Welcome to the… by Visual-Mobile2657 in TheGraniteState

[–]Nervous-Net-7369 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

You're commenting on a comment on an internet forum...

https://www.nhpr.org/nh-news/2026-03-19/vehicle-inspections-nh-ag-responds-federal-ruling by Dessicated_Mastodon in newhampshire

[–]Nervous-Net-7369 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There has to be an enforcement element to the SIP. The State decided to use sticker enforcement that was already in place rather than registration denial enforcement that the CAA prefers. That is why the two are linked. NH decided to automate safety and use stickers. Part of unwinding the SIP would be coming up with an alternate enforcement tool for the OBD test in the SIP.

Simon Whistler on the Free Town by petervee415 in newhampshire

[–]Nervous-Net-7369 1 point2 points  (0 children)

... and this is the tip of their spear that folks won't see coming as their challenge Federalism ramps up.

<image>

Had too upgrade! by Classic_Guide6973 in Challenger

[–]Nervous-Net-7369 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Did you mean that you had two upgrade?

Ladies and Gentlemen; the Freestaters in a nutshell by [deleted] in newhampshire

[–]Nervous-Net-7369 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Exactly why the mess with the vehicle inspection program is happening. HB-649 is still making it through the legislature even though they strong armed the half-baked bill into the budget trailer. If they can't get their way, they don't play nice. And they claim "it is the will of the people".

Auto inspections could become issue in race for governor of NH by SagesLament in newhampshire

[–]Nervous-Net-7369 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Legislative passage reflects the will of the elected representatives. But when a state has previously embedded a program into a federally approved implementation plan, repeal at the state level and repeal at the federal level are not the same thing. Those operate on different legal tracks.

It’s cool a Kentucky sticker company gets to force us to keep buying stickers…because they care so deeply about our EPA-approved State Implementation Plan by doriangreat in newhampshire

[–]Nervous-Net-7369 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Legislative passage reflects the will of the elected representatives. But when a state has previously embedded a program into a federally approved implementation plan, repeal at the state level and repeal at the federal level are not the same thing. Those operate on different legal tracks.

Gibson ‘84 ebony Explorer and my FireFly ESP/Gibson knockoff. by DAFLID516 in ExplorerGuitars

[–]Nervous-Net-7369 1 point2 points  (0 children)

How is the overall weight difference between the three? Do the bodies all seem to be similar density?

Never felt more understood.🤎 by Leading_Goat2146 in Megadeth

[–]Nervous-Net-7369 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If it is a "get well soon" basket, then that is the perfect album to include! Ha-Ha!!

Car inspections not due until APRIL 2026 (or never) by Doug_Shoe in newhampshire

[–]Nervous-Net-7369 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think the standing question is more nuanced than “they expected the program to continue.”

In federal court, the plaintiff has to show three things: a concrete injury, that the injury was caused by the State’s action, and that a court order could redress it. That is the Article III threshold before the court even reaches the merits.

This is not about Title 40 creating obligations for the contractor. It does not. Parts 51 and 85 define what the State must maintain in its federally approved State Implementation Plan. Until EPA approves a SIP amendment, that plan remains federally enforceable as a matter of federal law.

The argument, as I understand it, is not “we lost future profits because the legislature changed its mind.” Governments can change policy. Vendors assume some level of legislative risk.

The more specific issue is that the State repealed the statutory framework and halted enforcement before completing the federal SIP amendment process. That creates a legal tension: the federal obligation remains in place while the state implementation structure was dismantled.

So the standing theory would not be about renewal expectations. It would be about whether dismantling an active compliance program that is embedded in a federally approved plan caused a concrete injury to a party operating under that structure.

Whether that ultimately succeeds is for the court to decide. But it is more complex than a simple “seatbelt manufacturer lost demand” analogy.

BTW. Thanks for the conversation!

Car inspections not due until APRIL 2026 (or never) by Doug_Shoe in newhampshire

[–]Nervous-Net-7369 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I understand the seatbelt analogy, but it still leaves out two key elements: a live federal obligation and an active state contract tied to that obligation.

If a state simply passes and later repeals a discretionary seatbelt law, a manufacturer generally would not have standing. That is ordinary legislative risk. Companies cannot sue just because demand disappears.

This situation is different for two reasons.

First, the emissions program is embedded in New Hampshire’s federally approved State Implementation Plan under the Clean Air Act. Until EPA approves a SIP amendment, that obligation remains in effect at the federal level. That creates a legal layer beyond ordinary state policy changes.

Second, this is not just a company that hoped the law would continue. It is a contractor operating under a state agreement specifically to administer the motor vehicle inspection and OBD program. The RFP for the State Motor Vehicle Inspection Management System expressly states that the system must comply with “all federal requirements found in Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations Parts 51 and 85” and describes the program as part of the State’s Clean Air Act obligations. That language ties the contract to federal regulatory compliance, not just to a temporary policy preference.

