82_FR_57627 82 FR 57395 - Tip Regulations Under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)

82 FR 57395 - Tip Regulations Under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Wage and Hour Division

Federal Register Volume 82, Issue 232 (December 5, 2017)

Page Range57395-57413
FR Document2017-25802

The Department of Labor (Department) is proposing to rescind portions of its tip regulations issued pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act that impose restrictions on employers that pay a direct cash wage of at least the full federal minimum wage and do not seek to use a portion of tips as a credit toward their minimum wage obligations. This Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) seeks the views of the public on the Department's proposed rescission of those portions of the regulations.

Federal Register, Volume 82 Issue 232 (Tuesday, December 5, 2017)
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 232 (Tuesday, December 5, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 57395-57413]
From the Federal Register Online  [www.thefederalregister.org]
[FR Doc No: 2017-25802]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Wage and Hour Division

29 CFR Part 531

RIN 1235-AA21


Tip Regulations Under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)

AGENCY: Wage and Hour Division, Department of Labor.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking; request for comments.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Department of Labor (Department) is proposing to rescind 
portions of its tip regulations issued pursuant to the Fair Labor 
Standards Act that impose restrictions on employers that pay a direct 
cash wage of at least the full federal minimum wage and do not seek to 
use a portion of tips as a credit toward their minimum wage 
obligations. This Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) seeks the views 
of the public on the Department's proposed rescission of those portions 
of the regulations.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before January 4, 2018.

ADDRESSES: To facilitate the receipt and processing of written comments 
on this NPRM, the Department encourages interested persons to submit 
their comments electronically. You may submit comments, identified by 
Regulatory Information Number (RIN) 1235-AA21, by either of the 
following methods:
    Electronic Comments: Follow the instructions for submitting 
comments on the Federal eRulemaking Portal http://www.regulations.gov.
    Mail: Address written submissions to Melissa Smith, Director of the 
Division of Regulations, Legislation, and Interpretation, Wage and Hour 
Division, U.S. Department of Labor, Room S-3502, 200 Constitution 
Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210.
    Instructions: This NPRM is available through the Federal Register 
and the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. You may also access this 
document via the Wage and Hour Division's (WHD) Web site at http://www.dol.gov/whd/. All comment submissions must include the agency name 
and Regulatory Information Number (RIN 1235-AA21) for this NPRM. 
Response to this NPRM is voluntary. The Department requests that no 
business proprietary information, copyrighted information, or 
personally identifiable information be submitted in response to this 
NPRM. Submit only one copy of your comment by only one method (e.g., 
persons submitting comments electronically are encouraged not to submit 
paper copies). Please be advised that comments received will become a 
matter of public record and will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. All 
comments must be received by 11:59 p.m. on the date indicated for 
consideration in this NPRM; comments received after the comment period 
closes will not be considered. Commenters should transmit comments 
early to ensure timely receipt prior to the close of the comment 
period. Electronic submission via http://www.regulations.gov enables 
prompt receipt of comments submitted as DOL continues to experience 
delays in the receipt of mail in our area. For access to the docket to 
read background documents or comments, go to the Federal eRulemaking 
Portal at http://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Melissa Smith, Director of the 
Division of Regulations, Legislation, and Interpretation, Wage and Hour 
Division, U.S. Department of Labor, Room S-3502, 200 Constitution 
Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210, telephone: (202) 693-0406 (this is 
not a toll-free number). Copies of this NPRM may be obtained in 
alternative formats (Large Print, Braille, Audio Tape or Disc), upon 
request, by calling (202) 693-0675 (this is not a toll-free number). 
TTY/TDD callers may dial toll-free 1 (877) 889-5627 to obtain 
information or request materials in alternative formats.
    Questions of interpretation and/or enforcement of the agency's 
regulations may be directed to the nearest WHD district office. Locate 
the nearest office by calling the WHD's toll-free help line at (866) 
4US-WAGE ((866) 487-9243) between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. in your local time 
zone, or log onto WHD's Web site at http://www.dol.gov/whd/america2.htm 
for a nationwide listing of WHD district and area offices.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Executive Summary

    The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA) generally requires 
covered employers to pay employees at least a Federal minimum wage, 
which is currently $7.25 per hour. See 29 U.S.C. 206(a)(1). Under 
section 3(m) of the FLSA, which defines the term ``wage,'' an employer 
of tipped employees can satisfy its obligation to pay those employees 
the Federal minimum wage by paying a lower direct cash wage and 
counting a limited amount of the tips received by its employees as a 
partial credit to satisfy the difference between the direct cash wage 
paid and the Federal minimum wage (known as a ``tip credit''), if it 
follows certain statutory requirements. See 29 U.S.C. 203(m).
    In 1966, Congress created a tip credit provision within the 
definition of a ``wage'' in section 3(m) of the statute that permitted 
an employer to utilize tips received by its employees to subsidize up 
to 50 percent of its minimum wage obligations. See Public Law 89-601, 
101(a), 80 Stat. 830 (1966); 76 FR 18,832, 18,838.\1\ In 1974, Congress 
again amended section 3(m) by providing that an employer could not 
utilize tips received by its employees toward its Federal minimum wage 
obligation unless, among other things:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ As discussed further below, Congress changed the amount of 
tips received by employees that an employer can credit against its 
minimum wage obligation in subsequent amendments to the FLSA. See, 
infra, Sec. III.

    (1) [its] employee has been informed by the employer of the 
provisions of this subsection and (2) all tips received by such 
employee have been retained by the employee, except that this 
subsection shall not be construed to prohibit the pooling of tips 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
among employees who customarily and regularly receive tips.

    Public Law 93-259, 13(e), 88 Stat. 55 (1974). Thus, section 3(m) 
permits an employer to take a partial credit against its minimum wage 
obligations on account of tips received by its employees but only if, 
among other things, its tipped employees retain all of their tips. 
Section 3(m), however, does not preclude an employer that takes a tip 
credit from implementing a tip pool in which tips are shared only among 
those employees who ``customarily and regularly receive tips.'' Id.
    The Department first promulgated regulations implementing the 
section 3(m) tip credit in 1967. See 32 FR 13,575 (Sept. 28, 1967). In 
2011, the Department updated those regulations to reflect its then-
existing view that the statutory conditions in section 3(m) of the FLSA 
require that tipped employees retain all of their tips, except for 
those tips distributed through a tip pool limited to customarily and 
regularly tipped employees, regardless whether such employees work for 
an employer that takes a tip credit. See, e.g., Sec.  531.52.

[[Page 57396]]

    As discussed below, since 2011 there has been a significant amount 
of private litigation involving the tip pooling and tip retention 
practices of employers that pay a direct cash wage of at least the 
Federal minimum wage and do not take a tip credit. There has also been 
litigation directly challenging the Department's authority to 
promulgate the 2011 Final Rule as it applies to employers that pay a 
direct cash wage of at least the Federal minimum wage. At the same 
time, there have been changes in state laws that require employers to 
pay their tipped employees a direct cash wage of at least the Federal 
minimum wage, which have resulted in more employers being unable to 
claim a tip credit.
    In part because of these developments, the Department is concerned 
about the scope of its current tip regulations as applied to employers 
that pay the full Federal minimum wage to their tipped employees. The 
Department is also seriously concerned that it incorrectly construed 
the statute in promulgating the tip credit regulations that apply to 
such employers. Additionally, the Department seeks to consider whether 
it is unnecessary to prohibit the sharing of tips with employees who do 
not customarily receive tips, including restaurant cooks, dishwashers, 
and other traditionally lower-wage job classifications, when their 
employer does not take a tip credit under FLSA section 3(m) and its 
employees are paid at least the full Federal minimum wage.
    The Department is therefore proposing to rescind the parts of its 
tip regulations that bar tip-sharing arrangements in establishments 
where the employers pay full Federal minimum wage and do not take a tip 
credit against their minimum wage obligations. This proposed rule 
applies only to employers that pay direct cash wages of at least the 
Federal minimum wage and do not take a tip credit. It does not apply to 
employers who pay less than the Federal minimum wage and take a tip 
credit.
    The proposed removal of the regulatory limitation on an employer's 
ability to utilize tips if it pays a direct wage of at least the full 
FLSA minimum wage will allow for employers to provide in their 
agreements \2\ with employees for tip sharing among a larger tip pool 
of employees. This change could result, for example, in tips being 
shared with employees who are not customarily and regularly tipped, 
such as back-of-the-house employees in restaurants. This type of tip 
sharing was at issue in Cumbie v. Woody Woo, Inc., 596 F.3d 577 (9th 
Cir. 2010) (employer paid its tipped employees a direct wage payment 
that exceeded the Federal minimum wage and instituted a tip pool that 
included back-of-the-house employees who did not customarily and 
regularly receive tips, such as dishwashers and cooks). If the 
Department's rule were adopted as proposed herein, it would expressly 
allow such tip sharing. Employers in other industries could also adopt 
similarly varied tip pooling arrangements among tipped and non-tipped 
employees. E.g., Cesarz v. Wynn Las Vegas, 2014 WL 117579 (D. Nev. 
2014), rev'd and remanded by Oregon Rest. & Lodging Ass'n v. Perez, 816 
F.3d 1080 (9th Cir. 2016), reh'g and reh'g en banc denied, 843 F.3d 355 
(9th Cir. 2016), pet. for cert. filed (Aug. 1 2016) (employer 
instituted a tip pool through which dealers' tips were shared with 
other casino employees in jobs that have not traditionally been 
customarily and regularly tipped). Promulgation of the regulation would 
also make clear that where an employer does not claim the tip credit 
under section 3(m) and pays a direct wage that satisfies the FLSA's 
minimum wage requirements, the treatment and disposition of tips is a 
matter of agreement between the employer and employees or of state law.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Similar references to agreements in this notice refer to 
agreements, whether written or otherwise, between an employer and 
its employees regarding the treatment and disposition of tips 
received by such employees. Cf. Williams v. Jacksonville Terminal 
Co., 315 U.S. 386, 397 (1942) (determining that, ``[i]n businesses 
where tipping is customary, the tips, in the absence of an explicit 
contrary understanding, belong to the recipient,'' but that ``an 
arrangement [may be] made by which the employee agrees'' to a 
different disposition of such tips).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To estimate the impact of the proposed rule, the Department looked 
at two occupations that constitute a large percentage of tipped workers 
(waiters, waitresses, and bartenders) and focused on two industries 
(drinking places and full-service restaurants). Based on the data used 
in the regulatory impact analysis below, the Department estimated that 
there are up to 1,298,231 tipped workers in the selected occupations, 
and 206,770 full-service restaurants, and 40,095 drinking places.
    There are labor market forces that will affect decisions concerning 
employer use or reallocation of tips. For example, there are certain 
market factors that may discourage any changes in tip-sharing 
practices, such as employee resistance and heightened turnover among 
the customarily tipped employees. The Department is unable to quantify 
how customers will respond to proposed regulatory changes, which in 
turn would affect total tipped income and employer behavior. The 
Department currently lacks data to quantify possible reallocations of 
tips through newly expanded tip pools to employees who do not 
customarily and regularly receive tips. The Department presents a 
primarily qualitative approach to assessing the benefits and transfers 
of the new rule.
    The Department estimated the regulatory familiarization costs 
associated with this proposed rule on an establishment basis and 
calculated the first year cost to be $3.431 million. The Department 
discussed other impacts and benefits of the proposed rule 
qualitatively. For the purposes of E.O. 13771, it is expected that this 
proposed rule would, if finalized as proposed, qualify as an ``E.O. 
13771 deregulatory action.''

II. Recent Developments in Tip Pooling Regulations and Litigation; 
Proposed Changes to Regulations; and Nonenforcement Policy

    As noted above, the FLSA's tip credit provision was enacted in 
1966. WHD promulgated regulations implementing the FLSA's tip credit 
provision in 1967. See 29 U.S.C. 203(m), Public Law 89-601, 101(a), 80 
Stat. 830 (1966); 32 FR 13,575 (Sept. 28, 1967). Among other things, 
the 1967 regulations acknowledged that employers and employees could 
agree that tips received would belong to the employer, which might then 
use the tips to satisfy the entirety of its minimum wage obligations, 
thus exceeding the then-50 percent limitation on an employer's 
crediting of tips received by its employees against its minimum wage 
obligations. See, e.g., Sec.  531.55(b) (1967) (``[I]f pursuant to an 
employment agreement the tips received by an employee must be credited 
or turned over to the employer, such sums may, after receipt by the 
employer, be used by the employer to satisfy the monetary requirements 
of the Act. In such instances there is no applicability of the 50-
percent limitation on tip credits provided by section 3(m).'').
    The 1967 regulations were consistent with Williams v. Jacksonville 
Terminal Co., 315 U.S. 386 (1942), and the legislative history of the 
1966 amendments. In Jacksonville Terminal, the Supreme Court held that 
an employer had complied with the FLSA's minimum-wage requirements by 
paying its employees only those tips that the employees received from 
customers and, if tips received by any employee did not satisfy the 
minimum wage, by paying the difference to that employee.

[[Page 57397]]

Id. at 388-389, 397-398, 403-408. The Court reasoned that such tips 
``belong to the recipient'' employee ``in the absence of an explicit 
contrary understanding,'' but that an employer and its employees could 
agree that the employer would ``take the compensation paid by 
[customers] for the service [provided by the employees], whether paid 
as a fixed charge or as a tip.'' Id. at 397-398. The Court ultimately 
concluded that the parties in the case had entered, and the FLSA did 
not prohibit, such an agreement to ``transfer the tips [collected by 
the employees] . . . to the credit of the [employer].'' Id. at 403; see 
id. at 403-408. The 1966 legislative history similarly reflected that 
the new statutory ``tip provisions [we]re sufficiently flexible to 
permit the continuance of existing practices with respect to tips,'' 
including practices under which ``an employer and his tipped employees 
. . . agree that all tips are to be turned over or accounted for to the 
employer to be treated by him as part of his gross receipts.'' S. Rep. 
1487, 89th Cong., 2d Sess. 12 (1966). In that circumstance, however, 
``the employer must pay the employee the full minimum hourly wage, 
since for all practical purposes the employee is not receiving tip 
income.'' Id.
    When it amended section 3(m) in 1974, Congress added the 
requirement that an employer taking a tip credit must permit its tipped 
employees to retain all of their tips, except for those tips 
distributed through a mandatory tip pool that includes only employees 
who customarily and regularly receive tips. See Public Law 93-259, 
13(e). Immediately after the 1974 amendments, WHD stated that its 
existing regulations were superseded by the amendments to the extent 
that they were in conflict with those amendments, in particular, those 
provisions that permitted an employer to use tips received by its 
employees toward its minimum wage obligations to a greater extent than 
permitted by section 3(m). See Wage and Hour Opinion Letter FLSA-626, 
1974 WL 422051 (June 21, 1974), at *2; Wage and Hour Opinion Letter WH-
310, 1975 WL 40934, at *1 (Feb. 18, 1975); Wage and Hour Opinion Letter 
WH-321, 1975 WL 40945, at *1-2 (Apr. 30, 1975). However, although the 
statutory tip credit provision was significantly amended in 1974 and 
thereafter, WHD did not revise its 1967 tip credit regulations until 
2011. See 76 FR 18,832, 18,854-56 (Apr. 5, 2011).
    In 2008, the Department published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 
that proposed, among other things, to amend WHD's tip credit 
regulations to reflect the 1974 amendments to the FLSA. See 73 FR 
43,654, 43,659 (July 28, 2008). Before it had finalized that 
rulemaking, the Department participated as amicus curiae in support of 
a tipped employee challenging her employer's tip pooling arrangement in 
Cumbie v. Woody Woo, a case before the Ninth Circuit. 596 F.3d 577. 
Woody Woo involved an employer that paid its tipped employees a direct 
wage payment that exceeded the Federal minimum wage and instituted a 
mandatory tip pool that included back-of-the-house employees who do not 
customarily and regularly receive tips, such as dishwashers and cooks. 
Id. at 578-79. The district court in Woody Woo had concluded that 
section 3(m)'s restrictions on tip pooling apply only when an employer 
takes a tip credit against its minimum wage obligations. See Cumbie v. 
Woody Woo, Inc., 2008 WL 2884484, at *3 (D. Or. July 25, 2008). The 
Department argued before the Ninth Circuit that the district court's 
interpretation would permit an employer to use tips received by its 
employees to a greater extent than that permitted in section 3(m), 
since it would permit an employer to use tips to meet its entire 
minimum wage obligation or to subsidize the wages of non-tipped 
employees. See Br. of the Sec'y of Labor as Amicus Curiae, Apr. 29, 
2009, at 8, 2009 WL 2609879, Cumbie v. Woody Woo, Inc., 596 F.3d 577 
(9th Cir. 2010). On February 23, 2010, the Ninth Circuit issued an 
opinion in Cumbie v. Woody Woo, which held in the context of an 
employer that did not use tips to pay its employees the minimum wage, 
that section 3(m)'s tip retention requirements apply only to employers 
that avail themselves of the tip credit provision. 596 F.3d 577, 581 
(9th Cir. 2010).
    The Department finalized its revisions to the tip regulations in 
2011. See 76 FR 18,832, 18,854-56 (revising, among other provisions, 
Sec. Sec.  531.52, 531.54, and 531.59). Those regulations, among other 
things, bar all employers from sharing tips with employees who do not 
customarily and regularly receive tips--regardless whether the 
employers take a tip credit. See, e.g., Sec.  531.52. The Department's 
regulations thus provide that an employer is prohibited from using tips 
received by employees, whether or not it has taken a tip credit, except 
as a credit against its minimum wage obligations to the employee to the 
extent permitted by that section, or in furtherance of a tip pool that 
is permissible under that section. Id.
    On July 12, 2012, the Oregon Restaurant and Lodging Association 
(ORLA), along with the National Restaurant Association, Washington 
Restaurant Association, Alaska Cabaret, Hotel, Restaurant & Retailers 
Association, and others (the ORLA Plaintiffs), challenged the 
Department's authority to promulgate the 2011 Final Rule as it applies 
to employers that do not take a tip credit and that pay a direct cash 
wage of at least the Federal minimum wage. See Compl., July 12, 2012, 
Oregon Rest. & Lodging Ass'n v. Solis, 948 F.Supp.2d 1217 (D. Or. 
2013). The ORLA Plaintiffs sought to have those parts of the 
Department's 2011 tip regulations that apply to employers that do not 
take a tip credit against their minimum wage obligations declared 
invalid and vacated. See id. at 33-34 (identifying Sec. Sec.  531.52, 
531.54, and 531.59).
    The plaintiffs alleged, inter alia, that such tip regulations are 
contrary to the FLSA's clear statutory language in section 3(m), which 
places restrictions on an employer's use of tips only when the employer 
takes a tip credit. See id. at 18-21. The Department responded by 
arguing that the FLSA does not address an employer's use of tips when 
the employer does not take a tip credit, and that the Department 
appropriately used its rulemaking authority to address that statutory 
gap through the 2011 tip regulations. See Reply Br. of the Sec'y of 
Labor, Dec. 7, 2012, at 5-8, Oregon Rest. & Lodging Ass'n v. Solis, 948 
F.Supp.2d 1217 (D. Or. 2013). On June 7, 2013, the district court 
granted the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, ruling that the 
2011 tip regulations were invalid. Oregon Rest. & Lodging Ass'n v. 
Solis, 948 F.Supp.2d 1217, 1227 (D. Or. 2013). The court concluded that 
the regulations were contrary to the clear intent of Congress to limit 
the use or pooling of tips only to employers that elect to take a tip 
credit. See id. at 1226.
    On August 21, 2013, the Department appealed the district court's 
decision to the Ninth Circuit. See Br. of the Sec'y of Labor, Dec. 27, 
2013, at 8, Oregon Rest. & Lodging Ass'n v. Perez, 816 F.3d 1080 (9th 
Cir. 2016) (ORLA). In its brief, the Department argued that the 1974 
amendments to the FLSA expressly delegated broad authority to the 
Department to implement the terms of the amendments and that the 
Department properly used this authority to promulgate the 2011 tip 
regulations, which address a gap in the statutory scheme: Whether an 
employer that does not take a tip credit is subject to section 3(m)'s 
restrictions. See id. at 24-28. The Department further argued that the 
regulations were necessary to prevent a circumvention of section 3(m)'s 
limitations on an employer's ability to

[[Page 57398]]

use or require the pooling of tips. See id. at 32-33. The Ninth Circuit 
consolidated the case with Cesarz v. Wynn Las Vegas--a private FLSA 
action in which the plaintiffs-employees, relying on the Department's 
2011 regulations, alleged that the employer violated the FLSA when it 
required its tipped employees to share their tips with non-tipped 
employees, see 2014 WL 117579, at *1 (D. Nev. 2014)-- for purposes of 
oral argument and disposition. See 816 F.3d 1080 n.* (9th Cir. 
2016).\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ While ORLA was pending before the Ninth Circuit, the Fourth 
Circuit heard Trejo v. Ryman Hospitality Properties, Inc., an appeal 
from a district court's dismissal of a private FLSA action in which 
plaintiffs--whose employer did not claim the tip credit--sought to 
recoup tips that their employer required them to pay into an 
allegedly invalid tip pool. 795 F.3d 442 (4th Cir. 2015). The 
Department submitted a brief as amicus curiae arguing that the 2011 
tip-pooling regulation was valid and entitled to deference, but also 
pointing out that the FLSA provides a cause of action only to 
recover unpaid minimum wages or overtime compensation under sections 
6 and 7 of the FLSA, rather than to recover tips in and of 
themselves under section 3(m), and that plaintiffs had expressly 
disclaimed any minimum wage violation. See Br. of the United States 
as Amicus Curiae, Jan. 2015, at *12, *13, 2015 WL 191535, Trejo, 795 
F.3d 442 (4th Cir. 2015). In other words, and as explained further 
in footnote 10, infra, Plaintiffs did not argue that the effect of 
the invalid tip pool was to reduce their wages below the minimum 
wage, which would present a valid cause of action under the FLSA. 
See id. at *12 (citing 29 U.S.C. 216(b) (private right of action 
limited to enforcing the FLSA's minimum wage and overtime 
compensation provisions); see also 29 U.S.C. 216(c) (imposing 
similar limitations on the Secretary's ability to enforce the 
FLSA)). The Fourth Circuit concluded that section 3(m) ``simply does 
not contemplate a claim for wages other than minimum wage or 
overtime wages.'' Trejo, 795 F.3d at 448 (internal quotation marks 
omitted). See also Malivuk v. Ameripark, 2016 WL 3999878, aff'd on 
other grounds,--F. App'x --, 2007 WL 2491498, (11th Cir. June 9, 
2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On February 23, 2016, the Ninth Circuit, reversing the district 
court, upheld the validity of the 2011 tip regulations in ORLA v. 
Perez, 816 F.3d 1080, 1090 (9th Cir. 2016). In deciding ORLA, the Ninth 
Circuit concluded that Woody Woo held only that section 3(m) does not 
prohibit employers that do not take a tip credit from instituting an 
invalid tip pool. See id. at 1088. Having found that the FLSA is silent 
with respect to employers that do not take a tip credit, the Ninth 
Circuit concluded that the 2011 tip regulations were a reasonable 
application of the agency's authority to fill gaps left by the text of 
the FLSA, because the ``purpose of the Act does not support the view 
that Congress intended permanently to allow employers that do not take 
a tip credit to do whatever they wish with their employees' tips.'' See 
id. at 1089-1090. On April 6, 2016, the ORLA Plaintiffs filed a 
petition for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc. See Pet. for Panel 
Reh'g and Reh'g En Banc, Apr. 6, 2016, ORLA v. Perez, 816 F.3d 1080 
(9th Cir. 2016). The ORLA Plaintiffs argued that the Ninth Circuit's 
decision in ORLA cannot be reconciled with Woody Woo and reiterated 
their contention that the 2011 tip pooling regulation is an 
impermissible interpretation of the FLSA. See id. at 11, 13.
    On September 6, 2016, the ORLA panel denied the plaintiffs' request 
for panel rehearing, and a majority of the non-recused active judges 
voted to decline en banc review. See ORLA v. Perez, 816 F.3d 1080, 
reh'g and reh'g en banc denied, 843 F.3d 355, 356 (9th Cir. 2016).
    Judge O'Scannlain, joined by nine other judges, dissented. See id. 
(O'Scannlain, J., dissenting). Judge O'Scannlain concluded that the 
Department's tip pooling regulation is precluded because the Ninth 
Circuit previously held in Woody Woo that the FLSA ``clearly and 
unambiguously permits employers who forgo a tip credit to arrange their 
tip-pooling affairs however they see fit.'' See id. at 358 (citing 
Cumbie v. Woody Woo, 596 F.3d at 579 n.6, 581, 581 n.11, 582, 583; 
Nat'l Cable & Telecomms. Ass'n v. Brand X Internet Servs., 545 U.S. 
967, 984 (2005)). Based on this statutory construction, Judge 
O'Scannlain wrote, ``[T]he Department has not been delegated authority 
to ban tip pooling by employers who forgo the tip credit, and [as such] 
the Department's assertion of regulatory jurisdiction is manifestly 
contrary to the statute and exceeds [its] statutory authority.'' Id. at 
363-64 (internal quotation marks omitted).
    The National Restaurant Association (and other plaintiffs in the 
OLRA litigation) filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme 
Court, asking for review of the Ninth Circuit's decision in ORLA, and 
that petition is pending. See Sup. Ct. No. 16-920 (certiorari petition 
filed Jan. 19, 2017). The Wynn Defendants filed their own petition for 
certiorari with the Supreme Court on August 1, 2016, which is also 
still pending. Sup. Ct. No. 16-163 (certiorari petition filed (Aug. 1 
2016)).
    As explained further in Part IV, below, more employers are unable 
to claim a tip credit in 2017 than when the Department's regulations 
were promulgated in 2011 due to the increased number of states that 
require employers to pay their tipped employees a direct cash wage of 
at least the Federal minimum wage. Perhaps because of these changes to 
state law, there has been a significant amount of private litigation in 
recent years involving the tip pooling and tip retention practices of 
employers that pay a direct cash wage of at least the Federal minimum 
wage. Much of that litigation involves the application of the 
Department's 2011 tip credit regulations that bar employers from 
retaining and from sharing tips with employees who do not customarily 
and regularly receive tips, even when the employers have not taken a 
tip credit. For example, in Trejo v. Ryman Hospitality Properties, the 
employees alleged that their employer, which had paid its tipped 
employees a direct cash wage of at least the Federal minimum wage, 
improperly required its tipped employees to contribute to a tip pool 
including employees who were not customarily and regularly tipped. 
Sazzad v. Ryman Hosp. Properties, No. 8:13-cv-02911 (D. Md., April 21, 
2014), aff'd sub nom, Trejo, 795 F.3d 442 (4th Cir. 2015); see also 
Malivuk, 2016 WL 3999878, aff'd on other grounds,--F. App'x --, 2017 WL 
2491498 (11th Cir. June 9, 2017); see also Brueningsen v. Resort 
Express Inc., 2015 WL 339671 (D. Utah Jan. 26, 2015), recons. denied, 
2016 WL 1181683 (D. Utah Mar. 25, 2016), appeal filed (10th Cir., Nov. 
16, 2016). Wynn, 2014 WL 117579 (D. Nev. 2014) (employees alleged that 
the employer improperly required them to contribute to a tip pool that 
included their supervisors), rev'd and remanded by ORLA, 816 F.3d 1080 
(9th Cir. 2016), reh'g and reh'g en banc denied, 843 F.3d 355 (9th Cir. 
2016), pet. for cert. filed (Aug. 1 2016). Therefore, the application 
of the Department's regulations to employers who do not take a tip 
credit has gained increasing importance in recent years.
    Additionally, the Tenth Circuit recently ruled in Marlow v. The New 
Food Guy, a private FLSA case in which the United States participated 
as amicus curiae, that the Department's 2011 tip regulations are 
invalid to the extent that they bar an employer from using or sharing 
tips with employees who do not customarily and regularly receive tips 
when the employer pays a direct cash wage of at least the Federal 
minimum wage and does not claim a section 3(m) tip credit. See Marlow 
v. New Food Guy, Inc., 861 F.3d 1157 (10th Cir. 2017). In Marlow, the 
plaintiff alleged that the employer, which paid the plaintiff a direct 
wage of at least the Federal minimum wage and did not claim a section 
3(m) tip credit, violated section 3(m) and the Department's 2011 
regulations by retaining the tips employees received from customers. 
Id. at 1158-59. The district court dismissed the plaintiff's claim, 
concluding that the employer satisfied its obligations under the FLSA 
and that section 3(m) does not

[[Page 57399]]

provide a cause of action for lost tips. Marlow v. New Food Guy, Inc., 
No. 15-CV-01327, 2016 WL 4920980, at *1 (D. Colo. Feb. 17, 2016).\4\ On 
appeal, the United States, while also defending the validity of the 
Department of Labor's 2011 tip regulations, argued as a threshold 
matter that the plaintiff failed to plead a claim under the FLSA 
because she did not allege that her employer's retention of her tips 
resulted in a minimum wage or overtime violation. See Br. of the United 
States as Amicus Curiae, Oct. 2016, 2016 WL 6566326, at *10. The Tenth 
Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of the plaintiff's 
claim, holding that the text of the FLSA limits an employer's use of 
tips only when the employer takes a tip credit, ``leaving [the 
Department] without authority to regulate to the contrary.'' See 
Marlow, 861 F.3d at 1163-64.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Following the Ninth Circuit's decision in ORLA, the 
plaintiff moved for reconsideration of the district court's 
decision. See Marlow, 861 F.3d at 1159. The district court denied 
the plaintiff's motion, expressing its agreement with the ORLA 
dissent. See id.; Order on Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration, 
Marlow, No. 15-CV-01327 (D. Co. Apr. 4, 2016).
    \5\ The plaintiff in Marlow petitioned for panel rehearing of 
the Tenth Circuit's decision, which the Court denied on July 20, 
2017. See Order on Appellant's Petition for Panel Rehearing, Marlow, 
No. 16-1134 (10th Cir. July 20, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department has taken into account the changed landscape and 
extensive litigation since promulgating its 2011 Final Rule. In that 
regard, the dissent to the denial of the petition for rehearing en banc 
in ORLA is notable, not only because of the force of that opinion but 
also because it drew the support of nine other judges in the Ninth 
Circuit. After considering the ORLA rehearing dissent and the Tenth 
Circuit's decision in Marlow, both of which state that the Department's 
2011 Final Rule exceeded the agency's authority under section 3(m), the 
Department is reconsidering its regulations to the extent that they 
apply to employers that pay a direct wage of at least the Federal 
minimum wage and do not claim a credit based on tips to satisfy their 
minimum wage obligation. The Department has serious concerns that it 
incorrectly construed the statute in promulgating its current 
regulations, the scope of which extends to employers that have paid the 
full Federal minimum wage to their tipped employees, particularly 
insofar as those employers, rather than taking the tips for their own 
purposes, provide for such tips to be shared with other employees 
through a tip pool. The Department also has independent and serious 
concerns about those regulations as a policy matter. In particular, the 
Department seeks to remove prohibitions on sharing tips with employees 
who do not customarily and regularly receive tips--including restaurant 
cooks, dishwashers, and other traditionally lower-wage job 
classifications--when their employer does not take a tip credit under 
FLSA section 3(m) and all employees are paid at least the full Federal 
minimum wage. In light of all of these factors, the Department is 
proposing to rescind the parts of its tip regulations that apply to 
employers that pay a direct cash wage of at least the full Federal 
minimum wage and do not take a tip credit against their minimum wage 
obligations. The Department also issued a nonenforcement policy on July 
20, 2017, whereby WHD will not enforce the Department's regulations on 
the retention of tips received by employees with respect to any 
employee who is paid a cash wage of not less than the full FLSA minimum 
wage ($7.25) and for whom their employer does not take an FLSA section 
3(m) tip credit either for 18 months or until the completion of this 
rulemaking, whichever comes first.\6\ This nonenforcement policy 
provides nationwide consistency while the Department moves forward with 
rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ This nonenforcement policy extends the agency's partial 
nonenforcement policy already in effect. In Oregon Restaurant and 
Lodging Ass'n v. Solis, 948 F. Supp. 2d 1217 (D. Or. 2013), the U.S. 
District Court for the District of Oregon declared the Department's 
2011 regulations that limit an employer's use of tips received by 
its employees when the employer has not taken a tip credit against 
its minimum wage obligations to be invalid, and imposed injunctive 
relief, as described below. Notwithstanding the Ninth Circuit's 
decision in ORLA reversing that decision, the Department continues 
to be constrained by the injunctive relief entered by the district 
court until the Ninth Circuit issues its mandate, which formally 
notifies the district court of the court of appeals' decision; 
issuance of that mandate has been stayed ``until final disposition 
[of this litigation] by the Supreme Court.'' ORLA v. Perez, No. 13-
35765 (9th Cir. Sept. 13, 2016). For these reasons, the Department 
is currently prohibited from enforcing its tip retention 
requirements against the Oregon Restaurant and Lodging Association 
plaintiffs (which include several associations, one restaurant, and 
one individual) and members of the plaintiff associations that can 
demonstrate that they were a member on June 24, 2013. The plaintiff 
associations in the Oregon litigation were the National Restaurant 
Association, Washington Restaurant Association, Oregon Restaurant 
and Lodging Association, and Alaska Cabaret, Hotel, Restaurant, and 
Retailer Association. As a matter of enforcement policy, the 
Department decided that while the injunction is in place it will not 
enforce its tip retention requirements against any employer that has 
not taken a tip credit in jurisdictions within the Ninth Circuit. 
The Ninth Circuit has appellate jurisdiction over the states of 
California, Nevada, Washington, Oregon, Alaska, Idaho, Montana, 
Hawaii, and Arizona; Guam; and the Northern Mariana Islands. See 
WHD, Fact Sheet #15: Tipped Employees Under the Fair Labor Standards 
Act (FLSA), https://www.dol.gov/whd/regs/compliance/whdfs15.pdf 
(last accessed June 12, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Legislative and Regulatory History of the Section 3(m) Tip Credit

