Document ID: EPA-R05-OAR-2019-0330-0005
Agency: epa
Document Type: Rule
Title: Final Approval of the Illinois 2010 SO2 Redesignation for Lemont and Pekin
Posted Date: 2020-05-26T04:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 101 (Tuesday, May 26, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 31378-31383]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-09549]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[EPA-R05-OAR-2019-0330; FRL-10009-08-Region 5]

Air Plan Approval; Illinois; Redesignation of the Lemont and 
Pekin Sulfur Dioxide Nonattainment Areas

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is redesignating the 
Lemont and Pekin sulfur dioxide (SO2) areas from 
nonattainment to attainment of the 2010 SO2 national ambient 
air quality standard (2010 SO2 NAAQS). EPA is also approving 
Illinois' maintenance plan for these areas. Emissions of SO2 
in the two areas have been reduced, and the areas' monitored air 
quality is currently better than the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. EPA 
proposed to approve this action on February 24, 2020 and received two 
public comment submissions.

DATES: This final rule is effective on May 26, 2020.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID 
No. EPA-R05-OAR-2019-0330. All documents in the docket are listed on 
the www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in the index, some 
information is not publicly available, i.e., Confidential Business 
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted 
by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is 
not placed on the internet and will be publicly available only in hard 
copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either 
through www.regulations.gov or at the Environmental Protection Agency, 
Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 
Chicago, Illinois 60604. This facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays and facility 
closures due to COVID 19. We recommend that you telephone Mary 
Portanova, Environmental Engineer, at (312) 353-5954 before visiting 
the Region 5 office.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary Portanova, Environmental 
Engineer, Control Strategies Section, Air Programs Branch (AR 18J), 
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 
Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 353-5954, portanova.mary@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,'' 
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA.

I. Background Information

    On February 24, 2020 (85 FR 10360), EPA proposed to redesignate the 
Lemont and Pekin SO2 nonattainment areas to attainment of 
the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. The Lemont area is comprised of Lemont 
Township in Cook County and Lockport and DuPage Townships in Will 
County. The Pekin area is comprised of Hollis Township in Peoria County 
and Cincinnati and Pekin Townships in Tazewell County. An explanation 
of the Clean Air Act (CAA) requirements, a detailed analysis of 
Illinois' redesignation requests, and EPA's reasons for proposing 
approval were provided in the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) and 
will not be restated here.\1\ The public comment period for this NPRM 
ended on March 25, 2020. EPA received two comments on the proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The NPRM spoke of ``maintenance plans'' for the two areas, 
but in fact Illinois submitted a single maintenance plan which 
covers both the Lemont and Pekin SO2 areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Public Comments

    EPA received two public comments on the February 24, 2020 proposal 
to redesignate the Lemont and Pekin nonattainment areas. The comments 
are included in the docket for this action. One comment was not germane 
or relevant to this action and therefore not adverse to this action. 
The comment lacks the required specificity to the proposed action and 
the relevant requirements of the CAA. Moreover, the comment does not 
address a specific regulation or provision relevant to the NPRM or 
recommend a different action on the State's request from what EPA 
proposed. The second comment is addressed below.
    Comment: The commenter stated that EPA should disapprove these 
areas' redesignation requests, asserting that the state's maintenance 
plan lacked any enforceable contingency measures. The commenter 
described the maintenance plan's contingency measures as an 
unacceptable ``wait and see'' approach. The commenter asserted that 
``EPA's own requirements for contingency measures necessitate that the 
state already have measures developed and ready to go into effect upon 
a triggering mechanism.'' Moreover, the commenter argued that the 
maintenance plan does not specify a valid trigger for the contingency 
measures, and further asserts that violation of the NAAQS cannot itself 
serve as the trigger for a contingency measure. The commenter also 
disagreed that Illinois should be permitted to develop a contingency 
measure once a violation of the NAAQS occurs, rather than implementing 
a fully developed preset measure. The commenter concluded that EPA must 
send this maintenance plan back to the state and require an actual 
enforceable measure, fully developed and ready to be enforced and 
implemented, that would be held in reserve in case the areas violate a 
discrete, set contingency level based on measured air quality in the 
areas.
    Response: CAA section 175A(d) requires that each maintenance plan 
submitted ``shall contain such contingency provisions as the 
Administrator deems necessary to

