In Win For NH GOP, EPA's Zeldin Pledges Swift Review Of Vehicle Mandate Case

By Michael Graham, NH Journal

During the debate over legislation ending New Hampshire’s unpopular vehicle inspection mandate, supporters insisted that the Trump administration’s EPA would quickly resolve any conflict with federal environmental policy.

On Monday, they got the word they’d been waiting for.

“EPA has up to 18 months to decide on state petitions under the (Clean Air Act), but after receiving New Hampshire’s petitions on December 24, 2025, the agency plans to move much faster,” the Environmental Protection Agency announced in a press release.

“The EPA expects to share its proposed decision by early summer and issue a final decision before the end of the year, well ahead of schedule. This reduced timeline shows the Trump EPA’s focus on working closely with states to adhere to all statutory requirements and finish projects efficiently.”

It’s a big win for Republicans who pushed the law through the legislature, but now face pushback from a major vendor and a federal judge.

For Gordon-Darby, the Kentucky-based company with the state contract to handle the inspection process, this is a financial story. But because it chose to challenge the state’s new law based on EPA regulations, the dispute is now one of the most interesting federalism clashes in the country — a state trying to scrap a regulatory program, and a federal court saying it can’t (at least not yet).

Gordon-Darby went to court, not to demand that its contract be maintained, but to argue the state cannot eliminate its emissions-inspection program without first obtaining EPA approval for changes to a preexisting State Implementation Plan (SIP) regarding ozone regulations.

Because New Hampshire is part of the Ozone Transport Region (OTR) — a coalition of Northeastern states required to adopt additional anti-smog measures — its SIP includes the inspection and maintenance (I/M) program.

In January, U.S. District Court Judge Landya McCafferty sided with the inspection vendor and issued a preliminary injunction ordering the state to continue the inspection program until the EPA signs off on the change.

Now, EPA chief Lee Zeldin has indicated that change is coming.

“This process is a direct reflection of cooperative federalism based on New Hampshire’s needs. EPA is working at record speed with the state to ensure all decisions are made in accordance with requirements under the Clean Air Act and to provide the people of New Hampshire relief from burdensome regulations,” Zeldin said. “The Trump EPA firmly believes that collaborating with our state air partners is the best way to deliver results and ensure clean air for all Americans.”

Republicans are delighted.

“I applaud Administrator Zeldin for standing up for Granite Staters as a foreign corporation tries to unilaterally overrule state law,” said House Majority Leader Jason Osborne (R-Auburn).

Osborne framed the fight in sweeping terms, blasting “foreign corporations, unaccountable federal judges, and House Democrats” while pledging to “put the final nail in the coffin” of the inspection program.

Executive Councilor John Stephen (R-Manchester) has been especially critical of the federal court in this case, arguing it overstepped its power in an attempt to force elected legislators to enact a law.

“I thank Administrator Zeldin and the EPA for respecting the will of New Hampshire’s elected officials. Today’s EPA announcement makes clear the proper path forward is cooperative federalism through the federal approval process, not a federal court commandeering state officials to administer a program that no longer exists.”

Rep. Michael Granger (R-Milton), one of the most outspoken critics of the state’s inspection mandates, told NHJournal in January that New Hampshire was seeking the clearance it needed, and that EPA action was only a matter of time.

Asked about Monday’s announcement, Granger called the EPA’s expedited processing “a welcome gift to New Hampshire drivers.”

Meanwhile, New Hampshire officials are staying on offense.

In filings with the First Circuit, state attorneys argue the lawsuit is less about clean air and more about a contractor trying to salvage a lucrative government deal.

“This case is a private contract action masquerading as a Clean Air Act citizen suit,” Assistant Attorneys General Mark Lucas and Joshua Harrison wrote.

They also argue the court’s order crosses a constitutional line by effectively forcing the state to run a program it has repealed.

The injunction, they wrote, “blatantly commandeers state officials to implement a federal regulatory program” — a potential violation of the anti-commandeering doctrine, which bars the federal government from forcing states to administer federal policies.

Meanwhile, the fundamental question remains: Can the federal government — through courts and regulatory structures — force a state to carry out a program its elected officials have repealed?

Stephen believes he knows the answer.

“The legislature repealed the inspection program. The governor signed it. The Executive Council voted 3-2 to deny the contract extension. Every branch of New Hampshire’s government has spoken. A single federal district court judge does not get to overrule all three.”

This story was originally published by the NH Journal, an online news publication dedicated to providing fair, unbiased reporting on, and analysis of, political news of interest to New Hampshire. For more stories from the NH Journal, visit NHJournal.com.