DOCSLIB.ORG

Design Temperature Limit Reference Guide (2019 Edition)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Design Temperature Limit Reference Guide (2019 Edition) ENERGY STAR Single-Family New Homes, Version 3 / 3.1 ENERGY STAR Multifamily New Construction, Version 1 / 1.1 / OR-WA 1.2 Design Temperature Limit Reference Guide (2019 Edition) These 2019 Edition limits are permitted to be used with any National HVAC Design Report, and are required to be used for all National HVAC Design Reports generated on or after 10-01-2020 Introduction One requirement of the ENERGY STAR Single-Family New Homes and Multifamily New Construction (MFNC) programs is to use outdoor design temperatures that do not exceed the maximum cooling season temperature and minimum heating season temperature listed in this reference guide for the state and county, or territory, in which the home is to be certified. Only two exceptions apply: 1. Jurisdiction-Specified Temperatures: If the outdoor design temperatures to be used in load calculations are specified by the jurisdiction where the home will be certified, then these specified temperatures shall be used. 2. Temperature Exception Request: In rare cases, the designer may believe that an exception to the limits in the reference guide are warranted for a particular state and county, or territory. If so, the designer must complete and submit a Design Temperature Exception Request, including a justification for the exception, to [email protected] for review and approval prior to the home’s certification. To obtain the most accurate load calculations, EPA recommends that designers always use the ACCA Manual J, 8th edition, 1% cooling season design temperature and 99% heating season design temperature for the weather location that is geographically closest to the home to be certified. How to Use this Reference Guide 1. Determine the state and county, or territory, in which the home is to be certified. 2. Locate the state and county, or territory, in Exhibit 1 of this document. 3. Utilize the corresponding design temperatures in the load calculations, as follows, and document the values in Item 3.3 of the National HVAC Design Report (Item 3.4 for MFNC): a. Use a cooling season outdoor design temperature less than or equal to the 1% Cooling Temperature. b. Use a heating season outdoor design temperature equal to or greater than the 99% Heating Temperature. 4. If a Condition B Climate will be used to select the cooling sizing limit, then utilize the corresponding HDD/CDD Ratio and document the value in Item 4.14.2 of the National HVAC Design Report (Item 4.21 for MFNC). Example: A home will be certified in Travis County, TX. By consulting the reference guide, we find that the cooling season outdoor design temperature limit is 99 °F and the heating season outdoor design temperature limit is 28 °F. This means that the designer must: • Use a cooling season design temperature that is less than or equal to 99 °F. • Use a heating season design temperature that is equal to or greater than 28 °F. • Not use the cooling sizing limit for a Condition B Climate because the HDD/CDD Ratio is 0.3, which is < 2.0. Methodology The temperatures in this reference guide utilize the 1% cooling and 99% heating design temperatures in the ASHRAE 2017 Handbook of Fundamentals and Manual J Design Conditions 8th Edition. ASHRAE weather stations are indicated with the label “(A)”, while Manual J weather stations are indicated with the label “(M)”. Individual counties or territories were assigned the cooling and heating limits and HDD/CDD ratios in this document using the following logic: • If one or more weather stations were located either within the county / territory or within a 40-mile radius from the county / territory’s geographic center, then the highest cooling, lowest heating design temperature, and the highest HDD/CDD ratio was selected from among these weather stations. • If no weather stations were located either within the county / territory or within a 40-mile radius from the county / territory’s geographic center, then the cooling and heating design temperatures and HDD/CDD ratios of the nearest three weather stations were averaged and assigned to the entire county / territory, and all three weather stations were listed. • If the selected or averaged cooling design temperature limit for a county / territory was < 80 °F, then the county / territory was assigned a value of 80 °F, and the weather station (or stations) that would have been selected was marked with an asterisk. • Cooling design temperatures were rounded up to the nearest integer (e.g., 90.2 °F rounded up to 91 °F), and heating design temperatures were rounded down to the nearest integer (e.g., 14.8 °F rounded down to 14 °F). Revised 11/11/2020 Page 1 of 141 ENERGY STAR Single-Family New Homes, Version 3 / 3.1 ENERGY STAR Multifamily New Construction, Version 1 / 1.1 / OR-WA 1.2 Design Temperature Limit Reference Guide (2019 Edition) Table of Contents Introduction ..................................................................................................................................................................... 1 How to Use this Reference Guide .................................................................................................................................. 1 Methodology ................................................................................................................................................................... 