Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-05173/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-05173-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 899
Nature of Suit: Other Statutes - Administrative Procedure Act/Review or Appeal of Agency Decision
Cause of Action: 05:702 Administrative Procedure Act

---

ORDER – No. 18-cv-05173-LB

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

San Francisco Division

NATIONAL EDUCATION 

ASSOCIATION, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

BETSY DEVOS, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 18-cv-05173-LB

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’

MOTION FOR SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT AND DENYING 

DEFENDANTS’ CROSS-MOTION FOR 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Re: ECF No. 20, 41

INTRODUCTION

This case concerns regulations promulgated under Title IV of the Higher Education Act of 

1965 (“HEA”), as amended, which authorizes the Secretary of Education and the Department of 

Education (collectively, “Department”) to establish loan and grant programs to help students pay 

for post-secondary education.

In December 2016, the Department promulgated regulations (“Distance-Education Rules”) 

intended to combat fraudulent practices relating to distance education and correspondence courses 

and to provide students and the public with disclosures about educational institutions that offered 

such programs (e.g., “online universities”). The rules originally were to go into effect in July 

2018. But in July 2018, following a change in presidential administrations, the Department 

promulgated a regulation delaying the effective date of the Distance-Education Rules until July 

Case 3:18-cv-05173-LB Document 50 Filed 04/26/19 Page 1 of 40
ORDER – No. 18-cv-05173-LB 2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

2020 (“Delay Rule”) and raised the prospect that it would revise and reconsider the DistanceEducation Rules entirely.

In the HEA, Congress imposed a statutory requirement on the promulgation of all Title IV 

regulations. They must be subject to “negotiated rulemaking” — a process where the Department 

selects a committee of experienced individuals nominated by groups involved in student-financialassistance programs to negotiate proposed rules — unless the Department “determines that 

applying such a requirement with respect to given regulations is impracticable, unnecessary, or 

contrary to the public interest (within the meaning of section 553(b)(3)(B) of Title 5 [of the 

Administrative Procedure Act])[.]” 20 U.S.C. § 1098a(b)(2). It is undisputed that the Department 

did not subject the Delay Rule to negotiated rulemaking.

The National Education Association (“NEA”), the California Teachers Association (“CTA”), 

and individual plaintiffs Shane Heiman, Kwynn Uyehara, and Stephanie Portilla — NEA and 

CTA members who are enrolled or considering enrolling in online-education programs — filed 

this case to challenge the Delay Rule. The plaintiffs argue that the Department’s failure to submit 

the Delay Rule to negotiated rulemaking violated the HEA and the Administrative Procedure Act 

(“APA”). They argue that the Delay Rule thus should be vacated and the Distance-Education 

Rules be allowed to go into effect as originally planned. The Department responds that it had 

“good cause” under Section 553(b)(3)(B) of the APA to forgo negotiated rulemaking because it 

would have been impracticable to submit a proposed delay rule to negotiated rulemaking, to 

complete that process, and to promulgate a final delay rule, before the effective date of the 

Distance-Education Rules. The Department also argues that any failure to engage in negotiated 

rulemaking was harmless error that does not warrant vacating the Delay Rule. The parties filed 

cross-motions for summary judgment.1

 

1 Earlier in this case, the Department moved to dismiss on the ground that the plaintiffs lacked Article 

III standing to bring their claims. The court held that the plaintiffs have standing. Nat’l Educ. Ass’n v. 

DeVos, 345 F. Supp. 3d 1127 (N.D. Cal. 2018) (Order – ECF No. 31). Record citations refer to 

material in the Electronic Case File (“ECF”); pinpoint citations are to the ECF-generated page 

numbers at the top of documents.

Case 3:18-cv-05173-LB Document 50 Filed 04/26/19 Page 2 of 40
ORDER – No. 18-cv-05173-LB 3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

The supposed insufficient time to promulgate a rule delaying the effective date of the 

Distance-Education Rules is not good cause to forgo the HEA’s statutorily mandated negotiatedrulemaking process. Additionally, the supposed lack of time resulted from the Department’s own 

delay, and an agency’s own delay is not good cause. Furthermore, the Department’s failure to 

engage in negotiated rulemaking here was not harmless error. The court grants the plaintiffs’ 

motion for summary judgment, denies the defendants’ motion for cross-summary judgment, and 

orders the Delay Rule vacated (but stays the vacatur for 30 days from the date of this order).

STATEMENT

1. Title IV of the Higher Education Act

Title IV of the HEA “assist[s] in making available the benefits of postsecondary education to 

eligible students . . . in institutions of higher education” through federal grants and financialassistance programs. 20 U.S.C. § 1070.

“Congress created the Title IV programs to foster access to higher education.” Ass’n of Private 

Sector Colls. and Univs. v. Duncan, 681 F.3d 427, 435 (D.C. Cir. 2012). “Every year, Congress 

provides billions of dollars through loan and grant programs to help students pay tuition for their 

postsecondary education.” Id. at 433. “The Department of Education (‘the Department’ or ‘the 

agency’) administers these programs, which were established under Title IV[.]” Id. “Students must 

repay their federal loans; the costs of unpaid loans are borne by taxpayers.” Id.

1.1 Authorization of Educational Institutions

“To participate in Title IV programs — i.e., to be able to accept federal funds — a 

postsecondary institution (‘a school’ or ‘an institution’) must satisfy several statutory 

requirements.” Ass’n of Private Sector Colls., 681 F.3d at 433–34. “These requirements are 

intended to ensure that participating schools actually prepare their students for employment, such 

that those students can repay their loans.” Id. at 434. Among other things, “a school must qualify 

as an ‘institution of higher education,’ 20 U.S.C. § 1094(a) (2006) — meaning, inter alia, that the 

school is ‘legally authorized’ to provide education in the state in which it is located, id.

§ 1001(a)(2).” Id. “The HEA does not define ‘legally authorized.’” Id. at 435. “This lack of a 

Case 3:18-cv-05173-LB Document 50 Filed 04/26/19 Page 3 of 40
ORDER – No. 18-cv-05173-LB 4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

statutory definition has meant that, for virtually all of the HEA’s history, each state has determined 

for itself the method of authorizing schools within its borders.” Id.

“Congress has delegated to the Secretary [of Education] the authority to promulgate 

regulations governing the Department’s administration of Title IV and other federal programs.” Id.

at 436. “The grant of authority provides that ‘[t]he Secretary, in order to carry out functions 

otherwise vested in the Secretary by law or by delegation of authority pursuant to law, . . . is 

authorized to make, promulgate, issue, rescind, and amend rules and regulations governing the 

manner of operation of, and governing the applicable programs administered by, the 

Department.’” Id. (citing 20 U.S.C. §§ 1098a(a)(1), 1221e-3). This authority to promulgate 

regulations extends to regulations defining what is “legally authorized” for purposes of the HEA. 

Id. at 458–59 (“This is a federal program, federal dollars are at stake, and the most sensible 

reading of the statute is that the Secretary has discretion to determine what is ‘legal authorization’ 

in order to protect federal interests.”) (quoting Sistema Universitario Ana G. Mendez v. Riley, 234 

F.3d 772, 778 (1st Cir. 2000)).

1.2 Negotiated Rulemaking

In general, under the HEA, all regulations pertaining to Title IV are subject to “negotiated 

rulemaking.” 20 U.S.C. § 1098a(b)(2).

In negotiated rulemaking, the Department selects individuals nominated by “groups involved 

in student financial assistance programs under [Title IV], such as students, legal assistance 

organizations that represent students, institutions of higher education, State student grant agencies, 

guaranty agencies, lenders, secondary markets, loan servicers, guaranty agency servicers, and 

collection agencies” to participate in the negotiations process. 20 U.S.C. § 1098a(a)(1), (b)(1), 

(b)(2). The HEA requires the Department to “select individuals with demonstrated expertise or 

experience in the relevant subjects under negotiation, reflecting the diversity in the industry, 

representing both large and small participants, as well as individuals serving local areas and 

national markets.” 20 U.S.C. § 1098a(b)(1), (b)(2).

If the negotiated-rulemaking participants reach a consensus about proposed regulations, the 

Department must propose the consensus for promulgation, unless it reopens the negotiatedCase 3:18-cv-05173-LB Document 50 Filed 04/26/19 Page 4 of 40
ORDER – No. 18-cv-05173-LB 5

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

rulemaking process or provides a written explanation why it is not proposing the consensus. 20

U.S.C. § 1098a(b)(2) (“All published proposed regulations shall conform to agreements resulting 

from such negotiated rulemaking unless the Secretary reopens the negotiated rulemaking process 

or provides a written explanation to the participants in that process why the Secretary has decided 

to depart from such agreements.”).

The Department may bypass the negotiated-rulemaking process only if it “determines that 

applying such a requirement with respect to given regulations is impracticable, unnecessary, or 

contrary to the public interest (within the meaning of section 553(b)(3)(B) of Title 5), and 

publishes the basis for such determination in the Federal Register at the same time as the proposed 

regulations in question are first published.” Id.

2. 2012–2016 and the Distance-Education Rules

The Distance-Education Rules were the product of a multi-year rulemaking process.

2.1 Negotiated Rulemaking

On May 1, 2012, the Department published a notice in the Federal Register of its intent to 

convene a negotiated-rulemaking committee “to develop proposed regulations designed to prevent 

fraud and otherwise ensure proper use of Title IV, HEA program funds, especially within the 

context of current technologies.” Negotiated Rulemaking Committee; Public Hearings, 77 Fed. 

Reg. 25,658, 25,658 (May 1, 2012).

On April 16, 2013, the Department announced that it was “considering regulatory changes 

related to State authorization for programs offered through distance education or correspondence 

education” and was adding “State authorization for programs offered through distance education 

or correspondence education” as a topic for consideration for action by the next negotiatedrulemaking committee. Negotiated Rulemaking Committee; Public Hearings, 78 Fed. Reg. 22,467, 

22,468 (Apr. 16, 2013). The Department “also announce[d] three public hearings at which 

interested parties may comment on the new topics suggested by the Department and may suggest 

additional topics for consideration for action by the negotiated rulemaking committee.” Id. at 

Case 3:18-cv-05173-LB Document 50 Filed 04/26/19 Page 5 of 40
ORDER – No. 18-cv-05173-LB 6

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

22,467. The Department further stated that “[f]or anyone unable to attend a public hearing, the 

Department will accept written comments.” Id.

On May 13, 2013, the Department announced a fourth public hearing and extended its deadline 

for the submission of written comments. Negotiated Rulemaking Committee; Public Hearings, 78 

Fed. Reg. 27,880, 27,880 (May 13, 2013).

On November 20, 2013, the Department announced that it would convene a negotiatedrulemaking committee to address a number of topics, including “State authorization for programs 

offered through distance education or correspondence education.” Negotiated Rulemaking 

Committee, Negotiator Nominations and Schedule of Committee Meetings — Title IV Federal 

Student Aid Programs, Program Integrity and Improvement, 78 Fed. Reg. 69,612, 69,613 (Nov. 

20, 2013). The Department requested nominations for individual negotiators representing key 

stakeholder constituencies, namely:

• Students.

• Legal-assistance organizations that represent students.

• Consumer-advocacy organizations.

• State higher-education executive officers.

• State attorneys general and other appropriate State officials.

• Business and industry.

• Institutions of higher education eligible to receive Federal assistance under title 

III, Parts A, B, and F, and title V of the HEA, which include Historically Black 

Colleges and Universities, Hispanic-Serving Institutions, American Indian 

Tribally Controlled Colleges and Universities, Alaska Native and Native 

Hawaiian-Serving Institutions, Predominantly Black Institutions, and other 

institutions with a substantial enrollment of needy students as defined in title III 

of the HEA.