    As discussed above, Congress amended the FLSA's tip credit 
provision in 1974 to require an employer that elects to take a tip 
credit against its minimum wage obligations to permit its tipped 
employees to retain all tips they receive, except for those distributed 
through a tip pool limited to customarily and regularly tipped 
employees. See Public Law 93-259, Sec.  13(e). The legislative history 
emphasizes that the employee-tip-retention requirement was not 
``intended to discourage the practice of pooling, splitting, or sharing 
tips with employees who customarily and regularly receive tips--e.g., 
waiters, bellhops, waitresses, countermen, busboys, [and] service 
bartenders, etc.'' S. Rep. No. 93-690, at 43 (1974). ``On the other 
hand,'' the Report explains, ``the employer will lose the benefit'' of 
the tip credit if tipped employees are required to share their tips 
with employees who do not customarily and regularly receive tips--e.g., 
janitors, dishwashers, chefs, laundry room attendants, etc.'' Id. \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The Department has concluded that employer-mandated tip 
pools described in section 3(m) may also include employees in 
occupations with duties analogous to those of the Senate's list of 
``employees who customarily and regularly receive tips'' (``waiters, 
bellhops, waitresses, countermen, busboys, service bartenders''), 
such as barbacks. See Field Operations Handbook 30d04(b). Likewise, 
the Department has concluded that employees who do not customarily 
and regularly receive tips, and therefore may not be included in an 
employer-mandated tip pool described in Sec.  3(m), include 
employees in occupations with duties analogous to the Senate's list 
of non-customarily tipped occupations (``janitors, chefs or cooks, 
dishwashers, laundry room attendants''), such as salad preparers and 
prep cooks. See Field Operations Handbook 30d04(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The language from the 1974 amendments to section 3(m) is 
essentially the same as the current version of the law. See 29 U.S.C. 
203(m). Although section 3(m)'s tip credit provision has been amended 
three times since 1974--in 1977, 1989, and 1996--these amendments 
changed only the applicable amount of tips received by employees that 
could be used as a credit against an employer's minimum wage 
obligations. See Public Law 95-151, Sec.  3(b), 91 Stat. 1245 (1977); 
Public Law 101-157, Sec.  5, 103 Stat. 938 (1989); and Public Law 104-
188, Sec.  2105(b), 110 Stat. 1755 (1996).\8\ In

[[Page 57400]]

amendments to the FLSA in 2007, Congress increased the minimum wage in 
three steps to $7.25 per hour beginning July 2009, but did not change 
the definition of ``wage'' in section 3(m) for purposes of applying the 
tip credit formula. Public Law 110-28, Sec.  8102(a), 121 Stat. 112 
(2007). Thus, the maximum tip credit that an employer is permitted to 
claim under section 3(m) today is $5.12 per hour--the current Federal 
minimum wage, $7.25 per hour, 29 U.S.C. 206(a)(1), minus $2.13--or 71 
percent of the current Federal minimum wage. See 76 FR 18,832, 18,839.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The 1977 amendments to the FLSA decreased the section 3(m) 
tip credit to a maximum of 40 percent of the Federal minimum wage, 
while the 1989 amendments returned it to a maximum of 50 percent of 
the Federal minimum wage. See Public Law 95-151, Sec. Sec.  2(a), 
3(b), 91 Stat. 1245 (1977); Public Law 101-157, Sec. Sec.  2, 5, 103 
Stat. 938 (1989). The 1996 amendments ``froze'' the direct cash wage 
that an employer must pay its tipped employees under section 3(m) at 
a minimum of 50 percent of the minimum wage in effect on the date of 
their enactment, or $2.13 per hour. See Public Law 104-188, 
Sec. Sec.  2104(b), Sec.  2105(b), 110 Stat. 1755 (1996). This 
change shifted the amount of the maximum tip credit from a fixed 
percentage of the current Federal minimum wage to the difference 
between the current Federal minimum wage and the frozen minimum 
direct cash payment, thus allowing the percentage of the Federal 
minimum wage covered by the tip credit to increase as the minimum 
wage rose.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As explained above, the Department promulgated its initial tip 
regulations in 1967, one year after Congress created the tip credit in 
section 3(m), and several years before the 1974 amendments to section 
3(m)'s tip provisions. 32 FR 13,575 (Sept. 28, 1967). Consistent with 
the Department's understanding of the 1966 amendments, the 1967 tip 
regulations permitted agreements under which tips received by employees 
would be turned over to the employer, which could then use the tips to 
pay the Federal minimum wage. Cf. S. Rep. 1487, 89th Cong., 2d Sess. 12 
(1966) (explaining that such practices could continue under the 1966 
amendments).
    Shortly after the 1974 statutory amendments, however, the 
Department addressed the impact of the amendments on its tip 
regulations and stated that its then-existing regulations were 
superseded by the amendments to the extent tha they were in conflict. 
Specifically, when asked about the legality of an agreement under which 
``the employer would retain all monies generated by tips'' and directly 
pay its employees at the minimum wage rate, the Department stated that 
``[t]he amendments to section 3(m) of the Act,'' which specified that 
an employer's wage credit for tips (up to 50% of the minimum wage) 
could not exceed the amount of tips actually received by the employee, 
``would have no meaning or effect unless they prohibit agreements under 
which tips are credited or turned over to the employer for use by the 
employer in satisfying the monetary requirements of the Act.'' See Wage 
and Hour Opinion Letter FLSA-626, 1974 WL 422051, at *2 (June 21, 
1974).
    The Department opined shortly after the 1974 amendments that ``an 
employer may not take advantage of Section 3(m) by using any part of 
his employee's tips as a credit to meet his monetary obligation unless 
the employee is permitted to keep all tips'' and, if an employer takes 
tips received by an employee, ``then, in order to come into compliance, 
such employer must return the tips and pay the full statutory minimum 
wage.'' Wage and Hour Opinion Letter WH-310, 1975 WL 40934, at *1 (Feb. 
18, 1975); see Wage and Hour Opinion Letter WH-386, 1976 WL 41739, at 
*3 (July 12, 1976) (``[E]mployers must pay tipped employees at least 
half of the applicable minimum wage (from their own pockets) for each 
hour worked, and may take a tip credit of no more than 50 percent of 
the required minimum wage.''). To conclude otherwise, the Department 
reasoned, would enable an employer to circumvent section 3(m)'s 
restriction that employers use no more than a limited portion of tips 
received by employees to satisfy their Federal minimum wage 
obligations. Cf. Woody Woo, 596 F.3d at 579 n.7.
    The opinion letters issued shortly after the 1974 amendments were 
primarily focused on whether it would constitute an impermissible 
circumvention of section 3(m) of the Act for an employer to utilize 
tips received by its employees to satisfy its minimum wage obligations 
to a greater extent than Congress expressly permitted in the Act's tip 
credit provision. In a 1989 opinion letter, however, the Department 
opined that merely requiring tipped employees to participate in a tip 
pool that is not limited to employees in customarily and regularly 
tipped occupations--i.e., a tip pool in a form not expressly authorized 
by section 3(m)--may also violate the FLSA, even when an employer has 
paid all of the tipped and non-tipped employees in the pool a direct 
cash wage equal to or greater than the Federal minimum wage. See Wage 
and Hour Opinion Letter WH-536, 1989 WL 610348, at *3 (Oct. 26, 1989). 
In that letter, the Department stated that tips are an employee's 
property even when an employer pays a direct cash wage of at least the 
full Federal minimum wage and does not claim a tip credit against its 
minimum wage obligations based on erroneous reasoning \9\ and, on that 
premise, concluded that a tipped employee who is required to 
participate in a tip pool that does not satisfy the criteria in section 
3(m) is effectively required to ``contribute part of his or her 
property to the employer or to other persons for the benefit of the 
employer.'' Id. at *2. Thus, under the erroneous reasoning reflected in 
that letter, even when an employer does not claim a tip credit to 
reduce the direct cash wage it pays and does not use tips to fulfill 
any part of its minimum wage obligation to its tipped employees, 
mandating that a tipped employee contribute to a pool that includes 
employees in occupations that do not customarily and regularly receive 
tips ``would become an issue under the minimum wage provisions of the 
Act,'' if the ``employer does not pay a sufficiently high cash wage to 
reimburse such employee for such loss, plus at least the minimum 
wage.'' Id.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The opinion letter, in the context of an employer that did 
not take a 3(m) tip credit, stated that ``[t]he courts have made 
clear that tips are the property of the employee to whom they are 
given.'' 1989 WL 610348, at *2 (citing Barcellona v. Tiffany English 
Pub, Inc., 597 F.2d 464, 466-467 (5th Cir. 1979)). The Department 
acknowledges that that statement is incorrect. Barcellona concluded 
that ``[i]f there was no agreement as to ownership, then the tips 
were the property of the recipient,'' and that the trial evidence in 
that particular case supported the factual finding that no such 
agreement existed. 597 F.2d at 467 (emphasis added) (citing Williams 
v. Jacksonville Terminal Co., 315 U.S. 386, 397 (1940)); cf. Richard 
v. Marriott Corp., 549 F.2d 303, 304-305 (4th Cir. 1977) (concluding 
that ``tips belong to the employee to whom they are left'' in 
circumstances in which no contrary agreement existed and the 
employer simply undertook to pay ``the difference between the tips 
and the [minimum] hourly wage'').
    \10\ The Department similarly stated in the preamble to the 2011 
Final Rule that, if, by requiring tipped employees to participate in 
a tip pool that does not satisfy the standards in section 3(m) or by 
claiming and using the tips itself, such an employer deducts 
sufficient tips to ``reduce the employer's direct wage payment to an 
amount below the minimum wage,'' the employer would violate section 
6 of the FLSA and be subject to suit under section 16 or 17. 76 FR 
18,832, 18,842; see also Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 73 FR 
43,654, 43,659 (July 28, 2008) (explaining that if an ``employer 
paid the employee a direct wage in excess of the minimum wage'' it 
``would be able to make deductions [from the employee's tips] so 
long as they did not reduce the direct wage payment below the 
minimum wage''); Br. of the United States as Amicus Curiae, Jan. 
2015, at 2, 2015 WL 191535, Trejo v. Ryman Hospitality Indus., 795 
F.3d 442 (4th Cir. Jan. 2015) (pointing out that private plaintiffs 
who did not allege that the effect of their employers' tip pool was 
to reduce their wages below the minimum wage in violation of section 
6 failed to plead a cause of action under the FLSA because section 
3(m) of the Act does not provide a freestanding right to recover 
tips).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 2011, the Department issued a Final Rule addressing tip pooling 
and other uses of tips. See 76 FR 18,832, 18,842. Revised Sec.  531.52 
provides in relevant part that:


[[Page 57401]]


    Tips are the property of the employee whether or not the 
employer has taken a tip credit under section 3(m) of the FLSA. The 
employer is prohibited from using an employee's tips, whether or not 
it has taken a tip credit, for any reason other than that which is 
statutorily permitted in section 3(m): As a credit against its 
minimum wage obligations to the employee, or in furtherance of a 
valid tip pool.

    Id. at 18,855 (emphasis added). Under the current regulations an 
employer that pays a direct cash wage equal to or greater than the 
Federal minimum wage--just like an employer that claims a tip credit to 
reduce the direct cash wage it pays--may require tipped employees to 
participate in a tip pool that is limited to employees in customarily 
and regularly tipped occupations, but it may not require tipped 
employees to participate in a tip pool that includes employees who are 
not in customarily and regularly tipped occupations. Nor may an 
employer that pays a direct cash wage equal to or greater than the 
Federal minimum wage use its tips received by its employees for any 
other purpose.

IV. Recent Changes in State Tip Pooling Laws

    As a result of market forces and changes in state wage laws, the 
number of employers paying tipped employees a direct cash wage that is 
equal to or greater than the Federal minimum wage (and thus not 
claiming a section 3(m) tip credit) has increased since the Department 
promulgated the 2011 Final Rule. The Department believes that these 
changes also merit reconsideration of the tip pooling restrictions 
imposed on employers that do not claim a tip credit under section 3(m).
    Historically, six western states (Alaska, California, Montana, 
Nevada, Oregon, and Washington) have prohibited employers from using 
tips received by employees as a credit against their state minimum 
wages--all of which today equal or exceed the Federal minimum wage--
thereby preventing employers in these states from claiming a section 
3(m) tip credit to reduce the direct cash wage they pay without 
incurring liability under state law. See Alaska Stat. Sec.  
23.10.065(a); Cal. Lab. Code Sec.  351 (amended 1975); Mont. Code Ann. 
Sec. Sec.  39-3-402, 39-2-404 (originally enacted Sec. 2, Ch. 417 
(1971)), Mont. Admin. R. 24.16.1508(1); Nev. Rev. Stat. Sec.  
608.160(1)(b); Or. Rev. Stat. Sec.  653.035; Rev. Code Wash. 49.46.020, 
Wash. Admin. Code 296-126-022 (effective 1974); see also Alaska School 
Bus Safety Act, 1990 Alaska Laws Ch. 12, Sec.  23.10.065 (1990); 
Henning v. Industrial Welfare Commission, 46 Cal. 3d 1262, 1275-76 
(Cal. 1988) (holding that Labor Code section 351, as amended in 1975, 
``bar[s] the establishment of a minimum wage for tipped employees lower 
than the generally applicable minimum wage.''); Moen v. Las Vegas Int'l 
Hotel, Inc., 402 F. Supp. 157, 158 (D. Nev. 1975) (outlining 
requirements of Nev. Rev. Stat. Sec.  608.160); Wash. Att'y Gen. Op. 
1974 No. 18, 1974 WL 168752 (concluding that hotels and restaurants 
must pay the full Washington minimum wage to their tipped employees, 
and may not take advantage of the section 3(m) tip credit, since, ``as 
it has long been administratively construed by the department of labor 
and industries, tips are . . . not included as a part of an employee's 
wages for the purposes of the Washington law.''); WHD, Minimum Wages 
for Tipped Employees, January 1, 2003, https://www.dol.gov/whd/state/tipped2003.htm.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Additionally, Connecticut has required employers to pay 
bartenders a direct cash wage of at least the Federal minimum wage 
since 2001. See Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. 31-58, 31-60; Conn. Pub. Act. 
No. 00-144 (May 26, 2000). Connecticut currently requires bartenders 
to be paid a direct cash wage of at least $8.23 per hour. See Conn. 
Gen. Stat. Ann. 31-58, 31-60. It permits employers to pay other 
tipped employees a minimum direct cash wage of $6.38. See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Since the Department promulgated the 2011 Final Rule, a number of 
additional states have increased the direct cash wage an employer must 
pay some or all tipped employees under state law. In August 2014, 
Minnesota--which prohibits employers from taking a tip credit against 
the state minimum wage--increased its minimum wage for large employers 
from $6.15 per hour to $8.00 per hour (it was increased on August 1, 
2016 to $9.50 per hour) and increased its minimum wage for small 
employers from $5.25 per hour to $7.25 per hour beginning in August 
2015 (it is currently $7.75 per hour). See Minn. Stat. Ann. Sec.  
177.24, subd. 1, 2; 2014 Minn. Sess. Law Serv. Ch. 166. As a result, 
employers in Minnesota now must pay tipped employees a direct cash wage 
that is greater than the Federal minimum wage. In January 2015, 
Hawaii--which permits employers to take a tip credit but requires that 
the combined cash wage and tips must equal at least $7.00 more than the 
state minimum wage--increased the direct cash wage employers must pay 
tipped employees to $7.25 per hour (the current Federal minimum wage). 
Haw. Rev. Stat. Ann. Sec.  387-2. The minimum direct cash wage an 
employer must pay a tipped employee in Hawaii is currently $8.50 per 
hour and is scheduled to increase to $9.35 in January 2018. Haw. Rev. 
Stat. Ann. Sec.  387-2. In December 2015, New York increased the direct 
cash wage employers that take a tip credit must pay tipped food service 
employees and other service employees to at least $7.50 per hour. See 
12 NY ADC 146-1.3 (Dec. 4, 2015).\12\ And in November 2016, Arizona and 
Colorado enacted ballot measures that will increase the direct cash 
wage employers that take a tip credit must pay tipped employees to at 
least the current Federal minimum wage by January 2020. See Ariz. 
Proposition 206, approved Nov. 8, 2016 (amending Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. 
Sec.  23-363(C)); 2016 Colo. Legis. Serv. Init. Pet. 101 (amending 
Colo. Const. art. XVIII, Sec.  15).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Effective December 31, 2016, New York has four schedules of 
direct cash wages that employers must pay tipped service workers and 
food service workers based on employer size and geographic location. 
See N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. tit. 12, Sec.  146-1.3. Currently, 
the lowest direct cash wage an employer can pay to a tipped food 
service worker in any part of the state is $7.50 per hour and the 
lowest direct cash wage an employer can pay a tipped service 
employee in any part of the state is $8.10 per hour. See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Due to these changes, the share of servers, bellhops and porters, 
counter attendants, bartenders, and dining room attendants and 
bartender helpers \13\ with employers that are or will be required 
under state law to pay a direct cash wage of at least the Federal 
minimum wage to all or a portion of their tipped employees has almost 
doubled, from approximately 17 percent in 2011 to approximately 31 
percent today. See Table A: WHD Analysis of BLS Data Regarding States 
that Require Employers to Pay Tipped Employees a Direct Cash Wage At 
Least Equal to the Federal Minimum Wage.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ The BLS occupational categories of ``Waiters and 
Waitresses,'' ``Baggage Porters and Bellhops,'' ``Counter 
Attendants, Cafeteria, Food Concession, and Coffee Shop,'' 
``Bartenders,'' and ``Dining Room and Cafeteria Attendants and 
Bartender Helpers'' most closely correspond to the illustrative list 
of ``customarily and regularly tipped'' occupations in the Senate 
Report accompanying the 1974 amendments to the FLSA: ``waiters, 
bellhops, waitresses, countermen, busboys, [and] service 
bartenders.'' See S. Rep. No. 93-690, at 43 (1974).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. The Department Is Proposing To Rescind Portions of Its Tip 
Regulations

    The Department seeks public comments, which should include 
supporting data whenever possible, on the proposed rescission of those 
portions of its 2011 tip regulations that apply to employers that pay 
tipped employees a direct cash wage that is equal to or greater than 
the Federal minimum wage and that do not claim a tip credit. The 
Department's current regulations require that tipped employees retain 
all tips they receive regardless whether the employer takes a

[[Page 57402]]

tip credit under section 3(m). Employers can only require tipped 
employees to participate in a mandatory tip pool if the tip pool is 
limited to employees in customarily and regularly tipped occupations, 
such as servers, bartenders, and bussers. As discussed above, this 
regulatory restriction limiting tip pools to only customarily and 
regularly tipped employees applies even when an employer pays a direct 
cash wage of at least the full Federal minimum wage and does not claim 
a credit pursuant to section 3(m).
    The purpose of section 3(m)'s tip credit provision is to allow an 
employer to subsidize a portion of its Federal minimum wage obligation 
by crediting the tips customers give to employees. If an employer takes 
a tip credit against its wage obligations, section 3(m) applies, along 
with its attendant protections that restrict the employer's use of tips 
received by its employees. Where an employer has paid a direct cash 
wage of at least the full Federal minimum wage and does not take the 
employee tips directly, a strong argument exists that the statutory 
protections of section 3(m) do not apply.\14\ But if an employer pays 
the full Federal minimum wage and does not take a tip credit, the 
proposed rule would allow tip sharing in a manner currently prohibited 
by regulation, including by sharing tips with employees who are not 
customarily and regularly tipped (e.g., restaurant cooks and 
dishwashers) through a tip pool. The proposed rule, therefore, provides 
such employers and employees greater flexibility in determining the pay 
policies for tipped and non-tipped workers. It additionally allows them 
to reduce wage disparities among employees who all contribute to the 
customers' experience and to incentivize all employees to improve that 
experience regardless of their position. In sum, due to the 
Department's serious concerns that it incorrectly construed the statute 
in promulgating its current tip regulations to cover employers who pay 
a direct cash wage of at least the full Federal minimum wage, as well 
as the various other reasons described in this NPRM, the Department is 
proposing to rescind the portions of the current regulations that apply 
to employers that pay a direct cash wage of at least the Federal 
minimum wage and do not claim a tip credit against their minimum wage 
obligations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ If an employer pays its tipped employees a direct cash wage 
of at least the full Federal minimum wage but takes its employees' 
tips to satisfy the entirety of its minimum wage obligation, there 
is a question as to whether the employer is circumventing the 
protections of section 3(m) because it is utilizing its employees' 
tips towards its minimum wage obligations to a greater extent than 
permitted under the statute for employers that take the tip credit. 
The Department will consider whether additional guidance on this 
circumvention issue should be issued in the future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This NPRM uses the term ``tip pooling'' to describe any scenario in 
which a tip provided by a customer to an employee or group of employees 
is shared, in whole or in part, with other employees. The Department 
recognizes that in some workplaces or under State laws, the term ``tip 
pooling'' may refer to a narrower set of practices, and that employers 
and workers may use other terms--for example ``tip out,'' ``tip 
sharing,'' or ``tip jar''--to describe certain practices regarding 
tips. Accordingly, the Department asks commenters to define in their 
comments any terms they use to describe practices regarding tips. The 
Department will consider information provided by the public in response 
to this NPRM in finalizing its proposal to amend 29 CFR part 531, 
subpart D, as it applies to situations where an employer pays tipped 
employees a direct cash wage that is at least the Federal minimum wage.

   Table A--WHD Analysis of BLS Data Regarding States That Require Employers To Pay Tipped Employees a Direct Cash Wage at Least Equal to the Federal
                                                                      Minimum Wage
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                            Servers;
                                                                                                                                          bartenders;
                                                                                   Counter        Dining room and                           counter
                                                                                 attendants,         cafeteria                            attendants;
                                        Servers  (waiters    Bartenders SOC    cafeteria, food     attendants and    Baggage  porters    dining room &
                 State                    &  waitresses)      Code 353011      concession, and       bartender       &  bellhops SOC       cafeteria
                                         SOC Code 353031                       coffee shop  SOC   helpers SOC Code     Code 396011        attendants &
                                                                                 Code 353022           359011                              bartenders
                                                                                                                                        helpers; porters
                                                                                                                                          &  bellhops
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 Direct cash wage for tipped employees at least equal to the Federal minimum wage, 2011
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alaska................................               3690               1930               1550               1020                190               8380
California............................             233330              45280              61040              61380               4800             405830
Montana...............................               8780               4550                690               1060                 90              15170
Nevada................................              37380              13420               3960              11050               3080              68890
Oregon................................              26530               9340               5100               3320                340              44630
Washington............................              41160              12530              19080               8430                920              82120
                                       -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Subtotal..........................             350870              86450              91420              86260               9420             624420
                                       -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Total, U.S....................            2289010             512230             441830             391290              44130            3678490
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% U.S. total..........................             15.33%             16.88%             20.69%             22.05%             21.35%             16.97%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Direct cash wage for tipped employees equal to or scheduled to reach at least Federal minimum wage, present
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alaska................................               4260               1740               2540                920                 90               9550
Arizona...............................              53580              11150               8340               9610                740              83420
California............................             280100              57340              47970              71460               5660             462530
Colorado..............................              52540              12560               4530               7490                640              77760
Connecticut...........................              28430               7740               5480               3430                180              45260

[[Page 57403]]

 
Hawaii................................              16110               3200               5470               5130               1380              31290
Minnesota.............................              50230              17270              15060               4040                330              86930
Montana...............................               8540               5340                870               1040                 70              15860
Nevada................................              39450              14870               4670              13070               2710              74770
New York..............................             155540              43670              31470              33390               4250             268320
Oregon................................              33100               9040               9950               4270                270              56630
Washington............................              48380              13520              13380               8240                520              84040
                                       -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Subtotal..........................             770260             197440             149730             162090              16840            1296360
                                       -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Total, U.S....................            2564610             603320             499550             423080              44750            4135310
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% U.S. total..........................             30.03%             32.73%             29.97%             38.31%             37.63%             31.35%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., 
and its attendant regulations, 5 CFR part 1320, require the Department 
to consider the agency's need for its information collections, their 
practical utility, as well as the impact of paperwork and other 
information collection burdens imposed on the public, and how to 
minimize those burdens. The PRA typically requires an agency to provide 
notice and seek public comments on any proposed collection of 
information contained in a proposed rule. See 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(B); 
5 CFR 1320.8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ These employment figures are from the May 2011 BLS 
Occupational Employment Statistics (OES) Survey.
    \16\ These employment figures are from the May 2016 BLS OES 
Survey.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This NPRM does not contain a collection of information subject to 
OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act. The Department welcomes 
comments on this determination.

VII. Analysis Conducted in Accordance With Executive Order 12866, 
Regulatory Planning and Review, Executive Order 13563, Improved 
Regulation and Regulatory Review, and Executive Order 13771, Reducing 
Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs

    Under Executive Order 12866, the Office of Management and Budget's 
(OMB's) Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs determines whether 
a regulatory action is significant and, therefore, subject to the 
requirements of the Executive Order and review by OMB. 58 FR 51735. 
Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 defines a ``significant 
regulatory action'' as an action that is likely to result in a rule 
that: (1) Has an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, 
or adversely affects in a material way a sector of the economy, 
productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or 
safety, or State, local or tribal governments or communities (also 
referred to as economically significant); (2) creates serious 
inconsistency or otherwise interferes with an action taken or planned 
by another agency; (3) materially alters the budgetary impacts of 
entitlement grants, user fees, or loan programs, or the rights and 
obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) raises novel legal or policy 
issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or 
the principles set forth in the Executive Order. Id. OMB has determined 
that this proposed rule is a ``significant regulatory action'' under 
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866.
    Executive Order 13563 directs agencies to propose or adopt a 
regulation only upon a reasoned determination that its benefits justify 
its costs; it is tailored to impose the least burden on society, 
consistent with achieving the regulatory objectives; and in choosing 
among alternative regulatory approaches, the agency has selected those 
approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13563 recognizes 
that some benefits are difficult to quantify and provides that, where 
appropriate and permitted by law, agencies may consider and discuss 
qualitatively values that are difficult or impossible to quantify, 
including equity, human dignity, fairness, and distributive impacts.
    Executive Order 13771 (``E.O. 13771'') directs agencies to reduce 
regulation and control regulatory costs by eliminating at least two 
existing regulations for each new regulation, and by controlling the 
cost of planned regulations through the budgeting process. See 82 FR 
9339. In relevant part, OMB defines an ``E.O. 13771 regulatory action'' 
as ``a significant regulatory action as defined in section 3(f) of E.O. 
12866 that has been finalized and that imposes total costs greater than 
zero.'' \17\ By contrast, an ``E.O. 13771 deregulatory action'' is 
defined as ``an action that has been finalized and has total costs less 
than zero.'' \18\ For the purposes of E.O. 13771, it is expected that 
this proposed rule would, if finalized as proposed, qualify as an 
``E.O. 13771 deregulatory action.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ OIRA Memo M-17-21, Guidance Implementing Executive Order 
13771 (April 5, 2017).
    \18\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. The Need for Rulemaking

    As explained earlier in Part IV of this notice, more employers are 
unable to claim a tip credit in 2017 than when the Department's 
regulations were promulgated in 2011 due to the increased number of 
states that require employers to pay their tipped

[[Page 57404]]

employees a direct cash wage of at least the current $7.25 per hour 
Federal minimum wage. Perhaps because of these changes to state law, 
there has been a significant amount of private litigation in recent 
years involving the tip pooling and tip retention practices of 
employers that pay a direct cash wage of at least the Federal minimum 
wage. See, e.g., Trejo v. Ryman Hosp. Properties, 795 F.3d 442 (4th 
Cir. 2015); Aguila v. Corp. Caterers IV, 199 F. Supp. 3d 1358 (S.D. 
Fla. 2016), aff'd sub nom. 2017 WL 1101081 (11th Cir. Mar. 24, 2017); 
Marlow v. The New Food Guy, Inc., 861 F.3d 1157 (10th Cir. 2017).
    In part because of these developments, the Department has serious 
concerns that it incorrectly construed the statute in promulgating its 
current tip regulations as applied to employers that have paid the full 
Federal minimum wage to their tipped employees, and serious concerns 
about the regulations as a policy matter, especially under changed 
circumstances. Additionally, the Department seeks to remove 
prohibitions on sharing tips with non-customarily tipped employees--
including restaurant cooks, dishwashers, and other traditionally lower-
wage job classifications--when their employer does not take a tip 
credit under FLSA section 3(m) and all employees are paid at least the 
full Federal minimum wage. The Department is therefore proposing to 
rescind the portions of its tip regulations at 29 CFR part 531, subpart 
D that limit employee arrangements to share tips by imposing 
restrictions on employers that pay a direct cash wage of at least the 
full Federal minimum wage and do not claim a tip credit against their 
minimum wage obligation. The Department also issued a nonenforcement 
policy on July 20, 2017, whereby WHD will not enforce the Department's 
regulations on the retention of employees' tips with respect to any 
employee who is paid a cash wage of not less than the full FLSA minimum 
wage ($7.25) and for whom their employer does not take an FLSA section 
3(m) tip credit, either for 18 months or until the completion of this 
rulemaking, whichever comes first.

B. Economic Analysis

i. Introduction
    This economic analysis provides a quantitative analysis of the rule 
familiarization costs of the proposed rule, and a qualitative 
discussion of the benefits and transfers that may result from the 
proposed rule.\19\ The potential benefits and transfers have not been 
quantified in this NPRM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ The Department focused on two industries, which are 
classified under the North American Industry Classification System 
(NAICS) as 722410 (Drinking Places (Alcoholic Beverages)) and 722511 
(Full-service Restaurants, the focus is on tipped employees who are 
classified under two Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Standard 
Occupational Classification (SOC) codes: SOC 35-3031 (Waiters and 
Waitresses) and SOC 35-3011 (Bartenders).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There are labor market forces that will affect employers' decisions 
on tips that employees receive. For example, there are certain market 
factors that may cause employers not to change their practices with 
respect to tips, such as employee resistance and a decline in employee 
morale, as well as the costs of employee turnover. The Department is 
unable to quantify how customers will respond to proposed regulatory 
changes, which in turn would affect total tipped income and employer 
behavior.
    The Department welcomes comments that provide data or information 
regarding the potential benefits and transfers of this proposed rule, 
and has asked some specific questions that may help the Department 
quantify benefits and transfers in the Final Rule analysis. See Section 
VII.B.iv.
ii. Estimated Number of Affected Workers and Firms
    This section explains the methodology used to estimate the number 
of workers who are defined as a tipped employee, i.e., where a tipped 
employee means any employee engaged in an occupation in which he or she 
customarily and regularly receives more than $30 a month in tips. See 
29 U.S.C. 203(t). In the absence of data to specifically categorize 
employees by the definition above, the Department relied on a broader 
definition as allowed by the available data, where the minimum tip 
amount received is relaxed (that is, this analysis does not consider 
the $30-a-month threshold), and where the focus is on tipped employees 
who are classified under two Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Standard 
Occupational Classification (SOC) codes: SOC 35-3031 (Waiters and 
Waitresses) and SOC 35-3011 (Bartenders).
    For the present analysis, the Department considered these two 
occupations as they constitute a large percentage of tipped 
workers.\20\ The Department understands that there are other 
occupations with tipped workers such as SOC 35-9011 (Dining room and 
Cafeteria Attendants and Bartender Helpers) and SOC 35-9031 (Hosts and 
Hostesses, Restaurant, Lounge, and Coffee Shop), and others; thus, the 
Department welcomes comments and suggestions on whether this analysis 
should extend to additional tipped occupations. The Department focused 
on employees in those two occupations in the two industries in which 
they are primarily concentrated. The two industries are classified 
under the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) as 
722410 (Drinking Places (Alcoholic Beverages)) and 722511 (Full-service 
Restaurants). The Department understands that there are other 
industries with tipped workers, and welcomes comments and suggestions 
on whether this analysis should extend to those additional industries, 
and if so, which industries and why.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Current Population 
Survey, Table 11b. Employed Persons by Detailed Occupation and Age, 
2016 (https://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat11b.pdf). The number of 
bartenders and wait staff were calculated as a percentage of total 
employment in 11 occupations in which compensation depends heavily 
on tips. The 11 occupations are based on a 2014 Congressional Budget 
Office report, ``The Effects of a Minimum-Wage Increase on 
Employment and Family Income'' (https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/113th-congress-2013-2014/reports/44995-MinimumWage.pdf).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department used the Current Population Survey (CPS), a large, 
nationally representative sample of the labor force, for data on the 
number of workers employed in the two occupations mentioned above, the 
wages for these workers, and their usual hours worked. The CPS, which 
is sponsored jointly by the U.S. Census Bureau and BLS, is a monthly 
survey of about 60,000 households. In any given month, one adult 
household member reports employment and other information for each 
member of the household.\21\ Households are surveyed for four months, 
excluded from the survey for eight months, surveyed for an additional 
four months, then permanently dropped from the sample. During the last 
month of each rotation in the sample (month 4 and month 16), employed 
respondents complete a supplementary questionnaire in addition to the 
regular survey. These households and questions form the CPS Merged 
Outgoing Rotation Group (CPS-MORG) and provide more detailed 
information about those surveyed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See Current Population Survey, U.S. Census Bureau, https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/cps.html (last visited July 17, 
2017); CPS Merged Outgoing Rotation Groups, NBER, http://www.nber.org/data/morg.html (last visited July 17, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The CPS asks respondents whether they usually receive overtime pay, 
tips, and commissions, which allows the Department to estimate the 
number of bartenders and wait staff in restaurants

[[Page 57405]]

and drinking places who receive tips. CPS data, however, are not 
available separately for overtime pay, tips, and commissions, but the 
Department assumes very few bartenders and wait staff at restaurants 
and drinking places receive commissions, and the number who receive 
overtime pay but not tips is also assumed to be minimal. Therefore, 
where bartenders and wait staff responded affirmatively to this 
question, the Department assumes that they receive tips.
    All data tables in this analysis include estimates for the year 
2016 as the baseline. Table 1 presents the estimates of the share of 
bartenders and wait staff in restaurants and drinking places who 
reported that they usually earned overtime pay, tips, or commissions in 
2016. Approximately 61 percent of bartenders and 57 percent of wait 
staff reported usually earning overtime pay, tips, or commissions in 
2016.