1 Design Temperatures by State & County, or Territory ................................................................................................... 4 Alabama ..................................................................................................................................................................... 4 Alaska ......................................................................................................................................................................... 6 Arizona ....................................................................................................................................................................... 7 Arkansas .................................................................................................................................................................... 8 California .................................................................................................................................................................. 11 Colorado ................................................................................................................................................................... 14 Connecticut .............................................................................................................................................................. 17 Delaware .................................................................................................................................................................. 17 District of Columbia .................................................................................................................................................. 17 Florida ...................................................................................................................................................................... 17 Georgia ..................................................................................................................................................................... 20 Guam ........................................................................................................................................................................ 27 Hawaii ....................................................................................................................................................................... 27 Idaho ........................................................................................................................................................................ 27 Illinois ....................................................................................................................................................................... 29 Indiana ...................................................................................................................................................................... 33 Iowa .......................................................................................................................................................................... 37 Kansas ..................................................................................................................................................................... 41 Kentucky................................................................................................................................................................... 46 Louisiana .................................................................................................................................................................. 51 Maine ........................................................................................................................................................................ 54 Maryland ................................................................................................................................................................... 55 Massachusetts ......................................................................................................................................................... 56 Michigan
Load more

Recommended publications
  • (Asos) Implementation Plan
    AUTOMATED SURFACE OBSERVING SYSTEM (ASOS) IMPLEMENTATION PLAN VAISALA CEILOMETER - CL31 November 14, 2008 U.S. Department of Commerce National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Weather Service / Office of Operational Systems/Observing Systems Branch National Weather Service / Office of Science and Technology/Development Branch Table of Contents Section Page Executive Summary............................................................................ iii 1.0 Introduction ............................................................................... 1 1.1 Background.......................................................................... 1 1.2 Purpose................................................................................. 2 1.3 Scope.................................................................................... 2 1.4 Applicable Documents......................................................... 2 1.5 Points of Contact.................................................................. 4 2.0 Pre-Operational Implementation Activities ............................ 6 3.0 Operational Implementation Planning Activities ................... 6 3.1 Planning/Decision Activities ............................................... 7 3.2 Logistic Support Activities .................................................. 11 3.3 Configuration Management (CM) Activities....................... 12 3.4 Operational Support Activities ............................................ 12 4.0 Operational Implementation (OI) Activities .........................
