Litigation Procedure Statute of Limitations. The plaintiff acknowledged that its lawsuit had been filed well after the statute-of-limitations deadline, but argued that it should not be dismissed because (1) the deadline should be “tolled” – i.e., suspended – because the defendants had somehow misled the plaintiffs; and (2) FTA had an obligation to consider new information submitted by the plaintiffs. The court rejected both arguments. First, it found that FTA’s actions did not amount to “concealment or egregious conduct” and therefore provided no basis for tolling the statute-of-limitations period. Second, the court found that “The time leading up to the FTA’s decision was the appropriate time for plaintiffs to present their Revised Alternative 5 so that it could have been considered by the agency in making the decision. Plaintiffs were required to commence any suit challenging the agency’s evaluation of reasonable alternatives within 180 days of publication of the FTA’s decision. Plaintiffs did not do so and their claim regarding Revised Alternative 5 is time-barred.”