[[Page 31379]]

assure that the State will promptly correct any violation of the 
standard which occurs after the redesignation of the area as an 
attainment area'' (emphasis added). By this language Congress provided 
EPA the discretion to determine what contingency measures are necessary 
to promptly correct any violation of the NAAQS after an area is 
redesignated to attainment. EPA set forth the procedures for reviewing 
redesignation requests, including maintenance plan provisions, in the 
September 4, 1992 memorandum from the EPA Director of the Air Quality 
Management Division, John Calcagni, entitled Procedures for Processing 
Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment (the ``Calcagni 
Memorandum''). The Calcagni Memorandum set forth several provisions for 
states to consider in developing contingency measures, including the 
following: ``For the purposes of [CAA] section 175A, a State is not 
required to have fully adopted contingency measures that will take 
effect without further action by the State in order for the maintenance 
plan to be approved. However, the contingency plan is considered to be 
an enforceable part of the SIP and should ensure that the contingency 
measures are adopted expediently once they are triggered.'' Calcagni 
Memorandum at 12.
    In its April 23, 2014 Guidance for 1-Hour SO2 
Nonattainment Area SIP Submissions (the ``2014 SO2 
Guidance''), EPA provided additional guidance, specific to 
SO2 nonattainment areas, for states to develop maintenance 
plans to meet the requirements of CAA section 175A(d). In addition to 
affirming the requirements set forth in CAA section 175A(d) and the 
guidance in the Calcagni Memorandum, the 2014 SO2 Guidance 
suggested that previous EPA guidance applicable to contingency measures 
for nonattainment plans under CAA section 172(c)(9) may also apply to 
CAA section 175A(d): For instance, where attainment revolves around 
compliance with a small set of sources with emission limits shown to 
provide for attainment, the EPA interprets ``contingency measures'' to 
mean that the state agency has a comprehensive program to identify 
sources of violations of the SO2 NAAQS and to undertake an 
aggressive follow-up for compliance and enforcement. See 57 FR 13498, 
13547 (Apr. 16, 1992).
    With this background in mind, we turn to the commenter's specific 
criticisms of the proposed rulemaking. The commenter claims that 
Illinois' maintenance plan has no enforceable contingency measures and 
is a ``wait and see approach,'' declaring that ``EPA's own requirements 
for contingency measures necessitate that the state already have 
measures developed and ready to go into effect upon a triggering 
mechanism.'' That Illinois' plan may look like a ``wait-and-see'' 
approach is expected to some extent for any contingency plan, as 
contingency measures under the CAA are not intended to come into effect 
until an area encounters difficulty maintaining the NAAQS. Illinois 
must keep track of SO2 monitor data and emissions in the 
Lemont and Pekin areas in order to determine when to activate its 
contingency plan. The contingency plan and commitments in the 
maintenance plan are enforceable as part of the Illinois SIP. However, 
as the Calcagni Memorandum makes clear, there is no requirement under 
CAA section 175A for Illinois to fully adopt specific additional 
controls or limitations as contingency measures that will take effect 
without further action by Illinois before EPA may approve the 
maintenance plan. A requirement for a SIP to include specific 
contingency measures that can take effect without further action by the 
state appears in section 172(c)(9) of the CAA, pertaining specifically 
to the required elements for nonattainment plans intended to bring a 
nonattainment area into attainment of an air quality standard. The 2014 
SO2 Guidance explains on page 41 that SO2 
presents special considerations and cites EPA's February 1994 
``SO2 Guideline Document'' regarding these considerations. 
The guidance indicates that pre-planned contingency measures may be 
useful for augmenting certain criteria pollutant strategies which 
involve controlling pollutant precursors from widespread small sources 
that can have uncertain control efficiencies and complex atmospheric 
interactions with other precursor emissions, but as there is much less 
uncertainty in the effectiveness of control strategies for directly-
emitted pollutants such as SO2, such prescriptive additional 
measures are typically not necessary to reach attainment. Because 
SO2 implementation plans contain emission limits that are 
directly and quantifiably shown through air dispersion modeling to be 
necessary and sufficient to attain the SO2 NAAQS, it would 
be unlikely for an area to implement its plan and yet fail to attain 
the NAAQS. Therefore, the 2014 SO2 Guidance states that for 
SO2 programs, contingency measures can mean that the air 
agency has a comprehensive program to enforce emission limits and to 
identify and address sources of violations of the SO2 NAAQS, 
and that EPA believes that this approach continues to be valid for the 
2010 SO2 NAAQS. The 2014 SO2 Guidance, as noted 
above, expects the implementation and enforcement of the area's 
nonattainment plan emission controls and limits to address this CAA 
requirement for SO2 areas. The contingency measures pursuant 
to CAA section 172(c)(9) for the Lemont and Pekin areas were addressed 
at 82 FR 46434, October 5, 2017. Now that Illinois has requested 
redesignation to attainment for the Lemont and Pekin areas, the 
requirements of CAA section 175A apply. As mentioned above, CAA section 
175A does not require states to provide a set of fully adopted 
additional control measures as contingency measures in a redesignated 
area's maintenance plan.
    The commenter also suggests that the Lemont and Pekin areas' 
contingency plan has either no triggering event or mechanism, or that 
the only triggering event is a violation of the 2010 SO2 
NAAQS, and it is incorrect for the trigger to be a violation. The 
commenter is correct that a maintenance plan must identify ``specific 
indicators, or triggers, which will be used to determine when the 
contingency measures need to be implemented.'' See Calcagni Memorandum 
at 12. There is no requirement that the triggering event for a 
contingency measure be set below the level of the NAAQS; the CAA states 
that contingency measures are intended to address violations that 
occur. States often include earlier triggers as a practical matter to 
assist in maintaining the NAAQS, and Illinois has in fact done so. Two 
of Illinois' triggering events are mentioned in the NPRM: Illinois will 
activate its contingency plan if the 99th percentile of maximum daily 
one-hour average SO2 concentrations for any year exceeds 75 
ppb, or if total SO2 emissions increase more than five 
percent above the attainment year inventory. Neither case represents a 
violation of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS, and both cases would be 
expected to allow Illinois adequate lead time to prepare and implement 
appropriate actions to avoid progressing to a violation of the 2010 
SO2 NAAQS. In the event of a violation, Illinois' planned 
action commitments follow a tighter schedule than the commitments 
triggered by the non-violating scenarios.
    Illinois' contingency plan contains two action levels. Level I is 
intended to prevent violations from occurring. Level II is used when a 
violation does occur, and it provides for a faster response. A Level I 
response is triggered when the 99th percentile of maximum daily one-
hour average SO2 concentrations

