As the clock winds down to the two-minute warning for the Bush administration, the Department of Labor has proposed to modify the Family and Medical Leave Act for the first time in its 15-year existence.

That move drew a predictable reaction—from Democrats who say the changes are an assault on employee leave and from the business community, which sought more profound action. Here is a summary of the situation from February 14:

“Democratic Leaders Oppose Revising FMLA Regulations”

One of the objections that Democrats brought up at the February hearing about the regulatory proposal is that it is coming too late in President Bush’s tenure. The comment period ends April 11. Then there is precious little time to issue a final rule and get the approval of the Office of Management and Budget.

Why did the Labor Department wait so long to offer the 477-page proposal? The answer provides some hope that middle ground can be found between FMLA advocates who don’t want a syllable of the law changed and business interests that would like to see fundamental revisions to two areas most prone to abuse—the definition of a serious condition and the use of unscheduled intermittent leave.

Victoria Lipnic, assistant secretary of labor for the Employment Standards Administration, said the administration came forward with FMLA changes as soon as it could. She notes that the DOL has been engaged in meetings since 2003 with those who use, administer and promote FMLA.

Those sessions produced a raft of questions that became the basis for a survey, concluded in 2007, that produced 15,000 comments. The department then sifted through that feedback, reviewed FMLA court cases during the last 15 years and finally put out the FMLA regulatory proposal in February.

That hefty volume was strengthened because the long gestation gave the DOL a better understanding of how FMLA is working, according to Lipnic.

“We came to this in a deliberative way,” she said in an interview after the February 14 hearing.

A close reading of the regulation shows that the DOL painstakingly included both sides of the story. Within the same paragraph, it quotes champions of FMLA and opponents. Then it offers a recommendation that doesn’t fully please either side.

The proposal is hardly revolutionary. It could have been much better or much worse, depending on your frame of reference. It declines to change the definition of a serious health condition and does not significantly alter rules for intermittent leave, other than to require that employees warn their supervisors before the beginning of their shift that they will be out.

The DOL does allow companies to contact directly an employee’s health care provider to determine whether leave is legitimate. But if the company denies leave, under the new rules, it would have to do so in writing and give the employee a chance to respond.

Despite balancing attempts, tweaking FMLA causes political sparks to fly. “The administration couldn’t publish the current rules without getting into a fight,” said Marc Freedman, director of labor law policy at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

But in the midst of political heat, FMLA also generates light. Most HR professionals acknowledge that the leave law works well more often than not. Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Connecticut and the original FMLA author, wants to enact paid leave but also has indicated in the past that he would listen to calls from the business community for some FMLA modifications.

After the February 14 hearing, Dodd met with Lipnic in private. Perhaps in the quiet of a Capitol Hill office, they inched closer toward middle ground that is overshadowed by politics in congressional hearings.