of addressing it. Plaintiffs correctly point out that the public was provided with only two weeks, including an intervening holiday long weekend, or a total of nine working days, in the middle of the summer months, to review the EA and prepare and submit comments to the agency. Pls.’ Mot. at 27. The final EA was prepared over a two week period between July 16 and July 31, 2003. Although neither the statute nor the regulations prescribe any length or scope of public comment on a draft environmental assessment, courts have granted in-junctive relief based at least in part on a likelihood of success on the merits of NEPA challenges to similarly lacking public comment procedures. See Fund for Animals v. Glickman, Civil Action No. 99-245, Tr. Hr’g Mot. for T.R.O. at 59-60 (Feb. 12, 1999) (<HOLDING>); Save Our Ecosystems v. Clark, 747 F.2d 1240,
holding that a difference between approximately 54 days prepreference average days to payment and approximately 67 days preference average days to payment did not make the payments out of the ordinary course of business holding that a difference between 384 days prepreference average number of days to payment and 547 days preference average number of days to payment did not make the payments out of the ordinary course of business holding that where an environmental assessment was prepared in six days and the public comment period was approximately eight working days those kinds of time frames do not allow for any meaningful input even though a couple of dedicated people may have managed holding that the record did not compel a finding of persecution where an alien was detained for five or six days holding that 120 days notice was satisfied by 30 days work plus 90 days pay