• Two-year public institutions of higher education.

• Four-year public institutions of higher education.

• Private, non-profit institutions of higher education.

• Private, for-profit institutions of higher education.

• Regional accrediting agencies.

• National accrediting agencies.

Case 3:18-cv-05173-LB Document 50 Filed 04/26/19 Page 6 of 40
ORDER – No. 18-cv-05173-LB 7

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

• Specialized accrediting agencies.

• Financial-aid administrators at postsecondary institutions.

• Business officers and bursars at postsecondary institutions.

• Admissions officers at postsecondary institutions.

• Institutional third-party servicers who perform functions related to the title IV 

Federal Student Aid programs (including collection agencies).

• State approval agencies.

• Lenders, community banks, and credit unions.

Id. at 69,612, 69,614.

The Department selected a negotiated-rulemaking committee of 18 representatives (two 

Department representatives and 16 stakeholder-constituency representatives) and 15 alternate 

representatives. See Program Integrity and Improvement, 81 Fed. Reg. 48,598, 48,600–01 (July 

25, 2016) (Distance-Education-Rules NPRM). The committee met in 2014 on February 19 to 21, 

March 26 to 28, April 23 to 25, and May 19 to 20 to develop proposed regulations. Id. at 48,601. 

The committee agreed to negotiate an agenda of six issues related to student financial aid, 

including “State authorization of distance education.” Id.

Under the committee’s protocols, the committee had to reach a consensus on all six issues, 

with no committee member expressing dissent, in order to reach a final consensus. Id. If the 

committee had reached a consensus, then the Department would have used the consensus-based 

language in its proposed regulations and would not have been able to alter the consensus-based 

language unless it reopened the negotiated-rulemaking process or provided a written explanation 

to the committee members regarding why it decided to depart from that language. Id.; see 20

U.S.C. § 1098a(b)(2). The committee did not reach a final consensus. Distance-Education-Rules 

NPRM, 81 Fed. Reg. at 48,601. Because the committee did not reach a consensus, the Department 

had discretion regarding the regulations it proposed on the issues that were subject to the 

committee’s negotiations. Id.

Case 3:18-cv-05173-LB Document 50 Filed 04/26/19 Page 7 of 40
ORDER – No. 18-cv-05173-LB 8

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

2.2 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

On July 25, 2016, the Department published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“NPRM”), 

proposing what would become the Distance-Education Rules. Distance-Education-Rules NPRM, 

81 Fed. Reg. 48,598. 

The Department reported that “[t]he Office of the Inspector General (OIG), the Government 

Accountability Office (GAO), and others have voiced concerns over fraudulent practices, issues of 

noncompliance with requirements of the title IV programs, and other challenges within the 

distance education environment.” Id. at 48,598. “Such practices and challenges include misuse of 

title IV funds, verification of student identity, and gaps in consumer protections for students.” Id.

“Documented wrong-doing has been reflected in the actions of multiple State attorneys general 

who have filed lawsuits against online education providers due to misleading business tactics.” Id.

at 48,599. “For example, the attorney general of Iowa settled a case against a distance education 

provider for misleading Iowa students because the provider stated that their educational programs 

would qualify a student to earn teacher licensure, which the programs did not lead to.” Id.

The Department observed that that “[t]he HEA established what is commonly known as the 

program integrity ‘triad’ under which States, accrediting agencies, and the Department act jointly 

as gatekeepers for [Title IV] Federal student aid programs[.]” Id. at 48,598. “Because institutions 

that offer distance education programs usually offer the programs in multiple States, there are 

unique challenges with respect to oversight of these programs by States and other agencies.” Id.

“Many States and stakeholders have expressed concerns with these unique challenges, especially 

those related to ensuring adequate consumer protections for students as well as compliance by 

institutions participating in this sector.” Id. “For example, some States have expressed concerns 

over their ability to identify which out of State providers are operating in their States; whether 

those programs prepare their students for employment, including meeting licensure or certification 

requirements in those States, the academic quality of programs offered by those providers, as well 

as the ability to receive, investigate and address student complaints about out-of-State 

institutions.” Id.

Case 3:18-cv-05173-LB Document 50 Filed 04/26/19 Page 8 of 40
ORDER – No. 18-cv-05173-LB 9

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

The Department announced its proposed rules to “establish[] requirements for institutional 

disclosures to prospective and enrolled students in programs offered through distance education or 

correspondence courses, which we believe will protect students by providing them with important

information that will influence their attendance in distance education programs or correspondence 

courses as well as improve the efficacy of State-based consumer protections for students.” Id. at 

48,599. “These disclosures will provide consistent information necessary to safeguard students 

and taxpayer investments in the title IV, HEA programs.” Id. “[R]equiring disclosures that reflect 

actions taken against a distance education program, how to lodge complaints against a program 

they believe has misled them, and whether the program will lead to certification or licensure[,]

will provide enrolled and prospective students with important information that will protect them.” 

Id. The Department extended the public 30 days (i.e., until August 24, 2016) to submit written 

comments on its proposed rules. Id. at 48,598.

The Department received 139 written comments and also had a consultative meeting with staff 

from the Department of Defense. Program Integrity and Improvement, 81 Fed. Reg. 92,232, 

92,333 (Dec. 19, 2016) (Distance-Education-Rules Announcement).

2.3 Final Rule

On December 19, 2016, the Department promulgated the final Distance-Education Rules.

Distance-Education-Rules Announcement, 81 Fed. Reg. 92,232 (amending 34 C.F.R. §§ 600.2, 

600.9(c)–(d), and 668.2, and promulgating 34 C.F.R. § 668.50). The Distance-Education Rules 

required that (among other things) educational institutions that offered distance-education or 

correspondence-course programs meet certain requirements and issue certain disclosures, both 

publicly and individually to their enrolled and prospective students.

Among other things, the Distance-Education Rules required that educational institutions that 

offer distance-education or correspondence-course programs “document that there is a State 

process for review and appropriate action on student complaints from any of those enrolled 

students concerning the institution” in each state in which its enrolled students reside (either 

directly or through a state-authorization-reciprocity agreement). Id. at 92,262 (34 C.F.R. 

Case 3:18-cv-05173-LB Document 50 Filed 04/26/19 Page 9 of 40
ORDER – No. 18-cv-05173-LB 10

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

§ 600.9(c)(2)). In addition, the Distance-Education Rules required that such educational 

institutions disclose the following:

• whether the institution is authorized by each state where its enrolled distance-education 

or correspondence-course students reside to provide that distance-education or 

correspondence-course program, id. at 92,263 (34 C.F.R. § 668.50(b)(1));

• the process for submitting consumer complaints in the state where the institution’s

main campus is located and in each state where its enrolled distance-education or 

correspondence-course students reside, id. (34 C.F.R. § 668.50(b)(2), (3));

• any adverse actions that a state entity or an accrediting agency might have initiated 

against the institution (e.g., a state attorney general’s suing the institution for 

defrauding students or an accrediting agency’s revoking the institution’s accreditation), 

id. (34 C.F.R. § 668.50(b)(4), (5), (c)(ii)(A)); and

• for programs that prepare students for certain occupations, what the educational 

prerequisites are in each state where the institution’s enrolled distance-education or 

correspondence-course students reside for licensure or certification for those 

occupations (e.g., for a program that prepares students to become teachers, what the 

education prerequisites are for teaching certificates), and whether the program satisfies 

those requirements, id. (34 C.F.R. § 668.50(b)(7), (c)(i), (c)(ii)(B)).

In announcing the Distance-Education Rules, the Department addressed comments that it 

received on its initial NPRM. Id. at 92,233–52.

Several commenters noted that some states, such as California, did not have processes for 

reviewing complaints brought by students within the state against educational institutions located 

outside the state, and that the Rules thus appeared to prohibit the use of Title IV funding to pay for 

students in those states to enroll in distance-education or correspondence-course programs from 

institutions outside those states. Id. at 92,238. The Department confirmed that the Rules prohibited 

that use of Title IV funding unless those states provided a complaint process, either directly or 

through a state-authorization-reciprocity agreement. Id. Several commenters also asked for 

clarification about the definition of the term “reside” as used in the Rules. Id. at 92,249. The 

Case 3:18-cv-05173-LB Document 50 Filed 04/26/19 Page 10 of 40
ORDER – No. 18-cv-05173-LB 11

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Department stated that where a student “resides” under the Rules was defined by “a student’s true, 

fixed, and permanent home of a student, usually where their domicile is located” and that “a 

student is considered to reside in a State if the student meets the requirements for residency under 

State law[.]” Id. at 92,250.

The Distance-Education Rules were to go into effect on July 1, 2018. Id. at 92,232.

3. 2017

On January 20, 2017, Donald Trump was inaugurated as president of the United States.

On January 24, 2017, President Trump’s chief of staff issued a memorandum instructing 

federal agencies, including the Department, that “[w]ith respect to regulations that have been 

published in the [Office of the Federal Register] but have not taken effect, as permitted by 

applicable law, temporarily postpone their effective date for 60 days from the date of this 

memorandum, subject to [certain] exceptions . . ., for the purpose of reviewing questions of fact, 

law, and policy they raise.” Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies: 

Regulatory Freeze Pending Review, 82 Fed. Reg. 8346, 8346 (Jan. 24, 2017). The memorandum 

further stated, “[w]here appropriate and as permitted by applicable law, you should consider 

proposing for notice and comment a rule to delay the effective date for regulations beyond that 60-

day period. In cases where the effective date has been delayed in order to review questions of fact, 

law, or policy, you should consider potentially proposing further notice-and-comment 

rulemaking.” Id.

On January 30, 2017, the Department announced that it was delaying the effective date of 

regulations promulgated under the Every Student Succeeds Act. Elementary and Secondary 

Education Act of 1965, as Amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act — Accountability and State 

Plans; Open Licensing Requirement for Competitive Grant Programs; Family Educational Rights

and Privacy Act, 82 Fed. Reg. 8669 (Jan. 30, 2017). In that announcement, the Department stated 

that “[t]his is the first of several regulatory actions the Department intends to take regarding 

regulations that have been published in the Federal Register but had not taken effect as of January 

20, 2017, including the Department’s regulations for . . . State Authorization (RIN 1840–AD20) 

Case 3:18-cv-05173-LB Document 50 Filed 04/26/19 Page 11 of 40
ORDER – No. 18-cv-05173-LB 12

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

issued under title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended” (i.e., the DistanceEducation Rules). Id. at 8669.

On June 16, 2017, the Department announced its intention to convene two negotiatedrulemaking committees, one to revise certain “gainful employment” regulations that the 

Department had promulgated in 2014 and one to revise regulations on student-borrower defenses 

to repayment of federal loans that the Department promulgated in 2016. Negotiated Rulemaking 

Committee; Public Hearings, 82 Fed. Reg. 27,640, 27,640 (June 16, 2017).

On June 22, 2017, the Department announced that it was “seeking input on regulations that 

may be appropriate for repeal, replacement, or modification.” Evaluation of Existing Regulations, 

82 Fed. Reg. 28,431, 28,431 (June 22, 2017). The Department extended the public sixty days (i.e., 

until August 21, 2017) to submit comments. Id.

On August 1, 2017, the Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education (“WICHE”) 

Cooperative for Educational Technologies (“WCET”) and the WCET State Authorization 

Network (“SAN”) submitted an eight-page written response to the Department’s June 22, 2017 

request for input on regulations that may be appropriate for repeal, replacement, or modification. 