 Table 1--Share of Bartenders and Waiters/Waitresses in Restaurants and Drinking Places Who Earned Overtime Pay,
                                           Tips, or Commissions, 2016
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               Number who
                                                            Number of         responded Yes       Percent who
                                                         bartenders and        to earning      responded Yes to
                     Occupation                        waiters/waitresses     overtime pay,    earning overtime
                                                       in restaurants and       tips, or         pay, tips, or
                                                         drinking places       commissions        commissions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total...............................................             2,265,705         1,298,231                  57
    Bartenders......................................               357,727           218,989                  61
    Waiters and waitresses..........................             1,907,979         1,079,243                  57
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: 2016 Current Population Survey. The Department used DataFerrett to extract basic monthly CPS data.
Occupations: Bartenders (Census Code 4040) and Waiters and Waitresses (Census Code 4110).
Industries: Restaurants and other food services (Census Code 8680) and Drinking places, alcoholic beverages
  (Census Code 8690).

    The Department used data from BLS' Quarterly Census of Employment 
and Wages (QCEW) to estimate the familiarization cost (Section 
VII.B.iv). The Department believes regulatory familiarization will 
occur at the specific establishment level rather than the broader firm 
level.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ An establishment is commonly understood as a single 
economic unit, such as a farm, a mine, a factory, or a store, that 
produces goods or services. Establishments are typically at one 
physical location and engaged in one, or predominantly one, type of 
economic activity for which a single industrial classification may 
be applied. An establishment is in contrast to a firm, or a company, 
which is a business and may consist of one or more establishments, 
where each establishment may participate in a different predominant 
economic activity. See Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages: 
Concepts, https://www.bls.gov/opub/hom/cew/concepts.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

iii. Qualitative Analysis
    Under this NPRM, employers that pay at least the full FLSA minimum 
wage directly to tipped employees could utilize some or all of the tips 
received by employees for purposes currently prohibited by the 
regulations (i.e., for purposes other than a tip pool limited to 
customarily and regularly tipped employees) or when employers that 
currently claim the section 3(m) tip credit increase the cash wages of 
their tipped employees to at least the full FLSA minimum wage and then 
utilize some or all of the tips received by employees for purposes 
currently prohibited by the regulations.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ Under the Department's proposed rule, employers that do 
take a tip credit will still be subject to section 3(m)'s 
restrictions on the use of employee tips.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department does not attempt to definitively interpret 
individual state law, and is therefore unable to determine to what 
extent state law will affect employer behavior in light of the proposed 
changes. It is assumed, however, that about 30 percent of all waiters 
and waitresses and bartenders work in states that prohibit employers 
from obtaining tips received by employees.\24\ In these states, 
employers must continue complying with state law, and therefore tipped 
employees in these states may not be impacted by the changes proposed 
in this NPRM. The potential transfers of tips would depend on employer 
behavior, employee behavior, customer behavior, and other factors. The 
Department seeks public comments, which should include supporting data 
whenever possible, on ``tip pooling'' practices in workplaces where an 
employer pays tipped employees a direct cash wage that is equal to or 
greater than the Federal minimum wage. The Department uses the term 
``tip pooling'' to describe any scenario in which a tip provided by a 
customer to an employee or group of employees is redistributed, in 
whole or in part, with other employees.\25\ The Department recognizes 
that in some workplaces or under State laws, the term ``tip pooling'' 
may refer to a narrower set of practices, and that employers and 
workers may use other terms--for example ``tip out,'' ``tip sharing,'' 
or ``tip jar''--to describe certain practices regarding tips. 
Accordingly, the Department asks commenters to define in their comments 
any terms they use to describe practices regarding tips. Specifically, 
the Department solicits comments with supporting data to the following 
issues:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See, e.g., Cal. Labor Code Sec.  351 (``Every gratuity is 
hereby declared to be the sole property of the employee or employees 
to whom it was paid, given, or left for.''); N.Y. Lab. Law Sec.  
196-d (``No employer . . . shall demand or accept, directly or 
indirectly, any part of the gratuities, received by an employee, or 
retain any part of a gratuity or of any charge purported to be a 
gratuity for an employee.''). The Department seeks comments 
regarding how certain state laws apply to the retention of tips when 
the employer pays the full minimum wage directly and does not take a 
tip credit. Such information may assist the Department in providing 
a more detailed analysis in the final rule.
    \25\ Under the Department's current regulations, an employer can 
lawfully mandate that an employee contribute a portion of her tips 
to a tip pool, but only if the pool is limited to ``employees who 
customarily and regularly receive tips.'' Public Law 93-259, 13(e), 
(i.e., a ``valid tip pool''). See Sec.  531.54; Field Operations 
Handbook 30d04(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1. Among employers that currently pay a direct cash wage of at 
least the Federal minimum wage and do not take a tip credit, what 
portion reallocate tips, with other employees? And, among that 
population of employers, what portion of the total tips do they retain 
or reallocate?
    2. How prevalent are employer-required, or mandatory, tip pools? 
What factors determine whether an employer institutes a mandatory tip 
pool? What portion of the tips received by employees do employers 
anticipate being contributed to the tip pool? What kinds of factors 
might influence an employer's decision to exclude some tips from 
inclusion in a mandatory tip pool?
    3. Do tipped employees receiving money from a mandatory tip pool 
typically receive a fixed dollar amount, or a fixed percentage of the 
pool? Is it common for some employees to receive

[[Page 57406]]

a larger share of the tip pool than others,\26\ or are tips typically 
distributed on an even basis among all participants in the tip pool?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ Woody Woo, 596 F.3d 577, addressed the legality of a tip 
pool where between 55 to 70 percent of the tip pool went to kitchen 
staff (e.g., dishwashers and cooks), with the remaining 30 to 45 
percent returned to servers in proportion to their hours worked. Id. 
at 578-79.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    4. If this proposed rule were adopted as proposed, what kinds of 
employees would employers choose to include in mandatory tip pools?
    5. If this proposed rule were adopted as proposed, would customers' 
tipping practices change?
    6. If this proposed rule were adopted as proposed, would some 
employers respond by reallocating tipped income to their non-tipped 
employees? Would such a response reduce the disparity in take-home 
earnings between tipped and non-tipped employees in service industry 
establishments?
    7. If this rule were adopted as proposed, what non-regulatory 
limitations would employers and employees face when deciding whether 
and how to design a tip pooling arrangement? Are there any market norms 
or other behavioral reasons why some types of tip pooling are more 
prevalent than others? To what extent is the endowment effect (that is, 
customarily and regularly tipped employees potentially valuing tips 
more than wages of the same average amount) relevant for explaining 
potential tip behavior in a relatively less-regulated market?
iv. Estimated Costs and Cost Savings to Employers
    In this subsection, the Department addresses regulatory 
familiarization costs and recordkeeping costs and cost savings 
attributable to the proposed rule. The Department also presents a 
qualitative discussion of potential benefits and the impacts of the 
proposed rule on wages and employment, as well as possible changes to 
customers' tipping behavior resulting from employers reallocating tips 
to other employees.
1. Regulatory Familiarization Costs
    Regulatory familiarization costs represent direct costs on 
businesses associated with reviewing the new regulation. It is not 
clear whether regulatory familiarization costs are a function of the 
number of establishments or the number of firms. It can be assumed that 
the headquarters of a firm will conduct the regulatory review for 
businesses with multiple restaurants, and may also require chain 
restaurants to familiarize themselves with the regulation at the 
establishment level. To be conservative, the Department used the number 
of establishments in its cost estimate--which is larger than the number 
of firms--and assumes that regulatory familiarization occurs both the 
headquarters and at the decentralized (i.e., establishment) level.
    The Department assumes that all establishments will incur some 
regulatory familiarization costs regardless of whether the employer 
decides to change its tip practices as a result of the proposed rule. 
There may be differences in familiarization cost by the size of 
establishments; however, our analysis does not compute different costs 
for establishments of different sizes. The estimate of regulatory 
familiarization cost in the analysis is assumed to be conservative. 
Further, the change in this regulation is quite straightforward and is 
unlikely to have a major burden or cost.
    To estimate the total regulatory familiarization costs, the 
Department used: (1) The number of establishments in the two 
industries, Drinking Places (Alcoholic Beverages) and Full-service 
Restaurants, employing affected workers; (2) the wage rate for the 
employees reviewing the rule; and (3) the number of hours that it 
estimates employees will spend reviewing the rule. Table 2 shows the 
number of establishments in the two industries. To estimate the number 
of affected establishments, the Department used data from BLS's QCEW.

       Table 2--Number of Establishments With Tipped Workers, 2016
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       Industry                          Establishments
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NAICS 722410 (Drinking Places (Alcoholic Beverages)).             43,152
NAICS 722511 (Full-service Restaurants)..............            238,776
                                                      ------------------
    Total............................................            281,928
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: QCEW, 2016.

    For familiarization cost analysis, the Department assumes that a 
Compensation/benefits specialist (SOC 13-1141) (or a staff member in a 
similar position) with a median wage of $29.85 per hour in 2016 will 
review the rule.\27\ Given the change proposed, the Department assumes 
that it will take about 15 minutes to review the final rule. Assuming 
benefits are paid at a rate of 46 percent of the base wage, and 
overhead costs are 17 percent of the base wage, the reviewer's 
effective hourly rate is $48.66; thus, the average cost per 
establishment is $12.17 for 15 minutes of review time. The number of 
establishments in the selected industries was 281,928 in 2016. 
Therefore, regulatory familiarization costs in Year 1 are estimated to 
be $3.431 million ($12.17 x 281,928 establishments), which amounts to a 
10-year annualized cost of $390,510 at a discount rate of 3 percent or 
$456,548 at a discount rate of 7 percent.\28\ Regulatory 
familiarization costs in future years are assumed to be de minimis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ Compensation/benefits specialist ensures company compliance 
with federal and state laws, including reporting requirements; 
evaluates job positions, determining classification, exempt or non-
exempt status, and salary; plans, develops, evaluates, improves, and 
communicates methods and techniques for selecting, promoting, 
compensating, evaluating, and training workers. 13-1141 
Compensation, Benefits, and Job Analysis Specialists, https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes131141.htm (last visited on July 20, 
2017).
    \28\ This regulatory familiarization cost cannot be subtracted 
from any current compliance costs because there was no Regulatory 
Impact Analysis in the 2011 rule. Costs incurred in 2011 are sunk 
from the perspective of employers in 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Other Potential Costs or Cost Savings
    If employers that are currently taking the section 3(m) tip credit 
continue to do so, their recordkeeping responsibilities under the FLSA 
regulation, 29 CFR 516.28, would not change under the proposed rule. 
However, if employers decide to pay the full FLSA minimum wage in cash 
and do not take a section 3(m) tip credit, they may have cost savings, 
because they will no longer need to keep the specific records required 
under 29 CFR 516.28.

[[Page 57407]]

    To the extent that some employers choose to change their practices 
and pay at least the full FLSA minimum wage in cash and not take a 
section 3(m) tip credit, they may have to revise their employee 
handbooks, adjust their payroll systems, and/or advise affected 
employees. These are generally regarded as adjustment costs that would 
be imposed by changes in the regulations. The Department recognizes, 
however, that deciding to pay at least the full FLSA minimum wage in 
cash and not take a section 3(m) tip credit is a choice some employers 
may make in responding to the proposed rule, but is not a requirement 
of the regulation. Due to the many variables and assumptions needed to 
estimate how employers will respond to the proposed regulatory changes 
and insufficient information at this time regarding the costs that 
employers may assume or not incur as a result of the proposed rule, the 
Department has not quantified a monetary value for any additional costs 
or cost savings in this NPRM. The Department invites comments regarding 
any potential costs or cost savings attributable to the proposed rule.
v. Summary of Familiarization Costs
    Below the Department provides a summary table of the quantified 
costs for the RIA.

                Table 3--Regulatory Familiarization Costs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Disc rate = 3%     Disc rate = 7%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
First Year Costs ($ million)......             $3.431             $3.431
10-year Annualized Costs ($)......            390,510            456,548
------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Discussion of Benefits and Other Potential Impacts of the Proposed 
Rule

i. Benefits
    The purpose of section 3(m)'s tip credit provision is to allow an 
employer to subsidize a portion of its Federal minimum wage obligation 
through a credit against the tips given to employees by customers. If 
an employer takes a tip credit against its wage obligations, section 
3(m) applies, along with its attendant provisions that restrict the 
employer's use of tips received by employees, including the requirement 
that only tipped employees be included in the tip pool. However, where 
an employer has paid employees a direct cash wage of at least the full 
Federal minimum wage, the proposed rule would allow the employer to 
reallocate tips received by its employees in a manner currently 
prohibited by regulation, including distributing tips to non-tipped 
employees (e.g., cooks or dishwashers) through a tip pool. The proposed 
rule, therefore, provides employers greater flexibility in determining 
the pay policies for tipped and non-tipped workers. Theoretically, it 
additionally allows them to reduce wage disparities among employees who 
all contribute to the customers' experience and incentivize all 
employees to improve that experience regardless of position.
    It is common in full-service restaurants to have a tip pool. One 
study suggests that tip pooling contributes to increased service 
quality, along with enhanced interaction and cooperation between 
coworkers, especially when team members rely on input or task 
completion from each other.\29\ From management's perspective, tip 
pooling may foster service that is customer-focused and promotes a 
setting where employees get along well, and may increase 
productivity.\30\ These studies suggest that expanding the tip pool to 
include non-tipped employees may lead to enhanced interaction and 
cooperation between coworkers, and increased quality of service. On the 
other hand, a recent meta-analysis indicates that tips may be more a 
function of server looks and friendliness, the customer's mood, and 
even the weather than they are of aspects of service quality that 
depend on cooks, dishwashers, or other back-of-house staff who might 
newly be included in tip pools as a result of this proposed policy.\31\ 
Under the proposed changes, the employer will be able to distribute 
customer tips to non-tipped employees, possibly resulting in increased 
earnings for those employees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ Samuel Estreicher and Jonathan Nash, American Law & 
Economics Association Annual Meetings, The Law and Economics of 
Tipping: The Laborer's Perspective. (2004) available at http://law.bepress.com/alea/14th/art54.
    \30\ Ofer H. Azar, The implications of tipping for economics and 
management, 30 (10) International Journal of Social Economics. 1084-
1094 (2003).
    \31\ Michael Lynn and Michael McCall, Beyond Gratitude and 
Gratuity: A Meta-Analytic Review of the Predictors of Restaurant 
Tipping. Cornell University Working Paper (2016), available at 
http://scholarship.sha.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1021&context=workingpapers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Also, research demonstrates a negative correlation between earnings 
and employee turnover: As earnings increase, employee turnover 
decreases.\32\ If earnings increase for previously non-tipped employees 
who are newly added to a tip pool (or tip pools), then employers may 
see a decreased turnover rate amongst these employees. Reducing 
turnover may increase productivity, at least partially, because new 
employees have less firm-specific capital (i.e., skills and knowledge 
that have productive value in only one particular company) and thus are 
less productive and require additional supervision and training. 
Replacing experienced workers with new workers decreases productivity 
in the short term; avoiding the need to replace experienced workers 
may, thus, increase productivity. Reduced turnover should also reduce 
firms' hiring and training costs, leading to increased profitability. 
Although there may be increased turnover among tipped employees who 
would lose a portion of the tips they currently receive, thus leading 
to effects that are opposite in direction to the previously-discussed 
impacts, employers are best positioned to consider those issues and 
determine the optimum distribution of tipped income among their staff 
for the purpose of reducing employee turnover.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ Rodger W. Griffeth, Peter W. Hom, and Stefan Gaertner. A 
Meta-Analysis of Antecedents and Correlates of Employee Turnover: 
Update, Moderator Tests, and Research Implications for the Next 
Millennium. 26 (3) Journal of Management. 463-488 (2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To the extent employers overall decrease use of the tip credit for 
traditionally tipped employees because of this proposed rule change, 
that too may provide benefits to traditionally tipped employees. A 
guaranteed direct cash wage of at least the full federal minimum wage 
will improve traditionally tipped employees' participation in various 
aspects of the marketplace that irregular income from changes over time 
from tip income may impact adversely. As with the previous paragraph, 
the benefits to one subset of employees (in this case, those who were 
previously paid a lower direct wage and received tips and now receive 
an increased direct wage payment from the employer) may be accompanied 
by harm to another subset (those who newly receive tips while 
experiencing an offsetting wage reduction).

[[Page 57408]]

    To the extent employers may otherwise make an arrangement to 
allocate any customer tips to make capital improvements to their 
establishments (e.g., enlarging the dining area to accommodate more 
customers), lower restaurant menu prices, provide new benefits to 
workers (e.g., paid time off), increase work hours, or hire additional 
workers, these are also potential benefits to employees and the economy 
overall that may result under the proposed rule. The rule's transfer 
impacts could be approached with a model of minimum wages being made 
less binding by the proposed policy; as such, employment in the 
affected industries and occupations would, on net, be expected to 
increase. While some baseline workers could be harmed, due to lower 
overall compensation, both employers and workers who would lack jobs in 
the relevant occupations in the absence of the rule would experience 
benefits. Analysis of reduced deadweight loss would be a standard 
method for quantifying the gains to society of increased employment 
resulting from a policy such as the one proposed in this NPRM.
    Finally, the proposed rule may result in a reduction in litigation. 
As explained in Part II, above, there has been a significant amount of 
private litigation in recent years involving the tip pooling and tip 
retention practices of employers that pay a direct cash wage of at 
least the Federal minimum wage. Much of that litigation involves the 
application of the Department's 2011 tip credit regulations providing 
that an employer's ability to utilize tips received by its employees is 
restricted even when it has not taken a tip credit. In several cases, 
employees alleged that their employers, who had paid their tipped 
employees a direct cash wage of at least the Federal minimum wage, 
improperly retained some or all of the tips received by employees or 
mandated that they participate in a tip pool that included non-tipped 
employees. The proposed rule rescinds those portions of the 2011 
regulations that restrict employer use of customer tips when the 
employer pays at least the full Federal minimum wage and does not claim 
a section 3(m) tip credit, likely reducing litigation in this area.
ii. Additional Discussions
    Reallocation of tips may have implications on employment and 
earnings, as well as some impact on the tipping behavior of customers. 
Due to data limitations, it is difficult to quantify these impacts. 
Accordingly, in this section, the Department provides a qualitative 
discussion of the possible impacts of the proposed rule on employment 
and earnings and customer tipping behavior.
1. Possible Employment and Earnings Impacts of the Transfer of Tips
    Research on how changes in the minimum required cash wage for 
tipped employees affect their earnings and employment is scarce, making 
the effects of these policies difficult to gauge. There is need for 
more research as tipped employment has been growing considerably. From 
1990 to 2016 private sector employment grew by 31.8 percent, while 
employment in full service restaurants grew by 75 percent.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ See Bureau of Labor Statistics, Current Employment 
Statistics, www.bls.gov/ces. The implicit assumption is that the 
proportion of tipped workers in these industries remained constant 
over time, which then implies that there was an increase in tipped 
employment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Intuitively, the effect of this proposed rule will be driven by 
many economic factors, such as the prevailing wages in the local area, 
the supply and demand elasticity for labor in the local markets, and 
the demand elasticity for the restaurant's product. For instance, in a 
given market, if the equilibrium cash wage for tipped employees is 
above the minimum required cash wage, an employer has less incentive to 
change its behavior as a result of the changes proposed in the NPRM. 
Given that the firm is in a perfectly competitive market, any deviation 
from the market wage may cause the firm to lose its staff. However, if 
the conditions in the market are such that the equilibrium cash wage 
for tipped workers is below the minimum required cash wage, and a 
worker earns sufficient tips that their cash wage plus the tips that 
they receive is equal to or greater than the applicable full minimum 
wage, then their employer may have an incentive to increase the wage to 
the applicable minimum wage and share the tips that tipped employees 
receive with, for instance, other lower-wage non-tipped employees. In 
such a case, an increase in the direct cash wage paid to the tipped 
workers and the transfer of tips from workers to others can be 
associated with changes in employment. If the employees' new wage is 
lower than their prior wage plus tips, and if the tips received by 
employees are not being redistributed to them, then there may be a 
decline in the quantity of supplied labor of tipped workers, and 
therefore in their employment. Alternatively, the employer could 
effectively redistribute tips to other employees and thus reduce its 
overall wage bill. If it now requires less direct wages to hire their 
workers, it may increase the employer's demand for 
labor.34 35
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ Daniel Hamermesh. Econometric Studies of Labor Demand and 
Their Application to Policy Analysis. The Journal of Human 
Resources, vol. 11, no. 4, 1976, pp. 507-525. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/145429.
    \35\ Deadweight loss analysis, discussed elsewhere in this 
regulatory impact analysis, can be used to assess net effects where 
isolated partial views of the market seem to indicate opposing 
tendencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    However, for reasons such as ``sticky wages'' \36\ in the short run 
and inflexibility in substituting between labor and capital, the above 
discussion of the potential effect on employment and wages in this 
analysis may be only valid in the medium to long run. Further, the 
overall consequences of this proposed rule on employment and earnings 
will be driven by the employers' response to this rule; i.e., whether 
establishments continue taking the tip credit, and what proportion of 
employers switch from taking the tip credit to not taking the tip 
credit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ ``Sticky wages'' refers to the situation in which workers' 
wages do not adjust quickly to changes in the overall economy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Possible Change in Customers' Tipping Behavior That Could Result 
From the Transfer of Tips From Employees to Employers
    In the United States, tipping is a common practice in the eating 
and drinking places industries. The main reasons that a customer would 
tip are future service, social norms and fairness, and quality of 
service.\37\ The theoretical economic justification for tipping is that 
it incentivizes and rewards good service.\38\ From the employer's 
standpoint, tipping may also be considered an efficient way of 
monitoring the efforts of service workers, and a screening device for 
identifying good and motivated workers.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ Ofer H. Azar, The implications of tipping for economics and 
management, 30 (10) International Journal of Social Economics. 1084-
1094 (2003).
    \38\ Samuel Estreicher and Jonathan R. Nash, The Law and 
Economics of Tipping: The Laborer's Perspective, American Law & 
Economics Association Annual Meetings. 54 (2004).
    \39\ Ofer H. Azar, Optimal monitoring with external incentives: 
the case of tipping, Southern Economic Journal. 170-181 (2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although consideration of future service is a commonly-stated 
reason for tipping, evidence suggests that customers do not necessarily 
regard future service as the main reason for tipping. Even non-repeat 
customers tip. This leads to the other main cited reason for tipping: 
Social norms surrounding tipping. Tipping may be the result of a 
positive utility from feeling generous. In addition, customers often 
feel empathy for the workers who serve them, and they want to show 
their

[[Page 57409]]

gratitude by leaving a tip. Customers may also tip as they believe that 
bartenders, waiters, waitresses, and other workers earn too little for 
their hard work and therefore want to reward them. Moreover, customers 
often feel obligated to tip because tips are a major source of income 
for the workers.40 41
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ William E. Even and David A. Macpherson, The effect of the 
tipped minimum wage on employees in the US restaurant industry, 
80(3) Southern Economic Journal. 633-655 (2014).
    \41\ PayScale's Restaurant Report: The Agony and Ecstasy of Food 
Service Workers, http://www.payscale.com/data-packages/restaurant-report/full-data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    From the employer's standpoint, the theoretical economic 
justification for tipping is that it incentivizes and rewards good 
service; In other words, if workers who provide good service earn large 
tips, they are more likely to retain their jobs, whereas those workers 
who earn smaller tips are more likely to choose to quit. Tipping can 
also be a way of monitoring the efforts of service workers. Firms find 
it difficult and expensive to monitor and control the quality of 
intangible and highly customized services that are rendered by their 
employees. Therefore, tipping can allow customers to directly monitor 
service providers at lower cost than if employers had to directly 
monitor their employees.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ Ofer H. Azar, Optimal Monitoring with External Incentives: 
The Case of Tipping, Southern Economic Journal 170-181 (2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The potential impact of the proposed rule on customers' decisions 
to leave tips for bartenders and servers may depend on how much 
information the customer has regarding the employer's tip pooling 
policy. Assuming customers are aware of the employer's policy, changes 
to tipping behavior, if they occur at all, may differ depending on 
whether the tips are redistributed into a tip pool that includes a 
broader group of employees, or otherwise utilized in part (or in full) 
by the employer. Tipping may also be affected if the change is not 
welcomed by the staff, leading to poor morale and reduced service 
quality.

D. Analysis of Regulatory Alternatives

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all 
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives. Executive 
Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and 
benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility. 
The Department considered two alternatives as part of determining 
whether to issue this NPRM: (1) Making no regulatory changes; and (2) 
Removing the regulatory language that addresses an employers' ability 
to utilize employee tips even when the employer claims a section 3(m) 
tip credit. The alternatives are discussed in more detail below.
i. Alternative 1
    Under the proposed rule, employers would no longer be prohibited 
from utilizing tips received by employees more broadly so long as they 
pay at least the full Federal minimum wage in cash and do not claim a 
section 3(m) tip credit.
    For the first alternative, the Department would make no regulatory 
changes and leave in place the limited nonenforcement policy it 
announced in July 2013. In Oregon Restaurant and Lodging Association v. 
Solis, 948 F. Supp. 2d 1217 (D. Or. 2013), the U.S. District Court for 
the District of Oregon declared invalid the Department's 2011 
regulations that limit an employer's use of its employees' tips when 
the employer has not taken a tip credit against its minimum wage 
obligations, and imposed injunctive relief. As discussed above, on 
February 23, 2016, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed 
the judgment entered by the district court. See Oregon Restaurant and 
Lodging Ass'n et al. v. Perez, 816 F.3d 1080 (2016), pet. for reh'g and 
reh'g en banc denied 843 F.3d 355 (Sept. 6, 2016). Notwithstanding the 
Ninth Circuit's decision, the Department continues to be constrained by 
the injunctive relief entered by the district court until the Ninth 
Circuit issues its mandate, which formally notifies the district court 
of the court of appeals' decision. On September 13, 2016, the Ninth 
Circuit issued a Stay of the Mandate ``until final disposition [of this 
litigation] by the Supreme Court.'' Oregon Restaurant and Lodging Ass'n 
et al. v. Perez, No. 13-35765 (9th Cir., Sept. 13, 2016). For these 
reasons, the Department is currently prohibited from enforcing its tip 
retention requirements against the Oregon Restaurant and Lodging 
Association plaintiffs (which include several associations, one 
restaurant, and one individual) and members of the plaintiff 
associations that can demonstrate that they were a member on June 24, 
2013. As a matter of enforcement policy, the Department decided at the 
time the injunction was issued that while the injunction is in place it 
would not enforce its tip retention requirements against any employer 
within the Ninth Circuit's jurisdiction that has not taken a tip 
credit.\43\ The Ninth Circuit has appellate jurisdiction over the 
states of California, Nevada, Washington, Oregon, Alaska, Idaho, 
Montana, Hawaii, and Arizona; Guam; and the Northern Mariana Islands. 
The injunction itself does not prevent the Department from 
investigating cases that are outside the scope of that limited 
injunctive relief. For instance, the Department can lawfully 
investigate such cases involving employers located outside the Ninth 
Circuit and that are not members of the plaintiff associations involved 
in the ORLA litigation. Making the Department's limited nonenforcement 
policy permanent without issuing the NPRM, however, would result in 
different requirements for different geographic regions, or different 
employers depending on their membership in certain associations. Such a 
situation, for example, could mean an employer that has locations 
within, and outside of, the Ninth Circuit would have different 
compliance requirements. Also, the limited nonenforcement policy does 
not impact employees' right to bring private actions under section 
16(b) of the FLSA to enforce the tip retention regulations, exposing 
employers to an uncertain landscape. See 29 U.S.C. 216(b). Moreover, 
taking no regulatory action does not address the Department's concerns 
discussed above. See, supra, Need for Rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ As noted in section II and footnote 6, the Department 
expanded the scope of this initial nonenforcement position when it 
decided to pursue this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

ii. Alternative 2
    For the second alternative, the Department considered removing the 
regulatory language that reiterates the statutory restrictions in 
section 3(m) addressing an employer's ability to utilize tips received 
by employees even when the employer claims a tip credit. The 
regulations from which the Department considered removing this language 
include 29 CFR 531.52, 531.54, and 531.59. Under this alternative, for 
employers that claim a tip credit, the Department would enforce the tip 
retention requirements of section 3(m) based only on the text of the 
statute.
    There is a significant risk, however, that this alternative would 
create confusion as to tipped employees' right to retain tips when 
their employer claims a tip credit. The removal of the Department's 
current regulatory guidance could also increase the risk of employer 
non-compliance with the statute due to the lack of regulatory guidance.

[[Page 57410]]

E. Classification as a Deregulatory Action and Estimated Regulatory 
Cost Savings

    Under the current regulations, employers are prohibited from 
reallocating tips or including non-tipped employees in a mandatory tip 
pool ``whether or not the employer has taken a tip credit under section 
3(m) of the FLSA.'' 29 CFR 531.52. This proposed rule would remove such 
restrictions on the treatment of tips when an employer does not take a 
tip credit, and would not introduce any new regulatory requirements in 
replacement of the requirements proposed for elimination. Therefore, it 
is expected that this proposed rule would, if finalized as proposed, 
qualify as a ``deregulatory action'' for the purposes of E.O. 13771.
    As discussed earlier, the Department estimates that this proposed 
rule would result in Year 1 regulatory familiarization costs of 
approximately $3.4 million. See, supra, Section VII.B.v. The Department 
expects that these relatively modest familiarization costs would be 
more than offset by greater cost savings for employers attributable to 
the elimination of existing regulatory requirements, but, due to a lack 
of adequate information about the costs employers presently bear in 
complying with the regulations identified for elimination, cost savings 
have not been quantified in this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. 
Additionally, the Department notes that reduced deadweight loss in the 
affected labor markets would likely significantly outweigh the $3.4 
million in estimated regulatory familiarization costs.

VIII. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA)

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., 
as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 
1996, Public Law 104-121 (March 29, 1996), requires federal agencies 
engaged in rulemaking to consider the impact of their proposals on 
small entities, consider alternatives to minimize that impact, and 
solicit public comment on their analyses. The RFA requires the 
assessment of the impact of a regulation on a wide range of small 
entities, including small businesses, not-for-profit organizations, and 
small governmental jurisdictions.
    Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a proposed or 
final rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities. 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604. As part of a regulatory 
proposal, the RFA requires a federal agency to prepare, and make 
available for public comment, an initial regulatory flexibility 
analysis that describes the impact of the proposed rule on small 
entities. 5 U.S.C. 603(a).
    The Department has conducted, and is publishing here, an initial 
regulatory flexibility analysis to help small entities better 
understand the impacts of the proposed rule. The Department invites 
comments on the number of small entities affected by the proposed 
rule's requirements, the compliance cost estimates, and whether 
alternatives exist that will reduce the burden on small entities.

A. Why the Department Is Considering Action

    As explained in greater detail earlier in the analysis, the 
Department has serious concerns that it incorrectly construed the 
statute in promulgating its current tip regulations to apply to 
employers that have paid a direct cash wage of at least the full 
Federal minimum wage to their tipped employees and serious concerns 
about those regulations as a policy matter. The Department is therefore 
proposing to rescind those portions of its tip regulations at 29 CFR 
part 531, subpart D that impose restrictions on employers that pay a 
direct cash wage of at least the full Federal minimum wage and do not 
claim a tip credit against their minimum wage obligations.

B. Statement of Objectives and Legal Basis for the Proposed Rule

    The Department's regulations addressing the treatment of tipped 
employees under federal law at 29 CFR part 531, subpart D are derived 
from section 3(m) of the FLSA. See 29 U.S.C. 203(m). As explained 
earlier, the Department now has serious concerns that it incorrectly 
construed the statute in promulgating its current tip regulations to 
apply to employers that do not take a tip credit, i.e., where an 
employee receives at least the full $7.25 Federal minimum wage directly 
from the employer, and serious concerns about the regulations as a 
policy matter, especially in light of changed circumstances.
    The purpose of Section 3(m)'s tip credit provision is to allow an 
employer to subsidize a portion of its Federal minimum wage obligation 
through a credit against the tips given to employees by customers. If 
an employer pays its tipped employees a direct cash wage of at least 
the full Federal minimum wage (currently $7.25 per hour) but 
reallocates equal or greater amount of the tips received by its 
employees, there is a question as to whether the employer is 
circumventing the protections of Section 3(m) because it is utilizing 
tips received by its employees towards its minimum wage obligations to 
a greater extent than permitted under the statute. Where, however, an 
employer has paid employees a direct cash wage of at least the full 
Federal minimum wage and does not reallocate the employee tips 
directly, but requires that employee tips be distributed to non-tipped 
employees through a tip pool, there is a strong argument that the 
statutory protections of Section 3(m) are not circumvented.

