I don't have a problem with the concept of continuing education but I have a general concern that the actual intent of DPOR (and the advocates of this regulation) will actually be manifested in implementation guidance, subject neither to public comment nor to approval by the APELSCIDLA Board.  Most engineers don't have a clue about the APA process and what will happen after we've been thanked by DPOR for our comments.

My specific questions/comments follow:

If the intent of the proposed regulation is to make architects, engineers and land surveyors "less of a threat to the public due to inadequate knowledge" (as stated in the TH-02), why did the economic impact analysis analyze (as a potential benefit of the regulation) the potential increase in employment hours for providers of continuing education?  By that logic, we could justify a requirement that automobile drivers take biennial safety courses on the basis that it might result in increased jobs related to drivers' safety training.

I also noted that the economic impact analysis provided ranges of costs for training, and subsequently used the low end of these ranges when estimating the total cost of compliance.  Most engineers would refrain from providing such a statistical analysis, on the basis that it would be unethical to do so.

The text of 18 VAC 10-20-680.C.1 invites arbitrary and capricious interpretation by all parties concerned.   The phrase "maintain, improve or expand the skills and knowledge relevant to the licensee's area of practice" carries entirely different meanings depending on the education and experience of the licensee (for example, with "only" a B.S. in Chemistry, I could comply with the letter of this regulation by taking courses through the VCCS system).  I doubt that DPOR can consistently enforce this provision without explicit implementation guidance; again, this guidance is not subject to the APA.

Paragraphs 680 C.2. through 680 C.4 are sufficiently vague as to be meaningless in the absence of implementation guidance.

Who in DPOR has the knowledge, skills and abilities sufficient to determine what specific continuing education is actually applicable to each of over a dozen engineering and architectural disciplines?   I am concerned that this function may be informally delegated to firms specializing in providing continuous education.

Finally, if DPOR has any ideas about facilitating this training, they need to hire people with relevant experience to do it, they need to schedule it well in advance and they need to offer it on a predictable, periodic basis.  I held a Nutrient Management Planner certification through DCR; their training was exceptionally good and was presented by people with on-the-field expertise, but it was irregularly scheduled with little advance notice; work schedule conflicts caused me to fall behind in the continuing education requirement.  A list of approved college courses in ethics, business management etc. would be helpful; although they'd be more labor intensive, they'd be cheaper and more relevant than most of the canned seminars for which I've received advertisements from the continuing ed vendors, and the college transcript would provide evidence of proficiency, as opposed to presence.