Opinion ID: 627205
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Mapping Regulations

Text: The Department is authorized to issue regulations under [the IDEA] . . . [as] are necessary to ensure . . . compliance with the Act's requirements. 20 U.S.C. § 1406(a). In late 2004, the Department solicited comments and recommendations regarding the recently enacted amendments to the IDEA. See Department of Education, Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, Notice of Request for Comments and Recommendations, 69 Fed.Reg. 77,968 (Dec. 29, 2004). Among the thousands of comments that the Department received were many requests from state officials seeking clarification as to the status of cochlear implant mapping under the amended IDEA. See Department of Education, Assistance to States for the Education of Children with Disabilities, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 70 Fed.Reg. 35,782, 35,783, 35,785 (June 21, 2005). Prior to the 2004 amendments, some courts had construed the Act and the Department's regulations to require school districts to offer cochlear implant mapping to children pursuant to their IEPs. See, e.g., A.U., ex rel. N.U. v. Roane Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 501 F.Supp.2d 1134, 1143-44 (E.D.Tenn.2007); Stratham Sch. Dist. v. Beth P., No. 02-135, 2003 WL 260728 (D.N.H. Feb. 5, 2003). The 2004 amendments to the IDEA clearly resolved that school districts are not required to provide or replace cochlear implant devices as either a related service or an assistive technology device. See 20 U.S.C. § 1401(1)(B), (26)(B). Furthermore, commenters to the Department's request for recommendations appeared to surmise correctly that school districts were no longer required to offer mapping as an assistive technology service, given the amended statutory definition of assistive technology device. See, e.g., Letter from Linda McCulloch, Mont. Superintendent, to Troy R. Justesen (Feb. 24, 2005) (McCulloch Letter), J.A. 25. But commenters expressed uncertainty as to whether school districts could be required to offer mapping as a related service. See, e.g., Letter from Cecil J. Picard, La. Superintendent of Educ., to John H. Hager, Assistant Sec'y (Feb. 25, 2005), J.A. 22-23; Letter from Alice D. Parker, Cali. Dep't of Educ., to Troy Justesen (Feb. 9, 2005), J.A. 19-20. In response to these concerns, the Department ultimately amended the regulatory definition of related services to exclude a medical device that is surgically implanted, the optimization of that device's functioning (e.g., mapping), maintenance of that device, [and] the replacement of that device. Department of Education, Assistance to States for the Education of Children with Disabilities, Final Regulations (Final Regulations), 71 Fed.Reg. 46,540, 46,760 (Aug. 14, 2006) (codified at 34 C.F.R. § 300.34(b)(1) (2011)). At the urging of several commenters, however, the Department clarified that school districts are still required to provide some services to students with cochlear implants. The Department explained that nothing in its new regulation (i) Limits the right of a child with a surgically implanted device (e.g., cochlear implant) to receive [general] related services . . . that are determined by the IEP Team to be necessary for the child to receive [a free appropriate public education]. (ii) Limits the responsibility of a public agency to appropriately monitor and maintain medical devices that are needed to maintain the health and safety of the child, including breathing, nutrition, or operation of other bodily functions, while the child is transported to and from school or is at school; or (iii) Prevents the routine checking of an external component of a surgically implanted device to make sure it is functioning properly, as required in § 300.113(b). Id. (codified at 34 C.F.R. § 300.34(b)(2) (2011)). The Department also adopted a new regulatory provision clarifying school districts' obligations with respect to the [r]outine checking of . . . external components of surgically implanted medical devices. Id. at 46,764 (codified at 34 C.F.R. § 300.113 (2011)). Section 300.113(b) of this provision states that (1) Subject to paragraph (b)(2) of this section, each public agency must ensure that the external components of surgically implanted medical devices are functioning properly. (2) For a child with a surgically implanted medical device who is receiving special education and related services under this part, a public agency is not responsible for the post-surgical maintenance, programming, or replacement of the medical device that has been surgically implanted (or of an external component of the surgically implanted medical device). Id.