ML20028F929
| ML20028F929 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 06/04/1981 |
| From: | Ragan H NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Kerr V NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20028F923 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-82-481 NUDOCS 8302070156 | |
| Download: ML20028F929 (2) | |
Text
.
' I?30 Gy%.
partco y,
,g UNITED STATES y"
g NUCLEAll 11EGULA TOltY COMMISSION e
d WASHINGTOld. D. C. 20!.%
i g
'%... + #
June 4, 1981 i
i NEMORANDUM FOR:
Vernon S. Kerr, Chief i
Telecomunications Branch Division of Facilities and Cperations Support, ADM t
FROM:
Hudson B. Ragan, Acting Director Chief Counsel for Operations 7,
and Administration Office of the Executive Legal Director
SUBJECT:
LEGAL ASPECTS OF CONSENSUAL RECORDING 0F TELEPHONE CALLS l
In your memorandum of May 7,1981, you requested our legal opinion of the j
steps you intend to take in reference to removing the beep tones from the telephone,ystems in the NRC's Operations Center.
These steps include eliminating the beep tone when the appropriate tariff revisions have been filed, and thereafter recording all Operations Center telephone conversctions with the consent of only one of the parties to the conversation. You also indicate that, prior to recording any conversations, you intend to have in
-(
place an amended NRC Manual Chapter 0270 to provide that the consent of only one party to the telephone conversation is needed for recordings made at the HRC's Operations Center, thereby eliminating the present " consent of all parties" policy as to those recordings, and to publish in the Federal Register a notice that all conversations on the telephone networks and systems serving i
the NRC's Operations Center will be recorded.
For the reason set forth below, we believe that there are no legal bars to removing the beep tones and recording with the consent of one party to the conversation.
On December 16, 1980, the NRC submitted to the Federal Connunications Commission.(FCC) a request that it issue an order pennitting the NRC to use recording devices to record, without the beep tone, all conversations on the Operations Center's networks and systems.
Those networks and systems were identified in the request, and the use and functions of each was described in detail.
In response, on January 29, 1981, the FCC granted an interim waiver.
of the beep tone requirement for the networks and systeps located at the Operations Center.
That interim waiver was made final by the FCC in an orde' issued in Docket No. 20840, effective May 18, 1981 (46 FR 29474, June 2, 1981).
There is, therefore, no question that the beep _ tone.may_ be_gliminated_ when.
.the_ appropriate.. tariff. revisions have been filed, and that conversations on the Operations Center's networks and systems may be recorded without use of the beep tone.
CONTACT:
R. J. Voegeli 492-8665, 8302070156 821202 PDR FOIA HIATT82-4P3 PDR
. g N +,,;
, m.w... -
.g; g.g.,, %._,, _.,_.,. __,.
c.
In reference to recording conversat'ons with the consent of only one party to the conversation, both the Federal Ominbus Crime Control and Safe Streets-Act of 1968 (?9 U.S.C. 9 2510 et. seq.), and 41 CFR Part 101-37 (FP!!R Anend-ment F-47) issued by the General Services Administration (46 FR 19472, itarch 31,1981) provide that only the consent of'one of the parties to the It should also be noted that the FCC order in conversation is required.
'y Docket No. 20840, which required that telephone c.ompanies revise their tariffs A
to provide for beep tones or, in the alternative, the consent of all the
) y,.
parties to the conversation, specifically excluded recordings made at NRC's g
j $
Operations Center from either of those requirements. Lastly, the Attorney General's itemorandum of September 22,1980, " Procedures for Lawful, Warrant-j Q less Intercepticns of Verbal Communications," provides that, in the absence i Is:
of Department of Justice authorization, the consent of all the parties to j,$
the. conversation is required before a conversation can be recorded. However,
' :,tg the memorandum excludes from its reach recordings of telephone conversations
.[d.
(as distinguished from the devices used in making the recordings, discussed l
fl below) and hence imposes no barrier to our recording telephone conversations with the consent of only one party to the conversation.
Based on our review f
of the cited authorities, we believe that there is no legal bar to recording 1
Operations Center conversations with the consent of only one party to the 4
l conversation.
We also believe that the proposed amendment to Manual Chapter 0270 wil.1
'P provide adequate notice to NRC personnel of the change in policy from all party consent to the cons,ent of only one party to the conversation for re-cordings made at NRC's Operations Center, and that publishing a notice in j
the Federal Register, although probably not required by law, would be appropriate.
Your attention is also called to the provisions of the Attorney General's itemorandum of September 22, 1980, which require that agencies maintain copies of inventories, accounts and reports concerning interception devices for l
10 years (Paragraph V, Security of Interception Devices), and that in October l
of each year, agencies must submit to the Attorney General an inventory of all devices which are intended for the interception of telephone and other communications (Paragraph VI, Reports).
As noted earlier, the Attorney o
~
General's tiemorandum does not apply to the recording of telephone conver-sations, but the above previsions of the memorandum do apply to the devices I
used to make those recordings.
]
et '
u 4.---
Hudson B. Ragan Acting T' rector 1
Chief Counsel for Operations and Administration
}
Office of'the Executive Legal Director i
4 n
gi,
^
.