to identify additional steps that could 
be taken by the agency.
    Based on an analysis of information from the FCC about the 
agency's current enforcement capabilities, CBO estimates that 
implementing S. 134 would increase the agency's costs by less 
than $500,000 to enforce the expanded prohibition and to update 
current consumer education materials However, the FCC is 
authorized to collect fees sufficient to offset the costs of 
its regulatory activities each year; therefore, CBO estimates 
that the net effect on discretionary spending would be 
negligible, assuming appropriation actions consistent with that 
authority. Based on the costs of similar reports conducted by 
GAO, CBO estimates that the increased costs to conduct the 
required study would be insignificant.
    S. 134 would broaden the coverage of current laws relating 
to the use of misleading or inaccurate caller identification 
information. As a result, the government might be able to 
pursue cases that it otherwise would not be able to prosecute. 
Because those prosecuted and convicted under S. 134 could be 
subject to criminal fines, the federal collections might 
increase. Criminal fines are recorded as revenues, deposited in 
the Crime Victims Fund, and later spent without further 
appropriation action; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures 
apply. CBO expects that any additional revenues and subsequent 
direct spending would not be significant because the 
legislation would probably affect only a small number of cases.
    CBO estimates that enacting S. 134 would not increase net 
direct spending or on-budget deficits in any of the four 
consecutive 10-year periods beginning in 2028.
    S. 134 contains no intergovernmental or private sector 
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and 
would not affect the budgets of state, local, or tribal 
governments.
    The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Stephen Rabent. 
The estimate was approved by H. Samuel Papenfuss, Deputy 
Assistant Director for Budget Analysis.

                           Regulatory Impact

    In accordance with paragraph 11(b) of rule XXVI of the 
Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee provides the 
following evaluation of the regulatory impact of the 
legislation, as reported:

                       number of persons covered

    The bill would for the first time extend spoofing 
prohibitions to persons outside the United States. It also 
would expand the categories of services in the United States, 
namely text messaging and other voice services as defined by 
the bill, subject to spoofing prohibitions. The bill, though, 
is not expected to have a significant impact on the number of 
types of individuals and businesses regulated in the United 
States, as nearly all offerors of such services already are 
regulated under the Communications Act of 1934.

                            economic impact

    By reducing consumer harms related to misleading or 
inaccurate caller identification information, the bill is 
expected to have a positive economic impact.

                                privacy

    The bill is not expected to have an adverse effect on the 
personal privacy of any individuals.

                               paperwork

    The Committee does not anticipate an increased paperwork 
burden on regulated entities as a result of this bill.

                   Congressionally Directed Spending

    In compliance with paragraph 4(b) of rule XLIV of the 
Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee provides that no 
provisions contained in the bill, as reported, meet the 
definition of congressionally directed spending items under the 
rule.

                      Section-by-Section Analysis


Section 1. Short title.

    This section would provide that this Act may be cited as 
the ``Spoofing Prevention Act of 2017.''

Section 2. Definition.

    This section would define ``Commission'' to mean the 
Federal Communications Commission.

Section 3. Spoofing Prevention.

    Section 3(a) would amend section 227(e)(1) of the 
Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 227(e)(1)) to extend the 
current prohibition of misleading or inaccurate caller 
identification information to include those acting from outside 
the United States if the recipient of the call or text is 
within the United States. This section also would provide new 
definitions of text messaging and voice services, and would 
include both under the prohibition against spoofing. The 
section would provide that, except as otherwise provided, a 
``text message'' would not include a message sent over an IP-
enabled messaging service to another user of the same messaging 
service.
    Section 3(a) also would provide a technical amendment to 
the heading of section 227(e) of that Act, inserting 
``misleading or'' so that the heading would read, ``prohibition 
on provision of misleading or inaccurate caller identification 
information.'' This mirrors the language of the statute itself.
    Finally, section 3(a) would require the FCC to implement 
the amendments made by the section not later than 18 months 
after the date of enactment of the Act, and would provide that 
such regulations be effective 6 months after the Commission 
prescribes them.
    Section 3(b) would require the Commission, in collaboration 
with the FTC, to develop consumer educations materials that 
provide information about ways for consumers to identify scams 
and other fraudulent activities that rely on the use of 
misleading or inaccurate caller identification information; and 
existing technologies, if any, that consumers can use to 
protect against such scams and other fraudulent activities. The 
Commission would be required to include these consumer 
education materials on its website and to update the materials 
on a regular basis.
    Section 3(c) would require the Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) to study FCC and FTC actions to combat spoofing 
and the additional measures that could be taken to combat such 
activity. GAO would be required to submit a report on this 
study that includes the following: (1) trends in spoofing 
activity; (2) previous and current FCC and FTC enforcement 
actions; (3) current efforts by industry groups to develop 
technical standards to deter or prevent spoofing and how those 
may help combat spoofing; and (4) whether there are additional 
actions the FCC, FTC, and Congress should take to combat 
spoofing. The Committee is aware of the fact that in 2016 the 
FCC convened a Robocall Strike Force to address spoofing and 
related issues, and it intends for GAO to review the work done 
by that strike force in this report, including making 
recommendations based upon the strike force's work. GAO would 
be required to submit this report on its findings and 
recommendations to the Committee and to the Committee on Energy 
and Commerce of the House of Representatives not later than 18 
months after the date of enactment of the Act.
    Section 3(d) would provide a rule of construction stating 
that nothing in the section shall affect or modify the 
Commission's authority under the Telephone Consumer Protection 
Act of 1991 (Public Law 102-243; 105 Stat. 2394) or the CAN-
SPAM Act of 2003 (15 U.S.C. 7701 et seq.).

