By Charles R. Babcock
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, April 6, 1998; Page A23

You won't find Chick-fil-A Inc. named in the massive $217 billion highway bill that the House passed last week. But there is a favor in the bill for the Atlanta-based restaurant chain and several more salted away for other companies and industries.

There's more to the legislation, it seems, than the billions earmarked for roads and bridges in members' districts. It contains provisions that may translate into profits or cost savings for various special interests, even though their requests don't call for any federal funds.

Rocky Mountain Prestress Inc. of Denver, sugarcane growers in Louisiana and truckers in Maine, for example, are seeking exceptions to federal truck weight limits.

Brian O'Neill, president of the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, denounced the exceptions to federal weight limits as "obviously egregious examples of what shouldn't be happening in this legislation."

A more controversial safety issue, a provision that would block federal inspectors from using "global positioning satellite" records to check on whether truckers are driving too many hours, was pulled from the bill at the last minute.

It's not always easy to tell from the legislative language who got what. The Chick-fil-A provision is found in Section 133, Eligibility. It refers only to "a food business" being eligible to be included on highway signs even though it is open only six days a week. That means Chick-fil-A.

The company's problem, according to spokesman Don Perry, is that Transportation Department regulations say restaurants should be open seven days a week to be included on those interstate highway "food and lodging next exit" signs. The chain, which has 775 locations and is expanding, has always been closed on Sundays, he said, because its founders saw Sunday as a day for church, family and rest.

If the House-passed provision becomes law, Chick-fil-A will pay for the signs, which already are allowed under state law in Georgia, Florida and Texas. They will say "closed Sundays" so motorists won't be confused, Perry added.

Rep. Mac Collins (R-Ga.) carried the company's request to the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.

Another section of the bill contains the exceptions to the 80,000-pound weight limit for trucks using federal highways. One provision, sponsored by Rep. Dan Schaefer (R-Colo.), would benefit several prefabricated concrete companies in Colorado, including Rocky Mountain Prestress, a Schaefer aide said.

The provision would let the firms haul two or more giant concrete slabs on their trucks, a practice already permitted on state roads. Dan Hopkins, a spokesman for the Colorado transportation department, said the state feels the variance is important from a safety standpoint "to get these large moves done with fewer trips."

Louisiana sugarcane growers would benefit from a similar provision allowing 100,000-pound loads on federal roads, like the loads they now carry on state highways, according to Charlie Melancon, president of the American Sugar Cane League in Thibodaux, La.

Melancon said the growers hope to get railroads to carry much of the load in coming years, but need the exemption now to cut costs and make local roads safer. Rep. Richard H. Baker (R-La.) championed the growers' cause, Melancon added.

The 100,000-pound weight limit is also an issue in Maine, where logging trucks are a way of life. The Federal Highway Administration has started sanction proceedings against the state because it isn't enforcing the federal limit after designating a part of the state turnpike a federal interstate several years ago, according to Alan Stearns, director of policy for the state Transportation Department. He called the federal limit "a farce" because roads in Massachusetts and New York are allowed to carry heavier loads. The House bill would exempt that state-turned-federal highway from the weight limit.

Paul Oakley, a lobbyist for the Association of American Railroads, which competes with trucks to haul freight, said the exemptions in the House bill would create "a bad precedent." Asked about the administration's position on the weight-limit variances, a Transportation Department spokesman read a statement that didn't address the issue. The department said it looks forward to working with the House and Senate conferees.

The insurance institute's O'Neill wasn't so reticent. He said he does not buy the Colorado and Louisiana advocates' contention that it is safer to move the heavyweight trucks from state roads to the interstates.

"It would be safer to keep them off the roads altogether," O'Neill said.

The bill reported out of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee last week contained a "moratorium" on most federal efforts to use "global positioning satellite" records to check on driver hours. Companies use the Global Positioning System to keep tabs on where their trucks are, but they don't want enforcers to use the same records to double-check logs that drivers keep on how long they drive each day. That section also budgeted $500,000 for a study of government access to such data.

The "moratorium" was dropped in the "manager's amendment" to the bill introduced by Rep. Bud Shuster (R-Pa.), the committee chairman, shortly before final passage Wednesday night. Just the study remains.

The highway bill also has something for bikers.

Motorcycle riders lobbied for and won a provision aimed at cities, including Chicago and Philadelphia, which have banned their vehicles from some streets because of complaints about noise. The provision states that no state or locality can bar motorcycle access to any federally funded highway.

As Kelita Svoboda, lobbyist for the American Motorcyclist Association, put it: "Our members pay gas taxes too."