Letter from Russ Poulin, Director, Policy and Analysis, WICHE Cooperative for Educ. Techs., 

and Cheryl Dowd, Director, WCET State Authorization Network, to Hilary Malawer, Assistant 

Gen. Counsel, Office of the Gen. Counsel, U.S. Dep’t of Educ. (Aug. 1, 2017), available at

https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=ED-2017-OS-0074-0073 (last visited Apr. 26, 2019)

(2017 WCET Letter).2 The Letter stated that “WCET represents more than 370 institutions, 

systems, and higher education organizations in their creation of tools and implementation of 

technology for distance education” and that “SAN represents more than 650 institutions interested 

in navigating the State and Federal regulatory nuances of compliance management for their 

institutions,” and that representatives from WCET had served on the Department’s 2014 

negotiated-rulemaking committee. Id. at 1.

 

2 The plaintiffs also attached the 2017 WCET Letter as Exhibit C to their complaint and Exhibit K to 

their summary-judgment motion. Compl. Ex. C – ECF No. 1-3; Pls. Mot. Ex. K – ECF No. 21-12. The 

Department did not include it as part of its administrative record. See Admin. Record – ECF No. 37.

Case 3:18-cv-05173-LB Document 50 Filed 04/26/19 Page 12 of 40
ORDER – No. 18-cv-05173-LB 13

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

In the Letter, WCET and SAN stated that they “support[ed] the intent of these regulations to 

tie title IV funding to the requirement that institutions verify that they are following applicable 

laws in the states where the institutions are serving students” and “support[ed] the intent of the 

regulations to require important general disclosures as well as individualized disclosures to the 

students.” Id. at 1–2. WCET and SAN stated that:

We encourage the Department to strongly consider maintaining State authorization 

of distance education regulations. Requiring State compliance to participate in title 

IV funding will not require additional labor by the institutions, as they are legally 

mandated to follow the rules and laws of each state in which they enroll students. 

Additionally, our organizations believe that licensure-related notifications and 

disclosures support students’ abilities to achieve their academic and career goals. 

Institutions should be required to dutifully notify enrolled and prospective students 

participating in educational programs completed solely through distance education 

or correspondence of all factors relevant to their pursuit of their academic and 

career goals. These Federal regulations will increase the level of consumer 

protection to ensure students are not exposed to unscrupulous actions that could 

impair the student’s investment in higher education.

• Proof of State Authorization provides transparency.

In addition to the states’ legal requirements for authorization, the ability to tie title 

IV funds to authorization provides transparency to students about the use of their 

funding and the ability to participate and complete the academic program that they 

choose. Students benefit from the clarity due to a federal directive for the 

institution to supply proof of the completion of state mandated compliance 

requirements in the states where students are enrolled or receiving services. The 

federal rule need be little more than the assurance that the Department will seek 

proof that the institution is following state laws. States have the obligation to 

oversee higher education within their borders. Put the emphasis on state oversight.

• Notifications and Disclosures lessens ambiguity for students.

Institutions are far more able than students to access information from state 

licensure boards about acceptable pre-requisites for programs leading to 

professional licensure and certification. Students encounter unfamiliar language 

and have difficulty understanding whether and/or how they may pursue their 

desired academic program in their state if the institution does not provide 

reasonable notice. Institutional notifications and disclosure eliminates or at least 

minimizes the ambiguity.

Id. at 6–7 (bolding in headings added).

Case 3:18-cv-05173-LB Document 50 Filed 04/26/19 Page 13 of 40
ORDER – No. 18-cv-05173-LB 14

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

WCET and SAN raised several issues, stating that they “wish[ed] to obtain clarification of 

terms important for the implementation of the regulations.” Id. at 2. In addition to other issues, 

WCET and SAN raised the following.

First, WCET and SAN asked whether the Department planned to enforce the DistanceEducation Rules on July 1, 2018. Id. at 3. They noted that the Department had recently delayed 

enforcement and/or compliance with gainful-employment and borrower-defenses regulations (the 

regulations for which the Department had announced in June 2017 that it was convening 

negotiated-rulemaking committees). Id. They stated “[i]nstitutions spend considerable time in 

compliance activities and wish to be clear regarding what is expected of them. Our member 

institutions would enjoy receiving early notification about whether the Department will enforce, 

further interpret/clarify, delay, or redevelop [the Distance-Education Rules] well in advance of the 

July 1, 2018 deadline.” Id.

Second, WCET and SAN raised a question about the Distance-Education Rules’ requirement 

that educational institutions make disclosures based on where enrolled students “reside.” Id. at 3–

4. They noted that the term “reside” is confusing, particularly in the context of a student who is 

located in and taking classes from a state other than the state of the student’s “official residency,”

and asked the Department to provide guidance or to set out its requirements based on where 

students are “located,” as opposed to where they “reside.” Id. at 4.

Third, WCET and SAN raised a question about the Distance-Education Rules’ requirement 

that educational institutions document that there is a state process for review and appropriate 

action on student complaints in each state where their students reside. Id. at 5. They noted that 

California in particular does not have a process for receiving complaints from students located in 

California about educational institutions not in California (and that California had not entered into 

a state-authorization-reciprocity agreement). Id. They asked whether the Department could work 

with California on a compromise. Id.

Case 3:18-cv-05173-LB Document 50 Filed 04/26/19 Page 14 of 40
ORDER – No. 18-cv-05173-LB 15

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

WCET and SAN “request[ed] that the Department indicate a timeline to expect to receive a 

response to comments,” stating that “compliance requirements for the federal state authorization 

regulations will require time to implement a process to achieve compliance by July 1, 2018” and 

that “[the Department’s] response and direction will be very important.” Id. at 7.

On August 25, 2017, the Department announced two public hearings where interested parties 

could provide input “on Department regulations related to postsecondary education that may be 

appropriate for repeal, replacement, or modification.” Regulatory Reform; Public Hearings, 82 

Fed. Reg. 40,518, 40,518 (Aug. 25, 2017). On October 1, 2017, WCET and SAN appeared at a 

public hearing and reiterated their support for the Distance-Education Rules and re-raised the 

questions they had raised in their 2017 Letter, including their questions about whether the 

Department would enforce the Rules beginning July 1, 2018 and about how the Department was 

defining the word “reside” as used in the Rules. U.S. Dep’t of Educ., Transcript of Public Hearing 

on Regulatory Reform 166–72 (Oct. 4, 2017), available at https://www2.ed.gov/policy/highered/

reg/reform/2017/washingtondchearingtranscript.pdf (last visited Apr. 26, 2019).3

The Department did not take any steps in 2017 to propose a rule delaying the effective date of 

the Distance-Education Rules.

4. 2018 and the Delay Rule

4.1 The 2018 ACE and WCET Letters

On February 6, 2018, the American Council on Education (“ACE”) sent the Department a onepage letter. Letter from Terry W. Hartle, Senior Vice President, Am. Council on Educ., to Betsy 

DeVos, Sec’y of Educ., U.S. Dep’t of Educ. (Feb. 6, 2018), available at https://www.acenet.edu/

 

3 The plaintiffs also attached excerpts of the hearing transcript as Exhibit D to their complaint and 

Exhibit L to their summary-judgment motion. Compl. Ex. D – ECF No. 1-4; Pls. Mot. Ex. L – ECF 

No. 21-13. The Department did not include it as part of its administrative record. See Admin. Record –

ECF No. 37.

Case 3:18-cv-05173-LB Document 50 Filed 04/26/19 Page 15 of 40
ORDER – No. 18-cv-05173-LB 16

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

news-room/Documents/ACE-Letter-on-State-Authorization-Concern.pdf (last visited Apr. 26, 

2019) (2018 ACE Letter).4 The full text of the Letter reads:

As you may be aware, the state authorization regulations finalized by the 

Department of Education on December 19, 2016 are set to go into effect starting 

July 1, 2018. As that deadline approaches, a number of institutions have raised 

concerns about possible unintended consequence with the possibility of significant 

harm to students.

In brief, the regulations appear to make students who are residents of certain states 

ineligible for federal financial aid if they are studying online at institutions located 

outside their states.

This is related to the requirement imposed by the state authorization regulations 

that mandates institutions disclose to students the appropriate state complaint 

process for their state of residence.

A number of states, including California, do not currently have complaint processes 

for all out-of-state institutions. This would appear to effectively bar some of their 

residents from receiving federal financial aid if they choose to study online at 

institutions located outside their states.

As colleges and universities are currently in the process of finalizing enrollments 

and aid packages for the fall semester (after the effective date of the regulations), 

we write you in hope that you can clarify the Department’s position on the 

eligibility of students so situated.

Thank you for considering this request.

Id.

On February 7, 2018, WCET, the National Council for State Authorization Reciprocity, and 

the Distance Education Accrediting Commission sent the Department a one-page letter. Letter 

from Russell Poulin, Director, Policy and Analysis, WICHE Cooperative for Educ. Techs., et al. to 

Frank Brogan, Acting Assistant Sec’y of Postsecondary Educ., U.S. Dep’t of Educ. (Feb. 7, 2018), 

available at https://wcet.wiche.edu/sites/default/files/WCET-SARA-DEAC-Letter-2-7-18_0.pdf

(last visited Apr. 26, 2019) (2018 WCET Letter).

5 The full text of the Letter reads:

 

4 The plaintiffs also attached the 2018 ACE Letter as Exhibit E to their complaint, and the Department 

attached it as Document 4 in its administrative record. Compl. Ex. E – ECF No. 1-5; Admin. Record 

Doc. 4 – ECF No. 37 at 152 (AR 0146).

5 The plaintiffs also attached the 2018 WCET Letter as Exhibit F to their complaint, and the 

Department attached it as Document 5 in its administrative record. Compl. Ex. F – ECF No. 1-6; 

Admin. Record Doc. 5 – ECF No. 37 at 153 (AR 0147).

Case 3:18-cv-05173-LB Document 50 Filed 04/26/19 Page 16 of 40
ORDER – No. 18-cv-05173-LB 17

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Thank you for the opportunity to meet with you and your team at the U.S. 

Department of Education. I appreciate your interest and willingness to listen to a 

discussion about critical issues on accreditation and distance education. To follow 

up on our discussion on state authorization, my colleagues and I respectfully would 

like to bring to your attention concerns in the higher education distance education 

community regarding the USDE’s rules on state authorization of distance education 

set to go into effect July 1, 2018 (34 CFR – Sections 600 and 668). Those of us 

who represent major postsecondary distance education organizations receive many 

questions about implementing the rules. The institutions we represent clearly desire 

to comply with the rules, but are struggling with how to prepare to do so.

Compliance with the new rules will be a costly and burdensome effort for most 

colleges and universities that offer distance education. These institutions need a 

clear understanding of USDE’s expectations. Specifically, the rules require 

institutions to provide (for each state where students are enrolled in distance 

education programs) public and individualized disclosures of state authorization 

status for every state, complaint resolution processes for every state, and details on 

state licensure eligibility for every discipline that requires a license to enter a 

profession (e.g., teaching, counseling, dietician, nursing). The rules also require 

institutions to comply with refund policy requirements for each state where 

students are enrolled, regardless of membership in the State Authorization 

Reciprocity Agreements. Clarification is needed on the USDE’s desired format for 

the disclosures. Another area of concern is that issue is that the regulation defines 

“residence” in a way that conflicts with state laws and common practice.

The U. S. House of Representatives’ draft of the PROSPER Act would remove 

those rules and forbid issuing future regulations on the topic. But even if the 

removal of state authorization is included in future HEA reauthorization legislation, 

reauthorization is highly unlikely to occur before July 1, 2018, when the rules go 

into effect. The U.S. Department of Education could (1) delay the rules and submit 

the issues to additional negotiated rulemaking or (2) issue clarification via a dear 

colleague letter on USDE’s expectations for compliance. A third option would 

require Congress to take action to delay or suspend implementation. Otherwise, the 

rules will go into effect, as written, with the potential for broad misunderstandings.

