This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains regulatory documents having general

applicability and legal effect, most of which

are keyed to and codified in the Code of

Federal Regulations, which is published under

50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by

the Superintendent of Documents. Prices of

new books are listed in the first FEDERAL

REGISTER issue of each week.

Rules and Regulations Federal Register

26483

Vol. 65, No. 89

Monday, May 8, 2000

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL

MANAGEMENT

5 CFR Part 630

RIN 3206–AI35

Family and Medical Leave

AGENCY: Office of Personnel

Management.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Office of Personnel

Management is issuing final regulations

on the Family and Medical Leave Act of

1993 to ensure that both employees’ and

agencies’ rights are protected and their

responsibilities fulfilled.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 7, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jo

Ann Perrini, (202) 606–2858, FAX (202)

606–0824, or email to

payleave@opm.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Title II of

the Family and Medical Leave Act of

1993 (FMLA) (Public Law 103–3,

February 5, 1993) provides an eligible

Federal employee with a total of 12

administrative workweeks of unpaid

leave during any 12-month period for:

(a) The birth of a son or daughter and

care of the newborn; (b) the placement

of a child with the employee for

adoption or foster care; (c) the care of

the employee’s spouse, son or daughter,

or parent with a serious health

condition; or (d) a serious health

condition of the employee that makes

the employee unable to perform the

essential functions of his or her

position. The Office of Personnel

Management (OPM) published final

regulations (61 FR 64441) in subpart L

of part 630 of title 5, Code of Federal

Regulations, to implement Title II of the

FMLA. The final regulations became

effective on January 6, 1997. The

Department of Labor (DOL) is

responsible for implementing Title I of

the FMLA for non-Federal employees,

and its final regulations were published

in 29 CFR part 825 (60 FR 2180, January

6, 1995).

On August 13, 1998, OPM published

proposed regulations (63 FR 43325) to

address the many questions and

concerns that continue to be received by

OPM on employees’ and agencies’

obligations under the FMLA. We

received comments from five Federal

agencies, one professional association,

one labor organization, and one

individual, for a total of eight

comments. In addition, we met with the

labor organization to discuss its

concerns. A summary of the comments

received and the changes made in the

regulations are presented below.

Invoking Entitlement to Family and

Medical Leave

The proposed regulations stated that

an employee may not retroactively

invoke his or her entitlement to family

and medical leave. Three agencies and

the individual strongly supported this

change. The labor organization and the

professional association opposed the

proposed regulations because they

viewed them as inconsistent with

OPM’s regulation at 5 CFR 630.1206,

which allows an employee to notify his

or her agency as soon as is practicable

if the need for FMLA leave is not

foreseeable (e.g., a medical emergency).

The labor organization explained that in

medical emergencies, it may be

impracticable to provide notification

until after the leave is taken.

As stated in OPM’s proposed

regulations, there is a major difference

between Title I and Title II of the FMLA

in terms of the responsibility of an

employer versus an employee to invoke

entitlement to FMLA leave. Under

DOL’s regulations implementing Title I

of the FMLA for non-Federal employees,

the employer is required to designate

leave, paid or unpaid, as FMLA leave

and to give notice of such designation

to the employee. In contrast, under

OPM’s regulations implementing Title II

of the FMLA for Federal employees, the

employee is responsible for invoking his

or her entitlement to FMLA leave, and

the employee may choose whether to

substitute paid leave, as appropriate, for

leave without pay under the FMLA.

Under 5 CFR 630.1203(h), an agency

may not subtract leave from the 12-week

FMLA leave entitlement unless the

agency has obtained confirmation from

the employee of his or her intent to

invoke entitlement to FMLA leave.

The requirement that an employee

must initiate action to take FMLA leave

is consistent with all other Federal leave

policies and programs in that the

employee is responsible for requesting

leave or other time off from work. We

believe it is Congress’ intent to provide

Federal employees with an entitlement

to FMLA leave in a fair and equitable

manner while minimizing the impact of

such leave on an employing agency. The

legislative history establishes an intent

to authorize the use of leave ‘‘to be

taken’’ under the FMLA—i.e., on a

prospective basis. If necessary, an

employee may invoke his or her

entitlement to FMLA leave on the day

of the emergency. In the final

regulations, we have added a sentence

to 5 CFR 630.1203(b) to state that an

employee may not retroactively invoke

his or her entitlement to family and

medical leave.

