I am in favor of the proposed changes to the EIT/PE licensure requirements, with one request for clarification:

In 18VAC10-20-160 Definitions, strike “calculus-based” from the definition of “related science program.” The vast majority of the “related science” programs mentioned in the definition require physics courses that are not calculus-based. For the qualification under the “related science program” to be a relevant avenue to PE licensure, the requirement should just be for six semester hours of physics. A lack of calculus-based physics classes should not disqualify someone with a related science program degree (with six semester hours of non-calculus-based physics) who can pass the FE exam and has the number of required years of qualifying engineering experience. Many CET degrees that qualify someone for PE licensure do not require calculus-based physics; it would be inconsistent to require calculus-based physics for one qualifying degree and not for another under the same number of required years of qualifying engineering experience under 18VAC10-20-210. 

Under 18VAC10-20-160 Definitions:

"Related science program" means a four-year program in biology, chemistry, geology, geophysics, mathematics, physics, or other programs approved by the board. Programs must have a minimum of six semester hours of mathematics courses beyond algebra and trigonometry and a minimum of six semester hours of science courses in calculus-based physics in order to be considered a related science program.