                        Changes in Existing Law

    In compliance with paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of the 
Standing Rules of the Senate, changes in existing law made by 
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law 
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new 
material is printed in italic, existing law in which no change 
is proposed is shown in roman):

                       COMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1934


                        [47 U.S.C. 151 et seq.]

SEC. 227. RESTRICTIONS ON USE OF TELEPHONE EQUIPMENT.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\The amendments to this section would take effect on the date 
that is 6 months after the date on which the Federal Communications 
Commission presecribes regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[47 U.S.C. 227]

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


  (e) Prohibition on Provision of Misleading or Inaccurate 
Caller Identification Information.--
          (1) In general.--It shall be unlawful for any person 
        within the United States, [in connection with any 
        telecommunications service or IP-enabled voice service] 
        or any person outside the United States if the 
        recipient of the call is within the United States, in 
        connection with any voice service or text messaging 
        service, to cause any caller identification service to 
        knowingly transmit misleading or inaccurate caller 
        identification information with the intent to defraud, 
        cause harm, or wrongfully obtain anything of value, 
        unless such transmission is exempted pursuant to 
        paragraph (3)(B).
          (2) Protection for blocking caller identification 
        information.--Nothing in this subsection may be 
        construed to prevent or restrict any person from 
        blocking the capability of any caller identification 
        service to transmit caller identification information.
          (3) Regulations.--
                  (A) In general.--[Not later than 6 months 
                after the date of enactment of the Truth in 
                Caller ID Act of 2009, the Commission] The 
                Commission shall prescribe regulations to 
                implement this subsection.
                  (B) Content of regulations.--
                          (i) In general.--The regulations 
                        required under subparagraph (A) shall 
                        include such exemptions from the 
                        prohibition under paragraph (1) as the 
                        Commission determines is appropriate.
                          (ii) Specific exemption for law 
                        enforcement agencies or court orders.--
                        The regulations required under 
                        subparagraph (A) shall exempt from the 
                        prohibition under paragraph (1) 
                        transmissions in connection with--
                                  (I) any authorized activity 
                                of a law enforcement agency; or
                                  (II) a court order that 
                                specifically authorizes the use 
                                of caller identification 
                                manipulation.
          (4) Report.--Not later than 6 months after the 
        enactment of the Truth in Caller ID Act of 2009, the 
        Commission shall report to Congress whether additional 
        legislation is necessary to prohibit the provision of 
        inaccurate caller identification information in 
        technologies that are successor or replacement 
        technologies to telecommunications service or IP-
        enabled voice service.
          (5) Penalties.--
                  (A) Civil forfeiture.--
                          (i) In general.--Any person that is 
                        determined by the Commission, in 
                        accordance with paragraphs (3) and (4) 
                        of section 503(b), to have violated 
                        this subsection shall be liable to the 
                        United States for a forfeiture penalty. 
                        A forfeiture penalty under this 
                        paragraph shall be in addition to any 
                        other penalty provided for by this Act. 
                        The amount of the forfeiture penalty 
                        determined under this paragraph shall 
                        not exceed $10,000 for each violation, 
                        or 3 times that amount for each day of 
                        a continuing violation, except that the 
                        amount assessed for any continuing 
                        violation shall not exceed a total of 
                        $1,000,000 for any single act or 
                        failure to act.
                          (ii) Recovery.--Any forfeiture 
                        penalty determined under clause (i) 
                        shall be recoverable pursuant to 
                        section 504(a).
                          (iii) Procedure.--No forfeiture 
                        liability shall be determined under 
                        clause (i) against any person unless 
                        such person receives the notice 
                        required by section 503(b)(3) or 
                        section 503(b)(4).
                          (iv) 2-year statute of limitations.--
                        No forfeiture penalty shall be 
                        determined or imposed against any 
                        person under clause (i) if the 
                        violation charged occurred more than 2 
                        years prior to the date of issuance of 
                        the required notice or notice or 
                        apparent liability.
                  (B) Criminal fine.--Any person who willfully 
                and knowingly violates this subsection shall 
                upon conviction thereof be fined not more than 
                $10,000 for each violation, or 3 times that 
                amount for each day of a continuing violation, 
                in lieu of the fine provided by section 501 for 
                such a violation. This subparagraph does not 
                supersede the provisions of section 501 
                relating to imprisonment or the imposition of a 
                penalty of both fine and imprisonment.
          (6) Enforcement by states.--
                  (A) In general.--The chief legal officer of a 
                State, or any other State officer authorized by 
                law to bring actions on behalf of the residents 
                of a State, may bring a civil action, as parens 
                patriae, on behalf of the residents of that 
                State in an appropriate district court of the 
                United States to enforce this subsection or to 
                impose the civil penalties for violation of 
                this subsection, whenever the chief legal 
                officer or other State officer has reason to 
                believe that the interests of the residents of 
                the State have been or are being threatened or 
                adversely affected by a violation of this 