Institutions that know the most about these issues are the most concerned. WCET’s 

State Authorization Network includes 700 institutions. (WCET is an acronym for 

the WICHE Cooperative for Educational Technologies.) Institutional participation

in the State Authorization Reciprocity Agreement (SARA) now includes about 

1,750 institutions from the current 48 SARA member states (plus the District of 

Columbia and the U.S. Virgin Islands). DEAC (the Distance Education Accrediting 

Commission) accredited institutions are a part of the WCET and SARA 

communities. Our institutions want to comply with the regulatory environment, but 

many questions remain.

Case 3:18-cv-05173-LB Document 50 Filed 04/26/19 Page 17 of 40
ORDER – No. 18-cv-05173-LB 18

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Thank you for your consideration. If there is any way we can provide assistance or 

further details, we would be pleased to do so.

Id.

4.2 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

On May 25, 2018, the Department published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, proposing a 

rule to delay the effective date of the Distance-Education Rules from July 1, 2018 to July 1, 2020. 

Program Integrity and Improvement, 83 Fed. Reg. 24,250 (May 25, 2018) (Delay-Rule NPRM). 

The Department stated that it “propose[d] the delay based on concerns recently raised by regulated 

parties and to ensure that there is adequate time to conduct negotiated rulemaking to reconsider the 

final regulations, and as necessary, develop revised regulations.” Id. at 24,250.

The Department stated that “[t]wo letters in particular prompted this proposed delay”: the 2018 

ACE Letter and the 2018 WCET Letter. Id. at 24,251. The Department stated that the 2018 ACE 

Letter

expressed concerns that, “students who are residents of certain states may be 

ineligible for federal financial aid if they are studying online at institutions located 

outside their states. This is related to the requirement imposed by the state 

authorization regulations that mandates institutions disclose to students the 

appropriate state complaint process for their state of residence. A number of states, 

including California, do not currently have complaint processes for all out-of-state

institutions.”

Id. (quoting 2018 ACE Letter). The Department stated that the 2018 WCET Letter

stated that there is widespread concern and confusion in the higher education 

community regarding the implementation of the final regulations, particularly with 

respect to State authorization of distance education and related disclosures. The 

authors of the February 7 letter argued that the new regulations will be costly and 

burdensome for most colleges and universities that offer distance education and 

that some States have not implemented the necessary policies and procedures to 

conform to the student complaint procedures required by the regulations. The 

authors also expressed that institutions need additional information from the 

Department to better understand how to comply with the new regulations. They 

stated, for instance, that the way the term “residence” is described in the preamble 

of the 2016 rule may conflict with State laws and common practice among students 

for establishing residency.

Id. (citing 2018 WCET Letter).

Case 3:18-cv-05173-LB Document 50 Filed 04/26/19 Page 18 of 40
ORDER – No. 18-cv-05173-LB 19

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

The Department stated that “[t]hese issues are more complex than we understood when we 

considered them in 2016.” Id. “The Department does not believe guidance would be sufficient to 

address the complexities institutions have encountered, even prior to the rule’s effective date.” Id.

“For both of the residency and disclosure issues, guidance is not the appropriate vehicle to provide 

the clarifications needed.” Id. “Guidance is inherently non-binding and, therefore, could not be 

used to establish any new requirements.” Id. “More importantly, due to the complexity of these 

issues, we are not confident that we could develop a workable solution through guidance and 

without the input of negotiators who have been engaged in meeting these requirements.” Id.

“Additionally, the necessary changes may impose a greater burden on some regulated parties, or 

could significantly minimize burden to institutions, which would require an updated estimate of 

regulatory impact.” Id. “In sum, the Department believes that the clarifications requested are so

substantive that they would require further rulemaking including negotiated rulemaking under the 

Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (HEA).” Id.

The Department stated that “[i]t would be confusing and counterproductive for the [DistanceEducation Rules] to go into effect before the conclusion of this reconsideration process.” Id. at 

24,252. It thus “propose[d] delaying the current effective date — July 1, 2018 — until July 1, 

2020.” Id.

The Department did not submit its proposed delay rule to negotiated rulemaking. Instead, it 

stated that “has not had sufficient time to effectuate this delay through negotiated rulemaking.” Id.

“Negotiated rulemaking requires a number of steps that typically takes the Department well over 

12 months to complete.” Id. “In this instance, the catalysts for the delay are the February 6 [2018 

ACE Letter] and February 7 [2018 WCET Letter].” Id. “The Department could not have 

completed the well-over 12-month negotiated rulemaking process, described in the previous 

paragraph, between February 6, 2018, and the July 1, 2018, effective date.” Id. “Thus, the 

Department has good cause to waive the negotiated rulemaking requirement with regard to its 

proposal to delay the effective date of the final regulations to July 1, 2020, in order to complete a 

new negotiated rulemaking proceeding to address the concerns identified by some of the regulated 

parties in the higher education community.” Id. The Department also stated that it “believes it will 

Case 3:18-cv-05173-LB Document 50 Filed 04/26/19 Page 19 of 40
ORDER – No. 18-cv-05173-LB 20

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

be in the public interest to delay the effective date of these regulations so that these issues can be 

resolved before the regulations go into effect.” Id. “The approach may also benefit from input 

from States that are in the process of changing requirements for distance education programs.” Id.

The Department extended the public until June 11, 2018 (i.e., 17 days) to submit comments on 

its proposed delay rule. Id. at 24,250.

6

It stated that “[w]e are doing so because the 2016 rule is 

scheduled to take effect on July 1, 2018, and a final rule delaying the effective date must be 

published prior to that date.” Id. “A longer comment period would not allow sufficient time for the 

Department to review and respond to comments, and publish a final rule.” Id. (Seven of the days 

in the 17-day period were either weekends or federal holidays.)

The Department received 39 comments. Program Integrity and Improvement, 83 Fed. Reg. 

31,296, 31,297 (July 3, 2018) (Delay-Rule Announcement).7

4.3 Final Rule

On July 3, 2018, the Department promulgated the final Delay Rule. Delay-Rule 

Announcement, 83 Fed. Reg. 31,296.

While the Delay-Rule Announcement purports to be dated June 28, 2018, id. at 31,303, it was 

not published in the Federal Register until July 3, 2018, id. at 31,296, two days after the original 

effective date for the Distance-Education Rules.

ANALYSIS

The HEA provides that:

All regulations pertaining to [Title IV] that are promulgated after October 7, 1998,

shall be subject to a negotiated rulemaking (including the selection of the issues to 

be negotiated), unless the Secretary determines that applying such a requirement 

with respect to given regulations is impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the

 

6 The Department stated that it was establishing a “15-day public comment period,” Delay-Rule 

NPRM, 83 Fed. Reg. at 24,250, but a 15-day period would have lapsed on a Saturday (June 9, 2018). 

The Department said it would accept comments through June 11, 2018. Id.

7 One of those comments was from plaintiff NEA. Letter from Donna M. Harris-Aikens, Director, 

Educ. Policy and Practice, Nat’l Educ. Ass’n, to Jean-Didier Gaina, Office of Postsecondary Educ., 

U.S. Dep’t of Educ. (June 11, 2018) (attached as Compl. Ex. G – ECF No. 1-7).

Case 3:18-cv-05173-LB Document 50 Filed 04/26/19 Page 20 of 40
ORDER – No. 18-cv-05173-LB 21

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

public interest (within the meaning of section 553(b)(3)(B) of Title 5), and 

publishes the basis for such determination in the Federal Register at the same time 

as the proposed regulations in question are first published.

20 U.S.C. § 1098a(b)(2).

The parties agree that this negotiated-rulemaking provision applies to the Delay Rule.8 The 

parties also agree that under this provision, the Department could forgo negotiated rulemaking 

only if it satisfied the standard set out in Section 553(b)(3)(B) of the APA for forgoing notice and 

comment, namely, that “the agency for good cause finds (and incorporates the finding and a brief 

statement of reasons therefor in the rules issued) that notice and public procedure thereon are 

impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” 5 U.S.C. § 553(b)(3)(B).9

The Department argues that it had good cause under Section 553(b)(3)(B) to forgo negotiated 

rulemaking with respect to the Delay Rule and that any failure to engage in negotiated rulemaking 

was harmless error. Both arguments fail.

1. Good Cause

1.1 Governing Law

“Good cause” under Section 553 of the APA “is determined on a ‘case-by-case’ basis, based 

on the ‘totality of the factors at play.” California v. Azar, 911 F.3d 558, 575 (9th Cir. 2018) (citing 

United States v. Valverde, 628 F.3d 1159, 1164 (9th Cir. 2018)). The Ninth Circuit and other 

courts have identified several generally applicable principles regarding the good-cause standard.

“The good cause exception goes only as far as its name implies: It authorizes departures from 

the APA’s requirements only when compliance would interfere with the agency’s ability to carry 

out its mission.’” Id. (quoting Riverbend Farms, Inc. v. Madigan, 958 F.2d 1479, 1485 (9th Cir. 

 

8 Pls. Mot. – ECF No. 20 at 15; Defs. Cross-Mot. – ECF No. 41 at 11, 17–18; accord, e.g., Pineros y 

Campesinos Unidos del Noroeste v. Pruitt, 293 F. Supp. 3d 1062, 1066 (N.D. Cal. 2018) (delaying 

rule’s effective date is “substantive rulemaking” “tantamount to amending or revoking a rule,” and 

agency “was thus required to comply with the requirements of the APA” to issue a delay) (citing Clean 

Air Council v. Pruitt, 862 F.3d 1, 6 (D.C. Cir. 2017); FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 556 U.S. 

502, 515 (2009)).

9 Pls. Mot – ECF No. 20 at 15–17; Defs. Cross-Mot. – ECF No. 41 at 11, 17–18; accord, e.g., Bauer v. 

DeVos, 325 F. Supp. 3d 74, 97 (D.D.C. 2018) (looking to case law on good cause under Section 553 of 

the APA to analyze HEA’s negotiated-rulemaking requirement).

Case 3:18-cv-05173-LB Document 50 Filed 04/26/19 Page 21 of 40
ORDER – No. 18-cv-05173-LB 22

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

1992)). “Good cause is to be ‘narrowly construed and only reluctantly countenanced.’” Id.

(quoting Alcaraz v. Block, 746 F.2d 593, 612 (9th Cir. 1984)). “[T]he good cause exception should 

be interpreted narrowly, so that the exception will not swallow the rule” and should be found 

“only when ‘delay would do real harm.’” Buschmann v. Schweiker, 676 F.2d 352, 357 (9th Cir. 

1982) (citing cases). “As such, the good cause exception is usually invoked in emergencies, and an 

agency must ‘overcome a high bar’ to do so.” Azar, 911 F.3d at 575 (citing Valverde, 628 F.3d at 

1164–65).

