SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it amends the Class D airspace and establishes Class E airspace at the affected airports to support IFR operations.

History

The FAA published an NPRM for Docket No. FAA-2025-5571 in the Federal Register (90 FR 59081; December 18, 2025) proposing to amend the Class D airspace and establish Class E airspace at Chandler and Phoenix, AZ. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. The FAA appreciates the public's participation in the rulemaking process. Ninety-six comments were received and all comments have been reviewed and considered. The following responses are provided.

The airspace requirements for airports with public instrument procedures and air traffic control towers (ATCT) are outlined in FAA Order JO 7400.2R and 14 CFR part 71, Designation of Class A, B, C, D, and E Airspace Areas; Air Traffic Service Routes; and Reporting Points. The FAA only designates controlled airspace required under FAA orders and 14 CFR part 71 and makes every effort to respect and protect the public's right of transit.

A majority of the airports within the Phoenix area have not received a complete airspace review in 25 years or longer. During that timeframe, instrument procedures and FAA orders and regulations governing airspace requirements have changed, thus requiring the airspace modification to bring the airspace into compliance with FAA orders and regulations and to support IFR operations. The changes to FAA orders and regulations require the modification and expansion of the controlled airspace at Chandler Municipal Airport and Mesa Gateway Airport.

Two comments expressed general dissatisfaction with the proposal without identifying any specific aspects to which they object or making any recommendations on how to revise the proposal. Due to the lack of specificity, the FAA is unable to provide a detailed response but acknowledges the general objections.

Fifty-nine comments raised concerns regarding the impact the proposed airspace modifications would have on VFR operations within the Phoenix area. The majority of these comments did not provide recommendations for how to revise the proposal or recommended either leaving the current airspace in place or reducing the current controlled airspace. All of these 59 comments expressed dissatisfaction with raising the vertical limits of the Chandler, AZ Class D airspace from 3,000 feet MSL to 3,700 feet MSL and the possible safety implications of leaving only 300 feet between the top of the Chandler, AZ, Class D airspace and the bottom of the Phoenix, AZ, Class B airspace. A comment from the Arizona Pilots Association objects to the lateral increase in the Chandler Municipal Airport Class D airspace, which “would close the distance” between that Class D airspace and the Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport Class B airspace, further constraining and concentrating VFR traffic.

The proposed modification to the vertical limit was derived from FAA Order JO 7400.2R, paragraph 17-2-8 which states that “Class D areas should normally extend upward from the surface up to and including 2,500 feet AGL.” As such, reducing the vertical limit from what was proposed is not consistent with the referenced FAA order. In response to the safety concern expressed in the comments, the vertical limit of the Class D airspace at Chandler, AZ, is being raised from 3,000 feet MSL to up to but excluding 4,000 feet MSL rather than 3,700 feet MSL as initially proposed. This change eliminates the possibility of VFR traffic attempting to transit through the 300-foot area between the Chandler, AZ, Class D and the Phoenix, AZ, Class B airspace. Aircraft will still be able to transit the same area but will need to contact Chandler FAA Contract Tower (FCT) for clearance. The FAA believes that positive control of aircraft transiting this area is in the best interest of safety and will eliminate the risk of midair collisions expressed in the comments.

Twenty-five comments stated concerns regarding the impact of the proposed airspace changes on Pegasus Airpark. The following is the categorization of the comments: 6 ( printed page 68450) expressed dissatisfaction without providing recommendations for modifying the proposal; 18 recommended increasing the exclusion area from the proposed 1.2-mile radius to a 1.5-mile radius; 5 recommended an exclusion area that matches or is smaller than the one proposed; 1 suggested increasing the exclusion area from a 1.2-mile radius to a 1.8-mile radius; 1 suggested increasing the exclusion area from a 1.2-mile radius to a 2-mile radius; and 2 suggested increasing the exclusion area from a 1.2-mile radius to a 3-mile radius.

The FAA acknowledges the comments expressing general dissatisfaction but is unable to respond further to comments lacking specificity or a recommendation for modifying the proposal. The suggestions to increase the exclusion area cited an increase in high-performance aircraft operating at Pegasus Airpark that need more uninhibited airspace to remain clear of the Mesa Gateway Airport, Phoenix, AZ, Class D airspace. The proposed exclusion area is equal to the airspace area currently outside of the Mesa Gateway Airport, Phoenix, AZ Class D airspace. Therefore, it does not shrink the airspace available for these operations.

