President Obama decided Friday not to raise federal ozone standards for air pollution, causing a rift with environmentalists but winning praise from industry groups and congressional Republicans.

In his decision, relayed to Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson, Obama cited the need to remove uncertainty for businesses that would be affected.

"I have continued to underscore the importance of reducing regulatory burdens and regulatory uncertainty, particularly as our economy continues to recover," Obama said. "Ultimately, I did not support asking state and local governments to begin implementing a new standard that will soon be reconsidered."

The move was immediately heralded by Republican leaders as more important to the nation's business climate than Obama's speech on jobs to a joint session of Congress next Thursday.

"This action alone will prevent more job losses than any speech the president has given," said Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky. "I hope he will listen to the bipartisan calls from across the country to address his administration's negative impact on job creation."

Complying with the new regulation could have cost industry from $20 billion to $90 billion annually, making it the most expensive new rule on the federal books. It topped the list of proposed regulations that could cost more than $1 billion demanded recently by House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio.

"We're glad that the White House responded to the speaker's letter and recognized the job-killing impact of this particular regulation," said Boehner spokesman Michael Steel. "But it is only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to stopping Washington Democrats' agenda of tax hikes, more government 'stimulus' spending, and increased regulations, which are all making it harder to create more American jobs."

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, congressional Republicans and others had complained that raising ozone standards for air pollution would cost billions of dollars and result in lost jobs. A study last year by the Manufacturing Alliance predicted as many as 7.3 million jobs could be lost by 2020.

The issue of excessive federal regulations is gaining steam in Washington. Obama has ordered agencies to roll back old, redundant rules that are no longer needed. House Republicans are putting together a fall agenda focused on easing the regulatory burden on business.

When Congress passed the Clean Air Act in 1970, it required the EPA to review the allowable pollutant levels every five years. A new ozone standard was announced in 2008 by the Bush administration.

However, because it was set at 75 parts per billion, and the EPA's outside panel of scientists had recommended a range between 60 and 70 parts per billion, clean air advocacy groups went to court to get it changed. Jackson said the 2008 level was not "legally defensible."

The administration already had missed several deadlines to change the standard for smog from the 2008 level.

More than 175 business organizations sent a letter to Obama last month asking that the pending standard be delayed at least until 2013.

"The president's decision is good news for the economy and Americans looking for work," said Jack Gerard, president of the American Petroleum Institute. "EPA's proposal would have prevented the very job creation that President Obama has identified as his top priority."

Ross Eisenberg of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce said the decision points to possible compromise between the White House and Republicans on a regulatory agenda.

"We're hoping that this will springboard into real, serious regulatory reform legislation," he said.

White House officials said the decision had nothing to do with industry pressure or politics. But it came in the wake of another bad monthly jobs report that showed no jobs added in August on a net basis.

It was relayed to the EPA by Cass Sunstein, administration of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. He wrote that Obama "has made it clear that he does not support" raising the ozone standards now.

"Finalizing a new standard now is not mandatory and could produce needless uncertainty," Sunstein wrote, noting that current ozone standards must be reviewed in 2013 anyway.

At the same time, administration officials took pains to defend their environmental record. Heather Zichal, deputy assistant to the president for energy and climate change, posted on the White House blog a list of achievements, such as new fuel efficiency standards for cars and trucks and the first national standard to reduce mercury from power plants.

"Over the last two and a half years, the Obama administration has taken unprecedented steps forward to protect the public health of American families by reducing harmful air pollution," Zichal wrote. "Taken together, the administration's clean air achievements will produce enormous benefits for public health and the environment, while promoting the nation's continued economic growth and well-being. "

Jackson defended her agency's actions on air pollution and said the ozone standard still will get reviewed in the future.

"Since Day One under President Obama's leadership, EPA has worked to ensure health protections for the American people, and has made tremendous progress to ensure that Clean Air Act standards protect all Americans by reducing our exposures to harmful air pollution like mercury, arsenic and carbon dioxide," Jackson said.

"This administration has put in place some of the most important standards and safeguards for clean air in U.S. history: the most significant reduction of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide air pollution across state borders; a long-overdue proposal to finally cut mercury pollution from power plants; and the first-ever carbon pollution standards for cars and trucks."

