FAA Launches Rulemaking on Carrying Firefighters in Restricted Category Aircraft — Why Air Medical Transport Should Pay Attention

Published: September 18, 2026  |  Category: Policy

On September 14, 2026, the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration published an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) in the Federal Register titled "Use of Certain Restricted Category Aircraft for the Transport of Firefighters for Wildfire Suppression" — cited as 91 FR 58029, Docket No. FAA-2026-10991, with public comments due by November 13, 2026. At first glance this is an aerial firefighting story. But reading the text closely shows it answers three regulatory questions that are equally fundamental to air medical transport: how an aircraft's airworthiness category determines who may be carried, where the line runs between special-purpose operations and personnel transport, and how statutory rulemaking timelines operate under Congressional mandate. For China's air medical rescue industry — now moving toward standardization — it is a regulatory specimen worth studying side by side.

1. What the ANPRM Aims to Do: Let "Restricted Category" Helicopters Legally Carry Firefighters

Per the FAA's official abstract in the Federal Register, the agency is evaluating a future amendment to its regulations that would permit firefighters to be transported to and from the site of a wildfire aboard certain restricted category aircraft, when the purpose of that transportation is to allow those firefighters to perform ground wildfire suppression. The amendment would apply to civil aircraft operations, and to public aircraft operations (PAO) when the restricted category aircraft is owned by a civilian operator. The FAA says it needs more public information both to fulfill the statutory mandate and to assess economic impact, and is soliciting comments on the current availability of firefighter transportation resources, hindrances and needs, and cost-benefit considerations. The key to understanding the notice is the difference between the two airworthiness categories: a restricted category aircraft does not hold a standard category type certificate. Under 14 CFR 21.25 it may be certificated only for defined special-purpose operations — such as "aerial dispensing of firefighting materials" (water or retardant drops). And under 14 CFR 91.313, restricted category aircraft are prohibited from carrying persons or property for compensation or hire, and from being operated for other than the certificated special purpose. In a 2018 legal interpretation the FAA confirmed that approval for water-dropping operations does not carry the authority to transport firefighters for ground firefighting. In other words, a Firehawk legally dropping water on a wildfire today may not, as a rule, also ferry firefighters to the fire line — and that boundary is exactly what this ANPRM proposes to redraw.

2. Why Now: A Congressional Mandate and the Gap Left by the Surplus-Military Exclusion

According to trade outlet Vertical Mag's September 16, 2026 report, the ANPRM is the first, overdue step toward complying with Section 360 of the 2024 FAA Reauthorization Act, which directed the FAA to conduct rulemaking within 18 months allowing restricted category aircraft to transport firefighters to and from wildfire sites, supplementing the existing fleet of standard category aircraft used for such missions. But the statute left an intriguing gap: Section 360 explicitly excludes surplus military aircraft — which account for the large majority of restricted category helicopters used in U.S. aerial firefighting. Vertical Mag notes this effectively created a regulatory carve-out for Lockheed Martin Sikorsky's S-70M Firehawk and the small number of older S-70 helicopters also certificated in the restricted category; an amendment that would have made surplus military Black Hawks eligible to carry firefighters never received a vote, caught in a Congressional fight over airline slots at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport — contrary to the intent of the lawmakers who introduced the mandate. The regulatory landscape also tightened recently: another section of the 2024 FAA Reauthorization Act requires civilian operators conducting public aircraft operations on behalf of government entities to comply with FAA operating and maintenance regulations, including 91.313 — effectively prohibiting them from transporting firefighters using restricted category aircraft. The FAA acknowledges in the ANPRM that Section 360 rulemaking could help compensate for any resulting shortage of aircraft available to carry firefighters. In addition, Section 360 empowers the FAA to impose the aircraft maintenance, inspection and pilot training requirements of 14 CFR Part 135 on restricted category aircraft used to transport firefighters — and the FAA is requesting compliance cost estimates by aircraft make and model, with an option to designate commercially sensitive comments as confidential business information.

3. Three Lessons for the Air Medical Transport Industry

1) "Category determines payload" is universal regulatory grammar. Air medical transport lives in the same world where airworthiness certification defines what an aircraft may do: medical interiors require modification approvals such as STCs, and operating authorizations must match the installed medical equipment — this site reported in August on Aerolite's H145 medical interior receiving FAA STC approval. This ANPRM pushes the same logic to its extreme: for one and the same airframe, the airworthiness category draws a bright line — "water drops allowed, passengers not." When commissioning a medical transport, verifying the operator's certificates and the approved scope of operations is the same piece of regulatory puzzle firefighters face. 2) Carrying persons always triggers higher safety requirements. The ANPRM shows that once restricted category aircraft are allowed to carry people, Part 135-level maintenance, inspection and pilot training requirements may follow — an entire safety system separates "carrying cargo" from "carrying persons." That matches the air medical industry's own consensus: medical configuration, crew training and operating specifications must meet standards as a whole. This site's September 17 report on DRF Luftrettung's winch training syllabus earning German authority certification is the training-side sample of the same proposition. 3) The public-comment mechanism is itself worth borrowing. From statute (2024) to ANPRM (September 2026) to comment deadline (November 13, 2026), every step of the timeline and every text is publicly searchable and open to industry participation. Against the backdrop of China's own institutional build-out — see this site's September 8 analysis of the national standard for air medical rescue and the August 26 piece on CAAC's 15th Five-Year Plan signals — the more institutionalized the channels for operator and hospital participation, the smoother standards will land in practice.

Disclaimer: All facts in this article come from the official U.S. Federal Register text and API (ANPRM "Use of Certain Restricted Category Aircraft for the Transport of Firefighters for Wildfire Suppression," 91 FR 58029, published September 14, 2026, Docket No. FAA-2026-10991, federalregister.gov) and Vertical Mag's September 16, 2026 report (verticalmag.com), both accessed and verified on September 18, 2026; background on 14 CFR 21.25, 91.313, Part 135, the 2018 legal interpretation and Section 360 of the 2024 FAA Reauthorization Act is as reported by these two sources. All internal links point to previously verified articles on this site. This article is a policy news share and does not constitute legal, medical or investment advice; in an emergency, call your local emergency number immediately.