We realize that unique situations may

require some flexibility in meeting this

requirement. Therefore, 5 CFR

630.1203(b) of the final regulations

provides that if an employee or his or

her personal representative is physically

or mentally incapable of invoking the

employee’s entitlement to FMLA leave

during the entire period in which the

employee is absent from work for an

FMLA-qualifying purpose, the employee

may retroactively invoke his or her

entitlement to FMLA leave within 2

workdays after returning to work. (This

change is consistent with DOL’s

regulations at 29 CFR 825.208(e)(1).) In

such cases, the incapacity of the

employee must be documented by a

written medical certification from a

health care provider. In addition, the

employee must provide documentation

acceptable to the agency explaining the

inability of the personal representative

to contact the agency and invoke the

employee’s entitlement to FMLA leave

during the entire period in which the

employee was absent from work for an

FMLA-qualifying purpose.

The professional association objected

to the current practice of requiring

employees to provide 30 calendar days’

notice of their intent to take FMLA

leave. The association further stated that

by not allowing employees to seek

entitlement to FMLA leave retroactively,

OPM is barring employees from using

26484 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 89 / Monday, May 8, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

FMLA leave when they need it most,

e.g., in a family medical emergency.

Under 5 U.S.C. 6382(e), if the need for

leave is foreseeable, employees are

required to provide not less than 30

calendar days’ notice of their intent to

use leave under the FMLA. If leave

needs to begin in less than 30 calendar

days, the employee must give such

notice as is practicable. OPM’s

regulations at 5 CFR 630.1206 require an

employee to provide 30 calendar days’

notice when the need for leave is

foreseeable (e.g., an expected birth or

planned medical treatment). If the need

for leave is not foreseeable (e.g., a

medical emergency or the unexpected

availability of a child for adoption or

foster care), and the employee cannot

provide 30 calendar days’ notice of his

or her need for leave, the employee

must provide notice within a reasonable

period of time appropriate to the

circumstances involved. Finally, if the

need for leave is not foreseeable and the

employee is unable, due to

circumstances beyond his or her

control, to provide notice of his or her

need for leave, the FMLA leave cannot

be denied or delayed. Since the law and

current regulations require notification

of the need for FMLA leave and allow

flexibility for emergency situations, no

substantive changes were made in the

final regulations. However, we have

modified 5 CFR 630.1206 (a), (c), and (d)

to make clear that ‘‘days’’ refers to

‘‘calendar days.’’

Additional Evidence

The proposed regulations would have

permitted an agency to require that a

request for leave under the FMLA be

supported by evidence that is

administratively acceptable to the

agency. This provision was proposed in

response to agency requests to obtain

additional evidence to support a claim

that an employee cared for a spouse, son

or daughter, or parent with a serious

health condition during an absence

coinciding with the period in which the

employee requested FMLA leave.

Existing OPM regulations permit an

agency to require an employee to

provide evidence that is

administratively acceptable when

requesting leave for (1) the birth of a son

or daughter of the employee and the

care of such son or daughter and (2) the

placement of a son or daughter with the

employee for adoption or foster care.

Two agencies fully supported this

change. The individual recommended

that all requests for FMLA leave be

supported by medical evidence, if at all

possible. In contrast, the professional

association and the labor organization

opposed our proposal because they

believe the phrase ‘‘administratively

acceptable to the agency’’ is too broad

and leaves the door open for agency

abuse. Both the professional association

and the labor organization stated that

this change would present an additional

hardship for employees undergoing a

major crisis. The labor organization

believes OPM’s regulations at 5 CFR

630.1207 already establish a medical

certification process through which an

agency may require an employee to

submit evidence in support of requested

leave for an employee’s serious health

condition or that of a family member.

The labor organization further noted

that under 5 U.S.C. 6307, a medical

certification that meets the requirements

of the statute ‘‘shall be deemed

sufficient.’’

After careful consideration, we agree

that the regulations should not permit

an agency to require an employee to

submit documentation that may be

overly burdensome and beyond what is

deemed sufficient by statute. When an

agency suspects employee fraud, it may

contact its Office of the Inspector

General for further investigation. The

changes proposed in 5 CFR 630.1206(f)

were not adopted.

