FAR Council Withdraws Proposed Mandatory Climate Disclosures for Federal Contractor Rule
Client Alert | 1 min read | 01.10.25
Mandatory climate disclosures for US federal contractors are officially off the table—at least, for the foreseeable future. On January 10, 2025, the Department of Defense, General Services Administration, and National Aeronautics and Space Administration announced that they are withdrawing a proposed rule, “Disclosure of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate-Related Financial Risk,” which would have required thousands of federal contractors to inventory and publicly disclose their Scope 1 and Scope 2 greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and would also have required “major” contractors to also establish and validate GHG emission-reduction targets tailored to the goals of the Paris Agreement. The proposed rule, discussed in further detail here, was introduced in November 2022 and resulted in thousands of public comments from the government contractor community and beyond.
The withdrawal notice explains that the agencies lacked sufficient time during the current administration to finalize the proposed rule “particularly given the large volume of public comments and the policy issues they raised” and that “[t]he agencies’ overall analysis of public comments indicates evolving practices and use of standards in industry, and since the publication of the proposed rule, differing domestic and international regulations covering greenhouse gas disclosures have been created.”
Following withdrawal of the proposed rule, there is no uniform, government-wide obligation to disclose GHG emissions and reduction targets for purposes of obtaining federal contracts. However, government contractors should still carefully scrutinize their contracts for bespoke climate-related requests, as they would for any other non-standard contract term.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 6 min read | 11.26.25
From ‘Second’ to ‘First:’ Federal Circuit Tackles Obvious Claim Errors
Patent claims must be clear and definite, as they set the boundaries of the patentee’s rights. Occasionally, however, claim language contains errors, such as typographical mistakes or incorrect numbering. Courts possess very limited authority to correct such errors. The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has emphasized that judicial correction is appropriate only in rare circumstances, where (1) the error is evident from the face of the patent, and (2) the proposed correction is the sole reasonable interpretation in view of the claim language, specification, and prosecution history. See Group One, Ltd. v. Hallmark Cards, Inc., 407 F.3d 1297, 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) and Novo Indus., L.P. v. Micro Molds Corp., 350 F.3d 1348, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
Client Alert | 5 min read | 11.26.25
Client Alert | 6 min read | 11.25.25
Brussels Court Clarifies the EU’s SPC Manufacturing Waiver Regulation Rules
Client Alert | 3 min read | 11.24.25
