§4370m–6 Litigation, Judicial Review, and Savings Provision

Summary

Claims asking a court to review a federal agency’s authorization for a covered project must be filed within 2 years after the agency publishes notice of its final action in the Federal Register, unless another law gives a shorter deadline. For reviews tied to an environmental review under NEPA, the person bringing the claim must have submitted a comment during that review, and the comment must have been detailed enough to alert the lead agency to the issue, or the agency must have failed to give a reasonable chance to comment on that issue. Agencies must consider new information submitted after a comment period if it meets NEPA rules. If a supplemental environmental document is required, its final notice is a separate final action and starts a new 2-year filing period. Nothing here creates a new right to judicial review or stops someone from claiming a party violated the terms of an authorization. When someone asks for a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction against an agency or project sponsor, the court must weigh possible effects on public health, safety, and the environment, and the potential for major job losses from the order, and the court must not assume those harms can be fixed later. Aside from the deadlines and comment rules above, this subchapter does not change whether courts can review final federal agency actions. It does not change any federal law or a federal officer’s duty to follow the law, and it does not create a presumption that a covered project will be approved. It also does not limit public comment practices or the authority of federal, state, or local agencies, metropolitan planning organizations, Indian tribes, or project sponsors over projects.