Touted as a more effective approach to determining eligibility for specific learning disability (SLD) than establishing a severe discrepancy between ability and achievement, response to intervention (RTI) represents various models that share these common characteristics: (a) multiple tiers of scientific, research-based interventions; (b) continuous progress monitoring; and (c) systematic decision points to screen students for an evaluation for special education. The professional literature is replete with rhetoric and, to a lesser extent, research concerning implementing RTI. The 2006 IDEA regulations require each state to choose its SLD eligibility "criteria" from among the following options: (1) Severe discrepancy--may prohibit or permit; (2) RTI--must permit; and (3) "Other alternative research procedures"--may permit. The IDEA regulations went into effect on October 12, 2006. What is the status of the resulting state laws 1 year after? This article provides a snapshot summary based on the 47 usable responses from all 50 states that responded to the authors' e-mail survey of state directors of special education, asking whether their state law was at the "proposed" stage or finalized, and which choice the proposed or finalized state law has taken with regard to the three options under the IDEA regulations. Regardless of current category, the implementation of RTI, as the professional literature is now making clearer, is a major challenge, requiring a comprehensive commitment by general education and careful coordination with special education. Given the fluidity of state laws, the specific scope of this survey, and the need for a comprehensive eligibility evaluation in conformity with both federal and state requirements, careful examination of the particular provisions of individual state law is an essential step toward such defensibility. (Contains 1 table.)