Pursuant to Advisory Circular (AC) 90-66C, Non-Towered Airport Flight Operations, it is the responsibility of the airport owners and operators to coordinate the establishment of nonstandard traffic patterns with the FAA. The airport owner is then responsible for publishing the traffic pattern information in the Chart Supplement. The operator of the Pegasus Airpark has not accomplished this, so a standard traffic pattern is assumed and the appropriate Class G airspace provided. The air traffic manager (ATM) at Mesa Gateway Airport was asked to consider an increase in the exclusion area. However, as there have not been any incursions into the Class D airspace in the area of Pegasus Airpark; Pegasus Airpark has not made any coordination request to accommodate a larger air traffic pattern; and the proposed exclusion area is equal to the area currently outside of the Mesa Gateway Airport Class D airspace, the ATM does not believe that an increase in the exclusion area is needed at this time. If the situation changes and the proper coordination is complete, the issue of expanding the exclusion area may be revisited.

Twenty-eight comments objected to the potential impact of the proposed airspace changes on Stellar Airpark. The following is the categorization of the comments: 19 expressed dissatisfaction without providing recommendations for how to modify the proposal; 5 recommended an exclusion area that matched the proposal; and 1 comment stated the Stellar Airpark is not a VFR airport. The FAA is unable to respond to the comments expressing general dissatisfaction without details or providing any recommendations as it is impossible to address them without specifics.

Many comments cited an increase in high-performance aircraft operating at Stellar Airpark that needed more Class G airspace to remain clear of the Chandler Municipal Airport, Chandler, AZ Class D airspace. One comment objected to the airspace changes because they would allegedly frustrate the ability of VFR pilots to continue using the same visual landmarks for navigation. And one comment expressed concern with the impact on a privately funded instrument approach procedure at Stellar Airpark. The proposed exclusion area provides for a standard cutout for VFR airports and accommodates the public instrument procedures into Stellar Airpark.

As previously stated, pursuant to AC 90-66C, it is the responsibility of the airport owners and operators to coordinate the establishment of nonstandard traffic patterns with the FAA. The airport owner is then responsible for publishing the traffic pattern information in the Chart Supplement. The Stellar Airpark operator has not accomplished this, and there is no information regarding traffic patterns in the Stellar Airpark Chart Supplement entry, so a standard traffic pattern is assumed and the appropriate Class G airspace provided. If the situation changes and the proper coordination is complete, the issue of expanding the exclusion area may be revisited.

The FAA also confirms Stellar Airpark's status as a VFR airport. While Stellar Airpark does have instrument procedures—which were considered in the development of Chandler, AZ Class D exclusion area—that does not make Stellar Airpark an IFR or controlled airport. Stellar Airpark is an uncontrolled airport, and operators are required to take off and land following visual flight rules, thus Stellar Airpark is an uncontrolled, VFR airport.

Seventeen comments stated that the proposed airspace changes would increase the workload of pilots and would increase air traffic controller workloads beyond the capabilities of the affected air traffic facilities [ i.e., Chandler Municipal Airport FCT, Mesa Gateway Airport FCT, and Phoenix TRACON (P50)]. The ATMs from Chandler Municipal Airport FCT and Mesa Gateway Airport FCT, and management from P50 and the Albuquerque Air Traffic Services District participated in the planning of the airspace changes. These ATMs understand the added responsibilities the airspace changes will have on the air traffic controllers and have complete confidence that these facilities are capable of handling the responsibilities. Regarding the increased workload on the pilots, the airspace changes are required by and consistent with FAA orders and regulations.

Six comments alleged that there was no coordination with airspace stakeholders, including the ATMs at Chandler Municipal Airport FCT, Mesa Gateway Airport FCT, Falcon Field Air Traffic Control Tower (ATCT), P50, or the airport managers at Pegasus Airpark and Stellar Airpark, and that the assigned airspace specialist was not familiar enough with the Phoenix airspace to understand the impacts of the proposed changes. The ATMs from Chandler Municipal Airport FCT and Mesa Gateway Airport FCT requested the biennial airspace reviews of their respective airspaces. These ATMs and the P50 Airspace Manager participated in numerous meetings regarding these amendments and the proposal to ensure that the local conditions were taken into consideration and adjustments were made in accordance with their recommendations and consistent with FAA orders and regulations. The ATM from Falcon Field was not included in these efforts as the airspace is outside of that ATM's geographic area of responsibility. Coordination for Class D and Class E airspace involves the air traffic facility providing control to the affected area. The FAA obtains input from other stakeholders through the rulemaking comment period, which occurred. The personnel assigned to this effort have the requisite training and experience with the FAA orders and regulations regarding airspace and applicable requirements.