Good cause may be found where “‘delay would do real harm’ to life, property, or public 

safety.” Id. at 576 (some internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting East Bay Sanctuary Covenant 

v. Trump, 909 F.3d 1219, 1253 (9th Cir. 2018)).10 Good cause may be found where “the agency 

cannot ‘both follow section 553 and execute its statutory duties.’” Id. (quoting Riverbend Farms, 

958 F.2d at 1484 n.2).

By contrast, “an agency’s desire to eliminate more quickly legal and regulatory uncertainty is 

not by itself good cause,” because “[i]f ‘good cause’ could be satisfied by an Agency’s assertion 

that normal procedures were not followed because of the need to provide immediate guidance and 

information, then an exception to the notice requirement would be created that would swallow the 

rule.” Id. (internal brackets and ellipsis and some internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting 

Valverde, 628 F.3d at 1167). Similarly, “[g]ood cause cannot arise as a result of the agency’s own 

delay, because otherwise, an agency unwilling to provide notice or an opportunity to comment 

could simply wait until the eve of a statutory, judicial, or administrative deadline, then raise up the 

‘good cause’ banner and promulgate rules without following APA procedures.’” NRDC v. Nat’l 

Highway Traffic Safety Admin., 894 F.3d 95, 114–15 (2d Cir. 2018) (internal brackets and some 

 

10 For example, courts have found the good-cause exception satisfied where an agency promulgated a 

safety regulation governing helicopter flights after seven helicopter accidents involving four fatalities 

had occurred in the previous nine months and where an agency revoked airman certificates for pilots 

whom the agency determined posed “security threats” (i.e., “(1) A threat to transportation or national 

security; (2) A threat to air piracy or terrorism; (3) A threat to airline or passenger security; or (4) A 

threat to civil aviation security. 49 C.F.R. § 1540.117(c).”). See Azar, 911 F.3d at 576 (citing Haw. 

Helicopter Operators Ass’n v. FAA, 51 F.3d 212, 214 (9th Cir. 1995); Jifry v. FAA, 370 F.3d 1174, 

1179 (D.C. Cir. 2004)).

Case 3:18-cv-05173-LB Document 50 Filed 04/26/19 Page 22 of 40
ORDER – No. 18-cv-05173-LB 23

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Council of the Southern Mountains, Inc. v. Donovan, 

653 F.2d 573, 581 (D.C. Cir. 1981)).

“A new administration’s simple desire to have time to review, and possibly revise or repeal, its 

predecessor’s regulations falls short of this exacting [good-cause] standard.” Pineros y 

Campesinos Unidos del Noroeste v. Pruitt, 293 F. Supp. 3d 1062, 1067 (N.D. Cal. 2018) (citing 

Clean Air Council v. Pruitt, 862 F.3d 1, 9 (D.C. Cir. 2017)). Likewise, “[t]hat a regulated entity 

might prefer different regulations that are easier or less costly to comply with does not justify 

dispensing with notice and comment” and does not constitute good cause. NRDC, 894 F.3d at 115

(citing Mack Trucks, Inc. v. EPA, 682 F.3d 87, 94 (D.C. Cir. 2012)); accord Bauer v. DeVos, 325 

F. Supp. 3d 74, 100 (D.D.C. 2018) (same) (citing Mack Trucks, 682 F.3d at 94).

The burden is on the agency to demonstrate that it has good cause. NRDC, 894 F.3d at 113–14 

(citing Action on Smoking and Health v. Civil Aeronautics Bd., 713 F.2d 795, 801 n.6 (D.C. Cir. 

1983)); accord Azar, 911 F.3d at 575 (“an agency must ‘overcome a high bar’ to [invoke the 

good-cause exception]”) (citing Valverde, 628 F.3d at 1164–65). An agency’s determination that it 

has satisfied the good-cause exception is not entitled to deference from a court. Reno-Sparks 

Indian Colony v. EPA, 336 F.3d 899, 909 n.11 (9th Cir. 2003) (“Court[s] review[] de novo the 

agency’s decision not to follow the APA’s notice and comment procedures. The agency is not 

entitled to deference because complying with the notice and comment provisions when required 

by the APA ‘is not a matter of agency choice.’”) (quoting Sequoia Orange Co. v. Yeutter, 973 

F.2d 752, 757 n.4 (9th Cir. 1992)); accord, e.g., Sorenson Commc’ns Inc. v. FCC, 755 F.3d 702, 

706 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (“[W]e cannot find that an exception applies simply because the agency says 

we should. . . . Deference to an agency’s invocation of good cause — particularly when its 

reasoning is potentially capacious, as is the case here — would conflict with this court’s deliberate 

and careful treatment of the exception in the past.”).

1.2 Application

To invoke the good-cause exception and forgo negotiated rulemaking, the Department must 

“publish[] the basis for such determination in the Federal Register at the same time as the 

proposed regulations in question are first published.” 20 U.S.C. § 1098a(b)(2). In claiming that it 

Case 3:18-cv-05173-LB Document 50 Filed 04/26/19 Page 23 of 40
ORDER – No. 18-cv-05173-LB 24

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

had good cause to forgo negotiated rulemaking for the Delay Rule, the Department thus is limited 

to the explanations it provided in the Delay-Rule NPRM. Cf. Bauer, 325 F. Supp. 3d at 97–98, 100 

(analyses that do not appear in the Department’s NPRM “lie outside the bounds of proper 

consideration”).

The Delay-Rule NPRM did not identify any emergency or “real harm” that would have 

resulted from subjecting its delay proposal to negotiated rulemaking. Cf. Azar, 911 F.3d at 575; 

Buschmann, 676 F.2d at 357. The Delay-Rule NPRM did not identify how subjecting the 

Department’s delay proposal to negotiated rulemaking would have interfered with the 

Department’s ability to carry out its statutory duties. Cf. Azar, 911 F.3d at 576. Instead, the DelayRule NPRM offered as “good cause” only that it would have been impracticable to subject a 

proposed delay rule to negotiated rulemaking, complete that process, and issue a final delay rule in 

time to stop the Distance-Education Rules from going into effect. Delay-Rule NPRM, 83 Fed. 

Reg. at 24,252. But that is not the standard. The Department has not established why subjecting its 

proposed delay rule to negotiated rulemaking — and allowing the Distance-Education Rules to go 

into effect in the meantime — would have constituted an emergency, caused “real harm,” or 

interfered with its ability to carry out its statutory duties. The new administration’s desire to 

suspend the Distance-Education Rules while it tries to reverse or revise them is not an 

“emergency” that justifies the Department’s circumventing the statutorily required negotiatedrulemaking procedures. Cf. Pineros y Campesinos, 293 F. Supp. 3d at 1067 (“A new 

administration’s simple desire to have time to review, and possibly revise or repeal, its 

predecessor’s regulations falls short of this exacting [good-cause] standard.”) (citing Clean Air 

Council, 862 F.3d at 9); see generally Organized Vill. of Kake v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., 795 F.3d 

956, 968 (9th Cir. 2015) (en banc) (while an agency may try to reverse its predecessor’s 

regulations — “[e]lections have policy consequences” — it may not violate the APA to do so).11

 

11 The Department claimed that there was “confusion” with respect to the Distance-Education Rules, 

specifically with respect to the definition of the term “resides” as used in the Rules and with respect to 

how the Rules would be applied to states like California that did not have processes in place for 

reviewing complaints from students about out-of-state institutions. Delay Rule NPRM, 83 Fed. Reg. at 

24,251. A bare claim of “confusion” is not good cause. Cf. Bauer, 325 F. Supp. 3d at 100; Pineros y 

Case 3:18-cv-05173-LB Document 50 Filed 04/26/19 Page 24 of 40
ORDER – No. 18-cv-05173-LB 25

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

1.2.1 Courts reject claims of “good cause” of the type the Department raises here

The District Court for the District of Columbia recently rejected a similar attempt by the 

Department to forgo negotiated rulemaking by promulgating a rule to delay the effective date of 

certain regulations promulgated by the prior administration. Bauer, 325 F. Supp. 3d at 74. In 

November 2016, the Department promulgated regulations regarding student-borrower defenses to 

federal-loan repayment. Bauer, 325 F. Supp. 3d at 81. The regulations were to go into effect on 

July 1, 2017. Id. In June 2017, the Department published a notice delaying the effective date of the 

regulations pending resolution of certain judicial challenges to the regulations, id. at 83, and in

October 2017, the Department issued a NPRM proposing a rule to further delay the effective date 

of the regulations to July 1, 2019, id. at 85. The Department did not subject its delay proposal to 

negotiated rulemaking. Id. at 86. (The proposed delay rule was promulgated as a final rule in 

February 2018. Id.) Student borrowers and a coalition of states brought suit to challenge the 

delays. Id. at 78–79.

The court granted the plaintiffs summary judgment and vacated the Department’s delay rule. 

Id. at 110; Bauer v. DeVos, 332 F. Supp. 3d 181, 186 (D.D.C. 2018). Among other things, the 

court held that the Department had not identified any “emergency” or “serious harm” that would 

have resulted from subjecting its delay proposal to negotiated rulemaking. Bauer, 325 F. Supp. 3d 

at 99 (citing Jifry v. FAA, 370 F.3d 1174, 1179 (D.C. Cir. 2004)). The Department argued that it 

had been planning to change the borrower-defense regulations and that, absent a delay, the 2016 

 

Campesinos, 293 F. Supp. 3d at 1067; accord Azar, 911 F.3d at 576 (“an agency’s desire to eliminate 

more quickly legal and regulatory uncertainty is not by itself good cause,” because “[i]f ‘good cause’ 

could be satisfied by an Agency’s assertion that normal procedures were not followed because of the 

need to provide immediate guidance and information, then an exception to the notice requirement 

would be created that would swallow the rule”) (internal brackets and ellipsis and some internal 

quotation marks omitted) (quoting Valverde, 628 F.3d at 1167). Additionally, the Department does not 

establish how these issues would actually cause “confusion,” considering that it addressed these issues 

in its original announcement promulgating the Rules. Distance-Education-Rules Announcement, 81 

Fed. Reg. at 92,238, 92,250. Having addressed these issues in 2016, the Department cannot reverse 

itself in 2018 and claim that they caused “confusion” without a reasoned explanation. The Department 

did not provide any reasoned explanation. Cf. Bauer, 325 F. Supp. 3d at 100–01 (rejecting a similar 

argument by the Department and holding that “it cannot [change its conclusion] without 

acknowledging its prior conclusion or offering any explanation for its fundamental change in course”) 

(emphasis omitted) (citing Fox Television, 556 U.S. at 515).

Case 3:18-cv-05173-LB Document 50 Filed 04/26/19 Page 25 of 40
ORDER – No. 18-cv-05173-LB 26

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

regulations would go into effect before the Department could make its changes and regulated 

parties would have to comply with them, thereby subjecting those parties to additional costs and 

confusion. Id. at 100–01. The court rejected this argument, holding that “the good cause exception 

should be ‘narrowly construed and only reluctantly countenanced,’” and that regulated parties’ 

interest in avoiding the administrative costs of complying with the 2016 regulations did not meet 

the good-cause standard. Id. at 100 (quoting Mack Trucks, 682 F.3d at 94). The court held that 

accepting the Department’s argument would lead to the good-cause exception “swallow[ing] the 

rule,” because an agency could always use that excuse to delay the effective date of regulations.

Id. at 101; accord id. at 99 (“Indeed, if [the Department’s argument] was sufficient, it is difficult 

to imagine a circumstance in which an agency would be required to comply with the requirements 

of notice and comment and, where applicable, negotiated rulemaking, to delay the effective date of 

a regulation.”).

The Second Circuit recently rejected an analogous attempt by an agency to forgo notice and 

comment under the APA by promulgating a rule to delay the effective date of certain regulations 

promulgated by the prior administration. NRDC, 894 F.3d 95. In December 2016, the National 

Highway Traffic Safety Administration (“NHTSA”) promulgated penalty rates for car 

manufacturers that violated fuel-efficiency standards. Id. at 102. The rates were to go into effect 

starting with cars manufactured for model-year 2019. Id. Between January and July 2017, the 

NHTSA promulgated a series of rules delaying the effective date of the 2016 penalty rates. Id. at 

102–03. The last of these rules suspended the 2016 penalty rates indefinitely on the ground that 

NHTSA was reconsidering the rates altogether. Id. at 103. The NHTSA did not subject these rules 

to notice and comment under the APA. Id. Environmental organizations and a coalition of states 

brought suit to challenge the delays. Id.