[[Page 31380]]

exceeds 75 ppb in any year at any monitor in the Lemont or Pekin areas, 
or if total SO2 emissions in the Lemont or Pekin maintenance 
areas increase more than five percent above the levels contained in the 
area's attainment year emission inventory. (Facilities in Illinois are 
required to report their actual emissions annually, under 35 Illinois 
Administrative Code 254.) Illinois will conduct a study to evaluate air 
quality and emission trends and determine the level of emission 
reductions needed and where such controls may be required. Illinois 
commits to implement such controls as expeditiously as practicable, 
formally adopting measures within 18 months of selection. A Level II 
response is triggered when a violation of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS 
is measured at any monitor in the Lemont or Pekin maintenance areas. A 
violation occurs when the three-year average of annual 99th percentile 
daily maximum 1-hour values is greater than 75 ppb, in accordance with 
40 CFR part 50, appendix T. Illinois commits to analyzing the cause of 
the violation and identifying effective measures to address it, on a 
tighter schedule than in Level I. Control measures will be adopted and 
implemented within 18 months of the certification of monitoring data 
indicating violation of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. Illinois' choice 
to use the occurrence of actual violations of the 2010 SO2 
NAAQS as a contingency triggering event does not indicate that Illinois 
contemplates delaying reasonable action for three years, or waiting to 
act until air quality is unhealthy, but instead anticipates a situation 
in which a sudden serious malfunction or drastic failure of compliance 
causes an impact large enough to mathematically raise the three-year 
design value over 75 ppb, constituting a violation, without warning.
    Finally, as to the commenter's assertion that EPA should not allow 
Illinois to determine what measures will be implemented should a 
violation occur, and should instead require predetermined measures, EPA 
has explained above that predetermined contingency measures are not 
required or necessary for SO2 maintenance plans. EPA expects 
that, if needed, appropriate additional pollution control actions must 
be chosen based on the circumstances, i.e., the specific source 
culpability, that led to the contingency plan being triggered. 
Selecting and implementing emission controls sufficient to re-attain 
the NAAQS is a typical function of the state. Illinois has the 
authority and resources to investigate increased ambient concentrations 
or source emissions, determine the cause, and develop new or revised 
source-specific control measures or emission limits to address the 
situation. As stated above, the contingency plan for the Lemont and 
Pekin areas is federally enforceable once approved into the SIP, so EPA 
can assure that Illinois will take prompt action as necessary per its 
commitment.
    As shown by the Calcagni Memorandum and the 2014 SO2 
Guidance, EPA's longstanding interpretation of the CAA contingency 
measure requirements for SO2 is that neither a state's 
SO2 nonattainment plan nor its maintenance plan must include 
a set of fully adopted SO2 control measures separate from, 
and in addition to, the SO2 control measures and emission 
limits that have been adopted into the state's nonattainment SIP and 
are demonstrated to provide for attainment of the SO2 NAAQS. 
In addition, triggers for contingency plans may include monitored NAAQS 
violations. EPA believes that Illinois' contingency plan for the Lemont 
and Pekin areas meets EPA's guidance for redesignating SO2 
nonattainment areas. EPA does not agree with the commenter that the 
Lemont and Pekin maintenance plan should be returned to the State or 
that the redesignations of the Lemont and Pekin areas should be 
disapproved. Therefore, EPA is finalizing the February 24, 2020 action 
as proposed.