One comment questioned whether a safety risk management assessment was completed for this proposal. The standards codified in FAA Order JO 7400.2R, including all amendments, receive a safety risk management assessment. Accordingly, compliance with FAA Order JO 7400.2R when making changes to the National Airspace System satisfies the FAA and ICAO requirements for safety risk management. All changes comply with FAA Order JO 7400.2R.

One comment from Hughes Aerospace Corporation opined that the proposed Class E airspace extending upward from ( printed page 68451) 700 feet above the surface at Stellar Airpark is insufficient and requested a review of the proposed Class E airspace. All data submitted by the commenter was reviewed; however, the official data from the FAA databases showed higher values than those submitted by the commenter. Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface must be designated to accommodate arriving IFR operations below 1,500 feet above the surface and departing IFR operations from 700 feet above the surface until they reach 1,200 feet above the surface. The data used for these computations are contained within FAA Form 8260-9, Part D, Airspace.

The commenter's concern is that the initial approach fix, JEWLZ, and holding pattern for the RNAV (GPS) RWY 35 would not be contained in the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface. The altitude requirement for JEWLZ is no lower than 3,000 MSL (mean sea level), equivalent to 1,821 feet AGL (above ground level), which places JEWLZ in the existing Class E airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface. The holding pattern for RNAV (GPS) RWY 35 is restricted to an altitude no higher than 4,000 feet MSL (2,821 AGL) and no lower than 3,000 feet MSL (1,821 AGL), so the entire holding pattern is within the existing Class E airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface.

The FAA reviewed the RNAV (GPS) RWY 35 into Stellar Airpark, as requested, and determined that the instrument approach procedure is contained in the appropriate airspace pursuant to FAA Order JO 7400.2R, and the proposed Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface for Stellar Airpark is sufficient and correct.

One comment questioned the need to increase the Class D airspace associated with Mesa Gateway Airport. FAA Order JO 7400.2R requires that Class D airspace is of adequate dimensions to: (a) allow an aircraft departing the airport at a standard rate of climb to reach the adjoining airspace while maintaining a 700 feet AGL clearance from the terrain in the area; and (b) protect the instrument approach procedures below 1,000 feet AGL and any departure procedure until the aircraft reaches the next adjoining airspace. In this case, the adjoining airspace for both (a) and (b) is the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface. The Class D airspace at 5.4 miles meets all requirements outlined in FAA Order JO 7400.2R.

One comment stated, “Now normally, a busy Class B area one would request Flight Following—however the FAA policy of the PHX Tracon has been to not grant these VFR FF requests.” The commenter did not provide or cite evidentiary support for this claim. It is FAA policy that flight following services are provided upon request as allowed by the air traffic controller workload. The P50 ATM and the General Manager for the Albuquerque Air Traffic Services District were contacted regarding this comment, and their response is, “flight following is and will continue to be granted to all pilots, upon request and workload.”

One comment stated that the proposed airspace change would create an overlap between the current Falcon Field, Mesa, AZ, Class D airspace and the proposed Mesa Gateway Airport, Phoenix, AZ, Class D airspace. The FAA reviewed the airspace and confirmed there is no overlap. Other comments objected to the elimination of the existing corridor of Class G airspace between the Class D airspace associated with Falcon Field and Mesa Gateway Airport. However, as described earlier, the expansion of the Mesa Gateway Airport Class D airspace is required for compliance with FAA Order JO 7400.2R.

One comment stated that it would be helpful to have a graphical depiction of the proposed airspace. Pursuant to FAA Order JO 7400.2R, graphical depictions are only required for Class B and Class C airspace proposals. Moreover, providing graphical depictions of every Class D airspace proposal is not feasible considering the high volume of Class D airspace amendments throughout the National Airspace System.

One comment from Brandon Esquer, a member of the P50 National Air Traffic Controllers Association (NATCA), stated that the expansion of the Chandler Municipal Airport Class D airspace is unnecessary and not in compliance with FAA orders. This commenter asserted that the existing IFR transitional airspace is adequate. The commenter's interpretation of the FAA orders and requirements is correct but incomplete. The commenter cited a requirement to protect departures to the lateral limits of the Class D airspace and into the transitional Class E airspace, which is correct. More specifically, the complete requirement for Class D airspace contained in FAA Order JO 7400.2R is that the airspace is sufficiently sized to: (a) allow an aircraft departing the airport at a standard rate of climb to reach the adjoining airspace while maintaining a 700 feet AGL clearance from the terrain in the area; and (b) protect the instrument approach procedures below 1,000 feet AGL and any departure procedures until the aircraft reaches the next adjoining airspace. In this case, the adjoining airspace for both (a) and (b) is the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface.