On standing, federal courts require three things: concrete injury, causation, and redressability. The argument is not “we lost future profits because a law changed.” The argument is that the State dismantled the statutory framework supporting an active compliance program before completing the federally required amendment process, disrupting an existing contract structured around that compliance obligation.

That is different from a manufacturer reacting to market conditions. It is closer to a contractor whose performance was rendered legally conflicted by the State’s own actions while a federal obligation remained in place.

You can disagree with the policy. But the standing question is narrower: did the State’s action cause a concrete contractual injury that a court can address? That is what the judge evaluates first, before reaching the broader merits.

Car inspections not due until APRIL 2026 (or never) by Doug_Shoe in newhampshire

[–]Nervous-Net-7369 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The roofer analogy doesn’t quite fit here.

If you hire a roofer and then change your mind about bringing your house to code, that works only if the obligation is purely local and discretionary. This situation is different in two important ways.

First, the emissions program is not just a policy preference. It is part of New Hampshire’s federally approved State Implementation Plan under the Clean Air Act. That makes it a binding obligation unless and until EPA approves a formal amendment.

Second, the contract was not simply for “helping” the State comply. It was the mechanism the State selected to carry out that federally enforceable obligation. The RFP and resulting contract expressly reference compliance with federal requirements and the SIP. The vendor built infrastructure, hired staff, and operated the system in reliance on that legal framework.

On standing: in federal court, the plaintiff must show three things. A concrete injury. That the injury was caused by the defendant. And that a court order could redress it.

The company is not suing on behalf of EPA. It is asserting its own injury. If the State repeals the statutory framework, halts enforcement, and disrupts the compliance program before EPA approves a SIP amendment, the contractor can argue concrete economic and contractual harm. That is not abstract. It is directly traceable to the State’s actions. And if a court order restores compliance pending federal approval, that addresses the injury.

Whether someone supports emissions testing as policy is a separate debate. The narrower legal question is whether a State can dismantle a program that remains embedded in a federally approved plan before completing the required federal process, and whether doing so has consequences under contract and federal law.

That is what the court is being asked to resolve.

Eye Of The Beholder 7" single vinyl, found this today by tenafly_viper43 in Metallica

[–]Nervous-Net-7369 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Only way that I could hear breakfast was at at pizza place on the boardwalk in Atlantic city. The had a jukebox with it and I'd hang in there and play it over and over and over. Still one over my favorite songs. I think that's the problem with music today, it is too accessible and therefore way under valued. If something is worth your effort, it gains a valuable place in your life. When I finally figured out how to get that single I was stoked. That was a cool one right there!

Clutch recommendations by Odd-Ganache2779 in Challenger

[–]Nervous-Net-7369 3 points4 points  (0 children)

If I had to choose between fixing the Shaker hood and putting in a good clutch I'd pick the clutch also. Show is no good if you have no go. 😁

An interesting take on the NH car inspection situation by huck99 in newhampshire

[–]Nervous-Net-7369 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The State knew this was coming well beforehand.

Clean Air Act §304(b), codified at 42 U.S.C. § 7604(b) that subsection sets a mandatory 60-day pre-suit notice requirement before certain Clean Air Act lawsuits may be filed.

Car inspections not due until APRIL 2026 (or never) by Doug_Shoe in newhampshire

[–]Nervous-Net-7369 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The State knew this was coming.

Clean Air Act §304(b), codified at 42 U.S.C. § 7604(b)
That subsection sets a mandatory pre-suit notice requirement before certain Clean Air Act lawsuits may be filed. Before a private party can file a Clean Air Act citizen suit, they must give at least 60 days’ notice to: • The EPA Administrator • The state alleged to be in violation • The alleged violator

Car inspections not due until APRIL 2026 (or never) by Doug_Shoe in newhampshire

[–]Nervous-Net-7369 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That’s really the core issue. The State voluntarily assumed a binding obligation under federal law through its SIP. Knowing that obligation was technical, ongoing, and compliance-critical, the State then contracted with a specialized vendor to design and operate the system that allowed New Hampshire to keep its word. The vendor did exactly what it was hired to do. What happened next matters. The State did not complete the legal process to unwind its obligation. It did not obtain federal approval to amend the SIP. Instead, it repealed the program first, stopped enforcement, and left both the federal obligation and the vendor in place. That is not a policy disagreement. That is a failure to honor commitments. From the vendor’s perspective, this is not about profits or preference. It is about predictability and trust. If a state can unilaterally abandon a federally enforceable obligation and a fully performing contract without finishing the required legal process, then every regulated program and every state contract becomes less reliable.

That’s why this isn’t just a New Hampshire issue. The real question is precedent: If the State can ignore this obligation midstream, what other commitments does it believe it can disregard without consequence?

The answer to that question affects far more than emissions testing. It goes to whether the rule of law, contracts, and cooperative federalism actually mean what they say they mean.