Since the LOC MAP is now closer to the FAF (4.57 NM vs 4.90 NM), my
guess is that they extended the runway at the approach end, since the
LOC MAP would be at the runway threshold. This would put the runway
point of intercept for the glideslope (RPI) too far from the new
threshold for an ILS, and the ILS TCH would now be too high for an ILS
without a waiver.
The LOC could continue with a different FAF to MAP distance, but not the
ILS.
As far as the name, it's still an ILS procedure, except that the
glideslope is currently NA. To change the name would require NFPO to
create an amendment and have that published in the National Flight Data
Digest. They are probably creating an amendment, but rather than change
the name, they would be amending the ILS data to have it published with
a new FAF, glideslope intercept point, and TCH to match wherever they
would be installing the new glideslope (assuming the runway was lengthened).

JPH

Stan Gosnell wrote:
wrote in
nk.net:


When all else fails, check the NOTAMS:

FDC 5/1241 - FI/T WILLIAMSON COUNTY REGIONAL, MARION, IL. ILS RWY 20,
AMDT 11A... S-ILS MINIMUMS NA. DISTANCE FAF TO MAP 4.57 NM. DELETE ALL
REFERENCE TO MM. WIE UNTIL UFN


But that doesn't answer the OP's question - why?