III. Final Action

    EPA is redesignating the Lemont and Pekin areas to attainment of 
the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. EPA is also approving Illinois' 
maintenance plan, which is designed to ensure that the Lemont and Pekin 
areas will continue to maintain the 2010 SO2 NAAQS.
    In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(d), EPA finds there is good cause 
for these actions to become effective immediately upon publication. 
This is because a delayed effective date is unnecessary due to the 
nature of a redesignation to attainment, which relieves the areas from 
certain CAA requirements that would otherwise apply to them. The 
immediate effective date for this action is authorized under both 5 
U.S.C. 553(d)(1), which provides that rulemaking actions may become 
effective less than 30 days after publication if the rule ``grants or 
recognizes an exemption or relieves a restriction,'' and section 
553(d)(3), which allows an effective date less than 30 days after 
publication ``as otherwise provided by the agency for good cause found 
and published with the rule.'' The purpose of the 30-day waiting period 
prescribed in section 553(d) is to give affected parties a reasonable 
time to adjust their behavior and prepare before the final rule takes 
effect. This rule, however, does not create any new regulatory 
requirements such that affected parties would need time to prepare 
before the rule takes effect. Rather, this rule relieves the State of 
planning requirements for these SO2 nonattainment areas. For 
these reasons, EPA finds good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) for these 
actions to become effective on the date of publication of these 
actions.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, redesignation of an area to attainment and the 
accompanying approval of the maintenance plan under CAA section 
107(d)(3)(E) are actions that affect the status of the geographical 
area and do not impose any additional regulatory requirements on 
sources beyond those required by state law. A redesignation to 
attainment does not in and of itself impose any new requirements, but 
rather results in the application of requirements contained in the CAA 
for areas that have been redesignated to attainment. Moreover, the 
Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies 
with the provisions of the CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 42 
U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 
EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the 
criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law 
as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional 
requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For these reasons, this 
action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review 
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 
2017) regulatory action because this action is not a significant 
regulatory action under Executive Order 12866;
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or 
uniquely

[[Page 31381]]

affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform 
Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based 
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the 
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent 
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to 
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental 
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under 
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian 
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has 
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian 
country, the rule does not have tribal implications as specified by 
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because 
redesignation is an action that affects the status of a geographical 
area and does not impose any new regulatory requirements on tribes, 
impact any existing sources of air pollution on tribal lands, nor 
impair the maintenance of the NAAQS in tribal lands.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally 
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating 
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, 
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the 
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and 
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior 
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot 
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal 
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review 
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for 
the appropriate circuit by July 27, 2020. Filing a petition for 
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect 
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor 
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may 
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or 
action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to 
enforce its requirements. (See CAA section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by 
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Sulfur oxides.

40 CFR Part 81

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, National parks, 
Wilderness areas.

    Dated: April 29, 2020.
Kurt Thiede,
Regional Administrator.

    40 CFR parts 52 and 81 are amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

0
2. In Sec.  52.720, the table in paragraph (e) is amended under 
``Attainment and Maintenance Plans'' by adding an entry for ``Sulfur 
dioxide (2010) maintenance plan'' after the entry ``Sulfur dioxide 
maintenance plan'' to read as follows:

Sec.  52.720   Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

                       EPA-Approved Illinois Nonregulatory and Quasi-Regulatory Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Applicable
      Name of SIP provision          geographic or          State       EPA approval date         Comments
                                   nonattainment area  submittal date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
Sulfur dioxide (2010)             Lemont and Pekin...       5/24/2019  5/26/2020, [Insert
 maintenance plan.                                                      Federal Register
                                                                        citation].
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PART 81--DESIGNATION OF AREAS FOR AIR QUALITY PLANNING PURPOSES

0
3. The authority citation for part 81 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.