Nevertheless, environmental groups usually allied with the White House quickly blasted Obama's decision.

"The Obama administration is caving to big polluters at the expense of protecting the air we breathe," said Gene Karpinski, president of the League of Conservation Voters. "This is a huge win for corporate polluters and huge loss for public health."

Michael Brune, executive director of the Sierra Club, said Obama was "putting the interest of coal and oil polluters first."

" Half of U.S. families live in places where it is literally unsafe to breathe the air," he said. "Kicking the inhaler down the road will do nothing to protect our children."

Friends of the Earth managing director David Hirsch accused the president of "taking his cues from (House Majority Leader) Eric Cantor."

"President Obama decided today to trash fundamental protections for Americans' health," Hirsch said. "His decision will mean more children suffering from asthma and more permanent lung damage for adults."

"Slow-walking is no way to govern when it comes to protecting the health of all Americans, especially children and the elderly, the most vulnerable among us," said Frances Beinecke, president of the Natural Resources Defense Council. "Our public officials, including those in the White House, are there to protect us from harm. They need to get on with doing their jobs."

The environmental law group Earthjustice had sued to challenge the standards on behalf of five other organizations, but it was put on hold while the administration considered raising them. The American Lung Association said Friday it will look to revive the lawsuit.

"The Obama administration knows the heavy cost of smog pollution but has made the terrible decision to leave outdated, weak standards in place, leaving thousands of Americans who suffer from lung and breathing problems at the mercy of this dirty air," said Martin Hayden of Earthjustice.

"Sacrificing American lives and forcing our friends and family members who suffer from asthma to breathe dirty air is a poor legacy for President Obama. Keeping weak, inefficient standards in place is not the change we were promised."

But Republicans in Congress heralded it as the right medicine for an ailing economy.

"Job creators scored a major victory today in the fight against Washington's red tape," said Sen. John Barrasso, R-Wyo., leader of Senate Republicans' effort on regulations. "After months of discussions, the White House finally admitted that its ozone rule was completely unnecessary and bad for our economy."

The leaders of the House Energy and Commerce Committee said the move should be followed by others.

"It is clear that our economy could not sustain the burden created by this completely discretionary proposal," said committee chairman Fred Upton and energy and power subcommittee chairman Ed Whitfield in a statement. "We encourage the president to follow today's action with similar steps to prevent EPA from shipping our jobs overseas."

Others, however, have argued that tougher ozone standards would save money currently lost when Americans get sick from air pollution.

"Those rules will generate billions of economic benefits in excess of compliance costs," said Michael Livermore, executive director of the Institute for Policy Integrity at New York University School of Law. "With each year of delay, that means additional costs imposed on the public, included lost productivity, hospital bills, more asthma cases and untimely deaths."

Here's the president's statement:

Over the last two and half years, my administration, under the leadership of EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson, has taken some of the strongest actions since the enactment of the Clean Air Act four decades ago to protect our environment and the health of our families from air pollution. From reducing mercury and other toxic air pollution from outdated power plants to doubling the fuel efficiency of our cars and trucks, the historic steps we've taken will save tens of thousands of lives each year, remove over a billion tons of pollution from our air, and produce hundreds of billions of dollars in benefits for the American people. At the same time, I have continued to underscore the importance of reducing regulatory burdens and regulatory uncertainty, particularly as our economy continues to recover. With that in mind, and after careful consideration, I have requested that Administrator Jackson withdraw the draft Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards at this time. Work is already underway to update a 2006 review of the science that will result in the reconsideration of the ozone standard in 2013. Ultimately, I did not support asking state and local governments to begin implementing a new standard that will soon be reconsidered. I want to be clear: my commitment and the commitment of my administration to protecting public health and the environment is unwavering. I will continue to stand with the hardworking men and women at the EPA as they strive every day to hold polluters accountable and protect our families from harmful pollution. And my administration will continue to vigorously oppose efforts to weaken EPA's authority under the Clean Air Act or dismantle the progress we have made.

Contributing: Elizabeth Weise