Medical Certification

The proposed regulations would have

required an employee to provide written

medical certification of a serious health

condition no later than 15 workdays

after the date the agency requests such

medical certification. Section

630.1207(g) of the proposed regulations

provided that if an employee was

unable to provide the requested medical

certification before FMLA leave must

begin, the agency would be required to

grant provisional leave pending final

written medical certification that was to

be received no later than 15 workdays

after the date the FMLA leave began.

OPM proposed these time limits to

ensure that the entitlements provided

under the FMLA are provided to all

Federal employees in a fair and

consistent manner.

Two agencies agreed with OPM’s

proposed change. The individual

remarked that 10 workdays would be

preferable to 15 because 10 days would

coincide with a biweekly pay period

and payroll start dates. In contrast, both

the professional association and the

labor organization stated that OPM’s 15-

workday time limit was too stringent.

The labor organization also objected that

the proposed regulation would not

guarantee an employee at least 15

workdays to provide medical

certification. The labor organization

noted that in cases where the health

care provider does not complete the

medical certification even after repeated

efforts, the employee would be

penalized for circumstances that are

beyond his or her control. The labor

organization further suggested that OPM

adopt DOL’s regulation at 29 CFR

825.305(b), which states that an

‘‘employee must provide the requested

certification to the employer (which

must allow at least 15 calendar days

after the employer’s request) unless it is

not practicable under the particular

circumstances to do so despite the

employee’s diligent, good faith efforts.’’

The professional association believes

the agency should be prohibited from

requesting medical certification until

the ‘‘emergency’’ situation has ceased.

We believe it is Congress’ intent that,

in all circumstances, employees be

required to provide complete medical

certification, when requested by an

agency, within a reasonable period in

view of the circumstances involved. We

recognize that the proposed regulation

would not permit any flexibility for an

employee who was unable to provide

medical certification within 15

workdays due to circumstances beyond

his or her control. Therefore, as

suggested by the labor organization, we

have revised our regulation to model

DOL’s regulation. We have revised 5

CFR 630.1207(g) to require employees to

provide medical certification of a

serious health condition no later than 15

calendar days after the date the agency

requests the medical certification.

However, to accommodate situations in

which more flexibility may be needed,

we have added a sentence to 5 CFR

630.1207(g) to provide that if it is not

practicable under the particular

circumstances to provide the requested

medical certification within 15 calendar

days after the date requested by the

agency despite the employee’s diligent,

good faith efforts, the employee must

provide the medical certification within

a reasonable period of time under the

circumstances involved, but no later

than 30 calendar days after the date the

medical certification was requested by

the agency.

In most cases, we believe 15 calendar

days constitutes an ample amount of

time within which an employee can

obtain written medical certification.

Establishing a time limit of 30 calendar

days in all cases for which an employee

must provide medical certification

provides a needed balance between

guaranteeing employees ample time to

provide required medical certification

and affirming agencies’ authority to

determine whether FMLA leave is

appropriate. If an employee does not

provide the requested medical

certification, the absence is not FMLA

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 89 / Monday, May 8, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 26485

leave and the agency may charge the

employee as absent without leave

(AWOL) or allow the employee to

request annual leave, sick leave, or leave

without pay, as appropriate, for the

period of absence.

The labor organization also suggested

that OPM revise its regulations to

require an agency to request medical

certification at the time the employee

gives notice of the need for leave or

within 2 business days thereafter, or, in

the case of unforeseen leave, within 2

business days after the leave

commences. The labor organization

believes this would put both the

employer and the employee on notice of

the time frame during which a request

for medical certification would

normally be appropriate. The labor

organization believes this addition

would strike an appropriate balance

between the obligations and rights of the

employer and the employee.

The requirement to provide medical

certification for a serious health

condition within 15 calendar days

cannot begin until after the date the

agency requests such medical

certification. Employees will not receive

any additional benefits from requiring

agencies to request medical certification

within 2 workdays after the employee’s

notice of FMLA leave. Therefore, we do

not believe this additional requirement

is necessary.