    [Show full text]
  • Labels Facility Managers
    Bruce Visser Kathleen Ryan Norman County/Ada/Twin Valley Airport D00 Aitkin Municipal Airport - Steve Kurtz Field AIT PO Box 9 109 - 1st Ave NW Ada MN 56510 Aitkin MN 56431-1307 Jim Hanson Kreg Anderson Albert Lea Municipal Airport AEL Alexandria Municipal Airport - Chandler Field AXN 73950 - 275th Street 2604 Aga Drive Clarks Grove MN 56016 Alexandria MN 56308 Greg Ruether Bruce Budahn Appleton Municipal Airport AQP Austin Municipal Airport AUM 149 South Munsterman 710 - 21st Street NE Appleton MN 56208 Austin MN 55912 Craig Taylor Bill Masterson Backus Municipal Airport 7Y3 Bagley Municipal Airport 7Y4 1633 24th Ave SW PO Box 178 Backus MN 56435 Bagley MN 56621-0178 Adam Forsberg Karen Weller Baudette International Airport BDE Bemidji Regional Airport BJI 1103 Airport Road NW 3824 Moberg Dr NW, Suite 101 Baudette MN 56623 Bemidji MN 56601 Dan Gens Terry Baird Benson Municipal Airport - Veterans Field BBB Big Falls Municipal Airport 7Y9 1410 Kansas Ave PO Box 196 Benson MN 56215 Big Falls MN 56627 Kevin Hovila Luke Steier Bigfork Municipal Airport FOZ Blue Earth Municipal Airport SBU PO Box 196 7575 Highway 169 Bigfork MN 56628 Blue Earth MN 56013 Kenneth Reichert Steve Wright, Director Bowstring Airport 9Y0 Brainerd Lakes Regional Airport BRD 47703 Nutmeg Road 16384 Airport Road, Suite 5 Deer River MN 56636 Brainerd MN 56401 Dave Bohmer Chris Fredrick Brooten Municipal Airport/John O. Bohmer Field 6D1 Buffalo Municipal Airport CFE 1080 Front Street, Box 400 212 Central Ave Brooten MN 56316 Buffalo MN 55313 Brian Pogodzinski Lucas Milz
    [Show full text]
  • Advertising Opportunity Guide Print
    AAAE’S AAAE DELIVERS FOR AIRPORT EXECUTIVES NO.1 RATED PRODUCT M AG A Z IN E AAAEAAAE DELIVERSDELIVERS FOR AIRPORTAIRPORT EXECUTIVESEXECUTIVES AAAE DELIVERS FOR AIRPORT EXECUTIVES AAAE DELIVERS FOR AIRPORT EXECUTIVES MMAGAZINE AG A Z IN E MAGAZINE MAGAZINE www.airportmagazine.net | August/September 2015 www.airportmagazine.net | June/July 2015 www.airportmagazine.net | February/March 2015 NEW TECHNOLOGY AIDS AIRPORTS, PASSENGERS NON-AERONAUTICAL REVENUE SECURITYU.S. AIRPORT TRENDS Airport Employee n Beacons Deliver Airport/ Screening Retail Trends Passenger Benefits n Hosting Special Events UAS Security Issues Editorial Board Outlook for 2015 n CEO Interview Airport Diversity Initiatives Risk-Based Security Initiatives ADVERTISING OPPORTUNITY GUIDE PRINT ONLINE DIGITAL MOBILE AIRPORT MAGAZINE AIRPORT MAGAZINE ANDROID APP APPLE APP 2016 | 2016 EDITORIAL MISSION s Airport Magazine enters its 27th year of publication, TO OUR we are proud to state that we continue to produce AVIATION Atop quality articles that fulfill the far-ranging needs of airports, including training information; the lessons airports INDUSTRY have learned on subjects such as ARFF, technology, airfield and FRIENDS terminal improvements; information about the state of the nation’s economy and its impact on air service; news on regulatory and legislative issues; and much more. Further, our magazine continues to make important strides to bring its readers practical and timely information in new ways. In addition to printed copies that are mailed to AAAE members and subscribers, we offer a full digital edition, as well as a free mobile app that can be enjoyed on Apple, Android and Kindle Fire devices. In our app you will discover the same caliber of content you’ve grown to expect, plus mobile-optimized text, embedded rich media, and social media connectivity.
    [Show full text]
  • May 7,2009 Be Available in the Near Future at Http
    Monlo no De porlme nf of lronsoo rt oii on Jim Lvnch, Dîrector *ruhrylaùtlthNde 2701 Prospect Avenue Brîon Schweífzer, Gov ernor PO Box 201001 Heleno MT 59620-1001 May 7,2009 Ted Mathis Gallatin Field 850 Gallatin Field Road #6 Belgrade MT 59714 Subject: Montana Aimorts Economic knpact Study 2009 Montana State Aviation System Plan Dear Ted, I am pleased to announce that the Economic Impact Study of Montana Airports has been completed. This study was a two-year collaborative eflort between the Montana Department of Transportation (MDT) Aeronautics Division, the Federal Aviation Administration, Wilbur Smith and Associates and Morrison Maierle Inc. The enclosed study is an effort to break down aviation's significant contributions in Montana and show how these impacts affect economies on a statewide and local level. Depending on your location, you may also find enclosed several copies of an individual economic summary specific to your airport. Results ofthe study clearly show that Montana's 120 public use airports are a major catalyst to our economy. Montana enplanes over 1.5 million prissengers per year at our 15 commercial service airports, half of whom are visiting tourists. The economic value of aviation is over $1.56 billion and contributes nearly 4.5 percent to our total gross state product. There arc 18,759 aviation dependent positions in Montana, accounting for four percent of the total workforce and $600 million in wages. In addition to the economic benefits, the study also highlights how Montana residents increasingly depend on aviation to support their healtþ welfare, and safety. Montana airports support critical services for medical care, agriculture, recreation, emergency access, law enforcement, and fire fighting.
