The Fire Improvement and Reforming Exceptional Events Act (FIRE Act) amends Clean Air Act section 319(b) to add an explicit definition for “action to mitigate wildfire risk” (notably prescribed fires conducted under State-approved practices) and to require the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to revise its regulations governing treatment of air-quality monitoring data influenced by exceptional events or such mitigation actions. The bill replaces the old March 2006 deadline with an 18-month post‑enactment timeline for updated regulations and requires EPA to create a publicly updated website tracking all petitions under this section.
Beyond deadlines and transparency, the bill changes the analytic framework: it instructs EPA to recognize that mitigation actions can reduce wildfire severity, requires a clear causal showing linking exceedances to the event or mitigation action for data exclusion, and directs the Agency to conduct regional modeling where multistate events are involved. For states, land managers, air-quality regulators, and permitting authorities, the FIRE Act reshapes how smoke from both wildfires and prescribed burns can be treated in determinations about NAAQS exceedances, designations, attainment demonstrations, and preconstruction permits.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill revises definitions in CAA §319(b) to include ‘actions to mitigate wildfire risk’ (e.g., prescribed fires under State‑approved practices), mandates EPA to update regulations within 18 months, requires regional modeling for multistate events, and creates a public petition-status website updated monthly.
Who It Affects
State air agencies, State forestry and fire management agencies, the EPA, regional air-quality modelers, and entities subject to NAAQS-related determinations and preconstruction reviews (section 165(a)(3)).
Why It Matters
It changes the legal treatment of monitoring data influenced by both wildfires and prescribed burns, potentially reducing regulatory penalties tied to smoke events while increasing EPA’s modeling and transparency obligations — shifting where the burden of demonstration and analysis sits.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The FIRE Act changes how the Clean Air Act treats air-quality data affected by exceptional events and by actions intended to reduce wildfire risk. It inserts a new, narrow statutory definition for “action to mitigate wildfire risk” — primarily prescribed fires and similar measures carried out under State‑approved practices — and amends the statute’s definition of “exceptional event” to explicitly allow events caused by human activities that mirror natural events or are unlikely to recur.
The bill also clarifies a set of exclusions (ordinary stagnation, meteorological inversions, and pollution from noncompliance) that cannot be shoehorned into the exceptional‑event category.
On process, the Act replaces the long-missed March 2006 deadline with a concrete timetable: EPA must issue revisions to its regulations within 18 months of enactment. The revisions must reflect the newly added definition and the principle that mitigation actions can legitimately reduce wildfire risk.
The bill requires that petitions seeking exclusion of monitoring data show a clear causal relationship—or a reasonable expectation of such a relationship—between the measured exceedance and the exceptional event or mitigation action for a particular monitor.The bill adds two operational requirements that will change how multistate smoke episodes are handled. If multiple States intend to file petitions for the same air-quality episode, or the Administrator determines a multistate event has occurred, EPA must perform regional modeling and analysis sufficient to support the demonstration required for exclusion.
EPA must also publish and maintain a public website, updated monthly and launched within 12 months of enactment, listing the status of all petitions submitted under this section. Finally, the Act specifies that Governors may petition to exclude event‑affected data from a defined set of determinations — from exceedances and designations to attainment demonstrations and preconstruction demonstrations under section 165(a)(3) — thereby making data exclusions directly consequential for permitting and attainment processes.Taken together, these changes shift both analytic burden and operational requirements: states and land managers gain a clearer pathway to seek exclusion of smoke‑impacted data (including from prescribed burns), while EPA must expand modeling capacity and transparency to support multistate demonstrations and public tracking of petitions.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill adds ‘action to mitigate wildfire risk’ to CAA §319(b), defined as prescribed fires or similar measures conducted under State‑approved practices.
EPA must revise its exceptional‑events regulations within 18 months of enactment to incorporate the new definitions and principles.
When multiple States file—or EPA finds—a multistate air-quality episode, the Administrator must perform regional modeling and analysis sufficient to satisfy the exceptional‑event or mitigation‑action petition.
EPA must establish a public website, live within 12 months of enactment and updated monthly, showing the status of all petitions under §319(b) for exceptional events and mitigation actions.
Governors may petition to exclude monitoring data directly due to exceptional events or mitigation actions from determinations including exceedances, designations/redesignations, attainment demonstrations and dates, SIP inadequacy findings, and preconstruction demonstrations under section 165(a)(3).
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title — FIRE Act
Provides the Act's short title: the Fire Improvement and Reforming Exceptional Events Act (FIRE Act). This is purely stylistic but signals the bill’s focus on procedural and definitional reforms to how the Clean Air Act treats wildfire‑related air-quality data.
Rewrites ‘exceptional event’ and adds ‘action to mitigate wildfire risk'
The bill restructures the statutory definition of ‘exceptional event’ to explicitly allow naturally occurring events, human activities intended to mirror natural events, or human activities unlikely to recur. It adds a new definitional term, ‘action to mitigate wildfire risk,’ explicitly covering prescribed fires and similar measures implemented under State‑approved practices. The change directs regulators to treat certain prescribed burns as a recognized category for purposes of data exclusion petitions, rather than forcing them to fit under older, less specific interpretations.
