I concur with the majority of previous comments documenting the extremely poor cost benefit justification for such regulations. The only remedy, however, is to run for the state legislature or contribute to the campaign of someone running against the legislators who approved this legislation. 

In this proceeding, the Board has the opportunity to minimize the damage done by this legislation, and should do so. Most states permit a broad range of activities to be counted for Continuing Education. In the case of many subspecialites, participation in standards committees or professional society meetings may be the only technically relevant activites available. The requirement in current language for a certificate issued by some 'organization' means that many engineers will be forced to spend time and money to attend courses irrelevant to their work, and which are required by no other state. TX. LA, and MS are examples of much more workable language that has been in place for some time.

The unnecessarily restrictive language proposed in the regulations is not required by state law and is inconsistent with standards in other states. By becoming so restrictive and inconsistent, Virginia will provide a strong incentive for engineering activities to relocate to other states with more reasonable rules.