    [Show full text]
  • LE SUEUR AIRPORT COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA Tuesday, March 31, 2019 Virtual Meeting 4:30 P.M
    LE SUEUR AIRPORT COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA Tuesday, March 31, 2019 Virtual Meeting 4:30 P.M. 1. Call to Order (Welcome New Members) 2. Approval of Agenda 3. Approval of minutes from December 5, 2019 meeting 4. Projects Update – Silas Parmer A. Property Acquisition B. Taxi-lane Extension C. Taxi-lane Rehabilitation 5. CIP Update – Silas Parmar 6. EDA Partnership – Newell 7. Airport Manager Report 8. Next Meeting: May 28 or June 2 or June 3, 2020 at 4:30 p.m. 9. Adjourn Airport Administration Office 1500 North Commerce St., Le Sueur, MN 56058 Phone (507) 665-9941 • Fax (507) 665-9948 Minutes of the Airport Commission December 5, 2019 Members Present: Scott Schlueter, Jack Roberts, Debra Wilbright and Chairperson Krogmann Members Absent: Darrell Kolden Others Present; Airport & Facilities Manager Andrew Cemenski, Public Services Director Rich Kucera, Silas Parmar, Airport Consultant/Project Manager from Bolton & Menk and Mike Doherty. The Meeting was called to order by Chairperson Krogmann in the Council Chambers at the SRE building at the Airport at 4:30 PM. Approval of Minutes: Motion by Commissioner Schlueter, seconded by Commissioner Roberts to approve the September 5, 2019 minutes with the correction of Commissioner Schlueter and not Commissioner Roberts for meeting with the EDA, all voted in favor. Projects Update – Silas Parmar: Reported by Silas Parmar, Airport Specialist/Project Manager Discussion on the taxilane extension project, taxilane rehabilitation project and T-hanger project. Motion by Commissioner Roberts, seconded by Commissioner Wilbright to recommend to the City Council to rehabilitate the south taxilane project. All voted in favor.
    [Show full text]
  • Mndot Statewide Airport Economic Study
    MINNESOTA Statewide Airport Economic Impact Study 2019 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TOTAL ANNUAL STATEWIDE ECONOMIC IMPACTS FOR ALL MINNESOTA PUBLIC AIRPORTS STUDY MAC ALL PUBLIC ANNUAL TOTALS AIRPORTS AIRPORTS AIRPORTS Employment 13,147 80,890 94,037 Payroll $570.1 million $3.9 billion $4.4 billion Spending $1.0 billion $12.8 billion $13.8 billion Photo Credit: Emmanuel Canaan Annual Economic Activity $ 1.6 billion $16.6 billion $18.2 billion Note: For more information on the MAC studies, visit metroairports.org. STUDY OVERVIEW ECONOMIC IMPACTS FOR ALL PUBLIC AIRPORTS Minnesota is served by an extensive system of 133 public general aviation and commercial ANNUAL EMPLOYMENT ANNUAL PAYROLL service airports that provide essential transportation links, support aviation 94,037 $4.4 B services, and generate a significant amount of economic activity. Starting in late 2018, the ANNUAL ECONOMIC ANNUAL SPENDING ACTIVITY Minnesota Department of Transportation’s Office of Aeronautics studied 126 of these $13.8 B $18.2 B airports to measure their economic impact on the state economy. Throughout this document these 126 airports are referred to STUDY & MAC AIRPORTS as “study airports.” This map shows the geographic location for study and MAC airports. Economic impact results from studies conducted by the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC), for their seven airports in the Minneapolis-Saint Paul Metropolitan Area, are incorporated to provide a comprehensive summary of the annual economic impacts generated by all 133 public airports. Since a similar approach was used to estimate impacts for the MAC airports, the findings from the two separate efforts are combined to produce an overall statewide total, as shown in the table on this page.
