{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01859229747675963, 'fraction_numerical': 0.005312084993359893, 'mean_word_length': 5.130081300813008, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Cause or Cure? Cost-Benefit Analysis and Regulatory Gridlock

Under rules that have been in place since the early 1980s, most major new federal regulations must pass a cost-benefit test before they can be adopted. This essay argues that, as currently practiced, federal cost-benefit analysis often gives inadequate weight to the environmental benefits of regulation and proposes a new function of executive review that would use cost-benefit analysis to review agency inaction. Under this proposal, when a petition for rulemaking has been denied by an agency, petitioners would have the option of going before the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs to present the case that a new environmental regulation is justified by cost-benefit analysis.