New Hampshire House Bill HB1407

New Hampshire 2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 12/4/25
• Refer: 12/4/25
• Report Pass: 3/4/26
• Engrossed: 3/17/26
• Refer: 3/17/26
• Report Pass: 4/29/26

Caption

enabling veterinary technicians to provide rabies vaccinations while indirectly supervised by a veterinarian.

Summary

HB 1407 amends New Hampshire’s rabies vaccination laws to allow veterinary technicians to administer rabies vaccines to dogs, cats, and ferrets, rather than reserving that task exclusively to licensed veterinarians. The bill states that a veterinary technician may perform the vaccination while working under the direct supervision of a veterinarian, and it keeps the existing requirement that the vaccine be a USDA-licensed rabies vaccine. It also updates the statutory definition of “vaccination against rabies” to remove language limiting the procedure to veterinarians only. The bill also revises related paperwork and recordkeeping provisions. It allows the owner’s rabies statement to be completed on the same day as the vaccination rather than requiring it to be done in the veterinarian’s presence, and it requires either the veterinarian or the veterinary technician to complete the rabies vaccination certificate in triplicate. The certificate must still be distributed to the owner, retained by the supervising veterinarian, and filed with the local town or city clerk within 40 days. The act takes effect 60 days after passage.

Impact

HB 1407 would amend RSA 436:99, RSA 436:100, RSA 436:101, and RSA 436:102 to expand who may administer rabies vaccinations and to conform the documentation requirements to that change. In practice, it broadens the pool of licensed animal-health workers who can perform rabies shots under veterinary supervision, which may increase access and efficiency for veterinary practices and pet owners while preserving the existing rabies-control reporting and tag requirements. The bill does not change the underlying vaccination schedule, vaccine licensing standards, or local clerk reporting obligations.

Sentiment

Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee testimony or votes in the provided materials, the overall sentiment appears neutral to supportive. The measure is framed as a practical professional-scope adjustment rather than a major policy change, suggesting it is intended to streamline routine veterinary services. No formal opposition, amendments in the record, or vote history are provided here to indicate significant controversy.

Contention

The main point of potential contention is the shift from veterinarian-only administration to allowing veterinary technicians to vaccinate under supervision. Supporters would likely view this as a workforce and access-to-care improvement, while critics could question whether indirect supervision is sufficient for a rabies vaccine, given the public-health significance of rabies control. A secondary issue is the change to the owner statement requirement, which no longer requires completion in the veterinarian’s presence; some may see that as a useful administrative simplification, while others may view it as a reduction in procedural safeguards.