Numerous comments posted prior to mine speak to the potential low level of utility such a CE requirement would provide.

What is purpose of original P.E. licensing requirement?  It is to require that those practicing engineering meet standards of technical competency desired by our society.  Whose standards? 

1) Standards set by leaders within the engineering and scientific community?  I am not specifically aware of persons and their backgrounds that the Commonwealth uses to set those standards.  I trust the Board has a good answer to that question.

2) Do the licensing tests reflect standards of engineering of 1925? of 1950? of 1975? of 2000?  Science and engineering advance with time, a feature that makes the U.S.A great.  The point is that standards of technical competency must change with time as science and engineering develops advancements.  Again, the Board must understand the rate of change of science and engineering and become aware of the degree to which the standards on the EIT and PE tests "keep up" with those changes. 

Do the tests reflect industry standards, especially including "state of the art" science and engineering, from one year ago? from five years ago? from ten years ago?

Having appropriate industry and academic persons involved with (re)setting technical standards for licensing testing and having that activity reasonably correlate to the rate of change our society produces for science and engineering give rise to arguments FOR having licensed professionals demonstrate that they (the licensed professionals) are advancing their level of knowledge used in their practice, again with some correlation to current standards.

Continuing education must avoid stale seminars that are not meaningful to help professionals gain knowledge that is presented to (young) persons in college. 

Continuing education, if imposed as a regulatory requirement, must:

1) be viewed and designed as it will last in the future without end (no sunset provision), and

2) be a system that is as dynamic, or more dynamic, than the original licensing test standards, thus ensuring that CE will closely correlate to industry standards for the future.

On a more practical note, material science has experienced advances at a rapid rate over the last ten years or so, as have the pharmaceutical sciences.  Do I want my medical doctor to know about and apply to my health issues the latest technology available?  YES!  Do I want engineers to apply the latest in material science for industry produced items (bridges, medical equipment, chemical processes, other) that I use?  YES.

Are engineers obtaining some or all of this learning on the job?  I hope so.  If an engineer feels he or she is obtaining enough of technical advancements on the job, let that person take a one or two hour exam to avoid taking a 16 hour CE course. 

I know a P.E. that could not expeditiously obtain a license by reciprocity  in another state.  This person was indeed "keeping up" with state of the art in his area of engineering. With no home study or participation in refresher/preparation courses, he took the P.E. exam in the state for which he needed the license and passed it with ease. 

I hope the Board is able to consider the range of exposure to advancing science and engineering that professional persons experience as it considers and potentially develops a CE regulatory system.

Thank you.