In the case of Chandler Municipal Airport, aircraft are unable to maintain a 700 feet AGL clearance above terrain in the Class D surface area within the current 4-mile radius and reach the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface. Additionally, the departure procedure for runways 04L and 04R at Chandler Municipal Airport is a climbing left hand turn to heading 220° to intercept the Stanfield VORTAC 350° radial, then southbound to the Stanfield VORTAC. Prior to this final rule, in the Chandler Municipal Airport Class D airspace aircraft would exit the Chandler Municipal Airport Class D airspace, enter the Mesa Gateway Airport Class D airspace, and re-enter the Chandler Municipal Airport Class D airspace before finally exiting the Chandler Municipal Airport Class D airspace at 3,000 feet MSL directly into a VFR flyway. With the airspace modified by this final rule, aircraft can maintain the required 700 feet AGL terrain clearance within the Class D surface area, and an aircraft on the departure procedure for runways 04L 04R can turn back into the Class D airspace upon reaching the 4.8-mile Class D airspace boundary and exiting the Class D airspace when reaching 4,000 feet MSL.

Furthermore, FAA Order JO 7400.2R requires that departure procedures within the Class D airspace maintain 700 feet AGL clearance of terrain and include airspace 1.8 NM either side of the track to be flown. The requirement within Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface is to provide airspace 1.8 NM either side of the track to be flown. For Class E airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface, the requirement is to provide airspace 4 NM either side of the track to be flown. The expansion of the Chandler Municipal Airport Class D airspace to 4.8 miles meets all the requirements for Class D airspace contained in FAA Order JO 7400.2R, using the Mesa Gateway Airport Class D airspace to protect the eastern area of the departure procedure without requiring additional airspace.

Additionally, raising the vertical limit of the Class D airspace up to but excluding 4,000 feet MSL further protects the IFR aircraft on the departure procedure and reduces the risk of a midair collision with aircraft ( printed page 68452) operating VFR. The FAA appreciates the comment from this NATCA member; however, his interpretation of FAA orders is incomplete. The expansion of the Chandler Municipal Airport Class D airspace is needed to bring the airspace into compliance with FAA orders and regulations and will enhance safety of aircraft operating IFR from Chandler Municipal Airport by reducing the possibility of midair collisions.

Lastly, a comment from the Mesa Gateway Airport Authority (MGAA) cited five concerns: (1) the proposal does not take into account the volume of training and general aviation operations in the area; (2) the proposed airspace changes for the Mesa Gateway Airport Class D airspace will reduce the arrival and departure capacity and create bottlenecks, forcing complex procedures that will increase taxiing, runway crossings, and create delays; (3) the proposed airspace changes will adversely impact the VFR flyway and VFR traffic; (4) the proposal constitutes an isolated rulemaking that is not harmonized with the Phoenix Area Modernization Plan (PAMP); and (5) the proposal will have an adverse economic impact on Mesa Gateway Airport. The FAA provides the following responses.

The FAA acknowledges MGAA's concerns about impacts to other operations in the area, including the VFR flyway. The FAA only designates controlled airspace as required under FAA orders and 14 CFR part 71 and makes every effort to respect and protect the public's right of transit. However, the changes are required to bring the airspace into compliance with FAA orders and regulations and to support IFR operations in the Phoenix area.

The FAA also acknowledges MGAA's concerns that the proposed airspace changes will reduce the arrival and departure capacity at the Mesa Gateway Airport. The FAA designed the airspace for Mesa Gateway Airport based on the current instrument procedures, bringing the airspace into compliance with current FAA orders and regulations. There are no new instrument procedures in development, and the airspace change does not require new, complex procedures to be developed or implemented at Mesa Gateway Airport. The expansion of the airspace allows aircraft to maintain 700 feet AGL clearance from the terrain required by FAA Order JO 7400.2R. Additionally, the FAA does not agree that expanding the Class D airspace will create ground delays predicted by MGAA ( e.g., air traffic bottleneck, increased taxi times, increased runway crossing requirements, air traffic delays, etc.) as the airspace change accommodates existing procedures and operations at the airport and does not change or impact taxi procedures.

The FAA also acknowledges the ongoing work of the PAMP. The review and amendment of the Mesa Gateway Airport Class D airspace was requested by Mesa Gateway Airport FCT ATM. The Director of Operations for the Central Service Area Air Traffic Services was aware of the pending airspace amendment and has monitored the progress and possible impact of the PAMP. Additionally, the FAA is not bypassing any environmental process. Modification of Class D airspace requires an independent environmental review, which has been completed and is summarized in the Environmental Review section of this action.