The NHTSA argued that it had good cause to forgo notice-and-comment rulemaking for the 

indefinite-suspension rule because the underlying 2016 penalty rates would otherwise 

“imminent[ly]” go into effect. Id. at 114. The Second Circuit rejected this argument, noting that 

the penalty rates were promulgated in December 2016, that the NHTSA chose to issue a series of 

finite delays between January and July 2017 before issuing an indefinite suspension in July 2017,

Case 3:18-cv-05173-LB Document 50 Filed 04/26/19 Page 26 of 40
ORDER – No. 18-cv-05173-LB 27

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

and that “[g]ood cause cannot arise as a result of the agency’s own delay[.]” Id. at 114. The 

NHTSA additionally argued that it suspended the effective date of the 2016 penalty rates because 

it needed more time to consider the responses it anticipated receiving to its announcement that it 

was reconsidering the rates. Id. at 115. The Second Circuit rejected this argument too, holding that 

“[t]his is not a situation of acute health or safety risk requiring immediate administrative action” or 

“an emergency or other extraordinary circumstance that would justify forgoing notice and 

comment.” Id. The Second Circuit vacated the NHTSA’s delay rule and ordered that the 2016 

penalty rates were immediately effective and in force. Id. at 115–16.

Another court in this district recently rejected an analogous attempt by an agency to forgo 

notice and comment under the APA by promulgating a rule to delay the effective date of certain 

regulations promulgated by the prior administration. Pineros y Campesinos, 293 F. Supp. 3d 1062. 

In early January 2017, the EPA promulgated a rule strengthening regulations surrounding the 

certification and use of certain pesticides. Id. at 1063. The rule was to go into effect on March 6, 

2017. Id. Beginning in late January 2017, the EPA reversed course and issued four successive 

delays of the rule. Id. at 1063–64. For one delay, the EPA provided four days for interested parties 

to provide comments; for the other three delays, the EPA provided no opportunity to comment. Id.

at 1063 n.1. Farmworker unions and advocacy groups brought suit to challenge the delays. Id. at 

1064.

The EPA argued that it had good cause to forgo notice-and-comment rulemaking for its delays 

because more time was needed for “further review and consideration of new regulations” and 

confusion could result if the pesticide rule went into effect “but was subsequently substantially 

revised or repealed.” Id. at 106–07 (quoting administrative record). The court rejected this 

argument on the ground that it did not satisfy the “extraordinarily narrow” good-cause exception, 

which “is reserved for situations where delay would do real harm.” Id. at 107 (citing Valverde, 628 

F.3d at 1164–65). The court held that “[a] new administration’s simple desire to have more time to 

review, and possibly revise or repeal, its predecessor’s regulations falls short of this exacting 

standard,” and it vacated the EPA’s delay rules on the ground that they violated the APA. Id.

(citing Clean Air Council, 862 F.3d at 9).

Case 3:18-cv-05173-LB Document 50 Filed 04/26/19 Page 27 of 40
ORDER – No. 18-cv-05173-LB 28

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

1.2.2 The Department cites only one case in response, and it is inapposite

To counter Bauer, NRDC, and Pineros y Campesinos, the Department cites only one case to 

support its argument that it had good cause to forgo the HEA’s statutory negotiated-rulemaking 

requirement: Oregon Trollers Association v. Gutierrez, No. Civ. 05-6165-TC, 2005 WL 2211084 

(D. Or. Sept. 8, 2005) (Or. Trollers I), aff’d, 452 F.3d 1104 (9th Cir. 2006) (Or. Trollers II).12

That case is inapposite.

Oregon Trollers involved the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act 

(“Magnuson Act”), an act passed in response to overfishing and inadequate conversation 

measures. Or. Trollers I, 2005 WL 2211084, at *1. The Magnuson Act called for “fishery 

management plans which will achieve and maintain, on a continuing basis, the optimum yield 

from each fishery.” Id. (quoting 16 U.S.C. § 1801(b)(5)). The Magnuson Act also established 

“Regional Fishery Management Councils” to prepare, monitor, and revise fish-management plans 

in conjunction with the participation and advice of interested parties and consideration of the 

social and economic needs of the states. Id. (citing 16 U.S.C. § 1801(b)(5)).13 Ultimately, the 

Secretary of Commerce, acting through the National Marine Fisheries Service (“NMFS”), has 

responsibility for reviewing the fish-management plans and other proposed regulations for 

consistency with the Magnuson Act and any other applicable law. Id. (citing 16 U.S.C. 

§ 1854(a)(1)(A)).

At issue in Oregon Trollers was the Pacific Coast Salmon Fishery Management Plan, which 

governed Pacific Ocean salmon fisheries in the United States’s exclusive economic zone. Id. at *2. 

Since 1989, the Plan required that annual fish-management measures provide that at least 35,000 

naturally spawning adult Klamath River fall chinook salmon should “escape” being harvested to 

be able to spawn and produce new juvenile salmon. Id.

 

12 Defs. Cross-Mot. – ECF No. 41 at 17–22 (other than citations on ancillary points, citing no cases 

other than Oregon Trollers); Defs. Reply – ECF No. 46 at 5–9 (same).

13 The Regional Councils are composed of federal and state officials, as well as private experts 

appointed by the National Marine Fisheries Service (the agency that bears responsibility for reviewing 

the fish-management plans). Or. Trollers II, 452 F.3d at 1108.

Case 3:18-cv-05173-LB Document 50 Filed 04/26/19 Page 28 of 40
ORDER – No. 18-cv-05173-LB 29

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

In 2004, the number of salmon that returned to the Klamath River to spawn was nearly 18,000 

fish under original estimates. Id. Only 24,300 adult salmon returned to spawn in natural areas, 

over 10,000 fish below the 35,000 floor. Id. The number of “age-4” salmon that had been 

harvested from the ocean (i.e., the fish that had not “escaped” to spawn), which had been 

estimated to be 15% of the total “age-4” stock of fish — and which was subject under the 

Endangered Species Act (“ESA”) to a limit of 16% — turned out instead to be 52.4% of the stock

of fish. Id.

A technical team of eight state, federal, and Native American tribal salmon specialists and the 

Regional Council’s staff economist met to develop a report summarizing the 2004 fishing season. 

Id. at *3 & n.12. The team’s first report, issued in February 2005, stated that repeating the 2004 

fish-management regulations in 2005 would likely again result in an escapement rate of less than 

35,000 fish and an ocean-harvest rate that exceeded the 16% limit under the ESA. Id. The state 

and tribal agencies and the Klamath Fishery Management Council (“KFMC”) — an advisory 

committee that included members of the commercial and recreational fishing communities, Native 

American tribes, and state and federal agencies — discussed the report with their respective 

constituents. Id. at *3 & n.14. The Regional Council met from March 6 to March 11, 2005, to 

prepare regulatory options for public review. Id. at *3. Following that meeting, the technical team 

issued its second report, analyzing four fish-management options and the socioeconomic impacts 

of each. Id.

On March 28 and 29, 2005, public hearings were held to review the proposed regulatory 

options and to allow for public comment. Id. After the hearings, the Regional Council met again 

from April 3 to April 8, 2005. Id. at *4. The Council invited additional public comment. Id. at *3 

n.16. The Council heard reports from the KFMC, the NMFS, the Native American tribes, and the 

states. Id. at *4. On April 7, 2005, the Council adopted final regulatory measures to submit to the 

Secretary of Commerce. Id. The regulations were adopted as final regulations on May 4, 2005, and 

went into immediate effect. Id. (The public was allowed until May 19, 2005, to submit additional 

comments on the regulations. Id. at *4 n.17.)

Case 3:18-cv-05173-LB Document 50 Filed 04/26/19 Page 29 of 40
ORDER – No. 18-cv-05173-LB 30

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

The NMFS published a statement in the Federal Register why it was forgoing notice and 

comment under the APA. Id. at *13. It stated that “[t]he annual salmon management cycle begins 

on May 1 and continues through April 30 of the following year.” Id. (quoting Fisheries Off West 

Coast States and in the Western Pacific; West Coast Salmon Fisheries; 2005 Management 

Measures, 70 Fed. Reg. 23,054, 23,063 (May 4, 2005)). “The May 1 date was chosen because preMay harvests constitute a relatively small portion of the annual catch,” whereas harvest levels 

beginning in May are “much more substantial.” Id. (quoting 70 Fed. Reg. at 23,063). “The 

preseason planning and public review process associated with developing Council 

recommendations is initiated in February as soon as forecast information becomes available.” Id.

(quoting 70 Fed. Reg. at 23,063). The NMFS noted that the process between starting in February 

and implementing final regulations in May — which involves “coordination of management 

actions of four states, numerous Indian tribes and the Federal Government, all of which have 

management authority over the stocks, and a meeting in April of the stakeholders on the Regional 

Council — was already “compressed.” Id. (quoting 70 Fed. Reg., at 23,063). Providing notice and 

comment under the APA would add an additional 30 to 60 days to that process. Id. (quoting 70 

Fed. Reg., at 23,063).

The NMFS noted that it could not add those 30 to 60 days to the front end of this process, i.e., 

begin the planning and review process before February, because “preseason abundance forecasts, 

which are derived from the previous year’s observed spawning escapement, vary substantially 

from year to year, and are not available until January and February because spawning escapement 

continues through the fall.” Id. (quoting 70 Fed. Reg., at 23,063). And if it added those 30 to 60 

days to the back end, fish management would have to continue to operate under the prior year’s 

management plan for an additional 30 to 60 days, i.e., through May and June. See id. (“Delaying 

implementation of annual fishing regulations, which are based on the current stock abundance 

projections, for an additional 60 days would require that fishing regulations for May and June be 

set in the previous year without knowledge of the current stock status.”) (quoting 70 Fed. Reg. at 

23,063); see also 70 Fed. Reg. at 23,063 (“If [the new year’s] measures are not in place on May 1, 

the previous year’s management measures will continue to apply.”). The NMFS stated that 

Case 3:18-cv-05173-LB Document 50 Filed 04/26/19 Page 30 of 40
ORDER – No. 18-cv-05173-LB 31

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

“[a]llowing the much more substantial harvest levels normally associated with the May and June 

seasons to be regulated [under the prior year’s plan] would impair NMFS’ ability to protect weak 

and ESA listed stocks and provide harvest opportunity where appropriate” and “could compromise 

the status of certain stocks” — and, conversely, could also “result in forgoing opportunity to 

harvest stocks whose abundance has increased relative to the previous year” — “thereby 

undermining the purpose of this agency action.” Id. at *13–14 (quoting 70 Fed. Reg. at 23,063).

The district court found good cause for the NMFS’s forgoing notice and comment under the 

APA, holding “the agency demonstrate[s] exigency which imperils its ability to fulfill its duties” 

and “points out specific reasons why the agency must invoke the APA exception in this year.” Id.

(emphasis in original). On appeal, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision finding 

good cause for forgoing notice and comment. Or. Trollers II, 452 F.3d 1104. The Ninth Circuit 

first reaffirmed that generic timeliness considerations of rulemaking cannot constitute “good 

cause” under the APA. Id. at 1124 (citing NRDC v. Evans, 316 F.3d 904, 912 (9th Cir. 2003)). It 

held, however, that the NFMS had “justified its decision with specific fishery-related reasons, not 

generic complaints about time pressure and data collection deficiencies,” and thus had shown good 

cause with respect to the particular 2005 regulations at issue. Id. at 1124–25.