C. Description of the Number of Small Entities to Which the Proposed 
Rule Will Apply

    This section describes the industry or economic sector that will be 
affected by the proposed rule in total and its small and large entity 
segments, includes a description of the industry or sector at the time 
of the proposal, and explains any existing dynamics, such as trends in 
employment or birth of entities.
i. Definition of a Small Entity
    A ``small entity'' is one that is ``independently owned and 
operated and which is not dominant in its field of operation.'' \44\ 
The definition of ``small business'' varies from industry to industry 
to properly reflect industry size differences. An agency must either 
use the Small Business Administration (SBA) definition for a small 
entity or establish an alternative definition for the relevant 
industries to which a rule applies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ The RFA adopts the definition of ``small business concern'' 
used in the Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. 632(a)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In our analysis, the Department uses the Small Business 
Administration (SBA) size standards, which determine when a business 
qualifies for small business status.\45\ According to the 2017 
standards, Full-service Restaurants (NAICS 722511) and Drinking Places 
(Alcoholic Beverages) (NAICS 722410) have a size standard of $7.5 
million in annual revenue.\46\ The Department used this number to 
estimate the number of small entities in this analysis. Any firms with 
annual sales revenue less than this

[[Page 57411]]

amount will be considered a small business entity in this analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ U.S. Small Business Administration, Summary of Size 
Standards by Industry Sector, February 2016. Retrieved June 21, 2017 
from https://www.sba.gov/contracting/getting-started-contractor/make-sure-you-meet-sba-size-standards/summary-size-standards-industry-sector. See also full US SBA Size Standard listings at 
https://www.sba.gov/contracting/getting-started-contractor/make-sure-you-meet-sba-size-standards/table-small-business-size-standards.
    \46\ Id., Subsector 722.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

ii. Data Sources and Methods
    The Department used data from several different sources to estimate 
the number of small entities to which the rule will apply, i.e., 
affected firms. The Department used the U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 
Economic Census \47\ to obtain the number of firms, total number of 
paid employees, and annual sales/receipts for the two industries in the 
analysis: Full-service Restaurants (NAICS 722511) and Drinking Places 
(Alcoholic Beverages) (NAICS 722410).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 Economic Census https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ECN_2012_US_72SSSZ1&prodType=table.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    From annual receipts/sales, the Department can estimate how many 
firms fall under the size standard. Table 4 below shows the number of 
private firms in the two industries by revenue. The number of firms and 
number of employees are obtained directly from the U.S. Economic Census 
(2012) data.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ The small business size standard for the two industries is 
$7.5 million in annual revenue. However, the final size category 
reported in the table is $5 million-$9 million. This is a data 
limitation because the 2012 Economic Census reported this category 
of $5 million-$9 million and not $5 million-$7.5 million. Thus, the 
total number of firms used in the calculation may be slightly 
higher.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To obtain the number of bartenders & waiters/waitresses in the two 
industries, the Department used the BLS industry-occupation mix 
(2014).\49\ Using the staffing mix of industries to estimate bartenders 
and wait staff allows for use of the very latest industry data, which 
builds on the highly-regarded QCEW data set. About 42.9 percent of 
workers in the Full-service Restaurant industry (NAICS 722511) are 
bartenders or waiters/waitresses (5 percent are bartenders; 37.9 
percent are waiters/waitresses). In Drinking Places (Alcoholic 
Beverages) (722410), about 63.5 percent are bartenders and waiters/
waitresses (46.1 percent are bartenders; 17.4 percent are waiters/
waitresses). The Department applied these percentages uniformly to 
total paid employees in these two industries to obtain the number of 
bartenders and waiters/waitresses across all firm sizes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ BLS Industry-Occupation Matrix Data, By Industry, https://www.bls.gov/emp/ep_table_109.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To determine the number of tipped bartenders & waiters/waitresses, 
the Department used 57 percent of all bartenders and waiters/waitresses 
in both industries, based on the share in the CPS data that report 
usually receiving tips.\50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ As noted above, see, supra, section VII.B.ii, approximately 
57 percent of waiters/waitresses and bartenders in the 2016 CPS-MORG 
survey responded affirmatively when asked if they usually receive 
tips or commissions. The Department considers employees who 
responded affirmatively to this question to be tipped employees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The annual cost per firm is calculated based on the regulatory 
familiarization cost ($3.4 million), which amounts to $12.17 per 
establishment. The Department applied this cost to all sizes of firms 
since this will be incurred by each firm regardless of the number of 
affected workers. Finally, the impact of this provision is calculated 
as the ratio of annual cost per firm to receipts per firm. As shown, 
the per-firm cost incurred in the first year ($12.17) is less than one 
percent of annual receipts per small firm under this proposed rule; 
thus, it does not have any significant burden on small entities.

                                                         Table 4--Annual Cost to Small Entities
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Average     Number of    Number of
                                            Number of    Number  of     annual     bartenders     tipped    Annual cost      Annual cost  per firm as
  Annual revenue/sales/receipts  (2012)       firms         paid      sales  per  and servers   bartenders    per firm      percent of  sales/receipts
                                                         employees    firm  ($)       \a\      and servers    ($) \b\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Firms with revenue less than $100,000....       10,071       24,455      $61,885       10,491        5,246       $12.17  Less than 0.1%.
Firms with revenue of $100,000 to               28,344      129,413      175,461       55,518       27,759        12.17  Less than 0.1%.
 $249,999.
Firms with revenue of $250,000 to               38,105      324,566      366,027      139,239       69,620        12.17  Less than 0.1%.
 $499,999.
Firms with revenue of $500,000 to               40,970      652,792      714,479      280,048      140,024        12.17  Less than 0.1%.
 $999,999.
Firms with revenue of $1,000,000 to             32,965    1,066,544    1,514,178      457,547      228,774        12.17  Less than 0.1%.
 $2,499,999.
Firms with revenue of $2,500,000 to              7,806      499,989    3,330,922      214,495      107,248        12.17  Less than 0.1%.
 $4,999,999.
Firms with revenue of $5,000,000 to              2,021      237,316    6,653,982      101,809       50,905        12.17  Less than 0.1%.
 $9,999,999.
Firms with revenue less than $100,000....        4,584          N/A            -            -            -        12.17
Firms with revenue of $100,000 to               11,517       44,508      171,075       28,263       14,132        12.17  Less than 0.1%.
 $249,999.
Firms with revenue of $250,000 to                8,873       60,159      350,496       38,201       19,101        12.17  Less than 0.1%.
 $499,999.
Firms with revenue of $500,000 to                5,029       65,124      689,494       41,354       20,677        12.17  Less than 0.1%.
 $999,999.
Firms with revenue of $1,000,000 to              3,046       82,871    1,492,272       52,623       26,312        12.17  Less than 0.1%.
 $2,499,999.
Firms with revenue of $2,500,000 to                668       36,013    3,370,838       22,868       11,434        12.17  Less than 0.1%.
 $4,999,999.
Firms with revenue of $5,000,000 to                156       13,785    6,740,077        8,753        4,377        12.17  Less than 0.1%.
 $9,999,999.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ ``Servers'' stands for waiters & waitresses; `N/A' Not available in Economic census, 2012, withheld to avoid disclosing data for individual
  companies; data are included in higher level totals; `-' value not calculated as one or more inputs are missing.
\b\ The Annual Cost per firm is the regulatory familiarization cost per firm calculated in Section VII.B.iv.i.

D. Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance 
Requirements of the Proposed Rule

    The FLSA sets minimum wage, overtime pay, and recordkeeping 
requirements for employment subject to its provisions. The FLSA allows 
an employer to claim a tip credit, as defined by section 3(m) of the 
statute, toward meeting its minimum wage obligation for employees who 
customarily and regularly receive more than $30.00 per month in tips. 
FLSA section 11(c) requires all covered employers to make, keep, and 
preserve records of employees and of wages, hours, and other conditions 
of employment. Employers use the records to document compliance with 
the FLSA, including showing the tips received is not less than the tip 
credit claimed. The Department has promulgated regulations at 29 CFR 
part 516 to establish the basic FLSA recordkeeping requirements; this 
proposal does not alter these recordkeeping requirements. The 
recordkeeping regulation at 29 CFR 516.28 applies to tipped employees. 
Since the employees who may be impacted by the proposed changes to the 
regulations are those for whom the employer pays a direct cash wage of 
at least the FLSA minimum wage under section 6(a)(1)(C) with no tip 
credit taken, such employers would not face additional recordkeeping 
requirements within the scope of 29 CFR 516.28. Therefore, there are no 
additional recordkeeping requirements beyond those required by other 
sections of the FLSA under the proposed rule. Similarly, the proposed 
rule does not

[[Page 57412]]

have reporting or other compliance requirements.
i. Costs to Small Entities
    The direct costs to employers, specifically, regulatory 
familiarization, are quantified in the Regulatory Impact Analysis. 
Regulatory familiarization costs are the costs incurred to read and 
become familiar with the requirements of the rule. Regardless of 
business size, the Department estimates that each establishment will 
spend 15 minutes for regulatory familiarization. As a direct result of 
this proposed rule, the Department expects total direct employer costs 
(regulatory familiarization) of $2,362,866 will be incurred by all 
small entities combined in the first year after the promulgation of the 
proposed rule: $12.17--the cost of 15 minutes of work by a 
Compensation/benefits specialist (SOC 13-1141), see, supra, VII.B.iv--
multiplied by 194,155, the number of small entities (see below). 
Regulatory familiarization costs are only incurred in the first year. 
The per-firm costs incurred in the first year ($12.17) are less than 
one percent of the annual average revenue per firm for the small 
entities shown in Table 4 in Section VIII.C.ii.
ii. Number of Small Entities Impacted by the Proposed Rule
    As noted above, the SBA size standard for Full-service Restaurants 
(722511) and Drinking Places (Alcoholic Beverages) (722410) is $7.5 
million in annual revenue.\51\ There are 194,155 small entities that 
fall below this size standard in these two selected industries, which 
accounts for 78 percent of total number of firms in these industries, 
employing about 3,237,535 employees. As per the calculation in Section 
VIII.C, the Department estimates the proposed rule would have no 
significant negative impact.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ Because of the limitations of the size-class data, the 
analysis looks at firms with annual revenues up to $9,999,999.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Regulatory Alternatives That Minimize the Impact on Small Entities

    Section 603(c) of the RFA requires that each initial regulatory 
flexibility analysis contain a description of any significant 
alternatives to the proposal that accomplish the statutory objectives 
and minimize the significant economic impact of the proposal on small 
entities. The Department considered the following alternatives:
    i. Differing compliance or reporting requirements that take into 
account the resources available to small entities. This NPRM makes no 
changes to existing recordkeeping and reporting requirements. 
Accordingly, it is not necessary to establish different compliance or 
reporting requirements for small businesses.
    ii. The clarification, consolidation, or simplification of 
compliance and reporting requirements for small entities. The proposed 
rule imposes no new compliance or reporting requirements. The 
Department makes available a variety of resources to employers for 
understanding their obligation and for achieving compliance.
    iii. The use of performance rather than design standards. Under the 
proposed rule, employers may achieve compliance through a variety of 
means. Employers may elect to continue (or not) to take a tip credit 
under section 3(m) of the FLSA. For those employers who take such a tip 
credit, the statutory restrictions on employer use of customer tips 
continue to apply. However, for those employers who pay at least the 
Federal minimum wage and do not take a section 3(m) tip credit, the 
proposed rule rescinds those regulatory restrictions. The Department 
makes available a variety of resources to employers for understanding 
their obligation and for achieving compliance.
    iv. An exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, 
for such small entities. Creating an exemption from coverage of the 
NPRM for small businesses is not necessary as this proposed rule 
proposes to rescind employer restrictions on employer use of customer 
tips when the employer pays at least the Federal minimum wage in cash 
and does not take a section 3(m) tip credit.

F. Differing Compliance and Reporting Requirements for Small Entities

    Due to the deregulatory nature of this rulemaking, the Department 
does not believe that different compliance and reporting requirements 
for small entities are required.

G. Identification, to the Extent Practicable, of All Relevant Federal 
Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed Rule

    The Department is not aware of any federal rules that duplicate, 
overlap, or conflict with this NPRM.

IX. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Analysis

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1532, 
requires that agencies prepare a written statement, which includes an 
assessment of anticipated costs and benefits, before proposing any 
Federal mandate that may result in excess of $100 million (adjusted 
annually for inflation) in expenditures in any one year by state, 
local, and tribal governments in the aggregate, or by the private 
sector. This rulemaking is not expected to affect state, local, or 
tribal governments. While this rulemaking would affect employers in the 
private sector, it is not expected to result in expenditures greater 
than $100 million in any one year. Please see Section VII.B-C for an 
assessment of anticipated costs and benefits to the private sector.

X. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    The Department has (1) reviewed this proposed rule in accordance 
with Executive Order 13132 regarding federalism and (2) determined that 
it does not have federalism implications. The proposed rule would not 
have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship 
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution 
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

XI. Executive Order 13175, Indian Tribal Governments

    This proposed rule would not have substantial direct effects on one 
or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal 
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and 
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

XII. Effects on Families

    The undersigned hereby certifies that the proposed rule would not 
adversely affect the well-being of families, as discussed under section 
654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999.

XIII. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children

    This proposed rule would have no environmental health risk or 
safety risk that may disproportionately affect children.

XIV. Environmental Impact Assessment

    A review of this proposed rule in accordance with the requirements 
of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321 
et seq.; the regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality, 40 
CFR part 1500 et seq.; and the Departmental NEPA procedures, 29 CFR 
part 11, indicates that the rule would not have a significant impact on 
the quality of the human environment. There is, thus, no corresponding 
environmental

[[Page 57413]]

assessment or an environmental impact statement.

XV. Executive Order 13211, Energy Supply

    This proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211. It will 
not have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or 
use of energy.

XVI. Executive Order 12630, Constitutionally Protected Property Rights

    This proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 12630 because 
it does not involve implementation of a policy that has takings 
implications or that could impose limitations on private property use.

XVII. Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform Analysis

    This proposed rule was drafted and reviewed in accordance with 
Executive Order 12988 and will not unduly burden the Federal court 
system. The proposed rule was: (1) Reviewed to eliminate drafting 
errors and ambiguities; (2) written to minimize litigation; and (3) 
written to provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct and to 
promote burden reduction.

XVIII. Summary of Proposed Changes

    The Department proposes to remove or amend the portions of 
Sec. Sec.  531.52, 531.54, and 531.59 that impose restrictions on 
employers that pay a direct cash wage of least the Federal minimum wage 
and do not claim the section 3(m) tip credit. The proposed rule deletes 
the fourth sentence of section 531.52, which currently states that 
``[t]ips are the property of the employee whether or not the employer 
has taken a tip credit under section 3(m) of the FLSA.'' The proposed 
rule also revises the fifth sentence of sections 531.52, the last 
sentence of section 531.54, and the final sentence of section 531.59(b) 
to remove language placing restrictions on an employer's use of tips 
when that employer has not taken a tip credit while retaining language 
that reflects the statutory restrictions on an employer's use of tips 
received by its employees when it does take a tip credit.

List of Subjects in 29 CFR Part 531

    Employment, Labor, Minimum wages, Wages.

Bryan L. Jarrett,
Acting Administrator, Wage and Hour Division.

    For the reasons set forth above, the Department proposes to amend 
Title 29, part 531 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

PART 531--WAGE PAYMENTS UNDER THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT OF 1938

0
1. The authority citation for part 531 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  Sec. 3(m), 52 Stat. 1060; sec. 2, 75 Stat. 65; sec. 
101, 80 Stat. 830; sec. 29(B), 88 Stat. 55, Pub. L. 93-259; Pub. L. 
95-151, 29 U.S.C. 203(m) and (t); Pub. L. 104-188, 2105(b); Pub. L. 
110-28, 121 Stat. 112.

0
2. Revise Sec.  531.52 to read as follows:


Sec.  531.52  General characteristics of ``tips.''

    A tip is a sum presented by a customer as a gift or gratuity in 
recognition of some service performed for him. It is to be 
distinguished from payment of a charge, if any, made for the service. 
Whether a tip is to be given, and its amount, are matters determined 
solely by the customer, who has the right to determine who shall be the 
recipient of the gratuity. An employer that takes a tip credit is 
prohibited from using an employee's tips for any reason other than that 
which is statutorily permitted in section 3(m): As a credit against its 
minimum wage obligations to the employee, or in furtherance of a valid 
tip pool. Only tips actually received by an employee as money belonging 
to the employee may be counted in determining whether the person is a 
``tipped employee'' within the meaning of the Act and in applying the 
provisions of section 3(m) which govern wage credits for tips.
* * * * *
0
3. Revise the last sentence of Sec.  531.54 to read as follows:


Sec.  531.54  Tip pooling.

    * * * However, an employer that takes a tip credit must notify its 
employees of any required tip pool contribution amount, may only take a 
tip credit for the amount of tips each employee ultimately receives, 
and may not retain any of the employees' tips for any other purpose.
0
4. In Sec.  531.59, revise the last sentence of paragraph (b) to read 
as follows:


Sec.  531.59  The tip wage credit.

* * * * *
    (b) * * * With the exception of tips contributed to a valid tip 
pool as described in Sec.  531.54, the tip credit provisions of section 
3(m) also require employers that take a tip credit to permit employees 
to retain all tips received by the employee.

[FR Doc. 2017-25802 Filed 12-4-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4510-27-P



                                                                        Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 232 / Tuesday, December 5, 2017 / Proposed Rules                                                57395

                                                    Signed: October 30, 2017.                             All comment submissions must include                  Federal minimum wage, which is
                                                  John J. Manfreda,                                       the agency name and Regulatory                        currently $7.25 per hour. See 29 U.S.C.
                                                  Administrator.                                          Information Number (RIN 1235–AA21)                    206(a)(1). Under section 3(m) of the
                                                    Approved: November 30, 2017.                          for this NPRM. Response to this NPRM                  FLSA, which defines the term ‘‘wage,’’
                                                  Timothy E. Skud,                                        is voluntary. The Department requests                 an employer of tipped employees can
                                                                                                          that no business proprietary                          satisfy its obligation to pay those
                                                  Deputy Assistant Secretary (Tax, Trade and
                                                  Tariff Policy).                                         information, copyrighted information,                 employees the Federal minimum wage
                                                                                                          or personally identifiable information be             by paying a lower direct cash wage and
                                                  [FR Doc. 2017–26283 Filed 12–4–17; 8:45 am]
                                                                                                          submitted in response to this NPRM.                   counting a limited amount of the tips
                                                  BILLING CODE 4810–31–P
                                                                                                          Submit only one copy of your comment                  received by its employees as a partial
                                                                                                          by only one method (e.g., persons                     credit to satisfy the difference between
                                                                                                          submitting comments electronically are                the direct cash wage paid and the
                                                  DEPARTMENT OF LABOR                                     encouraged not to submit paper copies).               Federal minimum wage (known as a
                                                                                                          Please be advised that comments                       ‘‘tip credit’’), if it follows certain
                                                  Wage and Hour Division
                                                                                                          received will become a matter of public               statutory requirements. See 29 U.S.C.
                                                                                                          record and will be posted without                     203(m).
                                                  29 CFR Part 531                                                                                                  In 1966, Congress created a tip credit
                                                                                                          change to http://www.regulations.gov,
                                                  RIN 1235–AA21                                           including any personal information                    provision within the definition of a
                                                                                                          provided. All comments must be                        ‘‘wage’’ in section 3(m) of the statute
                                                  Tip Regulations Under the Fair Labor                    received by 11:59 p.m. on the date                    that permitted an employer to utilize
                                                  Standards Act (FLSA)                                    indicated for consideration in this                   tips received by its employees to
                                                                                                          NPRM; comments received after the                     subsidize up to 50 percent of its
                                                  AGENCY:  Wage and Hour Division,
                                                                                                          comment period closes will not be                     minimum wage obligations. See Public
                                                  Department of Labor.
                                                                                                          considered. Commenters should                         Law 89–601, 101(a), 80 Stat. 830 (1966);
                                                  ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking;                                                                        76 FR 18,832, 18,838.1 In 1974,
                                                  request for comments.                                   transmit comments early to ensure
                                                                                                          timely receipt prior to the close of the              Congress again amended section 3(m) by
                                                  SUMMARY:    The Department of Labor                     comment period. Electronic submission                 providing that an employer could not
                                                  (Department) is proposing to rescind                    via http://www.regulations.gov enables                utilize tips received by its employees
                                                  portions of its tip regulations issued                  prompt receipt of comments submitted                  toward its Federal minimum wage
                                                  pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards                    as DOL continues to experience delays                 obligation unless, among other things:
                                                  Act that impose restrictions on                         in the receipt of mail in our area. For                 (1) [its] employee has been informed by the
                                                  employers that pay a direct cash wage                   access to the docket to read background               employer of the provisions of this subsection
                                                  of at least the full federal minimum                    documents or comments, go to the                      and (2) all tips received by such employee
                                                                                                                                                                have been retained by the employee, except
                                                  wage and do not seek to use a portion                   Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://                 that this subsection shall not be construed to
                                                  of tips as a credit toward their minimum                www.regulations.gov.                                  prohibit the pooling of tips among employees
                                                  wage obligations. This Notice of                        FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:                      who customarily and regularly receive tips.
                                                  Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) seeks the                    Melissa Smith, Director of the Division                  Public Law 93–259, 13(e), 88 Stat. 55
                                                  views of the public on the Department’s                 of Regulations, Legislation, and                      (1974). Thus, section 3(m) permits an
                                                  proposed rescission of those portions of                Interpretation, Wage and Hour Division,               employer to take a partial credit against
                                                  the regulations.                                        U.S. Department of Labor, Room S–                     its minimum wage obligations on
                                                  DATES: Comments must be received on                     3502, 200 Constitution Avenue NW.,                    account of tips received by its
                                                  or before January 4, 2018.                              Washington, DC 20210, telephone: (202)                employees but only if, among other
                                                  ADDRESSES: To facilitate the receipt and                693–0406 (this is not a toll-free                     things, its tipped employees retain all of
                                                  processing of written comments on this                  number). Copies of this NPRM may be                   their tips. Section 3(m), however, does
                                                  NPRM, the Department encourages                         obtained in alternative formats (Large                not preclude an employer that takes a
                                                  interested persons to submit their                      Print, Braille, Audio Tape or Disc), upon             tip credit from implementing a tip pool
                                                  comments electronically. You may                        request, by calling (202) 693–0675 (this              in which tips are shared only among
                                                  submit comments, identified by                          is not a toll-free number). TTY/TDD                   those employees who ‘‘customarily and
                                                  Regulatory Information Number (RIN)                     callers may dial toll-free 1 (877) 889–               regularly receive tips.’’ Id.
                                                  1235–AA21, by either of the following                   5627 to obtain information or request                    The Department first promulgated
                                                  methods:                                                materials in alternative formats.                     regulations implementing the section
                                                    Electronic Comments: Follow the                          Questions of interpretation and/or                 3(m) tip credit in 1967. See 32 FR
                                                  instructions for submitting comments                    enforcement of the agency’s regulations               13,575 (Sept. 28, 1967). In 2011, the
                                                  on the Federal eRulemaking Portal                       may be directed to the nearest WHD                    Department updated those regulations
                                                  http://www.regulations.gov.                             district office. Locate the nearest office            to reflect its then-existing view that the
                                                    Mail: Address written submissions to                  by calling the WHD’s toll-free help line              statutory conditions in section 3(m) of
                                                  Melissa Smith, Director of the Division                 at (866) 4US–WAGE ((866) 487–9243)                    the FLSA require that tipped employees
                                                  of Regulations, Legislation, and                        between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. in your local               retain all of their tips, except for those
                                                  Interpretation, Wage and Hour Division,                 time zone, or log onto WHD’s Web site                 tips distributed through a tip pool
                                                  U.S. Department of Labor, Room S–                       at http://www.dol.gov/whd/                            limited to customarily and regularly
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS




                                                  3502, 200 Constitution Avenue NW.,                      america2.htm for a nationwide listing of              tipped employees, regardless whether
                                                  Washington, DC 20210.                                   WHD district and area offices.                        such employees work for an employer
                                                    Instructions: This NPRM is available                  SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:                            that takes a tip credit. See, e.g., § 531.52.
                                                  through the Federal Register and the
                                                  http://www.regulations.gov Web site.                    I. Executive Summary                                    1 As discussed further below, Congress changed

                                                  You may also access this document via                                                                         the amount of tips received by employees that an
                                                                                                             The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938               employer can credit against its minimum wage
                                                  the Wage and Hour Division’s (WHD)                      (FLSA) generally requires covered                     obligation in subsequent amendments to the FLSA.
                                                  Web site at http://www.dol.gov/whd/.                    employers to pay employees at least a                 See, infra, Sec. III.



                                             VerDate Sep<11>2014   18:01 Dec 04, 2017   Jkt 244001   PO 00000   Frm 00013   Fmt 4702   Sfmt 4702   E:\FR\FM\05DEP1.SGM   05DEP1


                                                  57396                 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 232 / Tuesday, December 5, 2017 / Proposed Rules

                                                     As discussed below, since 2011 there                 employees for tip sharing among a larger               regulatory changes, which in turn
                                                  has been a significant amount of private                tip pool of employees. This change                     would affect total tipped income and
                                                  litigation involving the tip pooling and                could result, for example, in tips being               employer behavior. The Department
                                                  tip retention practices of employers that               shared with employees who are not                      currently lacks data to quantify possible
                                                  pay a direct cash wage of at least the                  customarily and regularly tipped, such                 reallocations of tips through newly
                                                  Federal minimum wage and do not take                    as back-of-the-house employees in                      expanded tip pools to employees who
                                                  a tip credit. There has also been                       restaurants. This type of tip sharing was              do not customarily and regularly receive
                                                  litigation directly challenging the                     at issue in Cumbie v. Woody Woo, Inc.,                 tips. The Department presents a
                                                  Department’s authority to promulgate                    596 F.3d 577 (9th Cir. 2010) (employer                 primarily qualitative approach to
                                                  the 2011 Final Rule as it applies to                    paid its tipped employees a direct wage                assessing the benefits and transfers of
                                                  employers that pay a direct cash wage                   payment that exceeded the Federal                      the new rule.
                                                  of at least the Federal minimum wage.                   minimum wage and instituted a tip pool                    The Department estimated the
                                                  At the same time, there have been                       that included back-of-the-house                        regulatory familiarization costs
                                                  changes in state laws that require                      employees who did not customarily and                  associated with this proposed rule on an
                                                  employers to pay their tipped                           regularly receive tips, such as                        establishment basis and calculated the
                                                  employees a direct cash wage of at least                dishwashers and cooks). If the                         first year cost to be $3.431 million. The
                                                  the Federal minimum wage, which have                    Department’s rule were adopted as                      Department discussed other impacts
                                                  resulted in more employers being                        proposed herein, it would expressly                    and benefits of the proposed rule
                                                  unable to claim a tip credit.                           allow such tip sharing. Employers in                   qualitatively. For the purposes of E.O.
                                                     In part because of these                             other industries could also adopt                      13771, it is expected that this proposed
                                                  developments, the Department is                         similarly varied tip pooling                           rule would, if finalized as proposed,
                                                  concerned about the scope of its current                arrangements among tipped and non-                     qualify as an ‘‘E.O. 13771 deregulatory
                                                  tip regulations as applied to employers                 tipped employees. E.g., Cesarz v. Wynn                 action.’’
                                                  that pay the full Federal minimum wage                  Las Vegas, 2014 WL 117579 (D. Nev.                     II. Recent Developments in Tip Pooling
                                                  to their tipped employees. The                          2014), rev’d and remanded by Oregon                    Regulations and Litigation; Proposed
                                                  Department is also seriously concerned                  Rest. & Lodging Ass’n v. Perez, 816 F.3d               Changes to Regulations; and
                                                  that it incorrectly construed the statute               1080 (9th Cir. 2016), reh’g and reh’g en               Nonenforcement Policy
                                                  in promulgating the tip credit                          banc denied, 843 F.3d 355 (9th Cir.
                                                                                                          2016), pet. for cert. filed (Aug. 1 2016)                 As noted above, the FLSA’s tip credit
                                                  regulations that apply to such
                                                                                                          (employer instituted a tip pool through                provision was enacted in 1966. WHD
                                                  employers. Additionally, the
                                                                                                          which dealers’ tips were shared with                   promulgated regulations implementing
                                                  Department seeks to consider whether it
                                                                                                          other casino employees in jobs that have               the FLSA’s tip credit provision in 1967.
                                                  is unnecessary to prohibit the sharing of
                                                                                                          not traditionally been customarily and                 See 29 U.S.C. 203(m), Public Law 89–
                                                  tips with employees who do not
                                                                                                          regularly tipped). Promulgation of the                 601, 101(a), 80 Stat. 830 (1966); 32 FR
                                                  customarily receive tips, including
                                                                                                          regulation would also make clear that                  13,575 (Sept. 28, 1967). Among other
                                                  restaurant cooks, dishwashers, and                                                                             things, the 1967 regulations
                                                  other traditionally lower-wage job                      where an employer does not claim the
                                                                                                          tip credit under section 3(m) and pays                 acknowledged that employers and
                                                  classifications, when their employer                                                                           employees could agree that tips received
                                                  does not take a tip credit under FLSA                   a direct wage that satisfies the FLSA’s
                                                                                                          minimum wage requirements, the                         would belong to the employer, which
                                                  section 3(m) and its employees are paid                                                                        might then use the tips to satisfy the
                                                  at least the full Federal minimum wage.                 treatment and disposition of tips is a
                                                                                                                                                                 entirety of its minimum wage
                                                     The Department is therefore                          matter of agreement between the
                                                                                                                                                                 obligations, thus exceeding the then-50
                                                  proposing to rescind the parts of its tip               employer and employees or of state law.
                                                                                                             To estimate the impact of the                       percent limitation on an employer’s
                                                  regulations that bar tip-sharing                                                                               crediting of tips received by its
                                                  arrangements in establishments where                    proposed rule, the Department looked at
                                                                                                          two occupations that constitute a large                employees against its minimum wage
                                                  the employers pay full Federal                                                                                 obligations. See, e.g., § 531.55(b) (1967)
                                                  minimum wage and do not take a tip                      percentage of tipped workers (waiters,
                                                                                                          waitresses, and bartenders) and focused                (‘‘[I]f pursuant to an employment
                                                  credit against their minimum wage                                                                              agreement the tips received by an
                                                  obligations. This proposed rule applies                 on two industries (drinking places and
                                                                                                                                                                 employee must be credited or turned
                                                  only to employers that pay direct cash                  full-service restaurants). Based on the
                                                                                                                                                                 over to the employer, such sums may,
                                                  wages of at least the Federal minimum                   data used in the regulatory impact
                                                                                                                                                                 after receipt by the employer, be used by
                                                  wage and do not take a tip credit. It does              analysis below, the Department
                                                                                                                                                                 the employer to satisfy the monetary
                                                  not apply to employers who pay less                     estimated that there are up to 1,298,231
                                                                                                                                                                 requirements of the Act. In such
                                                  than the Federal minimum wage and                       tipped workers in the selected
                                                                                                                                                                 instances there is no applicability of the
                                                  take a tip credit.                                      occupations, and 206,770 full-service
                                                                                                                                                                 50-percent limitation on tip credits
                                                     The proposed removal of the                          restaurants, and 40,095 drinking places.
                                                                                                             There are labor market forces that will             provided by section 3(m).’’).
                                                  regulatory limitation on an employer’s                                                                            The 1967 regulations were consistent
                                                  ability to utilize tips if it pays a direct             affect decisions concerning employer
                                                                                                                                                                 with Williams v. Jacksonville Terminal
                                                  wage of at least the full FLSA minimum                  use or reallocation of tips. For example,
                                                                                                                                                                 Co., 315 U.S. 386 (1942), and the
                                                  wage will allow for employers to                        there are certain market factors that may
                                                                                                                                                                 legislative history of the 1966
                                                  provide in their agreements 2 with                      discourage any changes in tip-sharing
                                                                                                                                                                 amendments. In Jacksonville Terminal,
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS




                                                                                                          practices, such as employee resistance
                                                                                                                                                                 the Supreme Court held that an
                                                    2 Similar references to agreements in this notice     and heightened turnover among the
                                                                                                                                                                 employer had complied with the FLSA’s
                                                  refer to agreements, whether written or otherwise,      customarily tipped employees. The
                                                  between an employer and its employees regarding                                                                minimum-wage requirements by paying
                                                                                                          Department is unable to quantify how
                                                  the treatment and disposition of tips received by                                                              its employees only those tips that the
                                                  such employees. Cf. Williams v. Jacksonville            customers will respond to proposed
                                                                                                                                                                 employees received from customers
                                                  Terminal Co., 315 U.S. 386, 397 (1942) (determining
                                                  that, ‘‘[i]n businesses where tipping is customary,     ‘‘an arrangement [may be] made by which the
                                                                                                                                                                 and, if tips received by any employee
                                                  the tips, in the absence of an explicit contrary        employee agrees’’ to a different disposition of such   did not satisfy the minimum wage, by
                                                  understanding, belong to the recipient,’’ but that      tips).                                                 paying the difference to that employee.


