It is my humble opinion that the metrics for selecting 16 CE credits is fundamentally flawed. If the objective of this regulatory requirement is to make us 'cognizant engineers then the following issues need to be addressed before this is mandated;

1. This is equivalent to 5 graduate level courses (i.e. one full semester at school). How does the board envision the quality of the educational programs which would grant the CE credits to be monitored. I am afraid the programs would wind up to be blink-blink nod-nod and here is your  CE credit (sans a few hundred dollars from my pocket). If i am going to be spending a few hundred bucks, i want a rigorous curriculum which would motivate me and test my proficiency with a challenging exam.
2. Is there any guidance available on which courses are superior over the myriad other courses available?
3. Why does my choice of courses make me a better (or inferior) engineer than my fellow PEs who may have selected entirely different courses?
4. What is the basis for 16 credits? Why not more and why not less? What is the basis for this number.
5. If my normal daily work requires a  very high level of engineering skills, why can't i take credit for my normal activities.

It is my recommendation that the board as part of its membership fees include subsription to some relevant technical trade magazines which would be of better use to its members rather than taking a few courses with no tangible benefits.