FIRE Act
Key claim: The FIRE Act expands the Clean Air Act definition of exceptional events to cover human activities intended to mirror natural events and certain meteorological conditions, and directs EPA to revise how wildfire-risk mitigation actions affect air-quality data used in NAAQS exceedance determinations.
Abstract
(HR6387 · 119th Congress) Fire Improvement and Reforming Exceptional Events Act or the FIRE Act This bill modifies the definition of exceptional events under the Clean Air Act and requires the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to revise its regulations regarding exceptional events or actions to mitigate wildfire risk. Generally, the EPA must exclude data from use in determinations of exceedances and violations of national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) if a state demonstrates that an exceptional event caused a specific air pollution concentration. The bill provides that events caused by human activity that are intended to mirror the occurrence or reoccurrence of a natural event are exceptional events. Additionally, the bill no longer excludes from consideration as an exceptional event (1) meteorological events involving high temperatures or a lack of precipitation, or (2) stagnation of air masses that does not ordinarily occur. The bill requires the EPA to revise regulations regarding the reviewing and handling of air quality monitoring data influenced by actions to mitigate wildfire risk. The bill also requires the EPA to conduct regional modeling and analysis when multiple states submit petitions regarding the same exceptional event or action to mitigate wildfire risk. Latest action (2026-04-27): Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Why this matters
The FIRE Act would recalibrate how prescribed burns and wildfire-mitigation-related smoke are treated under the Clean Air Act’s exceptional-events framework, potentially easing NAAQS compliance pressure in western states where fire smoke drives ozone and PM2.5 exceedances. By reducing the risk that mitigation burns push areas into nonattainment, it aims to remove a regulatory disincentive to proactive fuels management, though critics may raise concerns about masking real public-health exposure to smoke. The practical effect depends heavily on EPA’s implementing revisions to the exceptional-events rule and how design-value data are recalculated.