Insufficient Notification and Medical

Certification

The proposed regulations stated that

an employee who does not comply with

the notification requirements in

§ 630.1206, and who does not provide

medical certification signed by the

health care provider that includes all

the information required by law and

OPM’s regulations at § 630.1207(b), is

not entitled to FMLA leave. Further, the

employee would not receive any of the

employment and benefit protections of

the FMLA. Two agencies fully

supported this proposal. The labor

organization stated that it would

support this section if employees’

interests were adequately protected as

reflected in the organization’s other

recommendations. The labor

organization believes this provision will

put employees on notice of the

consequences of their failure to meet

their responsibilities. We believe the

changes we have discussed above will

provide adequate protection to all

employees. Therefore, we have revised

5 CFR 630.1208(l) to state that a

employee who does not comply with

the notification requirements in

§ 630.1206, and who does not provide

medical certification signed by the

health care provider that includes all

the information required by law and

OPM’s regulations at § 630.1207(b), is

not entitled to FMLA leave.

Holidays

The proposed regulations stated that

any holiday that occurs during the

period in which an employee is on

family and medical leave will be

counted toward the 12-week FMLA

entitlement. One agency supported this

proposal and recommended adding the

phrase ‘‘and any periods of

administrative dismissal’’ to include all

periods of authorized absence. One

agency and the labor organization

objected to this proposal because no

other employee is charged leave on a

holiday. The labor organization

remarked that a Federal employee has a

separate entitlement to Federal holidays

and that to count holidays toward the

12-week FMLA period would diminish

the employee’s entitlement to those

holidays. The labor organization also

expressed the view that counting

holidays within an employee’s FMLA

leave period would have a

disproportionate impact on those

employees who need FMLA leave for a

continuous period of weeks as

compared to those who use FMLA leave

intermittently.

DOL’s regulations permit the counting

of holidays against the 12-week

entitlement to FMLA leave. In 29 CFR

825.200(f), DOL’s regulations provide

that for purposes of determining the

amount of leave used by an employee,

the fact that a holiday may occur within

the week taken as FMLA leave has no

effect; the week is counted as a week of

FMLA leave. However, DOL’s

regulations further explain that if an

employer’s business activity has

temporarily ceased and employees are

not expected to report for work (e.g., a

school closing 2 weeks for the

Christmas/New Year’s holiday or an

employer closing a plant for retooling or

repairs), the days the employer’s

activities have ceased do not count

against an employee’s 12-week

entitlement to FMLA leave.

The law (5 U.S.C. 6302(a)) provides

that days of leave are days on which an

employee would otherwise work and

receive pay and are exclusive of

holidays and nonworkdays established

by Federal statute, Executive order, or

administrative order. Upon further

consideration, we have determined that

FMLA leave may be charged only on

days on which an employee is

scheduled to be in a duty status.

Therefore, we have revised 5 CFR

630.1203(e) to state that any holidays

authorized under 5 U.S.C. 6103 or by

Executive order and nonworkdays

established by Federal statute, Executive

order, or administrative order that occur

during the period in which the

employee is on family and medical

leave will not be counted toward the 12-

week entitlement to family and medical

leave. OPM’s regulations are consistent

with Congress’ intent to better enable

Federal employees to benefit from the

leave provided by the FMLA.

‘‘Stacking’’ of Leave

An agency requested guidance on an

employee’s entitlement to annual and

sick leave in addition to leave under the

FMLA—i.e., the ‘‘stacking’’ of leave. The

12 workweeks of unpaid leave under the

FMLA are in addition to any annual

leave, sick leave, or other paid leave or

compensatory time off available to an

employee, and an employee may choose

to take FMLA leave in combination with

any other available leave. We have

advised agencies that the best way to

manage the ‘‘stacking’’ of leave is to

encourage communication between

supervisors and employees. A

supervisor must inform employees of

their entitlements and responsibilities

under the FMLA. When an employee

requests leave for a personal or family

medical situation, the supervisor may

want to ask up front whether the

employee is invoking his or her

entitlement to FMLA leave.

Although a supervisor generally

cannot deny sick leave if the employee

provides medical certification, he or she

can deny annual leave or leave without

pay if there is a need for the employee

to be at work. While the taking of

annual leave is a right of an employee,

it is subject to the right of the supervisor

to schedule the time at which annual

leave may be taken. If an employee

requests leave for any of the four FMLAqualifying purposes, the supervisor may

ask whether the employee is invoking

his or her entitlement to FMLA leave. If

the employee invokes entitlement to

FMLA leave, he or she may choose to

substitute his or her annual leave, or

sick leave as appropriate, for leave

without pay under the FMLA. As a

result, both the supervisor and the

employee are successful in meeting

their needs.

