+------------------+---------------------------------------------------+
| ![](m            | ### Human Resources                               |
| edia/image1.wmf) |                                                   |
|                  | # Unified G                                       |
|                  | overnment of Wyandotte County/Kansas City, Kansas |
|                  |                                                   |
|                  | #### Patty Kroll, Director                        |
|                  |                                                   |
|                  | 701 North Seventh Street, Ste. 646                |
|                  |                                                   |
|                  | Kansas City, Kansas 66101                         |
|                  |                                                   |
|                  | \(913\) 573-5660 • FAX (913) 573-5006             |
+------------------+---------------------------------------------------+

Mr. Richard M. Brennan

Senior Regulatory Officer

Wage and Hour Division

Employment Standards Administration

U.S. Department of Labor

Room S-3502

200 Constitution Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20210

Re: Comments on the Department of Labor's

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (RIN 1215-AB35)

Dear Mr. Brennan:

I am writing on behalf of the Unified Government of Wyandotte
County/Kansas City, Kansas regarding changes in the Family and Medical
Leave Act as published in the *Federal Register* on February 11, 2008.

**Medical Certification**

Improving the ease of communication between the employer and the
healthcare provider is something we fully support. The freedom to
contact the healthcare provider directly, supply additional information
to the healthcare provider regarding job responsibilities and attendance
records and the ability to request clarifications from the provider
directly are all tremendous improvements to the current system. We
would, however, like to see stronger language implemented by changing
"may" to "must" when requesting information regarding on-going treatment
as well as changing "may not" to "will not" when the duration of an
illness is not provided in a finite manner.

**Intermittent Leave**

We fully support the proposed change to allow employers to request
fitness for duty certifications from employees taking intermittent leave
when safety concerns are present. With the great potential for abuse of
intermittent leave, having a mechanism built in to the regulations that
does not otherwise limit the employer is a great boon.

**Employer Notice Requirements**

We are very concerned about the increased workload that will be caused
by the reporting of leave used, leave balances, and paid leave
"coordination" with FMLA to employees taking leave each month. This
reporting may not be a standard delivered item in many systems and, no
matter how automated it may be or become for employers, it is still a
requirement to track and report information that will take valuable time
away from other tasks. This reporting requirement should not be
necessary as employees are generally capable of tracking their own leave
either through submitted time sheets or other means available through
the use of technology or timekeeping practices.

**Military Family Leave Provisions and Regulatory Issues**

The proposed regulatory change to extend FMLA rights to military family
members is laudable. While we agree that leave under the FMLA may be
necessary, it will be very important to clearly define what, exactly,
constitutes a qualifying "exigency" and what does not. Comments from
lawmakers are not entirely in agreement on this issue, and with the
broad definition of "exigency," it may become difficult for human
resources professionals to make eligibility determinations without very
clear and concise definitions.

Another point of clarification should be made on the period in which the
26 workweek leave for care of an injured servicemember will occur. For
instance, could an employee, under the rolling 12-month calendar, return
to work and still have 26 full workweeks of leave for servicemember care
or would that individual only have an adjusted amount of leave available
based on their usage within the prior 12 months?

Thank you for the chance to comment on the changes being made to the
Family and Medical Leave Act. We are looking forward to the issuance of
the final regulations and hope that our comments are useful.

Sincerely,

Matthew R. Moore

Human Resources Analyst