consider safety to be a paramount consideration when it comes to transportation oft hazardous materials. Thus, like a0al”l states in the nation, the Stoaltle of Michigan mandates specific restrictions and imposes certain requirements related to the transportation of hoazamrdous mrmnaoteriinals on public routes.
D[Xxucisting haomtdous mimiiaoterianalts routes were estuablitished in Michigan on Nov. 14, 199/41, and were subsequently reported to the FHWA on MCattcCh 8, 19915). All ensuing routing dciesSiIgQnnaottitons a0nd restrictions/requirmrecments for transportation of NRHM in Michigan haoave bOeCetn'l established in accordance with rteguloations.
tetotlting t0no the N|lH"'tMRR and Wayne County
inic::lhu;de whoathmet:
' Current restrictions Ftor specific hazardous material classes should remain on each of the Ftour studied routes,- Current restrictions For certain hazardous material classes should be removed on oalil, or part of, each of the Ftour routes, and
- New restrictions/requitrements or any, of the tour routes.
concerning specific hazardous materials classes should be added on each,
In summary, this synopsis report:
Describes the technical analyses used in evaluating the subiect hazardous materials routes, along with related restrictions, and
0 Includes proposed recommendations for changes to existing restrictions or requirements impacting hazardous materials routes in Wayne County.
3National Research Council, iImnsportalion Reseamrch Board, Speciafl Def•iniing the Need, (.‘wwlvomrging on Solutions, Washington, DC. 2005' Report 283, Cooperative Research for hazardous Materials
Transportation:
‘fedmgl Registmct (Vol. ()7,. No. 193) — FR DOC 02-25226. Dept. otfTronsporltation, Federal Motlor Carrier Safety Administration —
”"Supplemental Information," Oct. 4, 2002.
511.5. Decpaortmentl of Tramnspormtation, Research and Innovative Technology Admanitnniissttuiution (RITA), Bureau of Trunsportuticm Statistics, Hazardous M(attcrticatts Highlights
200/ Commodity FHlow Survey, Woashmington, 01: January 20] t.