SF–71, Request for Leave or Approved

Absence

One agency recommended that the

SF–71, Request for Leave or Approved

Absence, include a block for granting

FMLA provisional leave pending receipt

of final medical certification and that

the block should also include a

statement that the employee must

provide the requested medical

26486 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 89 / Monday, May 8, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

certification not later than 15 workdays

after the date the agency requests the

certification. The agency believes this

would further assist employees and

supervisors in meeting their obligations

under the FMLA.

In our continuing effort to improve

the Federal leave system and in

response to agencies’ recommendations,

OPM is considering further

improvements in the SF–71. We will

provide agencies with information on

the availability of revised forms through

OPM’s web site at http://www.opm.gov.

Miscellaneous Changes

Sections 630.1201(b)(1)(ii)(B) and

(b)(3)(i) of title 5, Code of Federal

Regulations, are being revised as

requested by the Department of Veterans

Affairs to identify employees of the

Veterans Health Administration who are

covered by Title II of the FMLA.

An agency suggested that 5 CFR

630.1203(a) be revised to clarify that

medical conditions associated with

pregnancy or childbirth must meet the

requirements for using FMLA leave for

a serious health condition. Under 5 CFR

630.1203(a), an employee has an

absolute entitlement to unpaid leave

under the FMLA for the birth of a child

and care of the newborn. In addition,

paragraph (1)(ii)(B) of the definition of

‘‘serious health condition’’ in 5 CFR

630.1202 specifically includes

pregnancy and prenatal care. Finally, if

an employee elects to substitute sick

leave for unpaid leave under the FMLA,

OPM’s regulation at 5 CFR 630.401

authorizes the use of sick leave for

pregnancy and childbirth. For these

reasons, we have not adopted the

agency’s suggestion in the final

regulations.

An agency suggested that in order to

avoid confusion, OPM should specify

throughout 5 CFR part 630, subpart L,

whether ‘‘days’’ means workdays or

calendar days. We agree and have edited

the regulations to state ‘‘calendar days,’’

where appropriate.

An agency suggested that OPM

require that the medical certification be

signed personally by the health care

provider. We believe this suggestion

may place an unnecessary burden on

the employee and the health care

provider. Therefore, we have not

adopted this suggestion.

Finally, we are taking this

opportunity to correct an improper

citation and to clarify § 630.1207(i).

Regulatory Flexibility Act

I certify that these regulations will not

have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small entities

because they will affect only Federal

employees and agencies.

Family Assessment Certification

I certify that these regulations would

strengthen the stability of the family,

help families meet their responsibilities,

and increase the disposable income of

families in accordance with section 654

of the Treasury and General

Government Appropriations Act, 1999,

as contained in section 101(h) of Public

Law 105–277, the Omnibus

Consolidated and Emergency

Supplemental Appropriations Act,

1999.

List of Subjects in 5 CFR Part 630

Government employees.

U.S. Office of Personnel Management.

Janice R. Lachance,

Director.

Accordingly, OPM is amending part

630 of title 5 of the Code of Federal

Regulations as follows:

PART 630—ABSENCE AND LEAVE

1. The authority citation for part 630

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 6311; § 630.301 also

issued under Pub. L. 103–356, 108 Stat. 3410;

§ 630.303 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 6133(a);

§§ 630.306 and 630.308 also issued under 5

U.S.C. 6304(d)(3), Pub. L. 102–484, 106 Stat.

2722, and Pub. L. 103–337, 108 Stat. 2663;

subpart D also issued under Pub. L. 103–329,

108 Stat. 2423; § 630.501 and subpart F also

issued under E.O. 11228, 30 FR 7739, 3 CFR,

1974 Comp., p. 163; subpart G also issued

under 5 U.S.C. 6305; subpart H also issued

under 5 U.S.C. 6326; subpart I also issued

under 5 U.S.C. 6332, Pub. L. 100–566, 102

Stat. 2834, and Pub. L. 103–103, 107 Stat.

1022; subpart J also issued under 5 U.S.C.

