Section 104. Remote Interpretation

(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-conferencing, closed-circuit television, or web-based camera, provided that the judicial proceeding: is expected to be no more than 30 minutes in duration; is non-evidentiary; and does not involve more than one interpreter. Prior to utilizing the 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.

(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 no more than 30 minutes in duration; is non-evidentiary; and does not involve more than one interpreter. 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.

(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.) 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 has been previously used by, and his or her qualifications are known to, the court.

Comment

Although this regulation allows for remote interpretation under certain limited circumstances, interpretation in person is strongly preferred. Pursuant to subsections (a) and (b), if an interpreter can not 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.