                                             VerDate Sep<11>2014   18:01 Dec 04, 2017   Jkt 244001   PO 00000   Frm 00014   Fmt 4702   Sfmt 4702   E:\FR\FM\05DEP1.SGM   05DEP1


                                                                        Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 232 / Tuesday, December 5, 2017 / Proposed Rules                                           57397

                                                  Id. at 388–389, 397–398, 403–408. The                   the 1974 amendments to the FLSA. See                  Restaurant Association, Washington
                                                  Court reasoned that such tips ‘‘belong to               73 FR 43,654, 43,659 (July 28, 2008).                 Restaurant Association, Alaska Cabaret,
                                                  the recipient’’ employee ‘‘in the absence               Before it had finalized that rulemaking,              Hotel, Restaurant & Retailers
                                                  of an explicit contrary understanding,’’                the Department participated as amicus                 Association, and others (the ORLA
                                                  but that an employer and its employees                  curiae in support of a tipped employee                Plaintiffs), challenged the Department’s
                                                  could agree that the employer would                     challenging her employer’s tip pooling                authority to promulgate the 2011 Final
                                                  ‘‘take the compensation paid by                         arrangement in Cumbie v. Woody Woo,                   Rule as it applies to employers that do
                                                  [customers] for the service [provided by                a case before the Ninth Circuit. 596 F.3d             not take a tip credit and that pay a direct
                                                  the employees], whether paid as a fixed                 577. Woody Woo involved an employer                   cash wage of at least the Federal
                                                  charge or as a tip.’’ Id. at 397–398. The               that paid its tipped employees a direct               minimum wage. See Compl., July 12,
                                                  Court ultimately concluded that the                     wage payment that exceeded the Federal                2012, Oregon Rest. & Lodging Ass’n v.
                                                  parties in the case had entered, and the                minimum wage and instituted a                         Solis, 948 F.Supp.2d 1217 (D. Or. 2013).
                                                  FLSA did not prohibit, such an                          mandatory tip pool that included back-                The ORLA Plaintiffs sought to have
                                                  agreement to ‘‘transfer the tips                        of-the-house employees who do not                     those parts of the Department’s 2011 tip
                                                  [collected by the employees] . . . to the               customarily and regularly receive tips,               regulations that apply to employers that
                                                  credit of the [employer].’’ Id. at 403; see             such as dishwashers and cooks. Id. at                 do not take a tip credit against their
                                                  id. at 403–408. The 1966 legislative                    578–79. The district court in Woody                   minimum wage obligations declared
                                                  history similarly reflected that the new                Woo had concluded that section 3(m)’s                 invalid and vacated. See id. at 33–34
                                                  statutory ‘‘tip provisions [we]re                       restrictions on tip pooling apply only                (identifying §§ 531.52, 531.54, and
                                                  sufficiently flexible to permit the                     when an employer takes a tip credit                   531.59).
                                                  continuance of existing practices with                  against its minimum wage obligations.                    The plaintiffs alleged, inter alia, that
                                                  respect to tips,’’ including practices                  See Cumbie v. Woody Woo, Inc., 2008                   such tip regulations are contrary to the
                                                  under which ‘‘an employer and his                       WL 2884484, at *3 (D. Or. July 25,                    FLSA’s clear statutory language in
                                                  tipped employees . . . agree that all tips              2008). The Department argued before                   section 3(m), which places restrictions
                                                  are to be turned over or accounted for                  the Ninth Circuit that the district court’s           on an employer’s use of tips only when
                                                  to the employer to be treated by him as                 interpretation would permit an                        the employer takes a tip credit. See id.
                                                  part of his gross receipts.’’ S. Rep. 1487,             employer to use tips received by its                  at 18–21. The Department responded by
                                                  89th Cong., 2d Sess. 12 (1966). In that                 employees to a greater extent than that               arguing that the FLSA does not address
                                                  circumstance, however, ‘‘the employer                   permitted in section 3(m), since it                   an employer’s use of tips when the
                                                  must pay the employee the full                          would permit an employer to use tips to               employer does not take a tip credit, and
                                                  minimum hourly wage, since for all                      meet its entire minimum wage                          that the Department appropriately used
                                                  practical purposes the employee is not                  obligation or to subsidize the wages of               its rulemaking authority to address that
                                                  receiving tip income.’’ Id.                             non-tipped employees. See Br. of the                  statutory gap through the 2011 tip
                                                     When it amended section 3(m) in                      Sec’y of Labor as Amicus Curiae, Apr.                 regulations. See Reply Br. of the Sec’y
                                                  1974, Congress added the requirement                    29, 2009, at 8, 2009 WL 2609879,                      of Labor, Dec. 7, 2012, at 5–8, Oregon
                                                  that an employer taking a tip credit                    Cumbie v. Woody Woo, Inc., 596 F.3d                   Rest. & Lodging Ass’n v. Solis, 948
                                                  must permit its tipped employees to                     577 (9th Cir. 2010). On February 23,                  F.Supp.2d 1217 (D. Or. 2013). On June
                                                  retain all of their tips, except for those              2010, the Ninth Circuit issued an                     7, 2013, the district court granted the
                                                  tips distributed through a mandatory tip                opinion in Cumbie v. Woody Woo,                       plaintiffs’ motion for summary
                                                  pool that includes only employees who                   which held in the context of an                       judgment, ruling that the 2011 tip
                                                  customarily and regularly receive tips.                 employer that did not use tips to pay its             regulations were invalid. Oregon Rest. &
                                                  See Public Law 93–259, 13(e).                           employees the minimum wage, that                      Lodging Ass’n v. Solis, 948 F.Supp.2d
                                                  Immediately after the 1974                              section 3(m)’s tip retention                          1217, 1227 (D. Or. 2013). The court
                                                  amendments, WHD stated that its                         requirements apply only to employers                  concluded that the regulations were
                                                  existing regulations were superseded by                 that avail themselves of the tip credit               contrary to the clear intent of Congress
                                                  the amendments to the extent that they                  provision. 596 F.3d 577, 581 (9th Cir.                to limit the use or pooling of tips only
                                                  were in conflict with those                             2010).                                                to employers that elect to take a tip
                                                  amendments, in particular, those                           The Department finalized its revisions             credit. See id. at 1226.
                                                  provisions that permitted an employer                   to the tip regulations in 2011. See 76 FR                On August 21, 2013, the Department
                                                  to use tips received by its employees                   18,832, 18,854–56 (revising, among                    appealed the district court’s decision to
                                                  toward its minimum wage obligations to                  other provisions, §§ 531.52, 531.54, and              the Ninth Circuit. See Br. of the Sec’y
                                                  a greater extent than permitted by                      531.59). Those regulations, among other               of Labor, Dec. 27, 2013, at 8, Oregon
                                                  section 3(m). See Wage and Hour                         things, bar all employers from sharing                Rest. & Lodging Ass’n v. Perez, 816 F.3d
                                                  Opinion Letter FLSA–626, 1974 WL                        tips with employees who do not                        1080 (9th Cir. 2016) (ORLA). In its brief,
                                                  422051 (June 21, 1974), at *2; Wage and                 customarily and regularly receive tips—               the Department argued that the 1974
                                                  Hour Opinion Letter WH–310, 1975 WL                     regardless whether the employers take a               amendments to the FLSA expressly
                                                  40934, at *1 (Feb. 18, 1975); Wage and                  tip credit. See, e.g., § 531.52. The                  delegated broad authority to the
                                                  Hour Opinion Letter WH–321, 1975 WL                     Department’s regulations thus provide                 Department to implement the terms of
                                                  40945, at *1–2 (Apr. 30, 1975).                         that an employer is prohibited from                   the amendments and that the
                                                  However, although the statutory tip                     using tips received by employees,                     Department properly used this authority
                                                  credit provision was significantly                      whether or not it has taken a tip credit,             to promulgate the 2011 tip regulations,
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS




                                                  amended in 1974 and thereafter, WHD                     except as a credit against its minimum                which address a gap in the statutory
                                                  did not revise its 1967 tip credit                      wage obligations to the employee to the               scheme: Whether an employer that does
                                                  regulations until 2011. See 76 FR                       extent permitted by that section, or in               not take a tip credit is subject to section
                                                  18,832, 18,854–56 (Apr. 5, 2011).                       furtherance of a tip pool that is                     3(m)’s restrictions. See id. at 24–28. The
                                                     In 2008, the Department published a                  permissible under that section. Id.                   Department further argued that the
                                                  Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that                         On July 12, 2012, the Oregon                       regulations were necessary to prevent a
                                                  proposed, among other things, to amend                  Restaurant and Lodging Association                    circumvention of section 3(m)’s
                                                  WHD’s tip credit regulations to reflect                 (ORLA), along with the National                       limitations on an employer’s ability to


                                             VerDate Sep<11>2014   18:01 Dec 04, 2017   Jkt 244001   PO 00000   Frm 00015   Fmt 4702   Sfmt 4702   E:\FR\FM\05DEP1.SGM   05DEP1


                                                  57398                  Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 232 / Tuesday, December 5, 2017 / Proposed Rules

                                                  use or require the pooling of tips. See                   rehearing en banc. See Pet. for Panel                retention practices of employers that
                                                  id. at 32–33. The Ninth Circuit                           Reh’g and Reh’g En Banc, Apr. 6, 2016,               pay a direct cash wage of at least the
                                                  consolidated the case with Cesarz v.                      ORLA v. Perez, 816 F.3d 1080 (9th Cir.               Federal minimum wage. Much of that
                                                  Wynn Las Vegas—a private FLSA action                      2016). The ORLA Plaintiffs argued that               litigation involves the application of the
                                                  in which the plaintiffs-employees,                        the Ninth Circuit’s decision in ORLA                 Department’s 2011 tip credit regulations
                                                  relying on the Department’s 2011                          cannot be reconciled with Woody Woo                  that bar employers from retaining and
                                                  regulations, alleged that the employer                    and reiterated their contention that the             from sharing tips with employees who
                                                  violated the FLSA when it required its                    2011 tip pooling regulation is an                    do not customarily and regularly receive
                                                  tipped employees to share their tips                      impermissible interpretation of the                  tips, even when the employers have not
                                                  with non-tipped employees, see 2014                       FLSA. See id. at 11, 13.                             taken a tip credit. For example, in Trejo
                                                  WL 117579, at *1 (D. Nev. 2014)— for                         On September 6, 2016, the ORLA                    v. Ryman Hospitality Properties, the
                                                  purposes of oral argument and                             panel denied the plaintiffs’ request for             employees alleged that their employer,
                                                  disposition. See 816 F.3d 1080 n.* (9th                   panel rehearing, and a majority of the               which had paid its tipped employees a
                                                  Cir. 2016).3                                              non-recused active judges voted to                   direct cash wage of at least the Federal
                                                     On February 23, 2016, the Ninth                        decline en banc review. See ORLA v.                  minimum wage, improperly required its
                                                  Circuit, reversing the district court,                    Perez, 816 F.3d 1080, reh’g and reh’g en             tipped employees to contribute to a tip
                                                  upheld the validity of the 2011 tip                       banc denied, 843 F.3d 355, 356 (9th Cir.             pool including employees who were not
                                                  regulations in ORLA v. Perez, 816 F.3d                    2016).                                               customarily and regularly tipped.
                                                  1080, 1090 (9th Cir. 2016). In deciding                      Judge O’Scannlain, joined by nine                 Sazzad v. Ryman Hosp. Properties, No.
                                                  ORLA, the Ninth Circuit concluded that                    other judges, dissented. See id.                     8:13–cv–02911 (D. Md., April 21, 2014),
                                                  Woody Woo held only that section 3(m)                     (O’Scannlain, J., dissenting). Judge                 aff’d sub nom, Trejo, 795 F.3d 442 (4th
                                                  does not prohibit employers that do not                   O’Scannlain concluded that the                       Cir. 2015); see also Malivuk, 2016 WL
                                                  take a tip credit from instituting an                     Department’s tip pooling regulation is               3999878, aff’d on other grounds,—F.
                                                  invalid tip pool. See id. at 1088. Having                 precluded because the Ninth Circuit                  App’x —, 2017 WL 2491498 (11th Cir.
                                                  found that the FLSA is silent with                        previously held in Woody Woo that the                June 9, 2017); see also Brueningsen v.
                                                  respect to employers that do not take a                   FLSA ‘‘clearly and unambiguously                     Resort Express Inc., 2015 WL 339671 (D.
                                                  tip credit, the Ninth Circuit concluded                   permits employers who forgo a tip                    Utah Jan. 26, 2015), recons. denied,
                                                  that the 2011 tip regulations were a                      credit to arrange their tip-pooling affairs          2016 WL 1181683 (D. Utah Mar. 25,
                                                  reasonable application of the agency’s                    however they see fit.’’ See id. at 358               2016), appeal filed (10th Cir., Nov. 16,
                                                  authority to fill gaps left by the text of                (citing Cumbie v. Woody Woo, 596 F.3d                2016). Wynn, 2014 WL 117579 (D. Nev.
                                                  the FLSA, because the ‘‘purpose of the                    at 579 n.6, 581, 581 n.11, 582, 583; Nat’l           2014) (employees alleged that the
                                                  Act does not support the view that                        Cable & Telecomms. Ass’n v. Brand X                  employer improperly required them to
                                                  Congress intended permanently to allow                    Internet Servs., 545 U.S. 967, 984
                                                                                                                                                                 contribute to a tip pool that included
                                                  employers that do not take a tip credit                   (2005)). Based on this statutory
                                                                                                                                                                 their supervisors), rev’d and remanded
                                                  to do whatever they wish with their                       construction, Judge O’Scannlain wrote,
                                                                                                                                                                 by ORLA, 816 F.3d 1080 (9th Cir. 2016),
                                                  employees’ tips.’’ See id. at 1089–1090.                  ‘‘[T]he Department has not been
                                                                                                                                                                 reh’g and reh’g en banc denied, 843
                                                  On April 6, 2016, the ORLA Plaintiffs                     delegated authority to ban tip pooling
                                                                                                                                                                 F.3d 355 (9th Cir. 2016), pet. for cert.
                                                  filed a petition for panel rehearing and                  by employers who forgo the tip credit,
                                                                                                                                                                 filed (Aug. 1 2016). Therefore, the
                                                                                                            and [as such] the Department’s assertion
                                                                                                                                                                 application of the Department’s
                                                    3 While ORLA was pending before the Ninth               of regulatory jurisdiction is manifestly
                                                  Circuit, the Fourth Circuit heard Trejo v. Ryman                                                               regulations to employers who do not
                                                                                                            contrary to the statute and exceeds [its]
                                                  Hospitality Properties, Inc., an appeal from a                                                                 take a tip credit has gained increasing
                                                                                                            statutory authority.’’ Id. at 363–64
                                                  district court’s dismissal of a private FLSA action
                                                                                                            (internal quotation marks omitted).                  importance in recent years.
                                                  in which plaintiffs—whose employer did not claim
                                                  the tip credit—sought to recoup tips that their              The National Restaurant Association                  Additionally, the Tenth Circuit
                                                  employer required them to pay into an allegedly           (and other plaintiffs in the OLRA                    recently ruled in Marlow v. The New
                                                  invalid tip pool. 795 F.3d 442 (4th Cir. 2015). The       litigation) filed a petition for certiorari          Food Guy, a private FLSA case in which
                                                  Department submitted a brief as amicus curiae
                                                  arguing that the 2011 tip-pooling regulation was          with the Supreme Court, asking for                   the United States participated as amicus
                                                  valid and entitled to deference, but also pointing        review of the Ninth Circuit’s decision in            curiae, that the Department’s 2011 tip
                                                  out that the FLSA provides a cause of action only         ORLA, and that petition is pending. See              regulations are invalid to the extent that
                                                  to recover unpaid minimum wages or overtime               Sup. Ct. No. 16–920 (certiorari petition             they bar an employer from using or
                                                  compensation under sections 6 and 7 of the FLSA,
                                                  rather than to recover tips in and of themselves          filed Jan. 19, 2017). The Wynn                       sharing tips with employees who do not
                                                  under section 3(m), and that plaintiffs had               Defendants filed their own petition for              customarily and regularly receive tips
                                                  expressly disclaimed any minimum wage violation.          certiorari with the Supreme Court on                 when the employer pays a direct cash
                                                  See Br. of the United States as Amicus Curiae, Jan.       August 1, 2016, which is also still                  wage of at least the Federal minimum
                                                  2015, at *12, *13, 2015 WL 191535, Trejo, 795 F.3d
                                                  442 (4th Cir. 2015). In other words, and as               pending. Sup. Ct. No. 16–163 (certiorari             wage and does not claim a section 3(m)
                                                  explained further in footnote 10, infra, Plaintiffs did   petition filed (Aug. 1 2016)).                       tip credit. See Marlow v. New Food Guy,
                                                  not argue that the effect of the invalid tip pool was        As explained further in Part IV,                  Inc., 861 F.3d 1157 (10th Cir. 2017). In
                                                  to reduce their wages below the minimum wage,             below, more employers are unable to                  Marlow, the plaintiff alleged that the
                                                  which would present a valid cause of action under
                                                  the FLSA. See id. at *12 (citing 29 U.S.C. 216(b)
                                                                                                            claim a tip credit in 2017 than when the             employer, which paid the plaintiff a
                                                  (private right of action limited to enforcing the         Department’s regulations were                        direct wage of at least the Federal
                                                  FLSA’s minimum wage and overtime compensation             promulgated in 2011 due to the                       minimum wage and did not claim a
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS




                                                  provisions); see also 29 U.S.C. 216(c) (imposing          increased number of states that require              section 3(m) tip credit, violated section
                                                  similar limitations on the Secretary’s ability to
                                                  enforce the FLSA)). The Fourth Circuit concluded
                                                                                                            employers to pay their tipped                        3(m) and the Department’s 2011
                                                  that section 3(m) ‘‘simply does not contemplate a         employees a direct cash wage of at least             regulations by retaining the tips
                                                  claim for wages other than minimum wage or                the Federal minimum wage. Perhaps                    employees received from customers. Id.
                                                  overtime wages.’’ Trejo, 795 F.3d at 448 (internal        because of these changes to state law,               at 1158–59. The district court dismissed
                                                  quotation marks omitted). See also Malivuk v.
                                                  Ameripark, 2016 WL 3999878, aff’d on other
                                                                                                            there has been a significant amount of               the plaintiff’s claim, concluding that the
                                                  grounds,—F. App’x —, 2007 WL 2491498, (11th Cir.          private litigation in recent years                   employer satisfied its obligations under
                                                  June 9, 2017).                                            involving the tip pooling and tip                    the FLSA and that section 3(m) does not


                                             VerDate Sep<11>2014    18:01 Dec 04, 2017   Jkt 244001   PO 00000   Frm 00016   Fmt 4702   Sfmt 4702   E:\FR\FM\05DEP1.SGM   05DEP1


                                                                        Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 232 / Tuesday, December 5, 2017 / Proposed Rules                                                      57399

                                                  provide a cause of action for lost tips.                matter. In particular, the Department                    Department moves forward with
                                                  Marlow v. New Food Guy, Inc., No. 15–                   seeks to remove prohibitions on sharing                  rulemaking.
                                                  CV–01327, 2016 WL 4920980, at *1 (D.                    tips with employees who do not
                                                                                                                                                                   III. Legislative and Regulatory History
                                                  Colo. Feb. 17, 2016).4 On appeal, the                   customarily and regularly receive tips—
                                                                                                                                                                   of the Section 3(m) Tip Credit
                                                  United States, while also defending the                 including restaurant cooks,
                                                  validity of the Department of Labor’s                   dishwashers, and other traditionally                        As discussed above, Congress
                                                  2011 tip regulations, argued as a                       lower-wage job classifications—when                      amended the FLSA’s tip credit
                                                  threshold matter that the plaintiff failed              their employer does not take a tip credit                provision in 1974 to require an
                                                  to plead a claim under the FLSA                         under FLSA section 3(m) and all                          employer that elects to take a tip credit
                                                  because she did not allege that her                     employees are paid at least the full                     against its minimum wage obligations to
                                                  employer’s retention of her tips resulted               Federal minimum wage. In light of all                    permit its tipped employees to retain all
                                                  in a minimum wage or overtime                           of these factors, the Department is                      tips they receive, except for those
                                                  violation. See Br. of the United States as              proposing to rescind the parts of its tip                distributed through a tip pool limited to
                                                  Amicus Curiae, Oct. 2016, 2016 WL                       regulations that apply to employers that                 customarily and regularly tipped
                                                  6566326, at *10. The Tenth Circuit                      pay a direct cash wage of at least the full              employees. See Public Law 93–259,
                                                  affirmed the district court’s dismissal of              Federal minimum wage and do not take                     § 13(e). The legislative history
                                                  the plaintiff’s claim, holding that the                 a tip credit against their minimum wage                  emphasizes that the employee-tip-
                                                  text of the FLSA limits an employer’s                   obligations. The Department also issued                  retention requirement was not
                                                  use of tips only when the employer                      a nonenforcement policy on July 20,                      ‘‘intended to discourage the practice of
                                                  takes a tip credit, ‘‘leaving [the                      2017, whereby WHD will not enforce                       pooling, splitting, or sharing tips with
                                                  Department] without authority to                        the Department’s regulations on the                      employees who customarily and
                                                  regulate to the contrary.’’ See Marlow,                 retention of tips received by employees                  regularly receive tips—e.g., waiters,
                                                  861 F.3d at 1163–64.5                                   with respect to any employee who is                      bellhops, waitresses, countermen,
                                                     The Department has taken into                        paid a cash wage of not less than the full               busboys, [and] service bartenders, etc.’’
                                                  account the changed landscape and                       FLSA minimum wage ($7.25) and for                        S. Rep. No. 93–690, at 43 (1974). ‘‘On
                                                  extensive litigation since promulgating                 whom their employer does not take an                     the other hand,’’ the Report explains,
                                                  its 2011 Final Rule. In that regard, the                FLSA section 3(m) tip credit either for                  ‘‘the employer will lose the benefit’’ of
                                                  dissent to the denial of the petition for               18 months or until the completion of                     the tip credit if tipped employees are
                                                  rehearing en banc in ORLA is notable,                   this rulemaking, whichever comes first.6                 required to share their tips with
                                                  not only because of the force of that                   This nonenforcement policy provides                      employees who do not customarily and
                                                  opinion but also because it drew the                    nationwide consistency while the                         regularly receive tips—e.g., janitors,
                                                  support of nine other judges in the                                                                              dishwashers, chefs, laundry room
                                                  Ninth Circuit. After considering the                       6 This nonenforcement policy extends the              attendants, etc.’’ Id. 7
                                                  ORLA rehearing dissent and the Tenth                    agency’s partial nonenforcement policy already in           The language from the 1974
                                                  Circuit’s decision in Marlow, both of                   effect. In Oregon Restaurant and Lodging Ass’n v.        amendments to section 3(m) is
                                                  which state that the Department’s 2011                  Solis, 948 F. Supp. 2d 1217 (D. Or. 2013), the U.S.      essentially the same as the current
                                                                                                          District Court for the District of Oregon declared the
                                                  Final Rule exceeded the agency’s                        Department’s 2011 regulations that limit an
                                                                                                                                                                   version of the law. See 29 U.S.C.
                                                  authority under section 3(m), the                       employer’s use of tips received by its employees         203(m). Although section 3(m)’s tip
                                                  Department is reconsidering its                         when the employer has not taken a tip credit             credit provision has been amended
                                                  regulations to the extent that they apply               against its minimum wage obligations to be invalid,      three times since 1974—in 1977, 1989,
                                                                                                          and imposed injunctive relief, as described below.
                                                  to employers that pay a direct wage of                  Notwithstanding the Ninth Circuit’s decision in
                                                                                                                                                                   and 1996—these amendments changed
                                                  at least the Federal minimum wage and                   ORLA reversing that decision, the Department             only the applicable amount of tips
                                                  do not claim a credit based on tips to                  continues to be constrained by the injunctive relief     received by employees that could be
                                                  satisfy their minimum wage obligation.                  entered by the district court until the Ninth Circuit    used as a credit against an employer’s
                                                                                                          issues its mandate, which formally notifies the
                                                  The Department has serious concerns                     district court of the court of appeals’ decision;
                                                                                                                                                                   minimum wage obligations. See Public
                                                  that it incorrectly construed the statute               issuance of that mandate has been stayed ‘‘until         Law 95–151, § 3(b), 91 Stat. 1245 (1977);
                                                  in promulgating its current regulations,                final disposition [of this litigation] by the Supreme    Public Law 101–157, § 5, 103 Stat. 938
                                                  the scope of which extends to                           Court.’’ ORLA v. Perez, No. 13–35765 (9th Cir. Sept.     (1989); and Public Law 104–188,
                                                                                                          13, 2016). For these reasons, the Department is
                                                  employers that have paid the full                       currently prohibited from enforcing its tip retention
                                                                                                                                                                   § 2105(b), 110 Stat. 1755 (1996).8 In
                                                  Federal minimum wage to their tipped                    requirements against the Oregon Restaurant and
                                                  employees, particularly insofar as those                Lodging Association plaintiffs (which include               7 The Department has concluded that employer-

                                                  employers, rather than taking the tips                  several associations, one restaurant, and one            mandated tip pools described in section 3(m) may
                                                                                                          individual) and members of the plaintiff                 also include employees in occupations with duties
                                                  for their own purposes, provide for such                associations that can demonstrate that they were a       analogous to those of the Senate’s list of
                                                  tips to be shared with other employees                  member on June 24, 2013. The plaintiff associations      ‘‘employees who customarily and regularly receive
                                                  through a tip pool. The Department also                 in the Oregon litigation were the National               tips’’ (‘‘waiters, bellhops, waitresses, countermen,
                                                  has independent and serious concerns                    Restaurant Association, Washington Restaurant            busboys, service bartenders’’), such as barbacks. See
                                                                                                          Association, Oregon Restaurant and Lodging               Field Operations Handbook 30d04(b). Likewise, the
                                                  about those regulations as a policy                     Association, and Alaska Cabaret, Hotel, Restaurant,      Department has concluded that employees who do
                                                                                                          and Retailer Association. As a matter of                 not customarily and regularly receive tips, and
                                                    4 Following the Ninth Circuit’s decision in ORLA,                                                              therefore may not be included in an employer-
                                                                                                          enforcement policy, the Department decided that
                                                  the plaintiff moved for reconsideration of the          while the injunction is in place it will not enforce     mandated tip pool described in § 3(m), include
                                                  district court’s decision. See Marlow, 861 F.3d at      its tip retention requirements against any employer      employees in occupations with duties analogous to
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS




                                                  1159. The district court denied the plaintiff’s         that has not taken a tip credit in jurisdictions         the Senate’s list of non-customarily tipped
                                                  motion, expressing its agreement with the ORLA          within the Ninth Circuit. The Ninth Circuit has          occupations (‘‘janitors, chefs or cooks, dishwashers,
                                                  dissent. See id.; Order on Plaintiff’s Motion for       appellate jurisdiction over the states of California,    laundry room attendants’’), such as salad preparers
                                                  Reconsideration, Marlow, No. 15–CV–01327 (D. Co.        Nevada, Washington, Oregon, Alaska, Idaho,               and prep cooks. See Field Operations Handbook
                                                  Apr. 4, 2016).                                          Montana, Hawaii, and Arizona; Guam; and the              30d04(f).
                                                    5 The plaintiff in Marlow petitioned for panel        Northern Mariana Islands. See WHD, Fact Sheet               8 The 1977 amendments to the FLSA decreased

                                                  rehearing of the Tenth Circuit’s decision, which the    #15: Tipped Employees Under the Fair Labor               the section 3(m) tip credit to a maximum of 40
                                                  Court denied on July 20, 2017. See Order on             Standards Act (FLSA), https://www.dol.gov/whd/           percent of the Federal minimum wage, while the
                                                  Appellant’s Petition for Panel Rehearing, Marlow,       regs/compliance/whdfs15.pdf (last accessed June          1989 amendments returned it to a maximum of 50
                                                  No. 16–1134 (10th Cir. July 20, 2017).                  12, 2017).                                                                                           Continued




                                             VerDate Sep<11>2014   18:01 Dec 04, 2017   Jkt 244001   PO 00000   Frm 00017   Fmt 4702   Sfmt 4702   E:\FR\FM\05DEP1.SGM     05DEP1


                                                  57400                 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 232 / Tuesday, December 5, 2017 / Proposed Rules

                                                  amendments to the FLSA in 2007,                         over to the employer for use by the                   reasoning 9 and, on that premise,
                                                  Congress increased the minimum wage                     employer in satisfying the monetary                   concluded that a tipped employee who
                                                  in three steps to $7.25 per hour                        requirements of the Act.’’ See Wage and               is required to participate in a tip pool
                                                  beginning July 2009, but did not change                 Hour Opinion Letter FLSA–626, 1974                    that does not satisfy the criteria in
                                                  the definition of ‘‘wage’’ in section 3(m)              WL 422051, at *2 (June 21, 1974).                     section 3(m) is effectively required to
                                                  for purposes of applying the tip credit                                                                       ‘‘contribute part of his or her property
                                                                                                             The Department opined shortly after
                                                  formula. Public Law 110–28, § 8102(a),                                                                        to the employer or to other persons for
                                                                                                          the 1974 amendments that ‘‘an
                                                  121 Stat. 112 (2007). Thus, the                                                                               the benefit of the employer.’’ Id. at *2.
                                                  maximum tip credit that an employer is                  employer may not take advantage of
                                                                                                                                                                Thus, under the erroneous reasoning
                                                  permitted to claim under section 3(m)                   Section 3(m) by using any part of his
                                                                                                                                                                reflected in that letter, even when an
                                                  today is $5.12 per hour—the current                     employee’s tips as a credit to meet his               employer does not claim a tip credit to
                                                  Federal minimum wage, $7.25 per hour,                   monetary obligation unless the                        reduce the direct cash wage it pays and
                                                  29 U.S.C. 206(a)(1), minus $2.13—or 71                  employee is permitted to keep all tips’’              does not use tips to fulfill any part of
                                                  percent of the current Federal minimum                  and, if an employer takes tips received               its minimum wage obligation to its
                                                  wage. See 76 FR 18,832, 18,839.                         by an employee, ‘‘then, in order to come              tipped employees, mandating that a
                                                     As explained above, the Department                   into compliance, such employer must                   tipped employee contribute to a pool
                                                  promulgated its initial tip regulations in              return the tips and pay the full statutory            that includes employees in occupations
                                                  1967, one year after Congress created                   minimum wage.’’ Wage and Hour                         that do not customarily and regularly
                                                  the tip credit in section 3(m), and                     Opinion Letter WH–310, 1975 WL                        receive tips ‘‘would become an issue
                                                  several years before the 1974                           40934, at *1 (Feb. 18, 1975); see Wage                under the minimum wage provisions of
                                                  amendments to section 3(m)’s tip                        and Hour Opinion Letter WH–386, 1976                  the Act,’’ if the ‘‘employer does not pay
                                                  provisions. 32 FR 13,575 (Sept. 28,                     WL 41739, at *3 (July 12, 1976)                       a sufficiently high cash wage to
                                                  1967). Consistent with the Department’s                 (‘‘[E]mployers must pay tipped                        reimburse such employee for such loss,
                                                  understanding of the 1966 amendments,                   employees at least half of the applicable             plus at least the minimum wage.’’ Id.10
                                                  the 1967 tip regulations permitted                      minimum wage (from their own                             In 2011, the Department issued a
                                                  agreements under which tips received                    pockets) for each hour worked, and may                Final Rule addressing tip pooling and
                                                  by employees would be turned over to                    take a tip credit of no more than 50                  other uses of tips. See 76 FR 18,832,
                                                  the employer, which could then use the                  percent of the required minimum                       18,842. Revised § 531.52 provides in
                                                  tips to pay the Federal minimum wage.                   wage.’’). To conclude otherwise, the
                                                  Cf. S. Rep. 1487, 89th Cong., 2d Sess. 12                                                                     relevant part that:
                                                                                                          Department reasoned, would enable an
                                                  (1966) (explaining that such practices                  employer to circumvent section 3(m)’s                    9 The opinion letter, in the context of an employer
                                                  could continue under the 1966                           restriction that employers use no more                that did not take a 3(m) tip credit, stated that ‘‘[t]he
                                                  amendments).                                            than a limited portion of tips received               courts have made clear that tips are the property of
                                                     Shortly after the 1974 statutory                                                                           the employee to whom they are given.’’ 1989 WL
                                                                                                          by employees to satisfy their Federal
                                                  amendments, however, the Department                                                                           610348, at *2 (citing Barcellona v. Tiffany English
                                                                                                          minimum wage obligations. Cf. Woody                   Pub, Inc., 597 F.2d 464, 466–467 (5th Cir. 1979)).
                                                  addressed the impact of the
                                                  amendments on its tip regulations and                   Woo, 596 F.3d at 579 n.7.                             The Department acknowledges that that statement
                                                                                                                                                                is incorrect. Barcellona concluded that ‘‘[i]f there
                                                  stated that its then-existing regulations                  The opinion letters issued shortly                 was no agreement as to ownership, then the tips
                                                  were superseded by the amendments to                    after the 1974 amendments were                        were the property of the recipient,’’ and that the
                                                  the extent tha they were in conflict.                   primarily focused on whether it would                 trial evidence in that particular case supported the
                                                                                                                                                                factual finding that no such agreement existed. 597
                                                  Specifically, when asked about the                      constitute an impermissible                           F.2d at 467 (emphasis added) (citing Williams v.
                                                  legality of an agreement under which                    circumvention of section 3(m) of the Act              Jacksonville Terminal Co., 315 U.S. 386, 397
                                                  ‘‘the employer would retain all monies                  for an employer to utilize tips received              (1940)); cf. Richard v. Marriott Corp., 549 F.2d 303,
                                                  generated by tips’’ and directly pay its                by its employees to satisfy its minimum               304–305 (4th Cir. 1977) (concluding that ‘‘tips
                                                                                                                                                                belong to the employee to whom they are left’’ in
                                                  employees at the minimum wage rate,                     wage obligations to a greater extent than             circumstances in which no contrary agreement
                                                  the Department stated that ‘‘[t]he                      Congress expressly permitted in the                   existed and the employer simply undertook to pay
                                                  amendments to section 3(m) of the Act,’’                Act’s tip credit provision. In a 1989                 ‘‘the difference between the tips and the [minimum]
                                                  which specified that an employer’s                      opinion letter, however, the Department               hourly wage’’).
                                                                                                                                                                   10 The Department similarly stated in the
                                                  wage credit for tips (up to 50% of the                  opined that merely requiring tipped                   preamble to the 2011 Final Rule that, if, by
                                                  minimum wage) could not exceed the                      employees to participate in a tip pool                requiring tipped employees to participate in a tip
                                                  amount of tips actually received by the                 that is not limited to employees in                   pool that does not satisfy the standards in section
                                                  employee, ‘‘would have no meaning or                    customarily and regularly tipped                      3(m) or by claiming and using the tips itself, such
                                                  effect unless they prohibit agreements                                                                        an employer deducts sufficient tips to ‘‘reduce the
                                                                                                          occupations—i.e., a tip pool in a form                employer’s direct wage payment to an amount
                                                  under which tips are credited or turned                 not expressly authorized by section                   below the minimum wage,’’ the employer would
                                                                                                          3(m)—may also violate the FLSA, even                  violate section 6 of the FLSA and be subject to suit
                                                  percent of the Federal minimum wage. See Public                                                               under section 16 or 17. 76 FR 18,832, 18,842; see
                                                  Law 95–151, §§ 2(a), 3(b), 91 Stat. 1245 (1977);
                                                                                                          when an employer has paid all of the                  also Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 73 FR 43,654,
                                                  Public Law 101–157, §§ 2, 5, 103 Stat. 938 (1989).      tipped and non-tipped employees in the                43,659 (July 28, 2008) (explaining that if an
                                                  The 1996 amendments ‘‘froze’’ the direct cash wage      pool a direct cash wage equal to or                   ‘‘employer paid the employee a direct wage in
                                                  that an employer must pay its tipped employees          greater than the Federal minimum wage.                excess of the minimum wage’’ it ‘‘would be able to
                                                  under section 3(m) at a minimum of 50 percent of                                                              make deductions [from the employee’s tips] so long
                                                  the minimum wage in effect on the date of their
                                                                                                          See Wage and Hour Opinion Letter WH–                  as they did not reduce the direct wage payment
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS




                                                  enactment, or $2.13 per hour. See Public Law 104–       536, 1989 WL 610348, at *3 (Oct. 26,                  below the minimum wage’’); Br. of the United
                                                  188, §§ 2104(b), § 2105(b), 110 Stat. 1755 (1996).      1989). In that letter, the Department                 States as Amicus Curiae, Jan. 2015, at 2, 2015 WL
                                                  This change shifted the amount of the maximum tip       stated that tips are an employee’s                    191535, Trejo v. Ryman Hospitality Indus., 795 F.3d
                                                  credit from a fixed percentage of the current Federal                                                         442 (4th Cir. Jan. 2015) (pointing out that private
                                                  minimum wage to the difference between the              property even when an employer pays                   plaintiffs who did not allege that the effect of their
                                                  current Federal minimum wage and the frozen             a direct cash wage of at least the full               employers’ tip pool was to reduce their wages
                                                  minimum direct cash payment, thus allowing the          Federal minimum wage and does not                     below the minimum wage in violation of section 6
                                                  percentage of the Federal minimum wage covered                                                                failed to plead a cause of action under the FLSA
                                                  by the tip credit to increase as the minimum wage
                                                                                                          claim a tip credit against its minimum                because section 3(m) of the Act does not provide
                                                  rose.                                                   wage obligations based on erroneous                   a freestanding right to recover tips).