6362, Pub. L 100–566, and Pub. L. 103–103;

subpart K also issued under Pub. L. 105–18,

111 Stat. 158; subpart L also issued under 5

U.S.C. 6387 and Pub. L. 103–3, 107 Stat. 23;

and subpart M also issued under 5 U.S.C.

6391 and Pub. L. 102–25, 105 Stat. 92.

Subpart L—Family and Medical Leave

2. Sections 630.1201(b)(1)(ii)(B) and

630.1201(b)(3)(i) are revised to read as

follows:

§ 630.1201 Purpose, applicability, and

administration.

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(1) * * *

(ii) * * *

(B) An employee of the Veterans

Health Administration appointed under

title 38, United States Code, in

occupations listed in 38 U.S.C. 7401(1);

* * * * *

(3) * * *

(i) An employee of the Veterans

Health Administration appointed under

title 38, United States Code, in

occupations listed in 38 U.S.C. 7401(1)

is be governed by the terms and

conditions of regulations prescribed by

the Secretary of Veterans Affairs;

* * * * *

3. In § 630.1203, paragraph (b) is

revised, a new sentence is added at the

end of paragraph (e), and the first

sentence in paragraph (h) is revised to

read as follows:

§ 630.1203 Leave entitlement.

* * * * *

(b) An employee must invoke his or

her entitlement to family and medical

leave under paragraph (a) of this

section, subject to the notification and

medical certification requirements in

§§ 630.1206 and 630.1207. An employee

may not retroactively invoke his or her

entitlement to family and medical leave.

However, if an employee and his or her

personal representative are physically or

mentally incapable of invoking the

employee’s entitlement to FMLA leave

during the entire period in which the

employee is absent from work for an

FMLA-qualifying purpose under

paragraph (a) of this section, the

employee may retroactively invoke his

or her entitlement to FMLA leave within

2 workdays after returning to work. In

such cases, the incapacity of the

employee must be documented by a

written medical certification from a

health care provider. In addition, the

employee must provide documentation

acceptable to the agency explaining the

inability of his or her personal

representative to contact the agency and

invoke the employee’s entitlement to

FMLA leave during the entire period in

which the employee was absent from

work for an FMLA-qualifying purpose.

An employee may take only the amount

of family and medical leave that is

necessary to manage the circumstances

that prompted the need for leave under

paragraph (a) of this section.

* * * * *

(e) * * * Any holidays authorized

under 5 U.S.C. 6103 or by Executive

order and nonworkdays established by

Federal statute, Executive order, or

administrative order that occur during

the period in which the employee is on

family and medical leave may not be

counted toward the 12-week entitlement

to family and medical leave.

* * * * *

(h) An agency may not put an

employee on family and medical leave

and may not subtract leave from an

employee’s entitlement to leave under

paragraph (a) of this section unless the

agency has obtained confirmation from

the employee of his or her intent to

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 89 / Monday, May 8, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 26487

invoke entitlement to leave under

paragraph (b) of this section. * * *

§ 630.1206 [Amended]

4. In § 630.1206 , paragraphs (a), (c),

and (d), the word ‘‘calendar’’ is added

before the words ‘‘days’’ and ‘‘days’.’’

5. In § 630.1207, the second sentence

in paragraph (a) is removed; paragraphs

(h), (i) and (j) are redesignated as

paragraphs (i), (j), and (k); a new

paragraph (h) is added; and the newly

redesignated paragraph (j) is revised to

read as follows:

§ 630.1207 Medical certification.

* * * * *

(h) An employee must provide the

written medical certification required by

paragraphs (a), (d), (e), and (g) of this

section, signed by the health care

provider, no later than 15 calendar days

after the date the agency requests such

medical certification. If it is not

practicable under the particular

circumstances to provide the requested

medical certification no later than 15

calendar days after the date requested

by the agency despite the employee’s

diligent, good faith efforts, the employee

must provide the medical certification

within a reasonable period of time

under the circumstances involved, but

no later than 30 calendar days after the

date the agency requests such medical

certification.

* * * * *

(j) At its own expense, an agency may

require subsequent medical

recertification on a periodic basis, but

not more than once every 30 calendar

days, for leave taken for purposes

relating to pregnancy, chronic

conditions, or long-term conditions, as

these terms are used in the definition of

serious health condition in § 630.1202.

* * * * *

6. In § 630.1208, paragraph (l) is

added to read as follows:

§ 630.1208 Protection of employment and

benefits.

