U.S. Code » Title 5 » Part PART I— THE AGENCIES GENERALLY › Chapter CHAPTER 5— ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER IV— ALTERNATIVE MEANS OF DISPUTE RESOLUTION IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS

5 U.S.C. § 572

General authority

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 5 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) An agency may use a dispute resolution proceeding for the resolution of an issue in controversy that relates to an administrative program, if the parties agree to such proceeding.(b) An agency shall consider not using a dispute resolution proceeding if—(1) a definitive or authoritative resolution of the matter is required for precedential value, and such a proceeding is not likely to be accepted generally as an authoritative precedent;(2) the matter involves or may bear upon significant questions of Government policy that require additional procedures before a final resolution may be made, and such a proceeding would not likely serve to develop a recommended policy for the agency;(3) maintaining established policies is of special importance, so that variations among individual decisions are not increased and such a proceeding would not likely reach consistent results among individual decisions;(4) the matter significantly affects persons or organizations who are not parties to the proceeding;(5) a full public record of the proceeding is important, and a dispute resolution proceeding cannot provide such a record; and(6) the agency must maintain continuing jurisdiction over the matter with authority to alter the disposition of the matter in the light of changed circumstances, and a dispute resolution proceeding would interfere with the agency’s fulfilling that requirement.(c) Alternative means of dispute resolution authorized under this subchapter are voluntary procedures which supplement rather than limit other available agency dispute resolution techniques.(Added Pub. L. 101–552, § 4(b), Nov. 15, 1990, 104 Stat. 2739, § 582; renumbered § 572, Pub. L. 102–354, § 3(b)(2), Aug. 26, 1992, 106 Stat. 944.)Editorial NotesCodification

Section 572 of former Title 5, Executive Departments and Government Officers and Employees, was transferred to section 2257 of Title 7, Agriculture.

Prior Provisions

A prior section 572 was renumbered section 592 of this title.

Amendments

1992—Pub. L. 102–354 renumbered section 582 of this title as this section.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1998–2026 · leading case: Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Fl v. United States, 420 F. Supp. 2d 1324 (S.D. Fla. 2006).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Fl v. United States, 420 F. Supp. 2d 1324 (S.D. Fla. 2006). “Furthermore, Plaintiffs statement that 5 U.S.C. § 572 (b) restricts the use of a dispute resolution proceeding if “the matter significantly affects persons or organizations who are not parties to the proceeding” is simply an incorrect reading of the statute, which prefaces that…”
Dep't of the Air Force, 436th Airlift Wing, Dover Air Force Base v. Fed. Labor Relations Auth., 316 F.3d 280 (D.C. Cir. 2003). “…The ADR Act by its terms is voluntary and merely supplements, rather than limits, other available ADR techniques. 5 U.S.C. § 572 (c).”
In Re: Grand Jury Subpoena Dated December 17, 1996, 148 F.3d 487 (5th Cir. 1998). “” See 5 U.S.C. § 572 (a). “Agency” is defined as “each authority of the Government of the United States,” subject to certain exclusions.”
Henry Bey v. United States (Fed. Cl. 2021). “See 5 U.S.C. § 572 . As such, it appears to have no application here.”
Bey v. Fid. Inv. LLC. (E.D. Pa. 2023). “6 The court presumes that Kingston is referencing 5 U.S.C. § 572 , which pertains to alternative dispute resolution in administrative programs.”
PHI Health, LLC v. Optimum Choice, Inc. D/B/A/ United Healthcare (D. Md. 2026). “See 5 U.S.C. §§ 572 (a) & 580(c) (Administrative Dispute Resolution Act, authorizing agencies to use “a dispute resolution proceeding for the resolution of an issue in 6 Optimum contends that the basis for ProPeer’s determination was factually incorrect, because Optimum actually…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.