; (II) be barred from bringing that additional claim; and (III) remove any such right of action relating to that initial claim. (3) Other claims Any other claim relating to the issuance of an authorization by an agency of jurisdiction for a project shall be subject to subsection (d). (b) Default remedy (1) In general If a court of law determines that an agency did not comply with the requirements of authorizing legislation when granting an authorization for a project, the default remedy shall be to remand that authorization to the applicable agency. (2) Limitation A court of law shall not vacate, enjoin, or otherwise limit an authorization granted for a project unless the issuance of the authorization would present an imminent and substantial danger to human health or the environment for which there is no other equitable remedy available under law. (c) Right of action Notwithstanding any other provision of law, an individual seeking to bring a claim for judicial review of the approval of an authorization for a project may only bring the claim if the individual will suffer a direct and tangible harm because of the authorization for which the individual is seeking judicial review if the harm was not analyzed in the approval of the initial authorization (as defined in subsection (a)(1)). (d) Right of alteration (1) In general If an authorization for a project is enjoined, remanded, or vacated by a court of law, the project sponsor and the agency of jurisdiction shall participate in a mediation process overseen by the Council— (A) to address the reasons for the injunction, remand, or vacatur; and (B) to reauthorize the project for development. (2) Process (A) Remediation proposals Subject to subparagraph (B)(i), not later than 60 days after the date on which an authorization for a project is enjoined, remanded, or vacated by a court of law, the project sponsor and the agency of jurisdiction shall each submit to the Council remediation proposals— (i) to address any identified issues that can be fully resolved