1. (a) Simultaneous audiovisual technology.—In the event that a certified or otherwise qualified interpreter for persons with limited English proficiency or who are deaf or hard of hearing cannot be found to interpret in person, one may be appointed to interpret via remote technology allowing for two-way simultaneous communication of image and sound, such as video remote interpreting (VRI), video-conferencing, closed-circuit television, or web-based camera, provided that the judicial proceeding is expected to be no more than one hour in duration. Priority should be given to interpreters from AOPC’s Interpreter Certification Program (ICP) roster. Prior to utilizing the interpreter, the court must conduct a voir dire to determine his or her qualifications, unless the interpreter is a certified interpreter from AOPC’s ICP roster or has been previously used by, and his or her qualifications are known to, the court. The use of VRI should follow guidance issued by the AOPC.
2. (b) Telephonic interpretation.—If neither a certified nor otherwise qualified interpreter can be found to interpret in person or by remote technology allowing for two-way simultaneous communication of image and sound, one may be appointed to interpret remotely via telephone, provided the judicial proceeding is expected to be short, lasting no more than 30 minutes. Priority should be given to interpreters from AOPC’s Interpreter Certification Program (ICP) roster. If neither a certified nor otherwise qualified interpreter can be found to interpret via telephone, the court may utilize a telephone interpreter provided by a commercial telephone interpreter service. Prior to utilizing any telephonic interpreter, the court must conduct a voir dire to determine his or her qualifications, unless the interpreter has been previously used by, and his or her qualifications are known to, the court.

3. (c) Exceptions.—Preliminary arraignments pursuant to Rule of Criminal Procedure 540 and proceedings for emergency orders under the Protection from Abuse Act (23 Pa.C.S. § § 6101 et seq.), the Protection of Victims of Sexual Violence or Intimidation Act (42 Pa.C.S. § § 62A01 et seq.), and the Older Adults Protective Services Act (35 P.S. § § 10225.101 et seq.) may be conducted via remote technology without regard to subsections (a) and (b) above, except that a voir dire still must be conducted to determine the interpreter’s qualifications, unless the interpreter is a certified interpreter from AOPC’s ICP roster or has been previously used by, and his or her qualifications are known to, the court.

   Comment

   Although this regulation allows for remote interpretation, interpretation in person is strongly preferred. Pursuant to subsections (a) and (b), if an interpreter cannot be found to interpret in person, the next step should be to find one to interpret via remote means that allow for two-way simultaneous communication of image and sound. It is only after determining that an interpreter cannot be found to interpret via two-way simultaneous communication of image and sound that the court should consider an audio-only device, such as a telephone.

   Moreover, courts should be cautious in their use of video remote platforms (such as Zoom and Microsoft Teams) to facilitate virtual hearings. When using remote platforms, courts should follow guidance issued by the AOPC, use interpreters from AOPC’s ICP roster, do a practice run using the remote platform in advance of the hearing and, if unable to secure a rostered interpreter for the proceeding, voir dire the interpreter to ascertain his or her qualifications.

Source

The provisions of this § 104 amended November 22, 2021, effective January 1, 2022, 51 Pa.B. 7415. Immediately preceding text appears at serial pages (390522) to (390523).