0
4. Section 81.314 is amended in the table entitled ``Illinois--2010 
Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS [Primary]'' by revising the entries ``Lemont, IL'' 
and ``Pekin, IL'' and adding the entry ``Rest of State'' at the end of 
the table to read as follows:

Sec.  81.314   Illinois.

* * * * *

[[Page 31382]]

                                       Illinois--2010 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS
                                                    [Primary]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                           Designation
              Designated area 1 2               ----------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Date \3\                           Type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
Lemont, IL.....................................       5/26/2020  Attainment.
    Cook County (part)
        Lemont Township
    Will County (part)
        DuPage Township and Lockport Township
Pekin, IL......................................       5/26/2020  Attainment.
    Tazewell County (part)
        Cincinnati Township and Pekin Township
    Peoria County (part)
        Hollis Township
Rest of State:
    Adams County...............................  ..............  Attainment/Unclassifiable.
    Alexander County...........................  ..............  Attainment/Unclassifiable.
    Bond County................................  ..............  Attainment/Unclassifiable/
    Boone County...............................  ..............  Attainment/Unclassifiable.
    Brown County...............................  ..............  Attainment/Unclassifiable.
    Bureau County..............................         9/12/16  Attainment/Unclassifiable.
    Calhoun County.............................  ..............  Attainment/Unclassifiable.
    Carroll County.............................  ..............  Attainment/Unclassifiable.
    Cass County................................  ..............  Attainment/Unclassifiable.
    Champaign County...........................  ..............  Attainment/Unclassifiable.
    Christian County...........................  ..............  Attainment/Unclassifiable.
    Clark County...............................  ..............  Attainment/Unclassifiable.
    Clay County................................  ..............  Attainment/Unclassifiable.
    Clinton County.............................  ..............  Attainment/Unclassifiable.
    Coles County...............................  ..............  Attainment/Unclassifiable.
    Cook County (part) (remainder).............  ..............  Attainment/Unclassifiable.
    Crawford County............................  ..............  Attainment/Unclassifiable.
    Cumberland County..........................  ..............  Attainment/Unclassifiable.
    De Kalb County.............................  ..............  Attainment/Unclassifiable.
    De Witt County.............................  ..............  Attainment/Unclassifiable.
    Douglas County.............................  ..............  Attainment/Unclassifiable.
    Du Page County.............................  ..............  Attainment/Unclassifiable.
    Edgar County...............................  ..............  Attainment/Unclassifiable.
    Edwards County.............................  ..............  Attainment/Unclassifiable.
    Effingham County...........................  ..............  Attainment/Unclassifiable.
    Fayette County.............................  ..............  Attainment/Unclassifiable.
    Ford County................................  ..............  Attainment/Unclassifiable
    Franklin County............................  ..............  Attainment/Unclassifiable.
    Fulton County..............................  ..............  Attainment/Unclassifiable.
    Gallatin County............................  ..............  Attainment/Unclassifiable.
    Greene County..............................  ..............  Attainment/Unclassifiable.
    Grundy County..............................  ..............  Attainment/Unclassifiable.
    Hamilton County............................  ..............  Attainment/Unclassifiable.
    Hancock County.............................  ..............  Attainment/Unclassifiable.
    Hardin County..............................  ..............  Attainment/Unclassifiable.
    Henderson County...........................  ..............  Attainment/Unclassifiable.
    Henry County...............................  ..............  Attainment/Unclassifiable.
    Iroquois County............................  ..............  Attainment/Unclassifiable.
    Jackson County.............................  ..............  Attainment/Unclassifiable.
    Jasper County..............................         9/12/16  Attainment/Unclassifiable.
    Jefferson County...........................  ..............  Attainment/Unclassifiable.
    Jersey County..............................  ..............  Attainment/Unclassifiable.
    Jo Daviess County..........................  ..............  Attainment/Unclassifiable.
    Johnson County.............................  ..............  Attainment/Unclassifiable.
    Kane County................................  ..............  Attainment/Unclassifiable.
    Kankakee County............................  ..............  Attainment/Unclassifiable.
    Kendall County.............................  ..............  Attainment/Unclassifiable.
    Knox County................................  ..............  Attainment/Unclassifiable.
    Lake County................................  ..............  Attainment/Unclassifiable.
    La Salle County............................  ..............  Attainment/Unclassifiable.
    Lawrence County............................  ..............  Attainment/Unclassifiable.
    Lee County.................................  ..............  Attainment/Unclassifiable.
    Livingston County..........................  ..............  Attainment/Unclassifiable.
    Logan County...............................  ..............  Attainment/Unclassifiable.
    McDonough County...........................  ..............  Attainment/Unclassifiable.
    McHenry County.............................  ..............  Attainment/Unclassifiable.