                                             VerDate Sep<11>2014   18:01 Dec 04, 2017   Jkt 244001   PO 00000   Frm 00018   Fmt 4702   Sfmt 4702   E:\FR\FM\05DEP1.SGM   05DEP1


                                                                        Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 232 / Tuesday, December 5, 2017 / Proposed Rules                                                   57401

                                                     Tips are the property of the employee                Commission, 46 Cal. 3d 1262, 1275–76                   $9.35 in January 2018. Haw. Rev. Stat.
                                                  whether or not the employer has taken a tip             (Cal. 1988) (holding that Labor Code                   Ann. § 387–2. In December 2015, New
                                                  credit under section 3(m) of the FLSA. The              section 351, as amended in 1975, ‘‘bar[s]              York increased the direct cash wage
                                                  employer is prohibited from using an                    the establishment of a minimum wage                    employers that take a tip credit must
                                                  employee’s tips, whether or not it has taken
                                                  a tip credit, for any reason other than that
                                                                                                          for tipped employees lower than the                    pay tipped food service employees and
                                                  which is statutorily permitted in section               generally applicable minimum wage.’’);                 other service employees to at least $7.50
                                                  3(m): As a credit against its minimum wage              Moen v. Las Vegas Int’l Hotel, Inc., 402               per hour. See 12 NY ADC 146–1.3 (Dec.
                                                  obligations to the employee, or in furtherance          F. Supp. 157, 158 (D. Nev. 1975)                       4, 2015).12 And in November 2016,
                                                  of a valid tip pool.                                    (outlining requirements of Nev. Rev.                   Arizona and Colorado enacted ballot
                                                                                                          Stat. § 608.160); Wash. Att’y Gen. Op.                 measures that will increase the direct
                                                     Id. at 18,855 (emphasis added). Under
                                                                                                          1974 No. 18, 1974 WL 168752                            cash wage employers that take a tip
                                                  the current regulations an employer that
                                                                                                          (concluding that hotels and restaurants                credit must pay tipped employees to at
                                                  pays a direct cash wage equal to or
                                                                                                          must pay the full Washington minimum                   least the current Federal minimum wage
                                                  greater than the Federal minimum
                                                                                                          wage to their tipped employees, and                    by January 2020. See Ariz. Proposition
                                                  wage—just like an employer that claims
                                                                                                          may not take advantage of the section                  206, approved Nov. 8, 2016 (amending
                                                  a tip credit to reduce the direct cash
                                                                                                          3(m) tip credit, since, ‘‘as it has long               Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 23–363(C)); 2016
                                                  wage it pays—may require tipped
                                                                                                          been administratively construed by the                 Colo. Legis. Serv. Init. Pet. 101
                                                  employees to participate in a tip pool
                                                                                                          department of labor and industries, tips               (amending Colo. Const. art. XVIII, § 15).
                                                  that is limited to employees in                                                                                   Due to these changes, the share of
                                                  customarily and regularly tipped                        are . . . not included as a part of an
                                                                                                          employee’s wages for the purposes of                   servers, bellhops and porters, counter
                                                  occupations, but it may not require                                                                            attendants, bartenders, and dining room
                                                  tipped employees to participate in a tip                the Washington law.’’); WHD, Minimum
                                                                                                          Wages for Tipped Employees, January 1,                 attendants and bartender helpers 13 with
                                                  pool that includes employees who are                                                                           employers that are or will be required
                                                  not in customarily and regularly tipped                 2003, https://www.dol.gov/whd/state/
                                                                                                          tipped2003.htm.11                                      under state law to pay a direct cash
                                                  occupations. Nor may an employer that                                                                          wage of at least the Federal minimum
                                                  pays a direct cash wage equal to or                        Since the Department promulgated
                                                                                                          the 2011 Final Rule, a number of                       wage to all or a portion of their tipped
                                                  greater than the Federal minimum wage                                                                          employees has almost doubled, from
                                                  use its tips received by its employees for              additional states have increased the
                                                                                                          direct cash wage an employer must pay                  approximately 17 percent in 2011 to
                                                  any other purpose.                                                                                             approximately 31 percent today. See
                                                                                                          some or all tipped employees under
                                                  IV. Recent Changes in State Tip Pooling                 state law. In August 2014, Minnesota—                  Table A: WHD Analysis of BLS Data
                                                  Laws                                                    which prohibits employers from taking                  Regarding States that Require Employers
                                                                                                          a tip credit against the state minimum                 to Pay Tipped Employees a Direct Cash
                                                     As a result of market forces and                                                                            Wage At Least Equal to the Federal
                                                  changes in state wage laws, the number                  wage—increased its minimum wage for
                                                                                                          large employers from $6.15 per hour to                 Minimum Wage.
                                                  of employers paying tipped employees a
                                                  direct cash wage that is equal to or                    $8.00 per hour (it was increased on                    V. The Department Is Proposing To
                                                  greater than the Federal minimum wage                   August 1, 2016 to $9.50 per hour) and                  Rescind Portions of Its Tip Regulations
                                                  (and thus not claiming a section 3(m) tip               increased its minimum wage for small                      The Department seeks public
                                                  credit) has increased since the                         employers from $5.25 per hour to $7.25                 comments, which should include
                                                  Department promulgated the 2011 Final                   per hour beginning in August 2015 (it is               supporting data whenever possible, on
                                                  Rule. The Department believes that                      currently $7.75 per hour). See Minn.                   the proposed rescission of those
                                                  these changes also merit reconsideration                Stat. Ann. § 177.24, subd. 1, 2; 2014                  portions of its 2011 tip regulations that
                                                  of the tip pooling restrictions imposed                 Minn. Sess. Law Serv. Ch. 166. As a                    apply to employers that pay tipped
                                                  on employers that do not claim a tip                    result, employers in Minnesota now                     employees a direct cash wage that is
                                                  credit under section 3(m).                              must pay tipped employees a direct                     equal to or greater than the Federal
                                                     Historically, six western states                     cash wage that is greater than the                     minimum wage and that do not claim a
                                                  (Alaska, California, Montana, Nevada,                   Federal minimum wage. In January                       tip credit. The Department’s current
                                                  Oregon, and Washington) have                            2015, Hawaii—which permits                             regulations require that tipped
                                                  prohibited employers from using tips                    employers to take a tip credit but                     employees retain all tips they receive
                                                  received by employees as a credit                       requires that the combined cash wage                   regardless whether the employer takes a
                                                  against their state minimum wages—all                   and tips must equal at least $7.00 more
                                                  of which today equal or exceed the                      than the state minimum wage—                              12 Effective December 31, 2016, New York has

                                                  Federal minimum wage—thereby                            increased the direct cash wage                         four schedules of direct cash wages that employers
                                                  preventing employers in these states                    employers must pay tipped employees                    must pay tipped service workers and food service
                                                                                                          to $7.25 per hour (the current Federal                 workers based on employer size and geographic
                                                  from claiming a section 3(m) tip credit                                                                        location. See N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. tit. 12,
                                                  to reduce the direct cash wage they pay                 minimum wage). Haw. Rev. Stat. Ann.                    § 146–1.3. Currently, the lowest direct cash wage an
                                                  without incurring liability under state                 § 387–2. The minimum direct cash wage                  employer can pay to a tipped food service worker
                                                  law. See Alaska Stat. § 23.10.065(a); Cal.              an employer must pay a tipped                          in any part of the state is $7.50 per hour and the
                                                                                                          employee in Hawaii is currently $8.50                  lowest direct cash wage an employer can pay a
                                                  Lab. Code § 351 (amended 1975); Mont.                                                                          tipped service employee in any part of the state is
                                                  Code Ann. §§ 39–3–402, 39–2–404                         per hour and is scheduled to increase to               $8.10 per hour. See id.
                                                  (originally enacted Sec. 2, Ch. 417                                                                               13 The BLS occupational categories of ‘‘Waiters
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS




                                                                                                             11 Additionally, Connecticut has required           and Waitresses,’’ ‘‘Baggage Porters and Bellhops,’’
                                                  (1971)), Mont. Admin. R. 24.16.1508(1);
                                                                                                          employers to pay bartenders a direct cash wage of      ‘‘Counter Attendants, Cafeteria, Food Concession,
                                                  Nev. Rev. Stat. § 608.160(1)(b); Or. Rev.               at least the Federal minimum wage since 2001. See      and Coffee Shop,’’ ‘‘Bartenders,’’ and ‘‘Dining Room
                                                  Stat. § 653.035; Rev. Code Wash.                        Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. 31–58, 31–60; Conn. Pub.         and Cafeteria Attendants and Bartender Helpers’’
                                                  49.46.020, Wash. Admin. Code 296–                       Act. No. 00–144 (May 26, 2000). Connecticut            most closely correspond to the illustrative list of
                                                  126–022 (effective 1974); see also                      currently requires bartenders to be paid a direct      ‘‘customarily and regularly tipped’’ occupations in
                                                                                                          cash wage of at least $8.23 per hour. See Conn. Gen.   the Senate Report accompanying the 1974
                                                  Alaska School Bus Safety Act, 1990                      Stat. Ann. 31–58, 31–60. It permits employers to       amendments to the FLSA: ‘‘waiters, bellhops,
                                                  Alaska Laws Ch. 12, § 23.10.065 (1990);                 pay other tipped employees a minimum direct cash       waitresses, countermen, busboys, [and] service
                                                  Henning v. Industrial Welfare                           wage of $6.38. See id.                                 bartenders.’’ See S. Rep. No. 93–690, at 43 (1974).



                                             VerDate Sep<11>2014   18:01 Dec 04, 2017   Jkt 244001   PO 00000   Frm 00019   Fmt 4702   Sfmt 4702   E:\FR\FM\05DEP1.SGM   05DEP1


                                                  57402                       Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 232 / Tuesday, December 5, 2017 / Proposed Rules

                                                  tip credit under section 3(m). Employers                    the full Federal minimum wage and                       cash wage of at least the Federal
                                                  can only require tipped employees to                        does not take a tip credit, the proposed                minimum wage and do not claim a tip
                                                  participate in a mandatory tip pool if                      rule would allow tip sharing in a                       credit against their minimum wage
                                                  the tip pool is limited to employees in                     manner currently prohibited by                          obligations.
                                                  customarily and regularly tipped                            regulation, including by sharing tips                      This NPRM uses the term ‘‘tip
                                                  occupations, such as servers, bartenders,                   with employees who are not                              pooling’’ to describe any scenario in
                                                  and bussers. As discussed above, this                       customarily and regularly tipped (e.g.,                 which a tip provided by a customer to
                                                  regulatory restriction limiting tip pools                   restaurant cooks and dishwashers)                       an employee or group of employees is
                                                  to only customarily and regularly tipped                    through a tip pool. The proposed rule,                  shared, in whole or in part, with other
                                                  employees applies even when an                              therefore, provides such employers and
                                                  employer pays a direct cash wage of at                                                                              employees. The Department recognizes
                                                                                                              employees greater flexibility in                        that in some workplaces or under State
                                                  least the full Federal minimum wage                         determining the pay policies for tipped
                                                  and does not claim a credit pursuant to                                                                             laws, the term ‘‘tip pooling’’ may refer
                                                                                                              and non-tipped workers. It additionally                 to a narrower set of practices, and that
                                                  section 3(m).
                                                     The purpose of section 3(m)’s tip                        allows them to reduce wage disparities                  employers and workers may use other
                                                  credit provision is to allow an employer                    among employees who all contribute to                   terms—for example ‘‘tip out,’’ ‘‘tip
                                                  to subsidize a portion of its Federal                       the customers’ experience and to                        sharing,’’ or ‘‘tip jar’’—to describe
                                                  minimum wage obligation by crediting                        incentivize all employees to improve                    certain practices regarding tips.
                                                  the tips customers give to employees. If                    that experience regardless of their                     Accordingly, the Department asks
                                                  an employer takes a tip credit against its                  position. In sum, due to the                            commenters to define in their comments
                                                  wage obligations, section 3(m) applies,                     Department’s serious concerns that it                   any terms they use to describe practices
                                                  along with its attendant protections that                   incorrectly construed the statute in                    regarding tips. The Department will
                                                  restrict the employer’s use of tips                         promulgating its current tip regulations                consider information provided by the
                                                  received by its employees. Where an                         to cover employers who pay a direct                     public in response to this NPRM in
                                                  employer has paid a direct cash wage of                     cash wage of at least the full Federal                  finalizing its proposal to amend 29 CFR
                                                  at least the full Federal minimum wage                      minimum wage, as well as the various                    part 531, subpart D, as it applies to
                                                  and does not take the employee tips                         other reasons described in this NPRM,                   situations where an employer pays
                                                  directly, a strong argument exists that                     the Department is proposing to rescind                  tipped employees a direct cash wage
                                                  the statutory protections of section 3(m)                   the portions of the current regulations                 that is at least the Federal minimum
                                                  do not apply.14 But if an employer pays                     that apply to employers that pay a direct               wage.

                                                   TABLE A—WHD ANALYSIS OF BLS DATA REGARDING STATES THAT REQUIRE EMPLOYERS TO PAY TIPPED EMPLOYEES A
                                                                     DIRECT CASH WAGE AT LEAST EQUAL TO THE FEDERAL MINIMUM WAGE
                                                                                                                                                                                                          Servers;
                                                                                                                                                                                                         bartenders;
                                                                                                                                    Counter             Dining room and                                    counter
                                                                                   Servers                                        attendants,                cafeteria             Baggage               attendants;
                                                                                  (waiters &               Bartenders            cafeteria, food         attendants and            porters &           dining room &
                                                           State                  waitresses)              SOC Code             concession, and             bartender              bellhops               cafeteria
                                                                                  SOC Code                  353011                coffee shop                 helpers             SOC Code              attendants &
                                                                                   353031                                         SOC Code                 SOC Code                 396011               bartenders
                                                                                                                                    353022                    359011                                       helpers;
                                                                                                                                                                                                          porters &
                                                                                                                                                                                                          bellhops

                                                                                Direct cash wage for tipped employees at least equal to the Federal minimum wage, 2011 15

                                                  Alaska ..................                   3690                    1930                    1550                    1020                    190                  8380
                                                  California ..............                 233330                   45280                   61040                   61380                   4800                405830
                                                  Montana ...............                     8780                    4550                     690                    1060                     90                 15170
                                                  Nevada .................                   37380                   13420                    3960                   11050                   3080                 68890
                                                  Oregon .................                   26530                    9340                    5100                    3320                    340                 44630
                                                  Washington ..........                      41160                   12530                   19080                    8430                    920                 82120

                                                       Subtotal .........                  350870                    86450                   91420                   86260                   9420                624420

                                                             Total,
                                                               U.S. ....                   2289010                  512230                 441830                   391290                 44130                3678490

                                                  % U.S. total ..........                  15.33%                   16.88%                 20.69%                   22.05%                21.35%                 16.97%

                                                                 Direct cash wage for tipped employees equal to or scheduled to reach at least Federal minimum wage, present 16

                                                  Alaska ..................                   4260                    1740                    2540                     920                     90                  9550
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS




                                                  Arizona .................                  53580                   11150                    8340                    9610                    740                 83420
                                                  California ..............                 280100                   57340                   47970                   71460                   5660                462530
                                                  Colorado ...............                   52540                   12560                    4530                    7490                    640                 77760
                                                  Connecticut ..........                     28430                    7740                    5480                    3430                    180                 45260

                                                    14 If an employer pays its tipped employees a             there is a question as to whether the employer is       than permitted under the statute for employers that
                                                  direct cash wage of at least the full Federal               circumventing the protections of section 3(m)           take the tip credit. The Department will consider
                                                  minimum wage but takes its employees’ tips to               because it is utilizing its employees’ tips towards     whether additional guidance on this circumvention
                                                  satisfy the entirety of its minimum wage obligation,        its minimum wage obligations to a greater extent        issue should be issued in the future.



                                             VerDate Sep<11>2014      18:01 Dec 04, 2017    Jkt 244001   PO 00000   Frm 00020   Fmt 4702   Sfmt 4702   E:\FR\FM\05DEP1.SGM    05DEP1


                                                                              Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 232 / Tuesday, December 5, 2017 / Proposed Rules                                          57403

                                                   TABLE A—WHD ANALYSIS OF BLS DATA REGARDING STATES THAT REQUIRE EMPLOYERS TO PAY TIPPED EMPLOYEES A
                                                                DIRECT CASH WAGE AT LEAST EQUAL TO THE FEDERAL MINIMUM WAGE—Continued
                                                                                                                                                                                                    Servers;
                                                                                                                                                                                                   bartenders;
                                                                                                                                    Counter             Dining room and                              counter
                                                                                   Servers                                        attendants,                cafeteria           Baggage           attendants;
                                                                                  (waiters &               Bartenders            cafeteria, food         attendants and          porters &       dining room &
                                                           State                  waitresses)              SOC Code             concession, and             bartender            bellhops           cafeteria
                                                                                  SOC Code                  353011                coffee shop                 helpers           SOC Code          attendants &
                                                                                   353031                                         SOC Code                 SOC Code               396011           bartenders
                                                                                                                                    353022                    359011                                 helpers;
                                                                                                                                                                                                    porters &
                                                                                                                                                                                                    bellhops

                                                  Hawaii ..................                 16110                     3200                   5470                   5130                 1380             31290
                                                  Minnesota .............                   50230                    17270                  15060                   4040                  330             86930
                                                  Montana ...............                    8540                     5340                    870                   1040                   70             15860
                                                  Nevada .................                  39450                    14870                   4670                  13070                 2710             74770
                                                  New York .............                   155540                    43670                  31470                  33390                 4250            268320
                                                  Oregon .................                  33100                     9040                   9950                   4270                  270             56630
                                                  Washington ..........                     48380                    13520                  13380                   8240                  520             84040

                                                       Subtotal .........                  770260                   197440                 149730                162090                16840            1296360

                                                             Total,
                                                               U.S. ....                   2564610                  603320                 499550                423080                44750            4135310

                                                  % U.S. total ..........                  30.03%                   32.73%                 29.97%                38.31%               37.63%             31.35%



                                                  VI. Paperwork Reduction Act                                 regulatory action is significant and,                 difficult to quantify and provides that,
                                                     The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995                      therefore, subject to the requirements of             where appropriate and permitted by
                                                  (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., and its                      the Executive Order and review by                     law, agencies may consider and discuss
                                                  attendant regulations, 5 CFR part 1320,                     OMB. 58 FR 51735. Section 3(f) of                     qualitatively values that are difficult or
                                                  require the Department to consider the                      Executive Order 12866 defines a                       impossible to quantify, including
                                                                                                              ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ as an               equity, human dignity, fairness, and
                                                  agency’s need for its information
                                                                                                              action that is likely to result in a rule             distributive impacts.
                                                  collections, their practical utility, as
                                                                                                              that: (1) Has an annual effect on the                    Executive Order 13771 (‘‘E.O. 13771’’)
                                                  well as the impact of paperwork and
                                                                                                              economy of $100 million or more, or                   directs agencies to reduce regulation
                                                  other information collection burdens
                                                                                                              adversely affects in a material way a                 and control regulatory costs by
                                                  imposed on the public, and how to
                                                                                                              sector of the economy, productivity,                  eliminating at least two existing
                                                  minimize those burdens. The PRA
                                                                                                              competition, jobs, the environment,                   regulations for each new regulation, and
                                                  typically requires an agency to provide
                                                                                                              public health or safety, or State, local or           by controlling the cost of planned
                                                  notice and seek public comments on
                                                                                                              tribal governments or communities (also               regulations through the budgeting
                                                  any proposed collection of information
                                                                                                              referred to as economically significant);             process. See 82 FR 9339. In relevant
                                                  contained in a proposed rule. See 44                        (2) creates serious inconsistency or
                                                  U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(B); 5 CFR 1320.8.                                                                               part, OMB defines an ‘‘E.O. 13771
                                                                                                              otherwise interferes with an action                   regulatory action’’ as ‘‘a significant
                                                     This NPRM does not contain a                             taken or planned by another agency; (3)
                                                  collection of information subject to                                                                              regulatory action as defined in section
                                                                                                              materially alters the budgetary impacts               3(f) of E.O. 12866 that has been finalized
                                                  OMB approval under the Paperwork                            of entitlement grants, user fees, or loan
                                                  Reduction Act. The Department                                                                                     and that imposes total costs greater than
                                                                                                              programs, or the rights and obligations               zero.’’ 17 By contrast, an ‘‘E.O. 13771
                                                  welcomes comments on this                                   of recipients thereof; or (4) raises novel
                                                  determination.                                                                                                    deregulatory action’’ is defined as ‘‘an
                                                                                                              legal or policy issues arising out of legal           action that has been finalized and has
                                                  VII. Analysis Conducted in Accordance                       mandates, the President’s priorities, or              total costs less than zero.’’ 18 For the
                                                  With Executive Order 12866,                                 the principles set forth in the Executive             purposes of E.O. 13771, it is expected
                                                  Regulatory Planning and Review,                             Order. Id. OMB has determined that this               that this proposed rule would, if
                                                  Executive Order 13563, Improved                             proposed rule is a ‘‘significant                      finalized as proposed, qualify as an
                                                  Regulation and Regulatory Review, and                       regulatory action’’ under section 3(f) of             ‘‘E.O. 13771 deregulatory action.’’
                                                  Executive Order 13771, Reducing                             Executive Order 12866.
                                                  Regulation and Controlling Regulatory                          Executive Order 13563 directs                      A. The Need for Rulemaking
                                                  Costs                                                       agencies to propose or adopt a                          As explained earlier in Part IV of this
                                                                                                              regulation only upon a reasoned                       notice, more employers are unable to
                                                    Under Executive Order 12866, the                          determination that its benefits justify its
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS




                                                  Office of Management and Budget’s                                                                                 claim a tip credit in 2017 than when the
                                                                                                              costs; it is tailored to impose the least             Department’s regulations were
                                                  (OMB’s) Office of Information and                           burden on society, consistent with
                                                  Regulatory Affairs determines whether a                                                                           promulgated in 2011 due to the
                                                                                                              achieving the regulatory objectives; and              increased number of states that require
                                                                                                              in choosing among alternative                         employers to pay their tipped
                                                    15 These employment figures are from the May
                                                                                                              regulatory approaches, the agency has
                                                  2011 BLS Occupational Employment Statistics
                                                  (OES) Survey.                                               selected those approaches that                          17 OIRA Memo M–17–21, Guidance Implementing
                                                    16 These employment figures are from the May              maximize net benefits. Executive Order                Executive Order 13771 (April 5, 2017).
                                                  2016 BLS OES Survey.                                        13563 recognizes that some benefits are                 18 Id.




                                             VerDate Sep<11>2014      18:01 Dec 04, 2017    Jkt 244001   PO 00000   Frm 00021   Fmt 4702   Sfmt 4702   E:\FR\FM\05DEP1.SGM   05DEP1


                                                  57404                 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 232 / Tuesday, December 5, 2017 / Proposed Rules

                                                  employees a direct cash wage of at least                from the proposed rule.19 The potential                Department understands that there are
                                                  the current $7.25 per hour Federal                      benefits and transfers have not been                   other occupations with tipped workers
                                                  minimum wage. Perhaps because of                        quantified in this NPRM.                               such as SOC 35–9011 (Dining room and
                                                  these changes to state law, there has                      There are labor market forces that will             Cafeteria Attendants and Bartender
                                                  been a significant amount of private                    affect employers’ decisions on tips that               Helpers) and SOC 35–9031 (Hosts and
                                                  litigation in recent years involving the                employees receive. For example, there                  Hostesses, Restaurant, Lounge, and
                                                  tip pooling and tip retention practices of              are certain market factors that may                    Coffee Shop), and others; thus, the
                                                  employers that pay a direct cash wage                   cause employers not to change their                    Department welcomes comments and
                                                  of at least the Federal minimum wage.                   practices with respect to tips, such as                suggestions on whether this analysis
                                                  See, e.g., Trejo v. Ryman Hosp.                         employee resistance and a decline in                   should extend to additional tipped
                                                  Properties, 795 F.3d 442 (4th Cir. 2015);               employee morale, as well as the costs of               occupations. The Department focused
                                                  Aguila v. Corp. Caterers IV, 199 F.                     employee turnover. The Department is                   on employees in those two occupations
                                                  Supp. 3d 1358 (S.D. Fla. 2016), aff’d sub               unable to quantify how customers will                  in the two industries in which they are
                                                  nom. 2017 WL 1101081 (11th Cir. Mar.                    respond to proposed regulatory changes,                primarily concentrated. The two
                                                  24, 2017); Marlow v. The New Food                       which in turn would affect total tipped                industries are classified under the North
                                                  Guy, Inc., 861 F.3d 1157 (10th Cir.                     income and employer behavior.                          American Industry Classification
                                                  2017).                                                     The Department welcomes comments                    System (NAICS) as 722410 (Drinking
                                                                                                          that provide data or information                       Places (Alcoholic Beverages)) and
                                                     In part because of these
                                                                                                          regarding the potential benefits and                   722511 (Full-service Restaurants). The
                                                  developments, the Department has
                                                                                                          transfers of this proposed rule, and has               Department understands that there are
                                                  serious concerns that it incorrectly
                                                                                                          asked some specific questions that may                 other industries with tipped workers,
                                                  construed the statute in promulgating its
                                                                                                          help the Department quantify benefits                  and welcomes comments and
                                                  current tip regulations as applied to
                                                                                                          and transfers in the Final Rule analysis.              suggestions on whether this analysis
                                                  employers that have paid the full
                                                                                                          See Section VII.B.iv.                                  should extend to those additional
                                                  Federal minimum wage to their tipped
                                                  employees, and serious concerns about                   ii. Estimated Number of Affected                       industries, and if so, which industries
                                                  the regulations as a policy matter,                     Workers and Firms                                      and why.
                                                  especially under changed                                                                                         The Department used the Current
                                                                                                             This section explains the                           Population Survey (CPS), a large,
                                                  circumstances. Additionally, the                        methodology used to estimate the
                                                  Department seeks to remove                                                                                     nationally representative sample of the
                                                                                                          number of workers who are defined as                   labor force, for data on the number of
                                                  prohibitions on sharing tips with non-                  a tipped employee, i.e., where a tipped
                                                  customarily tipped employees—                                                                                  workers employed in the two
                                                                                                          employee means any employee engaged                    occupations mentioned above, the
                                                  including restaurant cooks,                             in an occupation in which he or she
                                                  dishwashers, and other traditionally                                                                           wages for these workers, and their usual
                                                                                                          customarily and regularly receives more                hours worked. The CPS, which is
                                                  lower-wage job classifications—when                     than $30 a month in tips. See 29 U.S.C.
                                                  their employer does not take a tip credit                                                                      sponsored jointly by the U.S. Census
                                                                                                          203(t). In the absence of data to                      Bureau and BLS, is a monthly survey of
                                                  under FLSA section 3(m) and all                         specifically categorize employees by the
                                                  employees are paid at least the full                                                                           about 60,000 households. In any given
                                                                                                          definition above, the Department relied                month, one adult household member
                                                  Federal minimum wage. The                               on a broader definition as allowed by
                                                  Department is therefore proposing to                                                                           reports employment and other
                                                                                                          the available data, where the minimum                  information for each member of the
                                                  rescind the portions of its tip                         tip amount received is relaxed (that is,
                                                  regulations at 29 CFR part 531, subpart                                                                        household.21 Households are surveyed
                                                                                                          this analysis does not consider the $30-               for four months, excluded from the
                                                  D that limit employee arrangements to                   a-month threshold), and where the focus
                                                  share tips by imposing restrictions on                                                                         survey for eight months, surveyed for an
                                                                                                          is on tipped employees who are                         additional four months, then
                                                  employers that pay a direct cash wage                   classified under two Bureau of Labor
                                                  of at least the full Federal minimum                                                                           permanently dropped from the sample.
                                                                                                          Statistics (BLS) Standard Occupational                 During the last month of each rotation
                                                  wage and do not claim a tip credit                      Classification (SOC) codes: SOC 35–
                                                  against their minimum wage obligation.                                                                         in the sample (month 4 and month 16),
                                                                                                          3031 (Waiters and Waitresses) and SOC                  employed respondents complete a
                                                  The Department also issued a                            35–3011 (Bartenders).
                                                  nonenforcement policy on July 20, 2017,                                                                        supplementary questionnaire in
                                                                                                             For the present analysis, the                       addition to the regular survey. These
                                                  whereby WHD will not enforce the                        Department considered these two
                                                  Department’s regulations on the                                                                                households and questions form the CPS
                                                                                                          occupations as they constitute a large                 Merged Outgoing Rotation Group (CPS–
                                                  retention of employees’ tips with                       percentage of tipped workers.20 The
                                                  respect to any employee who is paid a                                                                          MORG) and provide more detailed
                                                  cash wage of not less than the full FLSA                  19 The Department focused on two industries,
                                                                                                                                                                 information about those surveyed.
                                                  minimum wage ($7.25) and for whom                       which are classified under the North American            The CPS asks respondents whether
                                                  their employer does not take an FLSA                    Industry Classification System (NAICS) as 722410       they usually receive overtime pay, tips,
                                                  section 3(m) tip credit, either for 18                  (Drinking Places (Alcoholic Beverages)) and 722511     and commissions, which allows the
                                                                                                          (Full-service Restaurants, the focus is on tipped      Department to estimate the number of
                                                  months or until the completion of this                  employees who are classified under two Bureau of
                                                  rulemaking, whichever comes first.                      Labor Statistics (BLS) Standard Occupational           bartenders and wait staff in restaurants
                                                                                                          Classification (SOC) codes: SOC 35–3031 (Waiters
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS




                                                  B. Economic Analysis                                    and Waitresses) and SOC 35–3011 (Bartenders).          a Minimum-Wage Increase on Employment and
                                                                                                            20 Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Current       Family Income’’ (https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/
                                                  i. Introduction                                         Population Survey, Table 11b. Employed Persons         files/113th-congress-2013-2014/reports/44995-
                                                                                                          by Detailed Occupation and Age, 2016 (https://         MinimumWage.pdf).
                                                    This economic analysis provides a                     www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat11b.pdf). The number of             21 See Current Population Survey, U.S. Census

                                                  quantitative analysis of the rule                       bartenders and wait staff were calculated as a         Bureau, https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/
                                                  familiarization costs of the proposed                   percentage of total employment in 11 occupations       cps.html (last visited July 17, 2017); CPS Merged
                                                                                                          in which compensation depends heavily on tips.         Outgoing Rotation Groups, NBER, http://
                                                  rule, and a qualitative discussion of the               The 11 occupations are based on a 2014                 www.nber.org/data/morg.html (last visited July 17,
                                                  benefits and transfers that may result                  Congressional Budget Office report, ‘‘The Effects of   2017).



                                             VerDate Sep<11>2014   18:01 Dec 04, 2017   Jkt 244001   PO 00000   Frm 00022   Fmt 4702   Sfmt 4702   E:\FR\FM\05DEP1.SGM   05DEP1


                                                                                Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 232 / Tuesday, December 5, 2017 / Proposed Rules                                                                                57405

                                                  and drinking places who receive tips.                                        is also assumed to be minimal.                                    of the share of bartenders and wait staff
                                                  CPS data, however, are not available                                         Therefore, where bartenders and wait                              in restaurants and drinking places who
                                                  separately for overtime pay, tips, and                                       staff responded affirmatively to this                             reported that they usually earned
                                                  commissions, but the Department                                              question, the Department assumes that                             overtime pay, tips, or commissions in
                                                  assumes very few bartenders and wait                                         they receive tips.                                                2016. Approximately 61 percent of
                                                  staff at restaurants and drinking places                                        All data tables in this analysis include                       bartenders and 57 percent of wait staff
                                                  receive commissions, and the number                                          estimates for the year 2016 as the                                reported usually earning overtime pay,
                                                  who receive overtime pay but not tips                                        baseline. Table 1 presents the estimates                          tips, or commissions in 2016.

