The FIRE Act: What It Would Change About Wildfire Smoke and Air Quality Rules

Current status (as of September 2026): H.R. 6387, the FIRE Act, passed the House on April 22, 2026 by a recorded vote of 220–198 (Roll no. 136). It was received in the Senate on April 27, 2026, read twice, and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. Nothing further has happened since.

The bill was introduced by Rep. Gabe Evans (R-CO-8) on December 3, 2025 and picked up 3 cosponsors. It amends a single subsection of the Clean Air Act — section 319(b), codified at 42 U.S.C. 7619(b) — which governs how air quality monitoring data influenced by exceptional events is reviewed and handled. It replaces the subsection's expired deadline for PROPOSED regulations with "18 months after the date of enactment of the FIRE Act", and it runs a second category alongside "exceptional event" throughout: an "action to mitigate wildfire risk", which the bill defines as "a prescribed fire or similar measure, undertaken in accordance with State approved practices, to reduce the risk and severity of wildfires."

What the Law Says Now

The Clean Air Act requires EPA to set National Ambient Air Quality Standards for "six principal pollutants" — the criteria air pollutants, "which can be harmful to public health and the environment". They are ozone, particle pollution (PM_2.5 and PM₁₀), carbon monoxide, lead, nitrogen dioxide and sulfur dioxide.

Section 319(b) lets monitoring data be set aside when an exceptional event caused it. Today the statute defines an exceptional event as one that "affects air quality", "is not reasonably controllable or preventable", "is an event caused by human activity that is unlikely to recur at a particular location or a natural event", and is so determined by the Administrator. It excludes three things from that definition: "stagnation of air masses or meteorological inversions", "a meteorological event involving high temperatures or lack of precipitation", and "air pollution relating to source noncompliance".

The rule implementing it is 40 CFR 50.14, "Treatment of air quality monitoring data influenced by exceptional events" — not an appendix. It lists the regulatory determinations that excluded data can be kept out of: designation and redesignation of an area, the assignment or re-assignment of a classification category to a nonattainment area "where such classification is based on a comparison of pollutant design values", whether a nonattainment area attained the standard by its specified deadline, a determination that an area's data qualify it for an attainment date extension, a determination under Clean Air Act section 110(k)(5), "if based on an area violating a national ambient air quality standard", that a state implementation plan is inadequate, and "Other actions on a case-by-case basis as determined by the Administrator."

Getting there takes a demonstration. Under 40 CFR 50.14(c)(3)(iv) it "must include" five things: "A narrative conceptual model that describes the event(s) causing the exceedance or violation and a discussion of how emissions from the event(s) led to the exceedance or violation at the affected monitor(s)"; a showing of "a clear causal relationship between the specific event and the monitored exceedance or violation"; comparative analyses against the same monitoring site at other times; a showing "that the event was both not reasonably controllable and not reasonably preventable"; and a showing "that the event was a human activity that is unlikely to recur at a particular location or was a natural event." The state must also run a public comment period of at least 30 days, and the data is not excluded "unless and until" the Administrator posts a concurrence flag in the AQS database.

Prescribed Burns Are Already in the Rule

The regulation is explicit here, so it is worth quoting. 40 CFR 50.14(b)(3)(i) says the Administrator "shall exclude data from use in determinations of exceedances and violations, where a State demonstrates to the Administrator's satisfaction that emissions from prescribed fires caused a specific air pollution concentration in excess of one or more national ambient air quality standards at a particular air quality monitoring location and otherwise satisfies the requirements of this section."

The rule then gives a state two routes to satisfy the not-reasonably-controllable test for a prescribed fire: the state "must either certify to the Administrator that it has adopted and is implementing a smoke management program or the State must demonstrate that the burn manager employed appropriate basic smoke management practices identified in Table 1 to § 50.14." If an exceedance happens while those practices are in use, the state and the burn manager "must undertake a review of the subject fire", and that post-burn review has to accompany any later demonstration. The practices route carries a further condition. The state, federal land managers "and other entities as appropriate" must "periodically collaborate with burn managers operating within the jurisdiction of the State" and document how they will work together; until that is done, the Administrator "shall not place a concurrence flag" for data associated with a prescribed fire on wildland.

