We are requesting clarification on meeting Option 3 of credit SS 4.3 for an airport terminal. The stated requirement is to provide alternative-fuel refueling stations for 3% of the total vehicle parking capacity of the site, in order to reduce the pollution associated with vehicle use. This project is a gut renovation of an existing passenger terminal building, and adds no parking to the site. Airport vehicles that use the site include airside vehicles ("airside" means on the airplane side of the security checkpoint-these vehicles include baggage loaders, refueling trucks, etc.); and landside vehicles (on the public side of the security checkpoint): hotel and parking courtesy shuttles; taxis and destination buses; employee vehicles; passenger vehicles; and the airport\'s own vehicle fleet. Of all the vehicles that use our site, only the airside vehicles park within our LEED project boundary (this is approximately 50 vehicles in our case)-these have the most direct connection to the project. However, a vastly larger number of landside vehicles visit the terminal. We would not consider these as not part of our "parking capacity," since they either park outside our LEED project boundary or don\'t park at the airport at all (e.g. taxis), but we feel these landside vehicles should also be addressed because they constitute the largest share of vehicle pollution associated with the project. We propose requirements for both airside and landside vehicles. For airside vehicles, we note that a modest percentage of electric and propane-fueled vehicles is typical across the airline industry - many terminals have close to 25% of their fleet electrically powered. So we propose that to demonstrate exceeding the industry standard, airline terminals provide alternative fueling stations for a minimum of 50% of the airside vehicles that will be parked at the building. For landside vehicles, we note that most vehicles are parked on- and off-airport at varying distances from our terminal, while taxis and buses, which constitute a large share of airport traffic, do not park at the airport at all, so adapting the percentage of parking capacity calculation to our vehicle population is problematic. We also feel that any alternative fuel rapid fueling that can serve a large number of vehicles per day will provide a significant pollution-reduction benefit station (e.g. fluid types, such as biodiesel or compressed natural gas, and in the future hydrogen and electric battery swap stations). However, alternative fueling stations for landside vehicles can not be located near a passenger terminal building for security, access, and logistical reasons. So we propose that an airport must also operate at least one rapid alternative fueling station serving at least one class of vehicles (buses, taxis, passenger cars, etc.) that regularly serve the land side of the terminal. A fueling station counted for one terminal project could not be counted for future terminal projects. The total proposed requirement is to provide alternative fueling capacity for 50% of airside vehicles plus at least one landside rapid fueling station.