Apart from the establishment of centralized regulatory review in OMB, a regulatory initiative with a near twenty year incubation period followed by several nationwide initiatives resulting in the unfettered and widespread use of medical marijuana and related substances, there are two rulemakings which rank among of the most contentious in recent history.
The first rulemaking includes actions associated with addressing climate change. A key obstacle to addressing climate change is the compliance cost associated with the resultant program. In particular it is very difficult to convince one nation to employ a climate change program if other nations who are often its international competitors do not make a similar commitment. Just recently the Center for Regulatory Effectiveness has expressed its views on this matter, see this editorial in Inside EPA
The second rulemaking is in its infancy and involves a program to deal with the misuse of the social media. To address the social media issue one has to reconcile two fundamental competing social priorities, the preservation of free speech with the preservation of personal privacy and dignity. This issue will be addressed in an American Bar Association (Section on Administrative Law) sponsored teleconference on July 24.
The public may participate in the second regulatory initiative, Regulation of the Social Media(?) , by posting their views in the comment section on this page. In doing so you may wish to consult this page on the outcome of the aforementioned teleconference.
Academicians should continue to debate Chevron and practitioners should continue to dwell on filing comments on important Federal Register notices but the nation could also profit from their contribution to the two aforementioned rulemakings.