As a PE, RCDD and LEED AP, I have gone far, as many of my colleages, in furthering my own value to my firm and myself by achieving continued education and certifications voluntarily.  However, with this experience, I have been frustrated by the prism by which accrediting agencies (DPOR included) often scrutinize and approve/dissapprove without any apparent published guidelines, criteria or stipulated achievement goals.

I recognize that the intent is to discourage retired "kitchen-table" engineers from entering into the market as a hobby with far from up-to-date training.  There is a value to having architects/engineers learning.  I can't argue with the need to apply some sort of system that encourages this.  However, I would STRONGLY URGE you to make sure that the system doesn't place more burdens to the providers than it provides in benefits to the public.

Personally, I have to participate in continuing education for several certifications I hold.  There should be a vehicle to allow me to apply training from any of them for the Virginia PE requirement.

You must consider the burden that this places on the engineering community.  A day of training per year is at an expense to the firm.  It's a day of lost billable time on top of the expense of the training course.  I think that in fairness, the BiCSi model of submitting a seminar/training for approval should be used if you really intend to go forward with this.  With their model, the applicant can submit the agenda, certificate, and supporting material documenting the training.  In many cases, on-line training is available (often for free) that qualifies (for electrical engineers, see www.datacenteruniversity.com).

Finally, there should be no exemptions for educators or anyone based on their discipline or career path. If it is right and fair to apply to ANY engineer, then it is right to apply to ALL of them.