The Department attempts to analogize the NMFS’s decision to forgo notice and comment in 

Oregon Trollers to its decision to forgo negotiated rulemaking here. The situations are not 

comparable. The purpose of the Magnuson Act is to conserve and manage fishery resources, 16 

U.S.C. § 1801, and in Oregon Trollers, the NMFS provided specific fishery-related reasons why it 

could not subject the 2005 fish-management regulations to notice and comment and still carry out 

that statutory mission. Or. Trollers II, 452 F.3d at 1124–25; cf. Azar, 911 F.3d at 576 (good cause 

may be found where “the agency cannot ‘both follow section 553 and execute its statutory 

duties’”) (quoting Riverbend Farms, 958 F.2d at 1484 n.2). Delaying the 2005 regulations would 

have left the looser 2004 regulations in place and would have led to continued overfishing, 

undermining the statutory directives in the Magnuson Act to conserve fisheries. By contrast, the 

Department here has not provided reasons why subjecting to negotiated rulemaking its proposal to 

Case 3:18-cv-05173-LB Document 50 Filed 04/26/19 Page 31 of 40
ORDER – No. 18-cv-05173-LB 32

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

delay the effective date of the Distance-Education Rules would have prevented it from carrying 

out its statutory mission or undermined the statutory directives in Title IV of the HEA.

14

The situation here is also not comparable to the situation in Oregon Trollers because in 

Oregon Trollers, the time pressures the NMFS faced were driven entirely by external forces, 

namely, the nature of salmon, how soon the prior year’s salmon escapement rate could be fully 

counted (not until January and February), and how soon the next year’s salmon fishing season 

would begin in earnest (May or June). Here, the time pressures faced by the Department were of 

its own making. The Department claims that it was prompted to propose delaying the effective 

date of the Distance-Education Rules because the 2018 ACE Letter and the 2018 WCET Letter 

raised issues regarding the definition of the term “resides” as used in the Rules and regarding how 

the Rules would apply to states like California that did not have processes in place for reviewing 

student complaints about out-of-state institutions. Delay-Rule NPRM, 83 Fed. Reg. at 24,251. The 

Department does not explain why it took no action between February 2018 (when it received those 

Letters) and May 2018 (when it issued the Delay-Rule NPRM) to delay the Distance-Education 

Rules from going into effect. Nor does the Department explain why it took no action (1) after it 

announced in January 2017 that it intended to take action with respect to the Distance-Education 

Rules, 82 Fed. Reg. at 8669, (2) after it announced in June 2017 that it was convening negotiatedrulemaking committees to reconsider other regulations, 82 Fed. Reg. at 27,640, or (3) after it 

received the 2017 WCET letter in August 2017, which raised the same issues regarding the 

 

14 The Department points to a statutory requirement in the HEA, the so-called “master calendar” 

requirement. Delay-Rule NPRM, 83 Fed. Reg. at 24,252; see also Defs. Reply – ECF No. 46 at 6–7. 

The Department claims that under the master-calendar requirement, “a regulatory change that has been 

published in in final form on or before November 1 prior to the start of an award year — which begins 

on July 1 of any given year — may take effect only at the beginning of the next award year, or in other 

words, on July 1 of the next year.” Delay-Rule NPRM, 83 Fed. Reg. at 24,252. The Department claims 

that if it subjected its delay proposal to negotiated rulemaking, it might not have been able to finish the 

process and promulgate a final rule suspending the Distance-Education Rules until after November 1, 

2019, in which case the suspension would not have gone into effect until July 1, 2020. Id. Even 

assuming the Department’s interpretation of the master-calendar requirement is correct, but see Bauer, 

325 F. Supp. 3d at 93–96 (rejecting the Department’s interpretation of the master-calendar 

requirement), the Department has not established that leaving the Distance-Education Rules in effect 

until 2020 would have constituted an emergency or would have undermined the statutory directives in 

the HEA.

Case 3:18-cv-05173-LB Document 50 Filed 04/26/19 Page 32 of 40
ORDER – No. 18-cv-05173-LB 33

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

definition of the term “resides” and the applicability to California that the 2018 Letters raised and 

asked the Department for a timeline for when it would respond, 2017 WCET Letter at 3–5, 7. To 

the extent that the Department claims that it was under time pressure in May 2018 when it issued 

the Delay-Rule NPRM, that time pressure was due to its own delay in not taking any action before 

then, and “[g]ood cause cannot arise as a result of the agency’s own delay[.]” NRDC, 894 F.3d at

114.

* * *

The Department did not have good cause to forgo the negotiated-rulemaking requirements of 

20 U.S.C. § 1098a(b)(2). Its desire to delay the Distance-Education Rules before the Rules went 

into effect did not constitute good cause. And as the Department did not meet the narrow goodcause exception in 5 U.S.C. § 553, it was required to submit its delay proposal to the negotiatedrulemaking process set out in 20 U.S.C. § 1098a(b)(2). Its failure to do so was error.

2. Harmless Error

2.1 Governing Law

Section 706 of the APA provides that in reviewing agency action, “due account shall be taken 

of the rule of prejudicial error.” 5 U.S.C. § 706; accord Cal. Wilderness Coal. v. U.S. Dep’t of 

Energy, 631 F.3d 1072, 1090 (9th Cir. 2011) (citing Paulsen v. Daniels, 413 F.3d 999, 1006 (9th 

Cir. 2005)). The Ninth Circuit “has stressed, however, that a court ‘must exercise great caution in 

applying the harmless error rule in the administrative rulemaking context.’” Cal. Wilderness, 631 

3d at 1090 (quoting Paulsen, 413 F.3d at 1006). The Ninth Circuit explained:

[“]The reason is apparent: Harmless error is more readily abused there than in the 

civil or criminal context. An agency is not required to adopt a rule that conforms in 

any way to the comments presented to it. So long as it explains its reasons, it may 

adopt a rule that all commentators think is stupid or unnecessary. Thus, if the 

harmless error rule were to look solely to result, an agency could always claim that 

it would have adopted the same rule even if it had complied with APA procedures. 

To avoid gutting the APA’s procedural requirements, harmless error analysis in 

administrative rulemaking must therefore focus on the process as well as the result.

We have held that the failure to provide notice and comment is harmless only

Case 3:18-cv-05173-LB Document 50 Filed 04/26/19 Page 33 of 40
ORDER – No. 18-cv-05173-LB 34

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

where the agency’s mistake ‘clearly had no bearing on the procedure used or the

substance of decision reached.’ Sagebrush Rebellion, Inc. v. Hodel, 790 F.2d 760, 

764–65 (9th Cir. 1986).[”]

Id. (quoting Riverbend Farms, 958 F.2d at 1487).

2.2 Application

The Department’s decision to forgo negotiated rulemaking “had [a] bearing on the procedure 

used” to promulgate the Delay Rule. Under negotiated rulemaking, various groups and 

stakeholders would have had the opportunity to nominate individuals to participate in the 

negotiations process. 20 U.S.C. § 1098a(a)(1), (b)(1), (b)(2).15 If the committee had reached a 

consensus, the Department would have been bound to propose the consensus for promulgation, 

unless it reopened the negotiated-rulemaking process or provided a written explanation why it was 

not proposing the consensus. 20 U.S.C. § 1098a(b)(2). Congress’s decision to enact a statutory 

negotiated-rulemaking requirement in Title IV reflects a congressional determination that the 

process itself is important. Cf. Cal. Wilderness, 631 F.3d at 1092 (Congress’s enactment of a 

statute requiring agency to consult with states “reflects the desirability of the interactive process 

itself”). In light of this, the Department’s decision to circumvent this process is not harmless. Cf.

id.

The Department’s arguments do not change this outcome. The Department first claims that 

“[w]here the error is the failure to provide notice and comment, that error is considered harmless 

‘only where the agency’s mistake clearly had no bearing on the procedure used or the substance of 

decision reached,’” whereas “‘[i]n other contexts, however, courts’ review for harmless error is 

more demanding of plaintiffs,’ such that plaintiffs must identify the harm they suffered as a result 

of the agency’s error,” quoting City of Sausalito v. O’Neill, 386 F.3d 1186, 1220 (9th Cir. 2004).16

The Department argues that “[a]s the alleged violation here did not involve a decision to forgo 

 

15 In the leadup to the original Distance-Education Rules, the Department requested nominations from 

20 different stakeholder constituencies and convened a negotiated-rulemaking committee of 18 

representatives and 15 alternate representatives. 78 Fed. Reg. at 69,612, 69,614; Distance-EducationRules NPRM, 81 Fed. Reg. at 48,600–01.

16 Defs. Cross-Mot. – ECF No. 41 at 22 (internal brackets omitted).

Case 3:18-cv-05173-LB Document 50 Filed 04/26/19 Page 34 of 40
ORDER – No. 18-cv-05173-LB 35

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

notice and comment, it is appropriate for the Court to apply the more rigorous standard set forth in 

O’Neill, such that Plaintiffs must ‘identify the prejudice they have suffered.’”17 The Department 

selectively quotes O’Neill and misconstrues its holding. O’Neill did not distinguish notice and 

comment qua notice and comment from other contexts — it distinguished rulemaking from other 

contexts. O’Neill, 386 F.3d at 1220 (“In the rulemaking context, we ‘exercise great caution in 

applying the harmless error rule,’ holding that ‘failure to provide notice and comment is harmless 

only where the agency’s mistake clearly had no bearing on the procedure used or the substance of 

decision reached.’ In other contexts, however, our review for harmless error is more demanding of 

plaintiffs.”) (emphasis added, citations omitted). Negotiated rulemaking is, of course, rulemaking, 

and thus the Ninth Circuit’s mandate to “exercise great caution in applying the harmless error 

rule” applies here. Id.; see also Organized Vill. of Kake, 795 F.3d at 969 (“‘If prejudice is obvious 

to the court, the party challenging agency action need not demonstrate anything further.’”) 

(quoting Jicarilla Apache Nation v. U.S. Dep’t of the Interior, 613 F.3d 1112, 1121 (D.C. Cir. 

2010)).18

The Department next argues that forgoing negotiated rulemaking was harmless because in 

issuing its Delay-Rule NPRM, it “expressly invited comment on its proposed delay of the 2016 

[Distance-Education] Rule[s]” and that “given the robust public participation — including, 

importantly, from the types of stakeholders whose input negotiated rulemaking is meant to solicit 

— in response to the 2018 NPRM, any error with the Department’s decision to waive negotiated 

rulemaking was harmless.”19 Setting aside the question of whether the Department’s call for 

comments over seventeen days — including seven that were on weekends or federal holidays —

 

17 Defs. Reply – ECF No. 46 at 11; accord Defs. Cross-Mot. – ECF No. 41 at 22–23.

18 O’Neill and Idaho Wool Growers Association v. Vilsack, 816 F.3d 1095 (9th Cir. 2016), another 

case that the Department relies on to support its harmless-error arguments, thus are inapposite, because 

neither case involved rulemaking. 

19 Defs. Cross-Mot. – ECF No. 41 at 24–25.

Case 3:18-cv-05173-LB Document 50 Filed 04/26/19 Page 35 of 40
ORDER – No. 18-cv-05173-LB 36

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

violated even the APA’s notice and comment requirements,

20 this limited opportunity to provide 

comments is not a substitute for negotiated rulemaking.

The Ninth Circuit rejected a similar argument in California Wilderness, 631 F.3d 1072. The 

statute at issue there required the Department of Energy (“DOE”) to engage in “consultation” with 

states regarding designating areas as “national interest electric transmission corridors.” Id. at 1080. 

