Protect Our TEETH Act
Summary
What This Bill Does
The Protect Our TEETH Act amends the Safe Drinking Water Act's fluoride rulemaking process. Before EPA publishes a proposed rule establishing a maximum contaminant level goal for fluoride or specifying a fluoride maximum contaminant level in a national primary drinking water regulation, the Administrator must seek an agreement with the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine for a rapid response evidence review. The review timeline must be at least 90 days and no more than 180 days. EPA must provide the National Academies with all data and information used to justify the proposed rule, consider the review results, and publish the entirety of the final review report in the Federal Register as part of the proposed rule. EPA may use otherwise available funds to carry out the requirement.
Who Benefits and How
Public water systems benefit from an independent National Academies review before federal fluoride limits change. Dental health advocates benefit if fluoride rulemaking must consider a rapid evidence review before proposed changes. Drinking water consumers benefit from publication of the full evidence review in the Federal Register. National Academies reviewers benefit from access to all EPA data and information used to justify the proposed rule.
Who Bears the Burden and How
EPA must seek the review agreement, provide supporting data, consider results, and publish the final report. EPA rulemaking staff must add a 90-to-180-day evidence-review step before proposing fluoride MCLG or MCL changes. National Academies must complete rapid evidence reviews if it enters the agreement. Regulatory advocates seeking faster fluoride rule changes face a new procedural step.
Key Provisions
- Requires EPA to seek a National Academies rapid response evidence review before proposed fluoride MCLG or MCL rules.
- Requires the evidence review timeline to be no fewer than 90 days and no more than 180 days.
- Requires EPA to provide all data and information used to justify the proposed fluoride rule.
- Requires EPA to consider review results and publish the full final report in the Federal Register.
Evidence Chain:
This summary is generated from the full bill text using AI analysis. Expand "Detailed Analysis" below for identified beneficiaries/burden bearers with clause-level evidence links.
At a Glance
What This Bill Does
Requires EPA to obtain a 90-to-180-day National Academies rapid-response evidence review before proposing fluoride maximum contaminant level goals or national primary drinking water fluoride limits, publish the full review, and consider its results.
Key Policy Areas
Drinking Water, EPA, Fluoride
Primary Purpose
Requires EPA to obtain a 90-to-180-day National Academies rapid-response evidence review before proposing fluoride maximum contaminant level goals or national primary drinking water fluoride limits, publish the full review, and consider its results.
Policy Domains
Resolution provisions
Identified Gains
- Public water systems
- Dental health advocates
- Drinking water consumers
- National Academies reviewers
Identified Costs
- Environmental Protection Agency
- EPA rulemaking staff
- National Academies
- Regulatory advocates seeking faster fluoride rule changes
Sponsors
Legislative Progress
In CommitteeMr. Cleaver (for himself, Mr. Frost, Mr. Fields, Mr. Thanedar, …
Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Introduced in House
Stakeholder Effects
cui bono?How this legislation distributes effects. Mention counts reflect frequency, not effect magnitude.
EPA rulemaking staff, Environmental Protection Agency
Bill Structure & Actor Mappings
Who is "The Secretary" in each section?
We use a combination of our own taxonomy and classification in addition to large language models to assess meaning and potential beneficiaries. High confidence means strong textual evidence. Always verify with the original bill text.
Learn more about our methodology