The Environmental Protection Agency may consider revising the current national air quality standard for ozone, or smog, set in March 2008 by the Bush administration.

The rule has been subject to legal challenges from both sides: those who hope to make it more stringent and those seeking relief from it. Quoting the Justice Department, BNA news service (subscription) reports that the Justice Department asked a federal court to refrain from hearing arguments for 180 days “to give the Obama administration an opportunity to determine whether the standards ‘should be maintained, modified or otherwise reconsidered.’ ”

The ozone rulemaking was steeped in controversy. For the primary, or public health, standard, EPA chose to tighten the exposure level to 0.075 ppm from 0.084 ppm. While the lower standard will yield significant public health benefits, it was not set as low as EPA’s scientific advisors had recommended. Since the Clean Air Act makes science the preeminent criterion in the standard setting process, many said the rule did not meet legal muster.

The mishegas surrounding the secondary standard – which allows EPA to protect things that do not directly impact public health but may impact our way of life, such as ecological health – was even worse. As it has in the past, EPA set the secondary standard identical to the primary standard, in this case, 0.075 ppm.

EPA officials, including administrator Stephen Johnson, wanted a separate, tailored standard. But just a day before EPA announced the final rule, the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), which reviews significant agency rules, forced EPA to change its mind. Initially, EPA resisted, so OIRA brought in President Bush himself to arbitrate. Bush sided with OIRA.

The blatantly political decision Bush’s White House forced on EPA is not likely to be viewed kindly in court. Rules that withstand judicial review tend to be fully vetted and well supported; they tend not be set the day before while discussing the talking points.

So it looks like EPA, with the backing of the Justice Department, will reopen this can of worms. That could be good for public health if EPA decides to tighten the standard. (A standard of 0.070 ppm, the top end of the advisors’ recommended range, could prevent an additional 300 premature deaths and 610 heart attacks annually, according to EPA.)

Unfortunately, we will all have to live through another tired debate about pollution reduction vs. compliance costs (even though the Clean Air Act prohibits the consideration of costs in setting standards for ozone). Industry lobbyists fought tooth and nail against a tighter standard last year and will do so again. Stay tuned.