The DOE published draft transmission-corridor designations in the Federal Register and invited 

comment. Id. at 1081. But the DOE failed to engage in “consultation” with affected states. Id. at 

1086–89 (holding that the DOE’s interactions with states did not amount to “consultation”). The

DOE argued that its failure to consult with affected states was harmless error because the states 

had the opportunity to provide comments on the DOE’s draft proposals. See id. at 1086. The Ninth 

Circuit rejected this argument, holding that “consulting is different from commenting.” Id. at 

1094.

Consultation requires an exchange of information and opinions before the agency 

makes a decision. This requirement is distinct from the opportunity to offer 

comments on the agency’s decision. . . . [T]he opportunity to comment on DOE’s 

completed Congestion Study does not compensate for the lost opportunity of 

consulting with DOE in the formation of that study. . . . The exclusion of the 

affected States from the decisionmaking process not only limited the information 

available to DOE, it altered the way in which DOE made its discretionary 

decisions. . . . [T]he impact of the lack of consultation before a decision is made as 

contrasted to commenting after the agency has made a decision is particularly 

severe here because, as DOE admits, its decisions were for the most part 

discretionary.

Id. at 1093 (emphasis in original). The Ninth Circuit held that “[t]he failure to consult was not 

some technical error, but resulted in a decisionmaking process that was contrary to that mandated 

by Congress and one that deprived DOE of timely substantive information. We conclude that 

 

20 “Although the APA mandates no minimum comment period, some window of time, usually thirty 

days or more, is . . . allowed for interested parties to comment.” Riverbend Farms, 958 F.2d at 1484 

(citing Petry v. Block, 737 F.2d 1193, 1201 (D.C. Cir. 1984)).

Case 3:18-cv-05173-LB Document 50 Filed 04/26/19 Page 36 of 40
ORDER – No. 18-cv-05173-LB 37

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

DOE’s failure to consult with the affected States, as directed by Congress, was not harmless 

error.” Id. at 1095.21

The Ninth Circuit’s holding in California Wilderness applies here. Like “consultation,” 

negotiated rulemaking allows stakeholders to provide input before the Department settles on a 

proposed rule. 20 U.S.C. § 1098a(b)(2). Additionally, a negotiated-rulemaking committee, if it 

reaches a consensus, can potentially bind the Department with respect to what rules the 

Department can propose, in a way that mere comments cannot. Id. The Department’s offer of a 

seventeen-day period to comment on a proposed delay rule that the Department had already 

formulated was not an adequate substitute for this statutory negotiated-rulemaking process, and 

the Department’s failure to offer the latter was not harmless error.22

 

21 The Ninth Circuit observed that accepting the DOE’s harmless-error argument would have the 

practical effect of rendering the statutory requirement that the DOE engage in “consultation” with 

affected states unenforceable because the DOE then could always refuse to consult with states, offer 

instead only the opportunity to comment, and claim that the substitution of comments for consultation 

was harmless. Cal. Wilderness, 631 F.3d at 1094 n.21.

22 The Department cites Cal-Almond, Inc. v. U.S. Department of Agriculture, 14 F.3d 429 (9th Cir. 

1993), in support of its harmless-error arguments. That case is not analogous to the situation here. It 

involved a budget assessment imposed on almond handlers to pay for pro-almond marketing and 

public relations. Id. at 433. The assessment was based on a mechanical formula that took into account 

the California Almond Board’s proposed budget and the forecast for almond harvests and reduced 

them to a “rate per pound of almonds.” Id. at 441. The Board held open meetings in July every year to 

receive comments and testimony and to gather information relevant to estimating its budget and the 

resulting assessment rate. Id. at 442. After deciding on its recommendation, the Board directly notified 

each almond handler of the proposed assessment rate. Id. Two groups of almond handlers challenged 

the assessment rates, arguing that they had not been subject to notice and comment. Id. at 440. The 

Ninth Circuit agreed that the assessment rates should have been subjected to notice and comment 

(rejecting an argument that the assessment rates should be excused from notice and comment because 

they were simply “mechanical” results derived from a formula, id. at 441), but held that the failure to 

provide notice and comment was harmless given that almond handlers knew of the July open meetings 

and the opportunity to provide comment. Id. at 442. This case does not establish that the Department’s 

failure here to engage in negotiated rulemaking for its delay proposal — a proposal that was not issued 

pursuant to a regular annual schedule that all stakeholders knew about and did not involve a 

mechanical formula-derived result — similarly was harmless.

The Department also cites Sagebrush Rebellion, Inc. v. Hodel, 790 F.2d 760 (9th Cir. 1986), a case 

that also is not analogous. In that case, the Department of the Interior issued a notice and invited 

comment on a proposal to create a conservation area in the Snake River Canyon by legislatively 

withdrawing the lands from mining laws but did not issue a separate notice on a proposal to 

administratively withdraw those same lands. Id. at 762, 764. The two withdrawals would have had 

“identical legal effect, with only one exception: whereas the congressional withdrawal would be in 

perpetuity (subject, of course, to Congress’ inherent right to enact legislation to the contrary in the 

future), . . . administrative withdrawals [are limited] to a maximum of twenty years, and [are] 

subject to congressional review and administrative revocation.” Id. at 762. The Ninth Circuit held 

Case 3:18-cv-05173-LB Document 50 Filed 04/26/19 Page 37 of 40
ORDER – No. 18-cv-05173-LB 38

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

The Department argues that “by Plaintiffs’ reasoning, a decision to forgo negotiated 

rulemaking can never constitute harmless error.”23 The court does not decide that issue in holding

that the Department’s decision here to forgo negotiated rulemaking for its Delay Rule was not 

harmless error. The court notes, however, that Congress made a point of writing the negotiatedrulemaking requirement into the statutory text of the HEA, reflecting a congressional 

determination that the negotiated-rulemaking process is important. See 20 U.S.C. § 1098a(b)(2). 

Nothing in the text of that statutory provision provides for a “harmless error” exception. See id.24

The Department offers no explanation why it can supersede Congress’s view and deem a decision 

to forgo negotiated rulemaking “harmless.” A holding that forgoing negotiated rulemaking can 

never be harmless would not bar the Department from forgoing negotiated rulemaking. If the 

Department has good cause to forgo negotiated rulemaking, it can do so, irrespective of a 

harmless-error analysis. Id. (citing 5 U.S.C. § 553(b)(3)(B)). Such a holding would mean only that 

if the Department lacks good cause — as it lacks good cause here — it cannot use a claim of 

harmless error to circumvent the negotiated-rulemaking process that Congress enacted.

3. Remedy

3.1 Governing Law

“‘[W]hen a reviewing court determines that agency regulations are unlawful, the ordinary 

result is that the rules are vacated[.]’” Regents of the Univ. of Cal. v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 

908 F.3d 476, 511 (9th Cir. 2018) (quoting Nat’l Mining Ass’n v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs, 145 

 

that the failure to issue a separate notice regarding administrative withdrawal was harmless given the 

notice and comment with respect to legislative withdrawal because “the impact of both actions on all 

concerned persons would be identical for a substantial period of time at least,” and hence “the same 

public would have responded to a notice of administrative withdrawal as responded to the noticed 

congressional withdrawal[.]” Id. at 764. No analogous facts are present here.

23 Defs. Reply – ECF No. 46 at 13.

24 20 U.S.C. § 1098a(b)(2) explicitly references 5 U.S.C. § 553(b)(3)(B) and its good-cause standard. 

The harmless-error exception the Department cites comes not from Section 553, but instead from 

5 U.S.C. § 706. Setting aside the question of whether Section 706 and its harmless-error exception 

should be read into Section 1098a(b)(2)’s negotiated-rulemaking provision, nothing in Section 

1098a(b)(2) explicitly provides for or refers to a harmless-error exception.

Case 3:18-cv-05173-LB Document 50 Filed 04/26/19 Page 38 of 40
ORDER – No. 18-cv-05173-LB 39

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

F.3d 1399, 1409 (D.C. Cir. 1998)); accord All. for the Wild Rockies v. U.S. Forest Serv., 907 F.3d 

1105, 1121 (9th Cir. 2018) (“‘[O]rdinarily when a regulation is not promulgated in compliance 

with the APA, the regulation is invalid.’”) (quoting Idaho Farm Bureau Fed’n v. Babbitt, 58 F.3d 

1392, 1405 (9th Cir. 1995)).25“When equity demands, however, the regulation can be left in place 

while the agency reconsiders or replaces the action, or to give the agency time to follow the 

necessary procedures.” All. for the Wild Rockies, 907 F.3d at 1121.

3.2 Application

The presumptive remedy for the Department’s improper promulgation of the Delay Rule is to 

vacate the Rule. The equities do not favor a departure from that presumptive remedy.

The Department nonetheless argues that “the failure to conduct negotiated rulemaking is not a 

serious error[.]”26 This does not change the outcome. The Department’s attempt to prevent the 

Distance-Education Rules from going into effect without engaging in negotiated rulemaking “was 

not some technical error, but resulted in a decisionmaking process that was contrary to that 

mandated by Congress[.]” Cf. Cal. Wilderness, 631 F.3d at 1095; see also California v. U.S. 

Bureau of Land Mgmt., 277 F. Supp. 3d 1106, 1125 (N.D. Cal. 2017) (delaying the compliance 

date for regulations without complying with APA procedures to issue such a delay was a “serious” 

error, not a “minor procedural mistake[]”).

The Department also argues that the court should refrain from vacating the Delay Rule because 

vacatur would result in “confusion” and would be “disruptive.”27 The Department has not 

established confusion or disruption sufficient to warrant departing from the presumptive remedy 

of vacatur. Regulated entities believed until May 25, 2018 (when the Department issued its DelayRule NPRM) that the Distance-Education Rules were going into effect and had over seventeen 

months to prepare for them. “[V]acating the Delay Rule would simply allow the [Distance-

 

25 The Department agrees that “vacatur is presumptively appropriate,” although “th[e] court has 

equitable discretion to tailor relief in response to an agency’s errors.” Defs. Cross-Mot. – ECF No. 41 

at 26 (citations omitted).

26 Defs. Cross-Mot. – ECF No. 41 at 27.

27 Id.

Case 3:18-cv-05173-LB Document 50 Filed 04/26/19 Page 39 of 40
ORDER – No. 18-cv-05173-LB 40

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Education] Rule[s] to take effect, as the agency originally intended.” Cf. Nat’l Ventures Capital 

Ass’n v. Duke, 291 F. Supp. 3d 5, 21 (D.D.C. 2017) (vacating the Department of Homeland 

Security’s attempt to delay a regulation promulgated by the prior administration from going into 

effect and rejecting the argument that doing so would cause “confusion” or be “disruptive”). To 

further minimize the risk of any supposed “confusion” or “disruption,” the court will stay vacatur 

for 30 days before vacating the Delay Rule and allowing the Distance-Education Rules to go into 

effect.28

CONCLUSION

The Department did not have good cause to forgo negotiated rulemaking with respect to the 

Delay Rule, and its failure to engage in negotiated rulemaking was not harmless error. The court 

grants the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and denies the Department’s cross-motion for 

summary judgment. The court orders the Delay Rule vacated but stays the vacatur for 30 days 

from the date of this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 26, 2019

______________________________________

LAUREL BEELER

United States Magistrate Judge

 

28 Accord Pls. Reply – ECF No. 45 at 19 (proposing a 30-day stay).

Case 3:18-cv-05173-LB Document 50 Filed 04/26/19 Page 40 of 40