                                                     TABLE 1—SHARE OF BARTENDERS AND WAITERS/WAITRESSES IN RESTAURANTS AND DRINKING PLACES WHO EARNED
                                                                                 OVERTIME PAY, TIPS, OR COMMISSIONS, 2016
                                                                                                                                                                                                            Number who
                                                                                                                                                                                       Number of                                      Percent who
                                                                                                                                                                                                           responded Yes
                                                                                                                                                                                    bartenders and                                 responded Yes to
                                                                                                                                                                                                              to earning
                                                                                                      Occupation                                                                  waiters/waitresses                                earning overtime
                                                                                                                                                                                                            overtime pay,
                                                                                                                                                                                  in restaurants and                                   pay, tips, or
                                                                                                                                                                                                                tips, or
                                                                                                                                                                                    drinking places                                   commissions
                                                                                                                                                                                                            commissions

                                                  Total .....................................................................................................................               2,265,705              1,298,231                            57
                                                      Bartenders ....................................................................................................                         357,727                218,989                            61
                                                      Waiters and waitresses ................................................................................                               1,907,979              1,079,243                            57
                                                     Source: 2016 Current Population Survey. The Department used DataFerrett to extract basic monthly CPS data.
                                                     Occupations: Bartenders (Census Code 4040) and Waiters and Waitresses (Census Code 4110).
                                                     Industries: Restaurants and other food services (Census Code 8680) and Drinking places, alcoholic beverages (Census Code 8690).


                                                    The Department used data from BLS’                                         law, and is therefore unable to                                   Department recognizes that in some
                                                  Quarterly Census of Employment and                                           determine to what extent state law will                           workplaces or under State laws, the
                                                  Wages (QCEW) to estimate the                                                 affect employer behavior in light of the                          term ‘‘tip pooling’’ may refer to a
                                                  familiarization cost (Section VII.B.iv).                                     proposed changes. It is assumed,                                  narrower set of practices, and that
                                                  The Department believes regulatory                                           however, that about 30 percent of all                             employers and workers may use other
                                                  familiarization will occur at the specific                                   waiters and waitresses and bartenders                             terms—for example ‘‘tip out,’’ ‘‘tip
                                                  establishment level rather than the                                          work in states that prohibit employers                            sharing,’’ or ‘‘tip jar’’—to describe
                                                  broader firm level.22                                                        from obtaining tips received by                                   certain practices regarding tips.
                                                  iii. Qualitative Analysis                                                    employees.24 In these states, employers                           Accordingly, the Department asks
                                                                                                                               must continue complying with state                                commenters to define in their comments
                                                     Under this NPRM, employers that pay                                       law, and therefore tipped employees in                            any terms they use to describe practices
                                                  at least the full FLSA minimum wage                                          these states may not be impacted by the                           regarding tips. Specifically, the
                                                  directly to tipped employees could                                           changes proposed in this NPRM. The                                Department solicits comments with
                                                  utilize some or all of the tips received                                     potential transfers of tips would depend                          supporting data to the following issues:
                                                  by employees for purposes currently                                          on employer behavior, employee                                       1. Among employers that currently
                                                  prohibited by the regulations (i.e., for                                     behavior, customer behavior, and other                            pay a direct cash wage of at least the
                                                  purposes other than a tip pool limited                                       factors. The Department seeks public                              Federal minimum wage and do not take
                                                  to customarily and regularly tipped                                          comments, which should include                                    a tip credit, what portion reallocate tips,
                                                  employees) or when employers that                                            supporting data whenever possible, on                             with other employees? And, among that
                                                  currently claim the section 3(m) tip                                         ‘‘tip pooling’’ practices in workplaces                           population of employers, what portion
                                                  credit increase the cash wages of their                                      where an employer pays tipped                                     of the total tips do they retain or
                                                  tipped employees to at least the full                                        employees a direct cash wage that is                              reallocate?
                                                  FLSA minimum wage and then utilize                                           equal to or greater than the Federal                                 2. How prevalent are employer-
                                                  some or all of the tips received by                                                                                                            required, or mandatory, tip pools? What
                                                                                                                               minimum wage. The Department uses
                                                  employees for purposes currently                                                                                                               factors determine whether an employer
                                                                                                                               the term ‘‘tip pooling’’ to describe any
                                                  prohibited by the regulations.23                                                                                                               institutes a mandatory tip pool? What
                                                     The Department does not attempt to                                        scenario in which a tip provided by a
                                                                                                                               customer to an employee or group of                               portion of the tips received by
                                                  definitively interpret individual state                                                                                                        employees do employers anticipate
                                                                                                                               employees is redistributed, in whole or
                                                     22 An establishment is commonly understood as                             in part, with other employees.25 The                              being contributed to the tip pool? What
                                                  a single economic unit, such as a farm, a mine, a                                                                                              kinds of factors might influence an
                                                  factory, or a store, that produces goods or services.                           24 See, e.g., Cal. Labor Code § 351 (‘‘Every gratuity          employer’s decision to exclude some
                                                  Establishments are typically at one physical                                 is hereby declared to be the sole property of the                 tips from inclusion in a mandatory tip
                                                  location and engaged in one, or predominantly one,                           employee or employees to whom it was paid, given,
                                                  type of economic activity for which a single                                 or left for.’’); N.Y. Lab. Law § 196–d (‘‘No employer
                                                                                                                                                                                                 pool?
                                                  industrial classification may be applied. An                                 . . . shall demand or accept, directly or indirectly,                3. Do tipped employees receiving
                                                  establishment is in contrast to a firm, or a company,                        any part of the gratuities, received by an employee,              money from a mandatory tip pool
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS




                                                  which is a business and may consist of one or more                           or retain any part of a gratuity or of any charge                 typically receive a fixed dollar amount,
                                                  establishments, where each establishment may                                 purported to be a gratuity for an employee.’’). The
                                                  participate in a different predominant economic                              Department seeks comments regarding how certain
                                                                                                                                                                                                 or a fixed percentage of the pool? Is it
                                                  activity. See Quarterly Census of Employment and                             state laws apply to the retention of tips when the                common for some employees to receive
                                                  Wages: Concepts, https://www.bls.gov/opub/hom/                               employer pays the full minimum wage directly and
                                                  cew/concepts.htm.                                                            does not take a tip credit. Such information may                  contribute a portion of her tips to a tip pool, but
                                                     23 Under the Department’s proposed rule,                                  assist the Department in providing a more detailed                only if the pool is limited to ‘‘employees who
                                                  employers that do take a tip credit will still be                            analysis in the final rule.                                       customarily and regularly receive tips.’’ Public Law
                                                  subject to section 3(m)’s restrictions on the use of                            25 Under the Department’s current regulations, an              93–259, 13(e), (i.e., a ‘‘valid tip pool’’). See § 531.54;
                                                  employee tips.                                                               employer can lawfully mandate that an employee                    Field Operations Handbook 30d04(a).



                                             VerDate Sep<11>2014          18:01 Dec 04, 2017         Jkt 244001       PO 00000        Frm 00023        Fmt 4702       Sfmt 4702    E:\FR\FM\05DEP1.SGM    05DEP1


                                                  57406                         Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 232 / Tuesday, December 5, 2017 / Proposed Rules

                                                  a larger share of the tip pool than                                         iv. Estimated Costs and Cost Savings to                                        familiarization occurs both the
                                                  others,26 or are tips typically distributed                                 Employers                                                                      headquarters and at the decentralized
                                                  on an even basis among all participants                                                                                                                    (i.e., establishment) level.
                                                  in the tip pool?                                                               In this subsection, the Department
                                                                                                                              addresses regulatory familiarization                                              The Department assumes that all
                                                     4. If this proposed rule were adopted                                                                                                                   establishments will incur some
                                                  as proposed, what kinds of employees                                        costs and recordkeeping costs and cost
                                                                                                                              savings attributable to the proposed                                           regulatory familiarization costs
                                                  would employers choose to include in                                                                                                                       regardless of whether the employer
                                                  mandatory tip pools?                                                        rule. The Department also presents a
                                                                                                                              qualitative discussion of potential                                            decides to change its tip practices as a
                                                     5. If this proposed rule were adopted
                                                                                                                              benefits and the impacts of the proposed                                       result of the proposed rule. There may
                                                  as proposed, would customers’ tipping
                                                                                                                              rule on wages and employment, as well                                          be differences in familiarization cost by
                                                  practices change?
                                                     6. If this proposed rule were adopted                                    as possible changes to customers’                                              the size of establishments; however, our
                                                  as proposed, would some employers                                           tipping behavior resulting from                                                analysis does not compute different
                                                  respond by reallocating tipped income                                       employers reallocating tips to other                                           costs for establishments of different
                                                  to their non-tipped employees? Would                                        employees.                                                                     sizes. The estimate of regulatory
                                                  such a response reduce the disparity in                                                                                                                    familiarization cost in the analysis is
                                                                                                                              1. Regulatory Familiarization Costs                                            assumed to be conservative. Further, the
                                                  take-home earnings between tipped and
                                                  non-tipped employees in service                                                Regulatory familiarization costs                                            change in this regulation is quite
                                                  industry establishments?                                                    represent direct costs on businesses                                           straightforward and is unlikely to have
                                                     7. If this rule were adopted as                                          associated with reviewing the new                                              a major burden or cost.
                                                  proposed, what non-regulatory                                               regulation. It is not clear whether                                               To estimate the total regulatory
                                                  limitations would employers and                                             regulatory familiarization costs are a                                         familiarization costs, the Department
                                                  employees face when deciding whether                                        function of the number of                                                      used: (1) The number of establishments
                                                  and how to design a tip pooling                                             establishments or the number of firms.                                         in the two industries, Drinking Places
                                                  arrangement? Are there any market                                           It can be assumed that the headquarters                                        (Alcoholic Beverages) and Full-service
                                                  norms or other behavioral reasons why                                       of a firm will conduct the regulatory                                          Restaurants, employing affected
                                                  some types of tip pooling are more                                          review for businesses with multiple                                            workers; (2) the wage rate for the
                                                  prevalent than others? To what extent is                                    restaurants, and may also require chain                                        employees reviewing the rule; and (3)
                                                  the endowment effect (that is,                                              restaurants to familiarize themselves                                          the number of hours that it estimates
                                                  customarily and regularly tipped                                            with the regulation at the establishment                                       employees will spend reviewing the
                                                  employees potentially valuing tips more                                     level. To be conservative, the                                                 rule. Table 2 shows the number of
                                                  than wages of the same average amount)                                      Department used the number of                                                  establishments in the two industries. To
                                                  relevant for explaining potential tip                                       establishments in its cost estimate—                                           estimate the number of affected
                                                  behavior in a relatively less-regulated                                     which is larger than the number of                                             establishments, the Department used
                                                  market?                                                                     firms—and assumes that regulatory                                              data from BLS’s QCEW.

                                                                                                TABLE 2—NUMBER OF ESTABLISHMENTS WITH TIPPED WORKERS, 2016
                                                                                                                                             Industry                                                                                                    Establishments

                                                  NAICS 722410 (Drinking Places (Alcoholic Beverages)) ..............................................................................................................                                             43,152
                                                  NAICS 722511 (Full-service Restaurants) ....................................................................................................................................                                   238,776

                                                        Total ........................................................................................................................................................................................           281,928
                                                     Source: QCEW, 2016.


                                                    For familiarization cost analysis, the                                    cost per establishment is $12.17 for 15                                        2. Other Potential Costs or Cost Savings
                                                  Department assumes that a                                                   minutes of review time. The number of
                                                  Compensation/benefits specialist (SOC                                       establishments in the selected industries                                        If employers that are currently taking
                                                  13–1141) (or a staff member in a similar                                    was 281,928 in 2016. Therefore,                                                the section 3(m) tip credit continue to
                                                  position) with a median wage of $29.85                                      regulatory familiarization costs in Year                                       do so, their recordkeeping
                                                                                                                                                                                                             responsibilities under the FLSA
                                                  per hour in 2016 will review the rule.27                                    1 are estimated to be $3.431 million
                                                                                                                                                                                                             regulation, 29 CFR 516.28, would not
                                                  Given the change proposed, the                                              ($12.17 × 281,928 establishments),
                                                                                                                                                                                                             change under the proposed rule.
                                                  Department assumes that it will take                                        which amounts to a 10-year annualized
                                                                                                                                                                                                             However, if employers decide to pay the
                                                  about 15 minutes to review the final                                        cost of $390,510 at a discount rate of 3                                       full FLSA minimum wage in cash and
                                                  rule. Assuming benefits are paid at a                                       percent or $456,548 at a discount rate of                                      do not take a section 3(m) tip credit,
                                                  rate of 46 percent of the base wage, and                                    7 percent.28 Regulatory familiarization                                        they may have cost savings, because
                                                  overhead costs are 17 percent of the                                        costs in future years are assumed to be                                        they will no longer need to keep the
                                                  base wage, the reviewer’s effective                                         de minimis.                                                                    specific records required under 29 CFR
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS




                                                  hourly rate is $48.66; thus, the average                                                                                                                   516.28.
                                                    26 Woody Woo, 596 F.3d 577, addressed the                                 including reporting requirements; evaluates job                                Specialists, https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/
                                                  legality of a tip pool where between 55 to 70                               positions, determining classification, exempt or                               oes131141.htm (last visited on July 20, 2017).
                                                  percent of the tip pool went to kitchen staff (e.g.,                        non-exempt status, and salary; plans, develops,                                  28 This regulatory familiarization cost cannot be
                                                  dishwashers and cooks), with the remaining 30 to                            evaluates, improves, and communicates methods                                  subtracted from any current compliance costs
                                                  45 percent returned to servers in proportion to their
                                                                                                                              and techniques for selecting, promoting,                                       because there was no Regulatory Impact Analysis in
                                                  hours worked. Id. at 578–79.
                                                    27 Compensation/benefits specialist ensures
                                                                                                                              compensating, evaluating, and training workers.                                the 2011 rule. Costs incurred in 2011 are sunk from
                                                  company compliance with federal and state laws,                             13–1141 Compensation, Benefits, and Job Analysis                               the perspective of employers in 2017.




                                             VerDate Sep<11>2014         18:01 Dec 04, 2017          Jkt 244001       PO 00000        Frm 00024        Fmt 4702       Sfmt 4702       E:\FR\FM\05DEP1.SGM                05DEP1


                                                                              Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 232 / Tuesday, December 5, 2017 / Proposed Rules                                                                        57407

                                                     To the extent that some employers                                   FLSA minimum wage in cash and not                                        Department has not quantified a
                                                  choose to change their practices and pay                               take a section 3(m) tip credit is a choice                               monetary value for any additional costs
                                                  at least the full FLSA minimum wage in                                 some employers may make in                                               or cost savings in this NPRM. The
                                                  cash and not take a section 3(m) tip                                   responding to the proposed rule, but is                                  Department invites comments regarding
                                                  credit, they may have to revise their                                  not a requirement of the regulation. Due                                 any potential costs or cost savings
                                                  employee handbooks, adjust their                                       to the many variables and assumptions                                    attributable to the proposed rule.
                                                  payroll systems, and/or advise affected                                needed to estimate how employers will
                                                  employees. These are generally regarded                                respond to the proposed regulatory                                       v. Summary of Familiarization Costs
                                                  as adjustment costs that would be                                      changes and insufficient information at
                                                  imposed by changes in the regulations.                                 this time regarding the costs that                                         Below the Department provides a
                                                  The Department recognizes, however,                                    employers may assume or not incur as                                     summary table of the quantified costs
                                                  that deciding to pay at least the full                                 a result of the proposed rule, the                                       for the RIA.

                                                                                                                 TABLE 3—REGULATORY FAMILIARIZATION COSTS
                                                                                                                                                                                                             Disc rate = 3%    Disc rate = 7%

                                                  First Year Costs ($ million) ..........................................................................................................................             $3.431            $3.431
                                                  10-year Annualized Costs ($) ......................................................................................................................                390,510           456,548



                                                  C. Discussion of Benefits and Other                                    management’s perspective, tip pooling                                    employees. Reducing turnover may
                                                  Potential Impacts of the Proposed Rule                                 may foster service that is customer-                                     increase productivity, at least partially,
                                                                                                                         focused and promotes a setting where                                     because new employees have less firm-
                                                  i. Benefits
                                                                                                                         employees get along well, and may                                        specific capital (i.e., skills and
                                                     The purpose of section 3(m)’s tip                                   increase productivity.30 These studies                                   knowledge that have productive value
                                                  credit provision is to allow an employer                               suggest that expanding the tip pool to                                   in only one particular company) and
                                                  to subsidize a portion of its Federal                                  include non-tipped employees may lead                                    thus are less productive and require
                                                  minimum wage obligation through a                                      to enhanced interaction and cooperation                                  additional supervision and training.
                                                  credit against the tips given to                                       between coworkers, and increased                                         Replacing experienced workers with
                                                  employees by customers. If an employer                                 quality of service. On the other hand, a                                 new workers decreases productivity in
                                                  takes a tip credit against its wage                                    recent meta-analysis indicates that tips                                 the short term; avoiding the need to
                                                  obligations, section 3(m) applies, along                               may be more a function of server looks                                   replace experienced workers may, thus,
                                                  with its attendant provisions that                                     and friendliness, the customer’s mood,                                   increase productivity. Reduced turnover
                                                  restrict the employer’s use of tips                                    and even the weather than they are of                                    should also reduce firms’ hiring and
                                                  received by employees, including the                                   aspects of service quality that depend                                   training costs, leading to increased
                                                  requirement that only tipped employees                                 on cooks, dishwashers, or other back-of-                                 profitability. Although there may be
                                                  be included in the tip pool. However,                                  house staff who might newly be                                           increased turnover among tipped
                                                  where an employer has paid employees                                   included in tip pools as a result of this                                employees who would lose a portion of
                                                  a direct cash wage of at least the full                                proposed policy.31 Under the proposed                                    the tips they currently receive, thus
                                                  Federal minimum wage, the proposed                                     changes, the employer will be able to                                    leading to effects that are opposite in
                                                  rule would allow the employer to                                       distribute customer tips to non-tipped                                   direction to the previously-discussed
                                                  reallocate tips received by its employees                              employees, possibly resulting in                                         impacts, employers are best positioned
                                                  in a manner currently prohibited by                                    increased earnings for those employees.                                  to consider those issues and determine
                                                  regulation, including distributing tips to                               Also, research demonstrates a                                          the optimum distribution of tipped
                                                  non-tipped employees (e.g., cooks or                                   negative correlation between earnings                                    income among their staff for the purpose
                                                  dishwashers) through a tip pool. The                                   and employee turnover: As earnings                                       of reducing employee turnover.
                                                  proposed rule, therefore, provides                                     increase, employee turnover                                                 To the extent employers overall
                                                  employers greater flexibility in                                       decreases.32 If earnings increase for                                    decrease use of the tip credit for
                                                  determining the pay policies for tipped                                previously non-tipped employees who                                      traditionally tipped employees because
                                                  and non-tipped workers. Theoretically,                                 are newly added to a tip pool (or tip                                    of this proposed rule change, that too
                                                  it additionally allows them to reduce                                  pools), then employers may see a                                         may provide benefits to traditionally
                                                  wage disparities among employees who                                   decreased turnover rate amongst these                                    tipped employees. A guaranteed direct
                                                  all contribute to the customers’                                                                                                                cash wage of at least the full federal
                                                  experience and incentivize all                                         Laborer’s Perspective. (2004) available at http://                       minimum wage will improve
                                                  employees to improve that experience
                                                                                                                         law.bepress.com/alea/14th/art54.                                         traditionally tipped employees’
                                                                                                                           30 Ofer H. Azar, The implications of tipping for
                                                  regardless of position.                                                                                                                         participation in various aspects of the
                                                                                                                         economics and management, 30 (10) International
                                                                                                                                                                                                  marketplace that irregular income from
                                                     It is common in full-service                                        Journal of Social Economics. 1084–1094 (2003).
                                                                                                                           31 Michael Lynn and Michael McCall, Beyond                             changes over time from tip income may
                                                  restaurants to have a tip pool. One study
                                                                                                                         Gratitude and Gratuity: A Meta-Analytic Review of                        impact adversely. As with the previous
                                                  suggests that tip pooling contributes to                               the Predictors of Restaurant Tipping. Cornell                            paragraph, the benefits to one subset of
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS




                                                  increased service quality, along with                                  University Working Paper (2016), available at                            employees (in this case, those who were
                                                  enhanced interaction and cooperation                                   http://scholarship.sha.cornell.edu/cgi/
                                                                                                                         viewcontent.cgi?article=1021&context=                                    previously paid a lower direct wage and
                                                  between coworkers, especially when
                                                                                                                         workingpapers.                                                           received tips and now receive an
                                                  team members rely on input or task                                       32 Rodger W. Griffeth, Peter W. Hom, and Stefan                        increased direct wage payment from the
                                                  completion from each other.29 From                                     Gaertner. A Meta-Analysis of Antecedents and                             employer) may be accompanied by harm
                                                                                                                         Correlates of Employee Turnover: Update,
                                                   29 Samuel Estreicher and Jonathan Nash,                               Moderator Tests, and Research Implications for the
                                                                                                                                                                                                  to another subset (those who newly
                                                  American Law & Economics Association Annual                            Next Millennium. 26 (3) Journal of Management.                           receive tips while experiencing an
                                                  Meetings, The Law and Economics of Tipping: The                        463–488 (2000).                                                          offsetting wage reduction).


                                             VerDate Sep<11>2014        18:01 Dec 04, 2017        Jkt 244001      PO 00000      Frm 00025       Fmt 4702      Sfmt 4702      E:\FR\FM\05DEP1.SGM            05DEP1


                                                  57408                 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 232 / Tuesday, December 5, 2017 / Proposed Rules

                                                     To the extent employers may                          qualitative discussion of the possible                 it may increase the employer’s demand
                                                  otherwise make an arrangement to                        impacts of the proposed rule on                        for labor.34 35
                                                  allocate any customer tips to make                      employment and earnings and customer                      However, for reasons such as ‘‘sticky
                                                  capital improvements to their                           tipping behavior.                                      wages’’ 36 in the short run and
                                                  establishments (e.g., enlarging the                                                                            inflexibility in substituting between
                                                                                                          1. Possible Employment and Earnings                    labor and capital, the above discussion
                                                  dining area to accommodate more
                                                                                                          Impacts of the Transfer of Tips                        of the potential effect on employment
                                                  customers), lower restaurant menu
                                                  prices, provide new benefits to workers                    Research on how changes in the                      and wages in this analysis may be only
                                                  (e.g., paid time off), increase work                    minimum required cash wage for tipped                  valid in the medium to long run.
                                                  hours, or hire additional workers, these                employees affect their earnings and                    Further, the overall consequences of this
                                                  are also potential benefits to employees                employment is scarce, making the                       proposed rule on employment and
                                                  and the economy overall that may result                 effects of these policies difficult to                 earnings will be driven by the
                                                  under the proposed rule. The rule’s                     gauge. There is need for more research                 employers’ response to this rule; i.e.,
                                                  transfer impacts could be approached                    as tipped employment has been growing                  whether establishments continue taking
                                                  with a model of minimum wages being                     considerably. From 1990 to 2016 private                the tip credit, and what proportion of
                                                  made less binding by the proposed                       sector employment grew by 31.8                         employers switch from taking the tip
                                                  policy; as such, employment in the                      percent, while employment in full                      credit to not taking the tip credit.
                                                  affected industries and occupations                     service restaurants grew by 75 percent.33
                                                                                                             Intuitively, the effect of this proposed            2. Possible Change in Customers’
                                                  would, on net, be expected to increase.                                                                        Tipping Behavior That Could Result
                                                  While some baseline workers could be                    rule will be driven by many economic
                                                                                                          factors, such as the prevailing wages in               From the Transfer of Tips From
                                                  harmed, due to lower overall                                                                                   Employees to Employers
                                                  compensation, both employers and                        the local area, the supply and demand
                                                  workers who would lack jobs in the                      elasticity for labor in the local markets,                In the United States, tipping is a
                                                  relevant occupations in the absence of                  and the demand elasticity for the                      common practice in the eating and
                                                  the rule would experience benefits.                     restaurant’s product. For instance, in a               drinking places industries. The main
                                                  Analysis of reduced deadweight loss                     given market, if the equilibrium cash                  reasons that a customer would tip are
                                                  would be a standard method for                          wage for tipped employees is above the                 future service, social norms and
                                                  quantifying the gains to society of                     minimum required cash wage, an                         fairness, and quality of service.37 The
                                                  increased employment resulting from a                   employer has less incentive to change                  theoretical economic justification for
                                                  policy such as the one proposed in this                 its behavior as a result of the changes                tipping is that it incentivizes and
                                                  NPRM.                                                   proposed in the NPRM. Given that the                   rewards good service.38 From the
                                                     Finally, the proposed rule may result                firm is in a perfectly competitive                     employer’s standpoint, tipping may also
                                                  in a reduction in litigation. As                        market, any deviation from the market                  be considered an efficient way of
                                                  explained in Part II, above, there has                  wage may cause the firm to lose its staff.             monitoring the efforts of service
                                                  been a significant amount of private                    However, if the conditions in the market               workers, and a screening device for
                                                  litigation in recent years involving the                are such that the equilibrium cash wage                identifying good and motivated
                                                  tip pooling and tip retention practices of              for tipped workers is below the                        workers.39
                                                  employers that pay a direct cash wage                   minimum required cash wage, and a                         Although consideration of future
                                                  of at least the Federal minimum wage.                   worker earns sufficient tips that their                service is a commonly-stated reason for
                                                  Much of that litigation involves the                    cash wage plus the tips that they receive              tipping, evidence suggests that
                                                  application of the Department’s 2011 tip                is equal to or greater than the applicable             customers do not necessarily regard
                                                  credit regulations providing that an                    full minimum wage, then their                          future service as the main reason for
                                                  employer’s ability to utilize tips                      employer may have an incentive to                      tipping. Even non-repeat customers tip.
                                                  received by its employees is restricted                 increase the wage to the applicable                    This leads to the other main cited
                                                  even when it has not taken a tip credit.                minimum wage and share the tips that                   reason for tipping: Social norms
                                                  In several cases, employees alleged that                tipped employees receive with, for                     surrounding tipping. Tipping may be
                                                  their employers, who had paid their                     instance, other lower-wage non-tipped                  the result of a positive utility from
                                                  tipped employees a direct cash wage of                  employees. In such a case, an increase                 feeling generous. In addition, customers
                                                  at least the Federal minimum wage,                      in the direct cash wage paid to the                    often feel empathy for the workers who
                                                  improperly retained some or all of the                  tipped workers and the transfer of tips                serve them, and they want to show their
                                                  tips received by employees or mandated                  from workers to others can be associated
                                                  that they participate in a tip pool that                with changes in employment. If the                       34 Daniel Hamermesh. Econometric Studies of

                                                                                                          employees’ new wage is lower than                      Labor Demand and Their Application to Policy
                                                  included non-tipped employees. The                                                                             Analysis. The Journal of Human Resources, vol. 11,
                                                  proposed rule rescinds those portions of                their prior wage plus tips, and if the tips            no. 4, 1976, pp. 507–525. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/
                                                  the 2011 regulations that restrict                      received by employees are not being                    stable/145429.
                                                  employer use of customer tips when the                  redistributed to them, then there may be                 35 Deadweight loss analysis, discussed elsewhere

                                                                                                          a decline in the quantity of supplied                  in this regulatory impact analysis, can be used to
                                                  employer pays at least the full Federal                                                                        assess net effects where isolated partial views of the
                                                  minimum wage and does not claim a                       labor of tipped workers, and therefore in              market seem to indicate opposing tendencies.
                                                  section 3(m) tip credit, likely reducing                their employment. Alternatively, the                     36 ‘‘Sticky wages’’ refers to the situation in which

                                                  litigation in this area.                                employer could effectively redistribute                workers’ wages do not adjust quickly to changes in
                                                                                                          tips to other employees and thus reduce                the overall economy.
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS




                                                  ii. Additional Discussions                              its overall wage bill. If it now requires
                                                                                                                                                                   37 Ofer H. Azar, The implications of tipping for

                                                                                                                                                                 economics and management, 30 (10) International
                                                     Reallocation of tips may have                        less direct wages to hire their workers,               Journal of Social Economics. 1084–1094 (2003).
                                                  implications on employment and                                                                                   38 Samuel Estreicher and Jonathan R. Nash, The

                                                  earnings, as well as some impact on the                   33 See Bureau of Labor Statistics, Current           Law and Economics of Tipping: The Laborer’s
                                                  tipping behavior of customers. Due to                   Employment Statistics, www.bls.gov/ces. The            Perspective, American Law & Economics
                                                                                                          implicit assumption is that the proportion of tipped   Association Annual Meetings. 54 (2004).
                                                  data limitations, it is difficult to                    workers in these industries remained constant over       39 Ofer H. Azar, Optimal monitoring with external
                                                  quantify these impacts. Accordingly, in                 time, which then implies that there was an increase    incentives: the case of tipping, Southern Economic
                                                  this section, the Department provides a                 in tipped employment.                                  Journal. 170–181 (2004).



                                             VerDate Sep<11>2014   18:01 Dec 04, 2017   Jkt 244001   PO 00000   Frm 00026   Fmt 4702   Sfmt 4702   E:\FR\FM\05DEP1.SGM   05DEP1


                                                                        Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 232 / Tuesday, December 5, 2017 / Proposed Rules                                                57409

                                                  gratitude by leaving a tip. Customers                   employers’ ability to utilize employee                jurisdiction over the states of California,
                                                  may also tip as they believe that                       tips even when the employer claims a                  Nevada, Washington, Oregon, Alaska,
                                                  bartenders, waiters, waitresses, and                    section 3(m) tip credit. The alternatives             Idaho, Montana, Hawaii, and Arizona;
                                                  other workers earn too little for their                 are discussed in more detail below.                   Guam; and the Northern Mariana
                                                  hard work and therefore want to reward                                                                        Islands. The injunction itself does not
                                                                                                          i. Alternative 1
                                                  them. Moreover, customers often feel                                                                          prevent the Department from
                                                  obligated to tip because tips are a major                  Under the proposed rule, employers                 investigating cases that are outside the
                                                  source of income for the workers.40 41                  would no longer be prohibited from                    scope of that limited injunctive relief.
                                                     From the employer’s standpoint, the                  utilizing tips received by employees                  For instance, the Department can
                                                  theoretical economic justification for                  more broadly so long as they pay at least             lawfully investigate such cases
                                                  tipping is that it incentivizes and                     the full Federal minimum wage in cash                 involving employers located outside the
                                                  rewards good service; In other words, if                and do not claim a section 3(m) tip                   Ninth Circuit and that are not members
                                                  workers who provide good service earn                   credit.
                                                  large tips, they are more likely to retain                                                                    of the plaintiff associations involved in
                                                  their jobs, whereas those workers who                      For the first alternative, the                     the ORLA litigation. Making the
                                                  earn smaller tips are more likely to                    Department would make no regulatory                   Department’s limited nonenforcement
                                                  choose to quit. Tipping can also be a                   changes and leave in place the limited                policy permanent without issuing the
                                                  way of monitoring the efforts of service                nonenforcement policy it announced in                 NPRM, however, would result in
                                                  workers. Firms find it difficult and                    July 2013. In Oregon Restaurant and                   different requirements for different
                                                  expensive to monitor and control the                    Lodging Association v. Solis, 948 F.                  geographic regions, or different
                                                  quality of intangible and highly                        Supp. 2d 1217 (D. Or. 2013), the U.S.                 employers depending on their
                                                  customized services that are rendered                   District Court for the District of Oregon             membership in certain associations.
                                                  by their employees. Therefore, tipping                  declared invalid the Department’s 2011                Such a situation, for example, could
                                                  can allow customers to directly monitor                 regulations that limit an employer’s use              mean an employer that has locations
                                                  service providers at lower cost than if                 of its employees’ tips when the                       within, and outside of, the Ninth Circuit
                                                  employers had to directly monitor their                 employer has not taken a tip credit                   would have different compliance
                                                  employees.42                                            against its minimum wage obligations,                 requirements. Also, the limited
                                                     The potential impact of the proposed                 and imposed injunctive relief. As                     nonenforcement policy does not impact
                                                  rule on customers’ decisions to leave                   discussed above, on February 23, 2016,                employees’ right to bring private actions
                                                  tips for bartenders and servers may                     the Court of Appeals for the Ninth                    under section 16(b) of the FLSA to
                                                  depend on how much information the                      Circuit reversed the judgment entered                 enforce the tip retention regulations,
                                                  customer has regarding the employer’s                   by the district court. See Oregon                     exposing employers to an uncertain
                                                  tip pooling policy. Assuming customers                  Restaurant and Lodging Ass’n et al. v.                landscape. See 29 U.S.C. 216(b).
                                                  are aware of the employer’s policy,                     Perez, 816 F.3d 1080 (2016), pet. for
                                                                                                                                                                Moreover, taking no regulatory action
                                                  changes to tipping behavior, if they                    reh’g and reh’g en banc denied 843 F.3d
                                                                                                                                                                does not address the Department’s
                                                  occur at all, may differ depending on                   355 (Sept. 6, 2016). Notwithstanding the
                                                                                                                                                                concerns discussed above. See, supra,
                                                  whether the tips are redistributed into a               Ninth Circuit’s decision, the Department
                                                                                                                                                                Need for Rulemaking.
                                                  tip pool that includes a broader group                  continues to be constrained by the
                                                  of employees, or otherwise utilized in                  injunctive relief entered by the district             ii. Alternative 2
                                                  part (or in full) by the employer.                      court until the Ninth Circuit issues its
                                                  Tipping may also be affected if the                     mandate, which formally notifies the                    For the second alternative, the
                                                  change is not welcomed by the staff,                    district court of the court of appeals’               Department considered removing the
                                                  leading to poor morale and reduced                      decision. On September 13, 2016, the                  regulatory language that reiterates the
                                                  service quality.                                        Ninth Circuit issued a Stay of the                    statutory restrictions in section 3(m)
                                                                                                          Mandate ‘‘until final disposition [of this            addressing an employer’s ability to
                                                  D. Analysis of Regulatory Alternatives
                                                                                                          litigation] by the Supreme Court.’’                   utilize tips received by employees even
                                                     Executive Orders 12866 and 13563                     Oregon Restaurant and Lodging Ass’n et                when the employer claims a tip credit.
                                                  direct agencies to assess all costs and                 al. v. Perez, No. 13–35765 (9th Cir.,                 The regulations from which the
                                                  benefits of available regulatory                        Sept. 13, 2016). For these reasons, the               Department considered removing this
                                                  alternatives. Executive Order 13563                     Department is currently prohibited from               language include 29 CFR 531.52, 531.54,
                                                  emphasizes the importance of                            enforcing its tip retention requirements              and 531.59. Under this alternative, for
                                                  quantifying both costs and benefits,                    against the Oregon Restaurant and                     employers that claim a tip credit, the
                                                  reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and                  Lodging Association plaintiffs (which                 Department would enforce the tip
                                                  promoting flexibility. The Department                   include several associations, one
                                                  considered two alternatives as part of                                                                        retention requirements of section 3(m)
                                                                                                          restaurant, and one individual) and                   based only on the text of the statute.
                                                  determining whether to issue this                       members of the plaintiff associations
                                                  NPRM: (1) Making no regulatory                          that can demonstrate that they were a                   There is a significant risk, however,
                                                  changes; and (2) Removing the                           member on June 24, 2013. As a matter                  that this alternative would create
                                                  regulatory language that addresses an                   of enforcement policy, the Department                 confusion as to tipped employees’ right
                                                                                                          decided at the time the injunction was                to retain tips when their employer
                                                    40 William E. Even and David A. Macpherson,
                                                                                                                                                                claims a tip credit. The removal of the
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS




                                                  The effect of the tipped minimum wage on                issued that while the injunction is in
                                                  employees in the US restaurant industry, 80(3)          place it would not enforce its tip                    Department’s current regulatory
                                                  Southern Economic Journal. 633–655 (2014).              retention requirements against any                    guidance could also increase the risk of
                                                    41 PayScale’s Restaurant Report: The Agony and
                                                                                                          employer within the Ninth Circuit’s                   employer non-compliance with the
                                                  Ecstasy of Food Service Workers, http://                                                                      statute due to the lack of regulatory
                                                  www.payscale.com/data-packages/restaurant-
                                                                                                          jurisdiction that has not taken a tip
                                                  report/full-data.                                       credit.43 The Ninth Circuit has appellate             guidance.
                                                    42 Ofer H. Azar, Optimal Monitoring with External

                                                  Incentives: The Case of Tipping, Southern                 43 As noted in section II and footnote 6, the       nonenforcement position when it decided to pursue
                                                  Economic Journal 170–181 (2004).                        Department expanded the scope of this initial         this rulemaking.