    [Show full text]
  • Minnesota Airport Land Use Compatibility Manual
    APPENDICES Contents MINNESOTA AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILITY MANUAL APPENDICES APPENDIX 1: Acronyms APPENDIX 2: Glossary APPENDIX 3: Surveys of Minnesota Public Airports – Supplemental Information APPENDIX 4: Contacts APPENDIX 5: Additional Resources APPENDIX 6: Methods for Determining Concentrations of People APPENDIX 7: Third Party Risk Information APPENDIX 8: Takings Law Discussion APPENDIX 9: Additional Federal Statutes and Regulations APPENDIX 10: Sample Easement and Other Agreements APPENDIX 11: FAA 7460-1 Form (Sample) APPENDIX 12: Plants Attractive to Wildlife APPENDIX 13: Wildlife Management APPENDIX 14: Airport Noise Mitigation and Strategies State of Minnesota Airport Compatibility Manual Department of Transportation/ Office of Aeronautics Appendix – Page i APPENDICES Contents [This page intentionally left blank] State of Minnesota Airport Compatibility Manual Department of Transportation/Office of Aeronautics Appendix – Page ii APPENDIX 1: Acronyms APPENDIX 1: ACRONYMS LIST OF ACRONYMS The following is a comprehensive list of acronyms commonly used in aviation land use planning and may serve as a guide for location the appropriate definition in this glossary. AC Advisory Circular ACIP Airport Capital Improvement Plan AGL Above Ground Level AIP Airport Improvement Program ALP Airport Layout Plan APO FAA Office of Aviation Policy and Plan APP FAA Office of Airport Planning and Programming ARC Airport Reference Code ASTM American Society of Testing and Materials AWOS Automated Weather Observing System BOA Bureau of Aeronautics
    [Show full text]
  • Design Temperature Limit Reference Guide (2019 Edition)
    ENERGY STAR Single-Family New Homes ENERGY STAR Multifamily New Construction Design Temperature Limit Reference Guide (2019 Edition) These 2019 Edition limits are permitted to be used with any National HVAC Design Report, and are required to be used for all National HVAC Design Reports generated on or after 10-01-2020 Introduction One requirement of the ENERGY STAR Single-Family New Homes and Multifamily New Construction (MFNC) programs is to use outdoor design temperatures that do not exceed the maximum cooling season temperature and minimum heating season temperature listed in this reference guide for the state and county, or territory, in which the home is to be certified. Only two exceptions apply: 1. Jurisdiction-Specified Temperatures: If the outdoor design temperatures to be used in load calculations are specified by the jurisdiction where the home will be certified, then these specified temperatures shall be used. 2. Temperature Exception Request: In rare cases, the designer may believe that an exception to the limits in the reference guide are warranted for a particular state and county, or territory. If so, the designer must complete and submit a Design Temperature Exception Request, including a justification for the exception, to [email protected] for review and approval prior to the home’s certification. To obtain the most accurate load calculations, EPA recommends that designers always use the ACCA Manual J, 8th edition, 1% cooling season design temperature and 99% heating season design temperature for the weather location that is geographically closest to the home to be certified. How to Use this Reference Guide 1.
    [Show full text]
  • FAA's Record of Decision to Adopt U.S. Air Force Final Environmental
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION ADOPTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT AND FAA RECORD OF DECISION FOR Establishment of the Powder River Training Complex Located in Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wyoming List of Abbreviations/Acronyms ACHP Advisory Council on Historic Preservation AFB Air Force Base AGL Above Ground Level ARTCC Air Route Traffic Control Center ATC Air Traffic Control ATCAA Air Traffic Control Assigned Airspace ATREP Air Traffic Representative CDNL C-Weighted Day-Night Average Sound Level CEQ Council of Environmental Quality CFR Code of Federal Regulations DNL yearly day/night average sound level DOD Department of Defense EIS Environmental Impact Statement EPA Environmental Protection Agency FAA Federal Aviation Administration GHG Green House Gas IFR Instrument Flight Rules JO Joint Order LFE Large Force Exercise MOA Military Operations Area MSL Mean Sea Level MTR Military Training Route NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards NAS National Airspace System NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NHPA National Historic Preservation Affairs NM Nautical Mile NOI Notice of Intent NOTAM Notice to Airmen NPS National Park Service NR Non rulemaking NRHP National Register of Historic Places NWR National Wildlife Refuge P/CG Pilot Controller Glossary PRTC Powder River Training Complex ROD Record of Decision SEL Single Event Level SHPOs State Historic Preservation Offices SUA Special use Airspace THPOs Tribal Historic Preservation Offices USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service VFR Visual Flight Rule VOC Volatile Organic Compounds FAA Record of Decision 2 Powder River Training Complex Introduction This document serves as a record of: (1) the Federal Aviation Administration’s (“FAA”) adoption of the United States Air Force’s Final Environmental Impact Statement (“Final EIS”) for the proposed Powder River Training Complex in Montana, Wyoming, South Dakota, and North Dakota; and (2) the FAA’s decision regarding modification and establishment of airspace for the PRTC.
