[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, [email protected].
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