section232 update?, page-2

well there i plenty of information if you do a simple google search, this will hel explain what the delay is and  also explain the 60 days it can take to approve the 232 on uranium once it has been submitted to trump

By Greg Peel
Last week the chairman of the US Senate Finance Committee, Republican Charles Grassley, directed his staff to work with senators on both sides of the aisle to produce a bill aimed at restricting the president's national security tariff powers.
For a brief recap of the Section 232 issue and its current constraint on uranium markets, see last week's report.
Earlier this year, another Republican senator, Rob Portman reintroduced the Trade Security Act of 2018, which would allow Congress to negate trade restrictions imposed by the US president under section 232 if it passes a joint resolution of disapproval.
Note that US tariffs imposed to date on China and others have been implemented under section 232, which deals with matters of "national security".
Back in January, another Republican senator, Pat Toomey, introduced the Bicameral Congressional Trade Authority Act, which would give Congress 60 days to approve section 232 actions and, notably, allows Congress to review restrictions imposed within the last four years.
Two uranium producers have petitioned the US government on the basis of national security, ie section 232.
232 uncertainty has been hanging over uranium markets since January 2018 and 2019 to date was dominated by an onerous Department of Commerce questionnaire, which industry participants submitted the week before last. Presumably it will now take the DoC some time to wade through responses before formulating a recommendation for the president, who then has months to make a decision.
Weighing into the debate is the Washington-based Nuclear Energy Institute. The NEI last week wrote a letter to the DoC suggesting policy recommendations in response to the ongoing section 232 investigation into uranium imports. NEI's proposal, which brings together recommendations by separate supplier and utility groups, outlines solutions with the stated aim of helping to maintain a domestic mining infrastructure.
Let's just say no one in the industry will be expecting resolution any time soon. The outcome may have a significant impact on the price US utilities will have to pay for uranium supply.
Limbo
Uncertainty has led led to lower volumes in uranium markets, as utilities curb their longer term supply demand pending an outcome.