* * * * *

(l) An employee who does not comply

with the notification requirements in

§ 630.1206 and does not provide

medical certification signed by the

health care provider that includes all of

the information required in

§ 630.1207(b) is not entitled to family

and medical leave.

[FR Doc. 00–11385 Filed 5–5–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6325–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Animal and Plant Health Inspection

Service

7 CFR Part 301

[Docket No. 99–076–2]

Oriental Fruit Fly; Removal of

Quarantined Area

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health

Inspection Service, USDA.

ACTION: Interim rule and request for

comments.

SUMMARY: We are amending the Oriental

fruit fly regulations by removing the

quarantine on a portion of Los Angeles

County, CA, and by removing the

restrictions on the interstate movement

of regulated articles from that area. This

action is necessary to relieve restrictions

that are no longer needed to prevent the

spread of the Oriental fruit fly into

noninfested areas of the United States.

We have determined that the Oriental

fruit fly has been eradicated from this

portion of Los Angeles County, CA, and

that the quarantine and restrictions are

no longer necessary. This portion of Los

Angeles County, CA, was the last

remaining area in California

quarantined for the Oriental fruit fly.

Therefore, as a result of this action,

there are no longer any areas in the

continental United States quarantined

for the Oriental fruit fly.

DATES: This interim rule was effective

May 2, 2000. We invite you to comment

on this docket. We will consider all

comments that we receive by July 7,

2000.

ADDRESSES: Please send your comment

and three copies to: Docket No. 99–076–

2, Regulatory Analysis and

Development, PPD, APHIS, Suite 3C03,

4700 River Road, Unit 118, Riverdale,

MD 20737–1238. Please state that your

comment refers to Docket No. 99–076–

2.

You may read any comments that we

receive on this docket in our reading

room. The reading room is located in

room 1141 of the USDA South Building,

14th Street and Independence Avenue,

SW, Washington, DC. Normal reading

room hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.,

Monday through Friday, except

holidays. To be sure someone is there to

help you, please call (202) 690–2817

before coming.

APHIS documents published in the

Federal Register, and related

information, including the names of

organizations and individuals who have

commented on APHIS dockets, are

available on the Internet at http://

www.aphis.usda.gov/ppd/rad/

webrepor.html.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Wilmer E. Snell, Operations Officer,

Invasive Species and Pest Management

Staff, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road

Unit 134, Riverdale, MD 20737–1236;

(301) 734–8747.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The Oriental fruit fly, Bactrocera

dorsalis (Hendel), is a destructive pest

of citrus and other types of fruits, nuts,

and vegetables. The short life cycle of

the Oriental fruit fly allows rapid

development of serious outbreaks that

can cause severe economic losses.

Heavy infestations can cause complete

loss of crops.

The Oriental fruit fly regulations,

contained in 7 CFR 301.93 through

301.93–10 (referred to below as the

regulations), restrict the interstate

movement of regulated articles from

quarantined areas to prevent the spread

of the Oriental fruit fly to noninfested

areas of the United States. The

regulations also designate soil and a

large number of fruits, nuts, vegetables,

and berries as regulated articles.

In an interim rule effective on

September 22, 1999, and published in

the Federal Register on September 28,

1999 (64 FR 52213–52214, Docket No.

99–076–1), we quarantined a portion of

Los Angeles County, CA, and restricted

the interstate movement of regulated

articles from the quarantined area.

Based on trapping surveys conducted

by inspectors of California State and

county agencies and by inspectors of the

Animal and Plant Health Inspection

Service, we have determined that the

Oriental fruit fly has been eradicated

from the quarantined portion of Los

Angeles County, CA. The last finding of

Oriental fruit fly in this area was

October 19, 1999.

Since then, no evidence of Oriental

fruit fly infestation has been found in

this area. Based on our experience, we

have determined that sufficient time has

passed without finding additional flies

or other evidence of infestation to

conclude that the Oriental fruit fly no

longer exists in Los Angeles County,

CA. Therefore, we are removing Los

Angeles County, CA, from the list of

quarantined areas in § 301.93–3(c).

Oriental fruit fly infestations are not

known to exist anywhere else in the

continental United States.

Immediate Action

The Administrator of the Animal and

Plant Health Inspection Service has

determined that there is good cause for