Our firm is currently working on a project designated as a port of entry from Mexico to the US. We are requesting a clarification on how occupants should be calculated in SSc4.2. CIR Ruling (9/14/2006) established that "Excluding a certain type of transient occupant from the required bicycle stall and shower calculations is permissible per previous v2.1 CIR Rulings dated 6/4/2003 and 8/7/2002. Please include a short narrative indicating the number of visitors who have been excluded from these calculations and an explanation of why this type of visitor cannot reasonably be expected to arrive at this destination on or with a bicycle that would benefit from onsite storage facilities." These CIRs related to projects which were destination resorts and airline terminals. Our project, a US Port of Entry, has similar occupancy concerns that make it impractical to provide bicycle racks for all transient occupants. The vast majority of transients are typically crossing from Mexico into the US and are only passing through the facility. They consist of pedestrians or transients entering via automobile or motorcycles. If transients are commuting via bicycle they would typically not be spending time at the facility but merely passing through. This project anticipates achieving SSc4.1 (numerous bus lines within 1/4 mile and a rail line within 1/2 mile) and SSc4.3 and 4.4 (preferred parking for carpools and efficient vehicles). In addition to the previous credits this project will also obtain credit for SSc4.2. This project has 120 FTE and 22,720 transients. Using the above CIR Ruling, the occupant calculation would require 1,142 Bicycle Racks. However, in light of the fact that we believe the majority of the transients would simply be "passing through" this calculation seems excessive for this project. Our project team has identified the following option to address the intent of SSc4.2 and we would like to get direction from the USGBC on the following option: Provide bicycle storage for 5% FTE Showers will be provided to meet the requirement of 0.5% of FTE staff. The project team feels that this approach meets the intent of SSc4.2 for this type of facility. We respectfully request that the USGBC confirm that our approach is valid or provide clear guidance on how our assumptions should be modified to meet the intent of SSc4.2.