A look at recent headlines offers little reason to be optimistic about the state of the economy:

• “Weak U.S. factory data suggest softer economic growth” – Reuters
• “Stocks swing as U.S. economy stutters” – MoneyWatch
• “U.S. economy still not following script for breakout year” – MarketWatch

Given current worries about the economy, why then is the Obama administration pressing forward with efforts to drastically tighten regulations concerning ground-level ozone, regulations that will cause significant economic pain?

Announced in December, the new regulations would reduce the national ambient air quality standard for ozone to within a range of 65 to 70 parts per billion, replacing the current 75 ppb standard.

While a 5-10 ppb reduction may not seem like much, the economic costs would be staggering. Based on recent economic analysis, the National Association of Manufacturers says it would be the most expensive regulation in American history.

An updated study by NERA Economic Consulting, conducted on NAM’s behalf, estimates that a tightened standard would reduce national gross domestic product by as much as $140 billion per year. The new rule would cost the average American household $830 per year in the form of lost consumption, and the overall economy would see 1.4 million jobs disappear.

NERA calculated that a more stringent ozone standard could cost the economy well over $1 trillion over the next several decades.

Here’s what you should know about this complicated issue:

• The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) set the current 75 ppb standard in 2008 – the most stringent ozone regulation ever.
• A federal court subsequently agreed with EPA that the current standard is sufficient to protect the public.
• EPA has so far failed to provide any realistic guidance for complying with the proposed tighter standard, suggesting instead that states rely on technologies and processes that are not yet known to exist.
• Under a 65 ppb standard, 34 states would find themselves in non-attainment status, meaning non-compliance and strict penalties for areas that aren’t able to meet the standard.
• The proposed 65 ppb standard falls below the naturally occurring ozone levels in many parts of the country, particularly numerous state and national parks with no industrial activity whatsoever.
• Ozone-forming emissions have already fallen dramatically since 1980. If the 75 ppb standard were kept in place, emissions are projected to be reduced a further 36 percent from current levels.
• Though the administration’s proposal suggests a new standard within the 65-70 ppb range, EPA is soliciting comments about the possibility of reducing it further to 60 ppb. One mustn’t conclude that this even more draconian level is off the table.
•  NAM earlier estimated that a 60 ppb standard could thrust 94 percent of the United States into “non-attainment” status.  A 60 ppb rule could reduce U.S. GDP by $270 billion annually and result in nearly 3 million fewer jobs every year.

A newly tightened regulation would hurt every region of the country, which is why a number of governors of both parties have registered opposition to this plan. West Virginia Governor Earl Ray Tomblin, for instance, announced he is “simply unable to endorse a proposal that will cause hardship for already-struggling West Virginia families.”

In fact, there is not one state whose economy would be better off under the new standard, as this interactive map from the American Petroleum Institute makes clear.

One last thing to keep in mind is that an attempt by EPA to tighten the standard early in the Obama administration was scrapped by the White House for being too expensive. As The New York Times recently recalled, “At the time, Mr. Obama said the regulation would impose too severe a burden on industry and local governments at a time of economic distress.”

That decision was consistent with the executive order the president issued in 2011 that emphasized the importance of striking the right balance between costs and benefits in shaping regulations.

The administration should apply that logic this time, as well. The costs of the proposed rule change would still be extremely high relative to the marginal benefits a more stringent standard might deliver.

The U.S. economy is hardly out of the woods today compared with a few years prior. The last thing it needs is a body blow administered by Washington regulators.