PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Environment.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Sep 17, 2015
Metropolitan Weather Hazards Protection Act of 2015
This bill directs the Department of Commerce to: (1) maintain and operate at least one Doppler weather radar site within 55 miles of each city in the United States with a population of more than 700,000, and (2) ensure that each such radar is available to the office of the National Weather Service that provides services to that city.
Commerce shall ensure that each such radar conforms with the same standards that apply to radars operated by Commerce, through the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, including standards relating to the use of dual-polarization technology or other technologies included in Weather Surveillance Radar, 1988, Doppler (WSR-88D) radars.
When determining the location for construction of a radar meeting the requirements of this Act, Commerce shall consider nearby counties that have populations over 130,000 and do not otherwise have radar beam coverage below 10,00 feet from such Doppler radars.
Commerce shall report to Congress on the Doppler weather radar sites that need to be constructed or acquired to meet this Act's requirements.
People & committees
Rep. Pittenger, Robert [R-NC-9] · R–NC
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Environment.
Referred to the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Dec 6, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.3538 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.3538 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.3538 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.3538 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.