there would not be enough time to prepare an EIS. Under either scenario trade agreements could become law without the allegedly necessary compliance with NEPA. Both scenarios are overdrawn. First, Congress retains the power to change its rules and extend the statutory 90-day limit on its consideration of the trade agreements, 19 U.S.C. § 2191(a)(1), and can easily do so if it wishes to postpone consideration of the agreements pending preparation of an EIS. Further, the proposition that the fast-track procedures by their nature prevent a court from intervening in time to provide meaningful review lends some support to defendants’ claim that NEPA is inconsistent with the fast track. Cf. Flint Ridge Development Co. v. Scenic Rivers Ass’n, 426 U.S. 776, 96 S.Ct. 2430, 49 L.Ed.2d 205 (1976) (<HOLDING>); NRDC v. NRC, 647 F.2d 1345, 1385-86
holding filing of motion for reconsideration does not toll the 30day deadline for filing petition for review holding 30day limit to be mandatory and jurisdictional holding that time limit for filing petition for review is mandatory and jurisdictional holding nepa inapplicable to hud action on developers filing under interstate land sales full disclosure act because 30day time limit made it impracticable for hud to prepare eis holding that the detail that nepa requires in an eis depends upon the nature and scope of the proposed action