So the pathway exists. What the bill changes is the statute the pathway is built on; the regulation itself changes only when EPA rewrites it.

What the FIRE Act Would Change

The bill is six numbered amendatory instructions, all to section 319(b). Read against the current statute, what they do is this:

• A new deadline, on the first of two stages. "March 1, 2006" is struck and "18 months after the date of enactment of the FIRE Act" inserted, with "revisions to" inserted before "regulations" — so the expired mandate to publish proposed regulations becomes a mandate to publish proposed revisions. The second stage's clock is untouched: the statute still gives EPA "1 year after the date on which the Administrator publishes proposed regulations under subparagraph (A)" to promulgate the final ones. Eighteen months is the deadline to propose, not to finish.
• A second category running alongside exceptional events. The subsection heading gains "Or Actions To Mitigate Wildfire Risk", and "or action to mitigate wildfire risk" is inserted next to "an exceptional event" through the operative paragraphs.
• A new category in the definition of exceptional event. The current statute reaches an event "caused by human activity that is unlikely to recur at a particular location or a natural event". The bill rewrites that subclause to reach an event that is "(aa) a natural event", "(bb) caused by a human activity that is intended to mirror the occurrence or reoccurrence of a natural event", or "(cc) caused by a human activity that is unlikely to recur". Clause (bb) is new. The words "at a particular location" also come out of the unlikely-to-recur clause; nothing in the bill says which way that cuts, and neither does the statute.
• Two of the three statutory exclusions change. The bill strikes the exclusion list and replaces it with "ordinarily occurring stagnation of air masses", "meteorological inversions", and "air pollution relating to source noncompliance". The current exclusion for "a meteorological event involving high temperatures or lack of precipitation" is not carried over, and the stagnation exclusion is narrowed to the ordinarily occurring kind.
• A looser causal standard. The requirement that "a clear causal relationship must exist" becomes "a clear causal relationship must exist, or be reasonably expected to exist".
• A new statutory principle. EPA would have to follow "the principle that actions to mitigate wildfire risk can play an important role in reducing the magnitude and frequency of wildfires".
• A wider Governor's petition. Today the statute requires criteria and procedures for a Governor to petition on "exceedances or violations of the national ambient air quality standards". The bill replaces that with a seven-item list: area or source exceedances or violations; "the designation, redesignation, classification, or reclassification of an area"; a state's attainment demonstration; attainment determinations; attainment date extensions; "finding a State implementation plan to be inadequate"; and "preconstruction demonstrations under section 165(a)(3)."
• EPA does the modelling for multi-state events. When more than one state notifies EPA of an intent to petition over the same air quality event, or EPA itself determines a multistate event occurred, "the Administrator shall conduct regional modeling and analysis sufficient to satisfy the demonstration required".
• A public petition tracker. Within 12 months of enactment EPA must establish, "and thereafter update monthly, a public website describing the status of all petitions submitted pursuant to this section".
• The interim provision goes. Paragraph (4), which keeps pre-rule EPA guidance in force until a regulation takes effect, is struck.

All six instructions amend section 319(b), and section 319(b) is not limited to wildfire — its definition of an exceptional event turns on whether an event affects air quality, is not reasonably controllable or preventable, and is natural or unlikely to recur. The revision mandate is written against that subsection, not against wildfire smoke.

What the Bill Does Not Do

It sets no deadline for EPA to act on an individual petition. The two clocks the bill adds are 18 months to propose the revisions and 12 months to stand up the website; neither governs the review of a state's demonstration.

It also excludes no data by itself. A state would still have to petition and demonstrate, and the Administrator would still have to concur, exactly as under the current rule. And the bill attaches no consequence to EPA missing either of the deadlines it sets.

Drafted from primary source documents by LegislationPatch's automated research pipeline, then reviewed, verified, and edited by James Shearn, Editor. Every figure and citation is checked against the official text before publication. See our editorial standards and AI disclosure.