    [Show full text]
  • Fall Board of Directors Meetings
    Host Airport AIRPORTS COUNCIL INTERNATIONAL - NORTH AMERICA FALL BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETINGS SEPTEMBER 16, 2017 // FORT WORTH, TEXAS 2017 FALL BOARD MEETING Table of Contents ACTION ITEMS Consent Agenda July 2017 Minutes .......................................................................................................................................................... 6 Membership Report ....................................................................................................................................................14 New Business 2017 and 2018 Downes Award ............................................................................................................................. 44 ACI World Governing Board Appointments ..................................................................................................45 Financial Report FY 2017 Financial Review ....................................................................................................................................... 46 Acceptance of FY 2017 Audit ...............................................................................................................................52 REPORTS Chair's Report .............................................................................................................................................. 73 President and CEO's Report .................................................................................................................... 75 Canadian Policy Council Report .............................................................................................................77
    [Show full text]
  • FAA Runway Safety Report FY 2000
    FAA Runway Safety Report Runway Incursion Trends and Initiatives at Towered Airports in the United States, FY 2000 – FY 2003 August 2004 Preface THE 2004 RUNWAY SAFETY REPORT1 presents an assessment of runway safety in the United States for fiscal years FY 2000 through FY 2003. The report also highlights runway safety initiatives intended to reduce the severity, number, and rate of runway incursions. Both current progress and historical data regarding the reduction of runway incursions can be found on the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) web site (http://www.faa.gov). Effective February 8, 2004, the FAA implemented an organizational change that created an Air Traffic Organization (ATO) in addition to its Regulatory functions. Safety Services, within the ATO, has assumed the responsibilities of the former Office of Runway Safety. Therefore, this FAA Runway Safety Report, which covers a period prior to the implemen- tation of the ATO, is the last in a series of reports that exclusively presents information on runway safety. Safety performance will be an integral part of future ATO products. 1 A glossary of terms and a list of acronyms used in this report are provided in Appendix A. Federal Aviation Administration 1 Executive Summary REDUCING THE RISKS OF RUNWAY INCURSIONS AND RUNWAY COLLISIONS is a top priority of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Runway safety management is a dynamic process that involves measuring runway incursions as well as understanding the factors that contribute to runway collision risks and taking actions to reduce these risks. Runway incursion severity ratings (Categories A through D) indicate the potential for a collision or the margin of safety associated with an event.
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Register Volume 31 Number 14
    FEDERAL REGISTER VOLUME 31 NUMBER 14 Friday, January 21, Washington, D.C. Pages 803-866 Agencies in this issue— The President Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service Agriculture Department Atomic Energy Commission Automotive Agreement Adjustment Assistance Board Civil Aeronautics Board Civil Service Commission Coast Guard Commodity Credit Corporation Consumer and Marketing Service Defense Department Education Office Engineers Corps Federal Aviation Agency Federal Communications Commission Federal Contract Compliance Office Federal Housing Administration Federal Power Commission Housing and Urban Development Department Immigration and Naturalization Service Interstate Commerce Commission Labor Department Land Management Bureau Post Office Department Securities and Exchange Commission Treasury Department Detailed list of Contents appears inside. 5-Year Compilations of Presidential Documents Supplements to Title 3 of the Code of Federal Regulations The Supplements to Title 3 of the Code the President and published in the Federal of Federal Regulations contain the full text Register during the period June 2, 19 38 - of proclamations, Executive orders, reor­ December 3 1 , 1963. Tabular finding aids ganization plans, trade agreement letters, and subject indexes are included. The in­ and certain administrative orders issued by dividual volumes are priced as follows: 1938—1943 Compilation— $3.00 1949-1953 Compilation— $7.00 1943-1948 Compilation— $7.00 1954-1958 Compilation— $4.00 1959—1963 Compilation— $6.00 Compiled by Office of
    [Show full text]