                                             VerDate Sep<11>2014   18:01 Dec 04, 2017   Jkt 244001   PO 00000   Frm 00027   Fmt 4702   Sfmt 4702   E:\FR\FM\05DEP1.SGM   05DEP1


                                                  57410                 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 232 / Tuesday, December 5, 2017 / Proposed Rules

                                                  E. Classification as a Deregulatory                     requires a federal agency to prepare, and             whether the employer is circumventing
                                                  Action and Estimated Regulatory Cost                    make available for public comment, an                 the protections of Section 3(m) because
                                                  Savings                                                 initial regulatory flexibility analysis that          it is utilizing tips received by its
                                                     Under the current regulations,                       describes the impact of the proposed                  employees towards its minimum wage
                                                  employers are prohibited from                           rule on small entities. 5 U.S.C. 603(a).              obligations to a greater extent than
                                                                                                             The Department has conducted, and                  permitted under the statute. Where,
                                                  reallocating tips or including non-
                                                                                                          is publishing here, an initial regulatory             however, an employer has paid
                                                  tipped employees in a mandatory tip
                                                                                                          flexibility analysis to help small entities           employees a direct cash wage of at least
                                                  pool ‘‘whether or not the employer has
                                                                                                          better understand the impacts of the                  the full Federal minimum wage and
                                                  taken a tip credit under section 3(m) of
                                                                                                          proposed rule. The Department invites                 does not reallocate the employee tips
                                                  the FLSA.’’ 29 CFR 531.52. This
                                                                                                          comments on the number of small                       directly, but requires that employee tips
                                                  proposed rule would remove such                         entities affected by the proposed rule’s
                                                  restrictions on the treatment of tips                                                                         be distributed to non-tipped employees
                                                                                                          requirements, the compliance cost                     through a tip pool, there is a strong
                                                  when an employer does not take a tip                    estimates, and whether alternatives exist
                                                  credit, and would not introduce any                                                                           argument that the statutory protections
                                                                                                          that will reduce the burden on small
                                                  new regulatory requirements in                                                                                of Section 3(m) are not circumvented.
                                                                                                          entities.
                                                  replacement of the requirements
                                                                                                          A. Why the Department Is Considering                  C. Description of the Number of Small
                                                  proposed for elimination. Therefore, it
                                                                                                          Action                                                Entities to Which the Proposed Rule
                                                  is expected that this proposed rule
                                                                                                                                                                Will Apply
                                                  would, if finalized as proposed, qualify                  As explained in greater detail earlier
                                                  as a ‘‘deregulatory action’’ for the                    in the analysis, the Department has                     This section describes the industry or
                                                  purposes of E.O. 13771.                                 serious concerns that it incorrectly                  economic sector that will be affected by
                                                     As discussed earlier, the Department                 construed the statute in promulgating its             the proposed rule in total and its small
                                                  estimates that this proposed rule would                 current tip regulations to apply to                   and large entity segments, includes a
                                                  result in Year 1 regulatory                             employers that have paid a direct cash                description of the industry or sector at
                                                  familiarization costs of approximately                  wage of at least the full Federal                     the time of the proposal, and explains
                                                  $3.4 million. See, supra, Section VII.B.v.              minimum wage to their tipped                          any existing dynamics, such as trends in
                                                  The Department expects that these                       employees and serious concerns about                  employment or birth of entities.
                                                  relatively modest familiarization costs                 those regulations as a policy matter. The
                                                  would be more than offset by greater                    Department is therefore proposing to                  i. Definition of a Small Entity
                                                  cost savings for employers attributable                 rescind those portions of its tip
                                                  to the elimination of existing regulatory                                                                        A ‘‘small entity’’ is one that is
                                                                                                          regulations at 29 CFR part 531, subpart
                                                  requirements, but, due to a lack of                                                                           ‘‘independently owned and operated
                                                                                                          D that impose restrictions on employers
                                                  adequate information about the costs                                                                          and which is not dominant in its field
                                                                                                          that pay a direct cash wage of at least
                                                  employers presently bear in complying                                                                         of operation.’’ 44 The definition of
                                                                                                          the full Federal minimum wage and do
                                                  with the regulations identified for                                                                           ‘‘small business’’ varies from industry to
                                                                                                          not claim a tip credit against their
                                                  elimination, cost savings have not been                                                                       industry to properly reflect industry size
                                                                                                          minimum wage obligations.
                                                  quantified in this Notice of Proposed                                                                         differences. An agency must either use
                                                  Rulemaking. Additionally, the                           B. Statement of Objectives and Legal                  the Small Business Administration
                                                  Department notes that reduced                           Basis for the Proposed Rule                           (SBA) definition for a small entity or
                                                  deadweight loss in the affected labor                     The Department’s regulations                        establish an alternative definition for
                                                  markets would likely significantly                      addressing the treatment of tipped                    the relevant industries to which a rule
                                                  outweigh the $3.4 million in estimated                  employees under federal law at 29 CFR                 applies.
                                                  regulatory familiarization costs.                       part 531, subpart D are derived from                     In our analysis, the Department uses
                                                                                                          section 3(m) of the FLSA. See 29 U.S.C.               the Small Business Administration
                                                  VIII. Initial Regulatory Flexibility                    203(m). As explained earlier, the
                                                  Analysis (IRFA)                                                                                               (SBA) size standards, which determine
                                                                                                          Department now has serious concerns                   when a business qualifies for small
                                                    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980                that it incorrectly construed the statute             business status.45 According to the 2017
                                                  (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., as amended                 in promulgating its current tip                       standards, Full-service Restaurants
                                                  by the Small Business Regulatory                        regulations to apply to employers that                (NAICS 722511) and Drinking Places
                                                  Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996,                       do not take a tip credit, i.e., where an              (Alcoholic Beverages) (NAICS 722410)
                                                  Public Law 104–121 (March 29, 1996),                    employee receives at least the full $7.25             have a size standard of $7.5 million in
                                                  requires federal agencies engaged in                    Federal minimum wage directly from                    annual revenue.46 The Department used
                                                  rulemaking to consider the impact of                    the employer, and serious concerns                    this number to estimate the number of
                                                  their proposals on small entities,                      about the regulations as a policy matter,             small entities in this analysis. Any firms
                                                  consider alternatives to minimize that                  especially in light of changed                        with annual sales revenue less than this
                                                  impact, and solicit public comment on                   circumstances.
                                                  their analyses. The RFA requires the                      The purpose of Section 3(m)’s tip                     44 The RFA adopts the definition of ‘‘small
                                                  assessment of the impact of a regulation                credit provision is to allow an employer              business concern’’ used in the Small Business Act,
                                                  on a wide range of small entities,                      to subsidize a portion of its Federal                 15 U.S.C. 632(a)(1).
                                                  including small businesses, not-for-                    minimum wage obligation through a                       45 U.S. Small Business Administration, Summary
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS




                                                  profit organizations, and small                         credit against the tips given to                      of Size Standards by Industry Sector, February
                                                                                                                                                                2016. Retrieved June 21, 2017 from https://
                                                  governmental jurisdictions.                             employees by customers. If an employer                www.sba.gov/contracting/getting-started-contractor/
                                                    Agencies must perform a review to                     pays its tipped employees a direct cash               make-sure-you-meet-sba-size-standards/summary-
                                                  determine whether a proposed or final                   wage of at least the full Federal                     size-standards-industry-sector. See also full US
                                                  rule would have a significant economic                  minimum wage (currently $7.25 per                     SBA Size Standard listings at https://www.sba.gov/
                                                                                                                                                                contracting/getting-started-contractor/make-sure-
                                                  impact on a substantial number of small                 hour) but reallocates equal or greater                you-meet-sba-size-standards/table-small-business-
                                                  entities. 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604. As part                 amount of the tips received by its                    size-standards.
                                                  of a regulatory proposal, the RFA                       employees, there is a question as to                    46 Id., Subsector 722.




                                             VerDate Sep<11>2014   18:01 Dec 04, 2017   Jkt 244001   PO 00000   Frm 00028   Fmt 4702   Sfmt 4702   E:\FR\FM\05DEP1.SGM   05DEP1


                                                                              Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 232 / Tuesday, December 5, 2017 / Proposed Rules                                                              57411

                                                  amount will be considered a small                                       To obtain the number of bartenders &                    To determine the number of tipped
                                                  business entity in this analysis.                                     waiters/waitresses in the two industries,              bartenders & waiters/waitresses, the
                                                  ii. Data Sources and Methods                                          the Department used the BLS industry-                  Department used 57 percent of all
                                                                                                                        occupation mix (2014).49 Using the                     bartenders and waiters/waitresses in
                                                     The Department used data from                                      staffing mix of industries to estimate                 both industries, based on the share in
                                                  several different sources to estimate the                             bartenders and wait staff allows for use               the CPS data that report usually
                                                  number of small entities to which the                                 of the very latest industry data, which                receiving tips.50
                                                  rule will apply, i.e., affected firms. The                            builds on the highly-regarded QCEW
                                                  Department used the U.S. Census                                                                                                 The annual cost per firm is calculated
                                                                                                                        data set. About 42.9 percent of workers                based on the regulatory familiarization
                                                  Bureau, 2012 Economic Census 47 to
                                                                                                                        in the Full-service Restaurant industry                cost ($3.4 million), which amounts to
                                                  obtain the number of firms, total
                                                                                                                        (NAICS 722511) are bartenders or                       $12.17 per establishment. The
                                                  number of paid employees, and annual
                                                                                                                        waiters/waitresses (5 percent are                      Department applied this cost to all sizes
                                                  sales/receipts for the two industries in
                                                  the analysis: Full-service Restaurants                                bartenders; 37.9 percent are waiters/                  of firms since this will be incurred by
                                                  (NAICS 722511) and Drinking Places                                    waitresses). In Drinking Places                        each firm regardless of the number of
                                                  (Alcoholic Beverages) (NAICS 722410).                                 (Alcoholic Beverages) (722410), about                  affected workers. Finally, the impact of
                                                     From annual receipts/sales, the                                    63.5 percent are bartenders and waiters/               this provision is calculated as the ratio
                                                  Department can estimate how many                                      waitresses (46.1 percent are bartenders;               of annual cost per firm to receipts per
                                                  firms fall under the size standard. Table                             17.4 percent are waiters/waitresses).                  firm. As shown, the per-firm cost
                                                  4 below shows the number of private                                   The Department applied these                           incurred in the first year ($12.17) is less
                                                  firms in the two industries by revenue.                               percentages uniformly to total paid                    than one percent of annual receipts per
                                                  The number of firms and number of                                     employees in these two industries to                   small firm under this proposed rule;
                                                  employees are obtained directly from                                  obtain the number of bartenders and                    thus, it does not have any significant
                                                  the U.S. Economic Census (2012) data.48                               waiters/waitresses across all firm sizes.              burden on small entities.
                                                                                                                   TABLE 4—ANNUAL COST TO SMALL ENTITIES
                                                                                                                                                           Average      Number of       Number of                    Annual cost
                                                                                                                                            Number          annual                                   Annual cost
                                                                   Annual revenue/sales/receipts                             Number of                                  bartenders       tipped                      per firm as
                                                                                                                                            of paid          sales                                    per firm
                                                                              (2012)                                           firms                                       and         bartenders       ($) b
                                                                                                                                                                                                                      percent of
                                                                                                                                           employees       per firm      servers a     and servers                  sales/receipts
                                                                                                                                                              ($)

                                                  Firms   with   revenue   less than $100,000 ............................       10,071        24,455        $61,885        10,491          5,246        $12.17    Less   than   0.1%.
                                                  Firms   with   revenue   of $100,000 to $249,999 ...................           28,344       129,413        175,461        55,518         27,759         12.17    Less   than   0.1%.
                                                  Firms   with   revenue   of $250,000 to $499,999 ...................           38,105       324,566        366,027       139,239         69,620         12.17    Less   than   0.1%.
                                                  Firms   with   revenue   of $500,000 to $999,999 ...................           40,970       652,792        714,479       280,048        140,024         12.17    Less   than   0.1%.
                                                  Firms   with   revenue   of $1,000,000 to $2,499,999 .............             32,965     1,066,544      1,514,178       457,547        228,774         12.17    Less   than   0.1%.
                                                  Firms   with   revenue   of $2,500,000 to $4,999,999 .............              7,806       499,989      3,330,922       214,495        107,248         12.17    Less   than   0.1%.
                                                  Firms   with   revenue   of $5,000,000 to $9,999,999 .............              2,021       237,316      6,653,982       101,809         50,905         12.17    Less   than   0.1%.
                                                  Firms   with   revenue   less than $100,000 ............................        4,584           N/A              –             –              –         12.17
                                                  Firms   with   revenue   of $100,000 to $249,999 ...................           11,517        44,508        171,075        28,263         14,132         12.17    Less   than   0.1%.
                                                  Firms   with   revenue   of $250,000 to $499,999 ...................            8,873        60,159        350,496        38,201         19,101         12.17    Less   than   0.1%.
                                                  Firms   with   revenue   of $500,000 to $999,999 ...................            5,029        65,124        689,494        41,354         20,677         12.17    Less   than   0.1%.
                                                  Firms   with   revenue   of $1,000,000 to $2,499,999 .............              3,046        82,871      1,492,272        52,623         26,312         12.17    Less   than   0.1%.
                                                  Firms   with   revenue   of $2,500,000 to $4,999,999 .............                668        36,013      3,370,838        22,868         11,434         12.17    Less   than   0.1%.
                                                  Firms   with   revenue   of $5,000,000 to $9,999,999 .............                156        13,785      6,740,077         8,753          4,377         12.17    Less   than   0.1%.
                                                    a ‘‘Servers’’ stands for waiters & waitresses; ‘N/A’ Not available in Economic census, 2012, withheld to avoid disclosing data for individual companies; data are in-
                                                  cluded in higher level totals; ‘¥’ value not calculated as one or more inputs are missing.
                                                    b The Annual Cost per firm is the regulatory familiarization cost per firm calculated in Section VII.B.iv.i.




                                                  D. Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping,                                employers to make, keep, and preserve                  Since the employees who may be
                                                  and Other Compliance Requirements of                                  records of employees and of wages,                     impacted by the proposed changes to
                                                  the Proposed Rule                                                     hours, and other conditions of                         the regulations are those for whom the
                                                     The FLSA sets minimum wage,                                        employment. Employers use the records                  employer pays a direct cash wage of at
                                                  overtime pay, and recordkeeping                                       to document compliance with the FLSA,                  least the FLSA minimum wage under
                                                  requirements for employment subject to                                including showing the tips received is                 section 6(a)(1)(C) with no tip credit
                                                  its provisions. The FLSA allows an                                    not less than the tip credit claimed. The              taken, such employers would not face
                                                  employer to claim a tip credit, as                                    Department has promulgated                             additional recordkeeping requirements
                                                  defined by section 3(m) of the statute,                               regulations at 29 CFR part 516 to                      within the scope of 29 CFR 516.28.
                                                  toward meeting its minimum wage                                       establish the basic FLSA recordkeeping                 Therefore, there are no additional
                                                  obligation for employees who                                          requirements; this proposal does not                   recordkeeping requirements beyond
                                                  customarily and regularly receive more                                alter these recordkeeping requirements.                those required by other sections of the
                                                  than $30.00 per month in tips. FLSA                                   The recordkeeping regulation at 29 CFR                 FLSA under the proposed rule.
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS




                                                  section 11(c) requires all covered                                    516.28 applies to tipped employees.                    Similarly, the proposed rule does not
                                                    47 U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 Economic Census                         limitation because the 2012 Economic Census              50 As noted above, see, supra, section VII.B.ii,

                                                  https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/                reported this category of $5 million–$9 million and    approximately 57 percent of waiters/waitresses and
                                                  pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ECN_2012_US_                              not $5 million–$7.5 million. Thus, the total number    bartenders in the 2016 CPS–MORG survey
                                                  72SSSZ1&prodType=table.                                               of firms used in the calculation may be slightly       responded affirmatively when asked if they usually
                                                    48 The small business size standard for the two                     higher.
                                                                                                                                                                               receive tips or commissions. The Department
                                                  industries is $7.5 million in annual revenue.                           49 BLS Industry-Occupation Matrix Data, By
                                                                                                                                                                               considers employees who responded affirmatively
                                                  However, the final size category reported in the                      Industry, https://www.bls.gov/emp/ep_table_
                                                  table is $5 million–$9 million. This is a data                        109.htm.                                               to this question to be tipped employees.




                                             VerDate Sep<11>2014      18:01 Dec 04, 2017         Jkt 244001      PO 00000     Frm 00029   Fmt 4702   Sfmt 4702   E:\FR\FM\05DEP1.SGM    05DEP1


                                                  57412                  Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 232 / Tuesday, December 5, 2017 / Proposed Rules

                                                  have reporting or other compliance                        existing recordkeeping and reporting                 benefits, before proposing any Federal
                                                  requirements.                                             requirements. Accordingly, it is not                 mandate that may result in excess of
                                                                                                            necessary to establish different                     $100 million (adjusted annually for
                                                  i. Costs to Small Entities
                                                                                                            compliance or reporting requirements                 inflation) in expenditures in any one
                                                    The direct costs to employers,                          for small businesses.                                year by state, local, and tribal
                                                  specifically, regulatory familiarization,                    ii. The clarification, consolidation, or          governments in the aggregate, or by the
                                                  are quantified in the Regulatory Impact                   simplification of compliance and                     private sector. This rulemaking is not
                                                  Analysis. Regulatory familiarization                      reporting requirements for small                     expected to affect state, local, or tribal
                                                  costs are the costs incurred to read and                  entities. The proposed rule imposes no               governments. While this rulemaking
                                                  become familiar with the requirements                     new compliance or reporting                          would affect employers in the private
                                                  of the rule. Regardless of business size,                 requirements. The Department makes                   sector, it is not expected to result in
                                                  the Department estimates that each                        available a variety of resources to                  expenditures greater than $100 million
                                                  establishment will spend 15 minutes for                   employers for understanding their                    in any one year. Please see Section
                                                  regulatory familiarization. As a direct                   obligation and for achieving                         VII.B–C for an assessment of anticipated
                                                  result of this proposed rule, the                         compliance.                                          costs and benefits to the private sector.
                                                  Department expects total direct                              iii. The use of performance rather
                                                  employer costs (regulatory                                than design standards. Under the                     X. Executive Order 13132, Federalism
                                                  familiarization) of $2,362,866 will be                    proposed rule, employers may achieve                   The Department has (1) reviewed this
                                                  incurred by all small entities combined                   compliance through a variety of means.               proposed rule in accordance with
                                                  in the first year after the promulgation                  Employers may elect to continue (or                  Executive Order 13132 regarding
                                                  of the proposed rule: $12.17—the cost of                  not) to take a tip credit under section              federalism and (2) determined that it
                                                  15 minutes of work by a Compensation/                     3(m) of the FLSA. For those employers                does not have federalism implications.
                                                  benefits specialist (SOC 13–1141), see,                   who take such a tip credit, the statutory            The proposed rule would not have
                                                  supra, VII.B.iv—multiplied by 194,155,                    restrictions on employer use of                      substantial direct effects on the States,
                                                  the number of small entities (see below).                 customer tips continue to apply.                     on the relationship between the national
                                                  Regulatory familiarization costs are only                 However, for those employers who pay                 government and the States, or on the
                                                  incurred in the first year. The per-firm                  at least the Federal minimum wage and                distribution of power and
                                                  costs incurred in the first year ($12.17)                 do not take a section 3(m) tip credit, the           responsibilities among the various
                                                  are less than one percent of the annual                   proposed rule rescinds those regulatory              levels of government.
                                                  average revenue per firm for the small                    restrictions. The Department makes
                                                  entities shown in Table 4 in Section                      available a variety of resources to                  XI. Executive Order 13175, Indian
                                                  VIII.C.ii.                                                employers for understanding their                    Tribal Governments
                                                                                                            obligation and for achieving                           This proposed rule would not have
                                                  ii. Number of Small Entities Impacted                     compliance.
                                                  by the Proposed Rule                                                                                           substantial direct effects on one or more
                                                                                                               iv. An exemption from coverage of the             Indian tribes, on the relationship
                                                    As noted above, the SBA size                            rule, or any part thereof, for such small            between the Federal Government and
                                                  standard for Full-service Restaurants                     entities. Creating an exemption from                 Indian tribes, or on the distribution of
                                                  (722511) and Drinking Places (Alcoholic                   coverage of the NPRM for small                       power and responsibilities between the
                                                  Beverages) (722410) is $7.5 million in                    businesses is not necessary as this                  Federal Government and Indian tribes.
                                                  annual revenue.51 There are 194,155                       proposed rule proposes to rescind
                                                  small entities that fall below this size                  employer restrictions on employer use                XII. Effects on Families
                                                  standard in these two selected                            of customer tips when the employer                      The undersigned hereby certifies that
                                                  industries, which accounts for 78                         pays at least the Federal minimum wage               the proposed rule would not adversely
                                                  percent of total number of firms in these                 in cash and does not take a section 3(m)             affect the well-being of families, as
                                                  industries, employing about 3,237,535                     tip credit.                                          discussed under section 654 of the
                                                  employees. As per the calculation in                      F. Differing Compliance and Reporting                Treasury and General Government
                                                  Section VIII.C, the Department estimates                  Requirements for Small Entities                      Appropriations Act, 1999.
                                                  the proposed rule would have no
                                                  significant negative impact.                                Due to the deregulatory nature of this             XIII. Executive Order 13045, Protection
                                                                                                            rulemaking, the Department does not                  of Children
                                                  E. Regulatory Alternatives That                           believe that different compliance and
                                                  Minimize the Impact on Small Entities                     reporting requirements for small entities              This proposed rule would have no
                                                                                                            are required.                                        environmental health risk or safety risk
                                                    Section 603(c) of the RFA requires
                                                                                                                                                                 that may disproportionately affect
                                                  that each initial regulatory flexibility                  G. Identification, to the Extent                     children.
                                                  analysis contain a description of any                     Practicable, of All Relevant Federal
                                                  significant alternatives to the proposal                  Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or                XIV. Environmental Impact Assessment
                                                  that accomplish the statutory objectives                  Conflict With the Proposed Rule                         A review of this proposed rule in
                                                  and minimize the significant economic
                                                                                                              The Department is not aware of any                 accordance with the requirements of the
                                                  impact of the proposal on small entities.
                                                                                                            federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or            National Environmental Policy Act of
                                                  The Department considered the
                                                                                                                                                                 1969 (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.; the
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS




                                                  following alternatives:                                   conflict with this NPRM.
                                                                                                                                                                 regulations of the Council on
                                                    i. Differing compliance or reporting                    IX. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act                     Environmental Quality, 40 CFR part
                                                  requirements that take into account the                   Analysis                                             1500 et seq.; and the Departmental
                                                  resources available to small entities.
                                                                                                              The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act                   NEPA procedures, 29 CFR part 11,
                                                  This NPRM makes no changes to
                                                                                                            of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1532, requires              indicates that the rule would not have
                                                    51 Because of the limitations of the size-class data,   that agencies prepare a written                      a significant impact on the quality of the
                                                  the analysis looks at firms with annual revenues up       statement, which includes an                         human environment. There is, thus, no
                                                  to $9,999,999.                                            assessment of anticipated costs and                  corresponding environmental


                                             VerDate Sep<11>2014    18:01 Dec 04, 2017   Jkt 244001   PO 00000   Frm 00030   Fmt 4702   Sfmt 4702   E:\FR\FM\05DEP1.SGM   05DEP1


                                                                        Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 232 / Tuesday, December 5, 2017 / Proposed Rules                                          57413

                                                  assessment or an environmental impact                   part 531 of the Code of Federal                       DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
                                                  statement.                                              Regulations as follows:                               SECURITY
                                                  XV. Executive Order 13211, Energy                       PART 531—WAGE PAYMENTS UNDER                          Coast Guard
                                                  Supply                                                  THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT
                                                     This proposed rule is not subject to                 OF 1938                                               33 CFR Part 165
                                                  Executive Order 13211. It will not have                                                                       [Docket Number USCG–2017–0964]
                                                  a significant adverse effect on the                     ■ 1. The authority citation for part 531
                                                  supply, distribution, or use of energy.                 continues to read as follows:                         RIN 1625–AA00
                                                                                                            Authority: Sec. 3(m), 52 Stat. 1060; sec. 2,
                                                  XVI. Executive Order 12630,                             75 Stat. 65; sec. 101, 80 Stat. 830; sec. 29(B),      Safety Zone; Oregon Inlet, Dare
                                                  Constitutionally Protected Property                     88 Stat. 55, Pub. L. 93–259; Pub. L. 95–151,          County, NC
                                                  Rights                                                  29 U.S.C. 203(m) and (t); Pub. L. 104–188,
                                                                                                          2105(b); Pub. L. 110–28, 121 Stat. 112.
                                                                                                                                                                AGENCY:   Coast Guard, DHS.
                                                    This proposed rule is not subject to                                                                        ACTION:   Notice of proposed rulemaking.
                                                  Executive Order 12630 because it does                   ■   2. Revise § 531.52 to read as follows:
                                                  not involve implementation of a policy                                                                        SUMMARY:    The Coast Guard proposes to
                                                                                                          § 531.52    General characteristics of ‘‘tips.’’      establish a temporary safety zone on the
                                                  that has takings implications or that
                                                  could impose limitations on private                        A tip is a sum presented by a                      navigable waters of Oregon Inlet in Dare
                                                  property use.                                           customer as a gift or gratuity in                     County, North Carolina in support of
                                                                                                          recognition of some service performed                 construction of the new Herbert C.
                                                  XVII. Executive Order 12988, Civil                      for him. It is to be distinguished from               Bonner Bridge. This temporary safety
                                                  Justice Reform Analysis                                 payment of a charge, if any, made for                 zone is intended to protect mariners,
                                                     This proposed rule was drafted and                   the service. Whether a tip is to be given,            vessels, and construction crews from the
                                                  reviewed in accordance with Executive                   and its amount, are matters determined                hazards associated with installing the
                                                  Order 12988 and will not unduly                         solely by the customer, who has the                   navigation span, and will restrict vessel
                                                  burden the Federal court system. The                    right to determine who shall be the                   traffic from the bridge’s navigation span
                                                  proposed rule was: (1) Reviewed to                      recipient of the gratuity. An employer                as it is under construction by preventing
                                                  eliminate drafting errors and                           that takes a tip credit is prohibited from            vessel traffic on a portion of Oregon
                                                  ambiguities; (2) written to minimize                    using an employee’s tips for any reason               Inlet. Entry of vessels or persons into
                                                  litigation; and (3) written to provide a                other than that which is statutorily                  this safety zone is prohibited. We invite
                                                  clear legal standard for affected conduct               permitted in section 3(m): As a credit                your comments on this proposed
                                                  and to promote burden reduction.                        against its minimum wage obligations to               rulemaking.
                                                                                                          the employee, or in furtherance of a
                                                  XVIII. Summary of Proposed Changes                                                                            DATES:  Comments and related material
                                                                                                          valid tip pool. Only tips actually
                                                                                                                                                                must be received by the Coast Guard on
                                                    The Department proposes to remove                     received by an employee as money
                                                                                                                                                                or before December 20, 2017.
                                                  or amend the portions of §§ 531.52,                     belonging to the employee may be
                                                                                                          counted in determining whether the                    ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
                                                  531.54, and 531.59 that impose                                                                                identified by docket number USCG–
                                                  restrictions on employers that pay a                    person is a ‘‘tipped employee’’ within
                                                                                                          the meaning of the Act and in applying                2017–0964 using the Federal
                                                  direct cash wage of least the Federal                                                                         eRulemaking Portal at http://
                                                  minimum wage and do not claim the                       the provisions of section 3(m) which
                                                                                                          govern wage credits for tips.                         www.regulations.gov. See the ‘‘Public
                                                  section 3(m) tip credit. The proposed                                                                         Participation and Request for
                                                  rule deletes the fourth sentence of                     *     *      *     *     *                            Comments’’ portion of the
                                                  section 531.52, which currently states                  ■ 3. Revise the last sentence of § 531.54
                                                                                                                                                                SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for
                                                  that ‘‘[t]ips are the property of the                   to read as follows:                                   further instructions on submitting
                                                  employee whether or not the employer                                                                          comments.
                                                  has taken a tip credit under section 3(m)               § 531.54    Tip pooling.
                                                  of the FLSA.’’ The proposed rule also                      * * * However, an employer that                    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:   If
                                                  revises the fifth sentence of sections                  takes a tip credit must notify its                    you have questions about this proposed
                                                  531.52, the last sentence of section                    employees of any required tip pool                    rulemaking, contact Petty Officer
                                                  531.54, and the final sentence of section               contribution amount, may only take a                  Matthew Tyson, Waterways
                                                  531.59(b) to remove language placing                    tip credit for the amount of tips each                Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard
                                                  restrictions on an employer’s use of tips               employee ultimately receives, and may                 Sector North Carolina, Wilmington, NC;
                                                  when that employer has not taken a tip                  not retain any of the employees’ tips for             telephone: (910) 772–2221, email:
                                                  credit while retaining language that                    any other purpose.                                    Matthew.I.Tyson@uscg.mil.
                                                  reflects the statutory restrictions on an               ■ 4. In § 531.59, revise the last sentence            SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
                                                  employer’s use of tips received by its                  of paragraph (b) to read as follows:
                                                                                                                                                                I. Table of Abbreviations
                                                  employees when it does take a tip
                                                                                                          § 531.59    The tip wage credit.                      CFR Code of Federal Regulations
                                                  credit.
                                                                                                          *     *    *     *     *                              DHS Department of Homeland Security
                                                  List of Subjects in 29 CFR Part 531                       (b) * * * With the exception of tips                FR Federal Register
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS




                                                                                                          contributed to a valid tip pool as                    NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
                                                   Employment, Labor, Minimum wages,                                                                            § Section
                                                  Wages.                                                  described in § 531.54, the tip credit
                                                                                                                                                                U.S.C. United States Code
                                                                                                          provisions of section 3(m) also require               COTP Captain of the Port
                                                  Bryan L. Jarrett,                                       employers that take a tip credit to
                                                  Acting Administrator, Wage and Hour                     permit employees to retain all tips                   II. Background, Purpose, and Legal
                                                  Division.                                               received by the employee.                             Basis
                                                    For the reasons set forth above, the                  [FR Doc. 2017–25802 Filed 12–4–17; 8:45 am]             On October 10, 2017, the North
                                                  Department proposes to amend Title 29,                  BILLING CODE 4510–27–P                                Carolina Department of Transportation


                                             VerDate Sep<11>2014   18:01 Dec 04, 2017   Jkt 244001   PO 00000   Frm 00031   Fmt 4702   Sfmt 4702   E:\FR\FM\05DEP1.SGM   05DEP1



Document Created: 2017-12-04 23:44:43
Document Modified: 2017-12-04 23:44:43
CategoryRegulatory Information
CollectionFederal Register
sudoc ClassAE 2.7:
GS 4.107:
AE 2.106:
PublisherOffice of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration
SectionProposed Rules
ActionNotice of proposed rulemaking; request for comments.
DatesComments must be received on or before January 4, 2018.
ContactMelissa Smith, Director of the Division of Regulations, Legislation, and Interpretation, Wage and Hour Division, U.S. Department of Labor, Room S-3502, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210, telephone: (202) 693-0406 (this is not a toll-free number). Copies of this NPRM may be obtained in alternative formats (Large Print, Braille, Audio Tape or Disc), upon request, by calling (202) 693-0675 (this is not a toll-free number). TTY/TDD callers may dial toll-free 1 (877) 889-5627 to obtain information or request materials in alternative formats.
FR Citation82 FR 57395 
RIN Number1235-AA21
CFR AssociatedEmployment; Labor; Minimum Wages and Wages

2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR