The FIRE Act: States Could Ignore Pollution Data from Prescribed Burns to Fight Wildfires

This legislation, officially the Fire Improvement and Reforming Exceptional Events Act (FIRE Act), focuses on air quality rules and wildfire management. Essentially, it amends the Clean Air Act to give states a significant regulatory break when they use controlled burns or similar methods to reduce wildfire risk. If a state conducts a prescribed fire and the resulting smoke temporarily pushes local air quality readings over the legal limit, the state can now ask the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to ignore that bad data when determining regulatory compliance.

The Trade-Off: Fire Prevention vs. Clean Air

Currently, if a state's air quality monitoring shows too much pollution, that area can get slapped with a non-attainment designation, which triggers mandatory, often expensive, cleanup plans. The FIRE Act aims to remove this regulatory penalty for states actively managing fire risk. It defines an "action to mitigate wildfire risk" as a prescribed fire or similar measure done according to State-approved practices. The idea is that short-term smoke from a controlled burn is better than catastrophic, long-term smoke from an uncontrolled wildfire. This change is meant to encourage proactive land management, especially in Western states where fire seasons are getting longer and more intense.

What This Means for Your Local Air Quality

If you live near a forest or wildland area, this bill could mean more prescribed burns happening near you. While these burns are essential for preventing mega-fires, they produce smoke and particulate matter that can be tough on the lungs. For folks with asthma or other respiratory issues, this is a real concern. The bill requires the state to show a “clear causal relationship” between the burn and the air quality violation. If the EPA agrees, that pollution data gets excluded from regulatory decisions—meaning your area won't be penalized for the smoke, even if you still breathe it. This is a classic policy trade-off: short-term local air quality spikes for long-term regional fire safety.

New Rules for the EPA and Public Transparency

The FIRE Act doesn't just change the rules for states; it puts the EPA on the clock. The agency has 18 months to propose revisions to its regulations on how it handles these petitions. Crucially, the bill mandates that the EPA create a public website within 12 months that tracks the status of all these air quality data exclusion requests. This is a win for transparency. If your state is trying to exclude air quality data, you’ll be able to see exactly where that petition stands, which is important information for local health officials and community groups.

The Fine Print: What Counts as Mitigation?

One area to watch is the definition of “action to mitigate wildfire risk.” The bill names prescribed fire but also includes “similar measure, undertaken according to State-approved practices.” This language gives states some flexibility, but it also creates a potential gray area. If a state’s definition of a “similar measure” is too broad, it could open the door for excluding data from activities that aren't strictly necessary or are poorly managed. For example, if a state approved a highly inefficient burn, could they still petition to exclude the data? The EPA’s forthcoming regulations will need to nail down these definitions to prevent the intentional use of this exemption to mask poor air quality management.