[[Page 31383]]

 
    McLean County..............................  ..............  Attainment/Unclassifiable.
    Macoupin County............................  ..............  Attainment/Unclassifiable.
    Madison County (part) (remainder) \5\......  ..............  Attainment/Unclassifiable.
    Marion County..............................  ..............  Attainment/Unclassifiable.
    Marshall County............................  ..............  Attainment/Unclassifiable.
    Mason County...............................  ..............  Attainment/Unclassifiable.
    Massac County..............................         9/12/16  Attainment/Unclassifiable.
    Menard County..............................  ..............  Attainment/Unclassifiable.
    Mercer County..............................  ..............  Attainment/Unclassifiable.
    Monroe County..............................  ..............  Attainment/Unclassifiable.
    Montgomery County..........................  ..............  Attainment/Unclassifiable.
    Morgan County..............................  ..............  Attainment/Unclassifiable.
    Moultrie County............................  ..............  Attainment/Unclassifiable.
    Ogle County................................  ..............  Attainment/Unclassifiable.
    Peoria County (part) (remainder)...........  ..............  Attainment/Unclassifiable.
    Perry County...............................  ..............  Attainment/Unclassifiable.
    Piatt County...............................  ..............  Attainment/Unclassifiable.
    Pike County................................  ..............  Attainment/Unclassifiable.
    Pope County................................  ..............  Attainment/Unclassifiable.
    Pulaski County.............................  ..............  Attainment/Unclassifiable.
    Putnam County..............................         9/12/16  Attainment/Unclassifiable.
    Randolph County............................  ..............  Attainment/Unclassifiable.
    Richland County............................  ..............  Attainment/Unclassifiable.
    Rock Island County.........................  ..............  Attainment/Unclassifiable.
    St. Clair County...........................  ..............  Attainment/Unclassifiable.
    Saline County..............................  ..............  Attainment/Unclassifiable.
    Sangamon County............................  ..............  Attainment/Unclassifiable.
    Schuyler County............................  ..............  Attainment/Unclassifiable.
    Scott County...............................  ..............  Attainment/Unclassifiable.
    Shelby County..............................  ..............  Attainment/Unclassifiable.
    Stark County...............................  ..............  Attainment/Unclassifiable.
    Stephenson County..........................  ..............  Attainment/Unclassifiable.
    Tazewell County (part) (remainder).........  ..............  Attainment/Unclassifiable.
    Union County...............................  ..............  Attainment/Unclassifiable.
    Vermilion County...........................  ..............  Attainment/Unclassifiable.
    Wabash County..............................  ..............  Attainment/Unclassifiable.
    Warren County..............................  ..............  Attainment/Unclassifiable.
    Washington County..........................  ..............  Attainment/Unclassifiable.
    Wayne County...............................  ..............  Attainment/Unclassifiable.
    White County...............................  ..............  Attainment/Unclassifiable.
    Whiteside County...........................  ..............  Attainment/Unclassifiable.
    Will County (part) (remainder).............  ..............  Attainment/Unclassifiable.
    Williamson County..........................    \4\ 10/15/19  Attainment/Unclassifiable.
    Winnebago County...........................  ..............  Attainment/Unclassifiable.
    Woodford County............................  ..............  Attainment/Unclassifiable.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes any Indian country in each county or area, unless otherwise specified. EPA is not determining the
  boundaries of any area of Indian country in this table, including any area of Indian country located in the
  larger designation area. The inclusion of any Indian country in the designation area is not a determination
  that the state has regulatory authority under the Clean Air Act for such Indian country.
\2\ Macon County will be designated by December 31, 2020.
\3\ This date is April 9, 2018, unless otherwise noted.
\4\ Williamson County was initially designated on September 12, 2016. The initial designation was reconsidered
  and modified on October 15, 2019.
\5\ A portion of Madison County, specifically all of Wood River Township, and the area in Chouteau Township
  north of Cahokia Diversion Channel, was designated attainment/unclassifiable on September 12, 2016.

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2020-09549 Filed 5-22-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P