Lastly, the FAA declines to alter the proposal based on the claim that the airspace changes will have an adverse economic impact on Mesa Gateway Airport. The FAA does not have statutory authority to consider economic factors as part of its airspace designations. Further, the comment from MGAA did not explain how the expansion of the Class D airspace at Mesa Gateway Airport would result in adverse economic impacts, instead providing only a general explanation of how Mesa Gateway Airport contributes to the economy of the area. The airspace change expands the Class D airspace to support the existing instrument procedures. It does not add or change any instrument procedures or otherwise directly impact operations at Mesa Gateway Airport.

Differences From the NPRM

Subsequent to publication of the NPRM, a typographical error was discovered in the NPRM. In the Chandler, AZ, Class D airspace legal description, “latitude” was used instead of “longitude.” Correction of this typographic error does not change the boundaries of the airspace as they currently exist or as proposed or impose any additional requirements on users of the airspace. Accordingly, the FAA finds good cause that recirculating this action for public comment is unnecessary.

In response to the comments received on the NPRM and in the interest of safety, the vertical limit of the Chandler, AZ, Class D airspace is being raised from the current limit of 3,000 feet MSL up to but excluding 4,000 feet MSL rather than 3,700 feet MSL as proposed in the NPRM. This will close the gap between the expanded Class D airspace and the overlying Class B airspace, reducing hazards to Class B operations and preventing VFR pilots from attempting to navigate through the narrow gap without communicating with air traffic control. The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) authorizes agencies to dispense with ordinary notice and comment requirements for rules when the agency for “good cause” finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). This change is made in response to a valid safety concern raised by the numerous comments received on the NPRM. The FAA finds good cause that recirculating this action for public comment is unnecessary, as the change directly responds to dozens of comments already received.

Incorporation by Reference

Class D and E airspace designations are published in paragraphs 5000 and 6005 of FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 on an annual basis. This document amends the current version of that order, FAA Order JO 7400.11M, dated July 30, 2026, and effective September 15, 2026. These amendments will be published in the next update to FAA Order JO 7400.11. FAA Order JO 7400.11K, which lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points, is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document.

The Rule

This action amends 14 CFR part 71 by modifying the Class D airspace and establishing Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Chandler, Arizona, and Phoenix, Arizona, due to biennial airspace reviews conducted pursuant to FAA Order JO 7400.2R.

For the Chandler Municipal Airport, Chandler, AZ, Class D airspace this action: (1) increases the radius from 4 miles to 4.8 miles; (2) increases the vertical limit from 3,000 feet MSL to up to but excluding 4,000 feet MSL; (3) removes Williams Gateway Airport and the associated exclusion area as they are no longer required; (4) adds an exclusion area west of longitude 111°53′41″ W; (5) updates the airspace legal description header from “Chandler Municipal Airport, AZ” to “Chandler, AZ” to comply with changes to FAA Order JO 7400.2R; and (6) updates the outdated term of “Airport/Facility Directory” to “Chart Supplement.”

For the Mesa Gateway Airport, Phoenix, AZ, this action: (1) increases the radius from 5 miles to 5.4 miles; (2) adds an exclusion area for the Chandler ( printed page 68453) Municipal Airport Class D airspace; (3) adds an exclusion area within a 1.2-mile radius of Pegasus Airpark, Queen Creek, AZ; (4) updates the name of the airport from Williams Gateway Airport to Mesa Gateway Airport and updates the geographic coordinates of the airport to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database; (5) updates the airspace legal description header from “Chandler, AZ” to “Phoenix, AZ” to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database; and (6) updates the outdated term of “Airport/Facility Directory” to “Chart Supplement.”

This action establishes Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Stellar Airpark, Chandler, AZ, within a 13.9-mile radius of the airport.

This action establishes Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Mesa Gateway Airport, Phoenix, AZ: (1) within a 7.9-mile radius of the airport; (2) within 4 miles northeast and 8 miles southwest of the 136° bearing for the Mesa Gateway: RWY 30C-LOC extending from the 7.9-mile radius of the airport to 17.7 miles southeast of the Mesa Gateway: RWY 30C-LOC; and (3) within 7.9 miles northeast and 4 miles southwest of the 136° bearing from the airport extending from the 7.9-mile radius of the airport to 12.6 miles southeast of the airport.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore: (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Order 2100.6B, “Policies and Procedures for Rulemakings” (March 10, 2025); and (3) is expected to result in, at most, de minimis costs from compliance with applicable operating requirements or minor flight rerouting for operators choosing to navigate around the controlled airspace. Since these amendments are routine and the expected impact to operators is de minimis, the FAA certifies that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1G, “FAA National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Procedures,” Paragraph B-2.5(a). This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.

The Amendment

In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

91 FR 68449