“We do not support inclusion of language that reflects the Ban Amendment. Additionally, the inclusion of such language does not make sense because this paragraph is dealing with equipment that is not waste, so the Basel Convention and the Ban Amendment do not apply. “

From p. 11 of of response by United States to Basel Secretariat. 2012. ‘Draft Technical Guidelines on Transboundary Movement of E-Waste, in Particular Regarding the Distinction between Waste and Non-Waste (Version of 27 September 2012)’. http://www.basel.int/Portals/4/download.aspx?d=UNEP-CHW-OEWG.8-INF-9-Rev.1.English.doc.

“If, as indicated earlier in this paragraph, it is stipulated that the Basel Convention does not apply to movements of equipment that is not waste, there is no legal basis identified for a country to “object” or “identify conditions” on such movements that are beyond the scope of the Convention..”

From p. 14 of of response by United States to Basel Secretariat. 2012. ‘Draft Technical Guidelines on Transboundary Movement of E-Waste, in Particular Regarding the Distinction between Waste and Non-Waste (Version of 27 September 2012)’. http://www.basel.int/Portals/4/download.aspx?d=UNEP-CHW-OEWG.8-INF-9-Rev.1.English.doc.