Requires EPA to revise regulations within 18 months; broadens regulatory subject
Subsection (2) replaces the obsolete March 1, 2006 date with an 18‑month deadline for EPA to issue revisions to its regulations governing review and handling of monitoring data influenced by exceptional events or mitigation actions. The provision explicitly ties the required rulemaking to both exceptional events and actions to mitigate wildfire risk, compelling EPA to update criteria, procedures, and guidance to reflect the new statutory definitions and the principle that mitigation actions can reduce future wildfire risk.
Mandates regional modeling for multistate events and a public petition tracker
When multiple States intend to file petitions for the same episode, or EPA determines a multistate event occurred, the Administrator must conduct regional modeling and analysis sufficient to meet the demonstration standard for exclusion petitions. The bill also requires EPA to launch, within 12 months, and update monthly, a public website describing the status of all §319(b) petitions for exceptional events and mitigation actions — adding a transparency obligation that will make the petition pipeline and agency responses visible to stakeholders and litigants.
Establishes principle recognizing mitigation actions and tightens causal showing and applicability of exclusions
The bill adds an explicit principle that actions to mitigate wildfire risk can reduce wildfire magnitude and frequency. It also tightens petition standards by requiring a clear causal relationship (or reasonable expectation of such) between an exceedance and the exceptional event or mitigation action at a specific monitor. Finally, it lists the agency determinations from which data may be excluded if the petition succeeds — a list that includes exceedances/violations, designations, attainment demonstrations and dates, SIP inadequacy findings, and preconstruction demonstrations under section 165(a)(3).
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Environment across all five countries.
Explore Environment in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- State forestry and fire management agencies — They gain a statutory pathway to have smoke from prescribed burns treated as a distinct category, reducing the regulatory risk that controlled burns will trigger air-quality penalties or complicate attainment demonstrations.
- State air quality agencies and Governors — The bill gives Governors an explicit petition mechanism and a clearer legal framework to exclude event‑affected data from key determinations, which can prevent short‑term smoke episodes from jeopardizing long‑term planning and SIP outcomes.
- Landowners and forest managers — By recognizing mitigation actions and facilitating data exclusions, the bill lowers the regulatory downside of conducting prescribed burns aimed at reducing catastrophic wildfire risk.
- Entities seeking preconstruction approvals (developers, industrial facilities) — Exclusions can prevent transient, event‑driven monitor exceedances from blocking or delaying section 165(a)(3) preconstruction demonstrations and permitting decisions.
Who Bears the Cost
- EPA — The Agency must complete a rule revision within 18 months, expand regional modeling capacity for multistate events, and build/maintain a public petition‑status website, all of which require staffing, technical expertise, and funding.
- State air agencies — States must prepare technically robust petitions showing causal links, coordinate multistate modeling requests, and codify or certify ‘State‑approved practices’ for mitigation activities, increasing workload and potential legal exposure.
- Modeling and monitoring contractors — Demand for regional air-quality modeling and refined causal analyses will increase, shifting costs to states or their contractors to produce defensible demonstrations.
- Small prescribed‑burn contractors and land managers — While the bill creates an exclusion pathway, it conditions that pathway on State‑approved practices; compliance costs and procedural requirements may fall on operators to demonstrate adherence.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between enabling prescribed and other wildfire‑risk mitigation actions by excluding their smoke from regulatory determinations (thereby encouraging fuels management) and the need to preserve accurate, comprehensive air‑quality data for public health, attainment planning, and permitting; the statute leans toward facilitating mitigation but leaves open how to prevent undercounting real exposures or uneven state standards.
The bill creates useful procedural clarity but raises significant implementation questions. First, the definition of ‘action to mitigate wildfire risk’ ties eligibility for data exclusion to compliance with State‑approved practices — a delegation that risks uneven standards across states and leaves open how tribal lands and federal land managers fit into the regime.
Second, the statutory requirement that EPA perform regional modeling for multistate events improves scientific rigor but assumes the Agency has the resources and modeling frameworks to deliver timely, legally defensible regional analyses; absent dedicated funding and methodological guidance, that requirement could become a bottleneck or a litigation flashpoint.
There is also a substantive trade‑off embedded in permitting exclusions for prescribed burns: excluding smoke‑impacted monitoring data can prevent short‑term regulatory penalties and avoid disincentivizing fuels treatments, but it also removes data reflecting real public exposures from the record used for designations, attainment and public-health planning. The bill attempts to blunt this by requiring a clear causal showing, yet it does not specify quantitative standards or modeling protocols for that showing.
That vagueness will shift contentious debates into rulemaking and adjudication, where differences in modeling choices, baseline assumptions, and state practices could materially affect outcomes.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.