                subsection or a regulation under this 
                subsection.
                  (B) Notice.--The chief legal officer or other 
                State officer shall serve written notice on the 
                Commission of any civil action under 
                subparagraph (A) prior to initiating such civil 
                action. The notice shall include a copy of the 
                complaint to be filed to initiate such civil 
                action, except that if it is not feasible for 
                the State to provide such prior notice, the 
                State shall provide such notice immediately 
                upon instituting such civil action.
                  (C) Authority to intervene.--Upon receiving 
                the notice required by subparagraph (B), the 
                Commission shall have the right--
                          (i) to intervene in the action;
                          (ii) upon so intervening, to be heard 
                        on all matters arising therein; and
                          (iii) to file petitions for appeal.
                  (D) Construction.--For purposes of bringing 
                any civil action under subparagraph (A), 
                nothing in this paragraph shall prevent the 
                chief legal officer or other State officer from 
                exercising the powers conferred on that officer 
                by the laws of such State to conduct 
                investigations or to administer oaths or 
                affirmations or to compel the attendance of 
                witnesses or the production of documentary and 
                other evidence.
                  (E) Venue; service or process.--
                          (i) Venue.--An action brought under 
                        subparagraph (A) shall be brought in a 
                        district court of the United States 
                        that meets applicable requirements 
                        relating to venue under section 1391 of 
                        title 28, United States Code.
                          (ii) Service of process.--In an 
                        action brought under subparagraph (A)--
                                  (I) process may be served 
                                without regard to the 
                                territorial limits of the 
                                district or of the State in 
                                which the action is instituted; 
                                and
                                  (II) a person who 
                                participated in an alleged 
                                violation that is being 
                                litigated in the civil action 
                                may be joined in the civil 
                                action without regard to the 
                                residence of the person.
          (7) Effect on other laws.--This subsection does not 
        prohibit any lawfully authorized investigative, 
        protective, or intelligence activity of a law 
        enforcement agency of the United States, a State, or a 
        political subdivision of a State, or of an intelligence 
        agency of the United States.
          (8) Definitions.--For purposes of this subsection:
                  (A) Caller identification information.--The 
                term ``caller identification information'' 
                means information provided by a caller 
                identification service regarding the telephone 
                number of, or other information regarding the 
                origination of, a call made using a 
                [telecommunications service or IP-enabled voice 
                service] voice service or a text message sent 
                using a text messaging service.
                  (B) Caller identification service.--The term 
                ``caller identification service'' means any 
                service or device designed to provide the user 
                of the service or device with the telephone 
                number of, or other information regarding the 
                origination of, a call made using a 
                [telecommunications service or IP-enabled voice 
                service] voice service or a text message sent 
                using a text messaging service. Such term 
                includes automatic number identification 
                services.
                  [(C) IP-enabled voice service.--The term 
                ``IP-enabled voice service'' has the meaning 
                given that term by section 9.3 of the 
                Commission's regulations (47 C.F.R. 9.3), as 
                those regulations may be amended by the 
                Commission from time to time.]
                  (C) Text message.--The term ``text 
                message''--
                          (i) means a message consisting of 
                        text, images, sounds, or other 
                        information that is transmitted from or 
                        received by a device that is identified 
                        as the transmitting or receiving device 
                        by means of a 10-digit telephone 
                        number;
                          (ii) includes a short message service 
                        (commonly referred to as `SMS') 
                        message, and a multimedia message 
                        service (commonly referred to as `MMS') 
                        message; and
                          (iii) does not include--
                                  (I) a real-time, two-way 
                                voice or video communication; 
                                or
                                  (II) a message sent over an 
                                IP-enabled messaging service to 
                                another user of the same 
                                messaging service, except a 
                                message described in clause 
                                (ii).
                  (D) Text messaging service.--The term ``text 
                messaging service'' means a service that 
                enables the transmission or receipt of a text 
                message, including a service provided as part 
                of or in connection with a voice service.
                  (E) Voice service.--The term ``voice 
                service''--
                          (i) means any service that furnishes 
                        voice communications to an end user 
                        using resources from the North American 
                        Numbering Plan or any successor to the 
                        North American Numbering Plan adopted 
                        by the Commission under section 
                        251(e)(1); and
                          (ii) includes transmissions from a 
                        telephone facsimile machine, computer, 
                        or other device to a telephone 
                        facsimile machine.
          (9) Limitation.--Notwithstanding any other provision 
        of this section, subsection (f) shall not apply to this 
        subsection or to the regulations under this subsection.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *