NH Car inspections
 

What will be required in 2026 for car inspections? How do you get a sticker?

If you have a January birthday and have a current sticker, that will take you 10 days into February, so you have nothing to do. If your birthday is in February or later, the state inspection requirement will be gone, so no sticker will be needed.

Sent from my Pixel 10 Pro XL using Tapatalk

December
 

My December birthday saw no state inspection sticker. From discussion with some police, I know some will not issue tickets. If others do I'll plea insanity in court. Doubt any judge will issue a fine with or without the insanity plea.

I believe you can still request a safety inspection from a mechanic.
Keep the billing with you... just in case.

https://www.nhpr.org/nh-news/2025-12...hire-nh-ending

If they win the injunction on the 22nd, there could be a rash of owners trying to get inspections done in a short period of time.

N.H. Headlight Police watching for you, ha-ha-ha!
 

Effective February 1, 2026: the N.H. Headlight Police will be looking for non-working headlights and tail lights.

Non-working headlight in N.H.; first offense $62, second offense $124, third offense $124 and/or get summonsed to N.H. Judge Judy traffic court ...... :eek:! ...... ha-ha-ha .... :laugh:!

Do not know if a violation includes one insurance point? Maybe it does? Don't know ...... :confused:?

If the N.H. Headlight Police stop you for a non-working headlight, will they take the time to be looking for other equipment violations like bald tires, worn brakes, worn wheel bearings, torn wiper blades, cracked windshield glass, and structural rust plus inspecting your license & registration ..... :eek2:?

On some cars it's possible to determine the brake pad condition by shining a flashlight through the wheel spokes and looking very close. Will the police use a floor jack to determine if a wheel bearing is worn out? What about testing turn signal lights? What about the horn? What about the windshield defroster? What about the front end steering components? What about a driving violation like tail-gating or speeding or texting while driving and crossing the center line...... :eek2:?

Totally eliminating the N.H. car safety inspections is totally wack-a-doozie ........ totally!

N.H. car safety inspections have been happening since 1931, so for the last 95-years.

You know that Rt 175 in Ashland and Holderness used to be the cracked windshield glass highway but no more because it got repaved with smooth asphalt a year or so, ago. Glass insurance coverage calls it "vibration glass damage" and is something that just happens, depending. Is a good reason to get a zero deductible on your glass coverage.

I had my December state inspection done and I'm glad I did. My rear brakes were almost gone. Needed calipers, rotors and pads. I will continue to take my older car for an annual inspection. Live free and crash.

Don't think that this is true. The date was designed so that everyone got their last inspection basically. I also talked with some state and local officers and inspection stations and Dec B-days still need a sticker.
But I guess it's worth a shot as long as your not driving like an idiot and get pulled over for something else don't know of many cops that pull people over JUST for the inspection sticker.

that lawsuit will be tough to win. AZ only has emissions required so why would NH legally need more

Don't have to win... just get the injunction.

The injunction would mean the reinstatement of the standards, as the repeal was all or nothing. The injunction would be in effect until either NH got a federal waiver, or the trial had an outcome.

Basically the law would be back in force.

Had they sought to only repeal portions of the inspection, that bill was in study if I remember correctly, the federal emission element may have not been a factor, but we would still basically be paying the same amount.

Also an LSR is in the Legislature to reinstate has just entered into a bill -
HB 1560-FN

So if you choose to get a safety inspection, getting the invoice would make it easier to get a sticker later should that requirement come back into play.

well, mine is not until August. To me with older cars I got hosed by a dealer to fix things like shading on head lamps and a second horn didn't work but have found a local, shop that is reasonable. the extent of the prior inspections was unreasonable so a more limited would be ok .Sounds like it will be the up to the type of judge that gets the case

I remember a long time ago, they would issue DE (defective equipment) tags if they stopped you and you had a headlight out or other issue with your car. I don't think they still do that, do they? You were supposed to get it fixed by a mechanic, have him sign the tag and mail it to DMV. I would just toss them in the back seat.

They do. Or at least they are supposed to.

But I think the items that inspection would pick up on were modifications that the Legislature didn't want on the road.

I doubt there would be too big a push. First, no one has stickers because the state didn't issue them for 2026. Next, no one is going to want to push what is essentially a trivial infraction into the courts and tick off the public and the courts for having to deal with it. There would probably be an unofficial moratorium on enforcement as the state figured out what to do. Then a phase in of catching up with back inspections, if it gets that far.

There are plenty of laws on the books that are never actually enforced. I doubt the federal government is going to actively go after NH over this. There could be a fix put in place over the year and then a resolution going forward.

According to the internet, 14 states do nor require annual inspections'
Alaska
Arkansas
Florida
Iowa
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Montana
North Dakota
South Carolina
South Dakota
Texas
Washington
Wyoming

So the closest states to N.H. are Michigan and South Carolina, a distance of about 600 and 900 miles away from New Hampshire. All the other New England states, Maine, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Connecticut have yearly car safety inspections plus New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Washington DC, West Virginia, Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee and Georgia all have yearly car inspections.

The New Hampshire State Police are very much AGAINST this elimination of the N.H. yearly car safety inspection. The police want to do police work, and leave the car inspection to the car mechanic inside a garage with a car lift to inspect brakes, tires, rust, wheel bearings, lights, horn, defrost, steering, wiper blades, windshield glass, exhaust and other car safety items.

It's been this way in New Hampshire for 95-years, since 1931, and it was an excellent inspection system with 95-years experience.

Federal court.
They are suing for the infraction of federal law.
Moratorium would need to be a waiver from the EPA.

"We've always done it that way" isn't a very convincing argument.

I'm as much in favor of highway safety as the next person, but any causal link between mandatory inspections and safety has consistently been found to be tenuous at best. :rolleye1:

Inspection in NJ
 

NJ inspection only checks to see if the check engine light is on or if the computer threw a code for an issue that was cleared but not resolved. They do not check brakes, suspension, lights or any other safety issues.

I agree, and just because a vehicle passed inspection on one day does not mean it will 4 days from then. I have always seen them as a money grab especailly when you are paying to have new vehicles inspected right from the dealership when purchased (MA does this). Also if they actaully fixed roads and used the taxes that were originally allocated for that, vehciles would be a lot safer - less window cracks, less suspension damage, less wear and tear on the vehicles. I am not blind to those that will drive on balogna slabs and metal on metal breaks, more times than not, the conditions of the roads is what causes vehicles to fail inspections

Interesting one...
https://gc.nh.gov/bill_status/billinfo.aspx?id=2368

If there is an insurance discount for passing a state inspection then why wouldn't there be a discount or waiver for cars, say, less than two years old?

The amount of the discount is not specified in the bill. The insurance companies are not going to give significant discounts that affect their profits so the money will need to be made up somewhere.

That only leaves people with older cars or uninspected cars, and owners who may struggle with higher premiums. This looks more like PR stunt that has not been well thought out and doesn't look like a win for the consumer.

I think if the insurers use the option it would be because they would charge higher rates and then lower them for the discount.

The promoters of the bill feel they can control that, but doubtful in the real world market.
And it may be a way to dissuade others from joining onto the bill to reinstate the previous inspection requirements. Which is why I thought it to be interesting.

People want less government intrusion, well this is a form of less government intrusion, be happy! If you still want to have your car inspected, I'm sure you could take it to any repair shop and have that done, you just won't get a window sticker.

Connecticut does not have yearly car safety inspections.
We do, however, have daily tax burdens...

Car inspection
 

Okay, I'm lost in all this discussion, so, for those of me who don't really understand this situation, would someone please explain why it is so bad to have a vehicle inspected annually to ensure mechanical safety not only for other drivers, but the vehicle driver, too. I don't want to hear about the "nanny State", and I don't want to hear about price-gouging by inspection stations, just the facts supporting non-inspection. By the way, what's next - no need for a driver's license if you re 16, no food inspectors if the local farm looks good, and why not toss out the boating Safe Boating Certificate while we are at it.

Why Inspections?
 

All this uproar in a state that does not require liability insurance?

It's not bad to have your vehicle inspected but it should be your choice, not mandated by the government.
And as for the safe boating certificate, I haven't seen any proof that has led to safer boating.

So why bother with a Driver's License?

The State was looking at a lot of "affordability" issues.
Base transportation has limited areas to look into.

Good idea. Get rid of 'em all! Laws are only obeyed by the good guys.:laugh::laugh:

Removing blue 2025 NH sticker on Feb 1, 2026?
 

I plan to keep my blue N.H. state inspection sticker in place, on the windshield permanently and indefinitely for the future. Will NOT be removing it. There will probably be some red 2026 stickers for 8.4% of the NH car owners with January birthdays?

After Feb 1, 2026, new cars will most likely no longer get a N.H. inspection sticker. The new car dealers no doubt have a supply of stickers so will the new cars get a sticker even though it's not required?

Will used cars for sale sitting on car lots get their sticker removed or left in place? The sticker provides a lot of information to both the used car dealer, and the potential buyer. If a used car for sale has NO sticker will it be more difficult to sell it?

Bet you that no one removes their blue 2025 sticker, and drives their car "live free or die" without the old non-expired but not required sticker? ..... ;)

Car repairs have become very expensive to buy new tires, replace brakes, and make other repairs required to pass the state test and receive a state sticker.

Affordability and high cost to repair is one big reason why the state legislature revoked the yearly state car inspection. Tires and repairs cost too much and get postponed till the money is there. How to pay for needed repairs required to get a state sticker so the legislature eliminated the state sticker.

When a headlight or tail light is out, it is easy to notice, so non-working lights will likely get you stopped by the local police. Not so much the case in the past ..... more likely in the future ..... time will tell? Non-working lights can be seen a long ways away ........ out there! Here it comes ....... and there it goes ..... :eek2:

But officer, I had no clue, no idea that this headlight was out ....... who knew? ....... :laugh:!

My understanding is that inspection stations, including dealers, print stickers on demand with required electronic approval from the state. Without the state providing the approval mechanism, stickers cannot be printed, including at dealers. The only thing the inspection stations keep on hand is a supply of blank templates that they get from the state in bulk, based on past usage. I doubt they even have those for 2026. Why produce $$$ and ship $$$ 2026 blanks when the need for them had been legally eliminated as of June 2025? No one would have a "supply" of stickers that were probably never created.

Car owners with January birthdays are probably required to get a 2026 NH state sticker, I would think.

So, what color is the 2026 NH state sticker?

Do you think the police are going to be petty enough to ticket people who don't'? Over a dead law that has no real consequence?

I agree that the state shipped the Jan 2026 stickers and the inspection stations could print valid Jan stickers. After January, the whole system shuts down.

I see a business opportunity. Custom vanity stickers where the inspection ones where.
Let's get some ideas. Here's mine.

Apparently required for January birthdays...
 

I have a January birthday and decided to ask the station where I get my inspections. They told me that the rule is that January birthdays need to get their car inspected. The rest of the year does not.

Your January 26 sticker will take you to Feb. 10th...you don't need it.

Sent from my Pixel 10 Pro XL using Tapatalk

Why allow vehicles on the road without proof of insurance?
I was in the Auto repair business in Ma for over 50 years and issued inspection stickers for at least 30 of those years, I've seen the abuse by inspection shops and the State.
I doubt it's any different in NH.

Insurance doesn't protect people. It only protects their assets.

And others assets.

That would still be an honest discussion amongst the legislative committees on changing the process.

The proof of insurance was because the Legislature thought - probably didn't think it through - that they had an idea that achieved "something for nothing".
But did it, or did it increase or Uninsured Motor Vehicle policy costs?

Then it wasn't something for nothing but a big old subsidy to the uninsured from the insured.

If you believe that insurance companies set rates based on income vs losses, you're missing a lot of the equation: 1. Time value of money, 2. market strategy.

1. If I have $14 billion in my desk drawer and I can make 2.5% by keeping it in the desk drawer for a few extra days, I can make some reral money. My actuaries know in advance ewxactly how much money I'll need to pay out nexct mon th and next year. They just don't know whose name will be on trhe check.

2. With $14 billion in the cash drawer, I set rates to adjust market share. Opening a new territory that looks promising, set low rates. Too much market share someplace for geographic diversification, raise the rates.

Because of the actuarial predictability of large numbers, insurance companies can make money in a variety of ways that you don't see. Buying, selling and managing pension funds is one. Retroactive disaster insurance is another.

Pretty much the point.
Simple legislation cannot automatically result in lower costs.

The saga continues
 

https://www.nhpr.org/nh-news/2026-01...cs-court-judge

I don't see the decision to end inspections being walked back at this point but seems like there could be repercussions for the state.
Anyone else have additional info on this?

I think a glaring factor that is being missed in this case, is although it is being said that it takes up to 18 months to get approval from the EPA (feds) for this, which I do not understand why?? The EPA does not have any violation for doing this without approval first, and then also the Fed is not involved in anyway in joining the suit, or they are not saying you cannot start before the approval, other than the judge. Seems to me the approval is more of a acceptance of a notice that it is being done (I did not read the notifications rule in the Act)

This should speak volumes in the decision. If NH was in clear violation of the Clean Air act, wouldn't every other state that does not have inspection requirements be so as well? Wouldn't the EPA be involved in the Suit if NH was in violation?


So the company that generates $3million in revenue for running an agreed to monopoly in the state is bringing the suit and I'm sure dealerships and mechanic shops, not the EPA, seems to me that it is a suit about lost revenue for this company over anything else and it should not cloud a decision for the state. They do not have a "right" to projected income

Not every State is required to do tailpipe emissions or OBD compliance testing.

Even in NH, if I remember my history correctly, it was the southern counties that were in violation; and an ongoing argument to the fact that quite a bit of air pollution is transient from the wind direction.


HB 1560-FN has its first public hearing in the House Transportation Committee on the 27th (Tuesday). So a while before that one sees any determination of direction in the least.

Though the summary at the bottom is sort of interesting...

The Nashua area was the only one being regulated. I was working in the seacoast area and tailpipe testing wasn't a thing at the time, although a lot of shops had the equipment in the event someone came in for state inspection and lived in an area demanding the sniff test.

Sent from my Pixel 10 Pro XL using Tapatalk

Growing up, NH was known for clean air, clean weater and cheap booze. The EPA messed up by requiring MtBE in gasoline which leaked into water supples. The EPA totally dropped the ball on PFAS which cotaminated air and mostly water. Not much help with cyanobacteria either. At least, we still have cheap booze.

I believe that MbTE over ethanol was a State choice?
https://archive.epa.gov/mtbe/web/html/gas.html

Could have been an economic one as having a "designer" fuel for just NH might have been problematic.

PFAS are also being regulated by each State. Some are quicker than others to place the limitations or restrictions.

And CB is definitely a State issue, as EPA run-off proposals are not popular with our Legislature.

OBD over tail pipe testing was a State choice, and expanding it across the State rather than only the areas that had Clean Air Act requirements again was the State.

Currently, we may still just have a few areas - if any - in the State that have problems meeting the standards. Which is why requesting a waiver would be smart regardless of the actual safety requirements that the Legislature may choose to reimpose.

John Mercier--This is an issue that has so many factets that it is beyond this forum. So, I summarized and pointed at EPA as the organization with the research skills that Congress and others relied on to make various decisions. When oxynates were required to clean up the air, there was a general movement to MtBE. Doesn't matter why, the EPA siad it was an option. It was added to gasoline all over NH by most gasoline vendors. Outdated, single line stoarge tanks leaked and MtBE contaminated drinking water. The Oil Fund Disbursement Board paid for a lot of clean ups and I believe it was in 2003, at the urging of that board and others, the AG went after the gasoline companies. If I remember correctly, about 80 comanies settled and paid the state. Exxon did not settle, and in 2013, they lost and were required to pay about 220 millionm dollars to the state. They appealedc and in 2016, finally paid close to $300 million to the State ($220 million plus interest). Led by NH Senate President Chuck Morse (R-Salem) a bill was passed to establish and fund the Clean Drinking and Groundwater Fund. By that time many of the MtBE problem areas had been resolved and PFAS was a new focus and the CDGW funds were aimed in that direction with both grants and low cost loans. Similarly, with PFAS, the EPA had the sklll set to determine appropriate regualtions, but the advisories they published were too high and very vague. As problems arose, states were left on their own and the legilslature pushed DES to establish necessary regulations. NH set some of the toughest standards. Towns like Merrimack, Bedford and Litchfield were particularly hard hit by contaminats from St. Gobain Performance Plastics which has now closed their doors. This all gets away from a lakes region focus, but I'll note that for many years I chaired the Oil Fund Disburtsement Board, and was Vice-Chair of the CDGW Committee which was chaired by Senaror Morse. Among other state level committees, I served on the Exotic Aquatic Weeds and Species Committee (Milfoil, etc), the State Parks Advisory Committee (SPAC) and the Public Water Access Advisory Board (PWAAB), so I think I have a 30,000 foot view as well as some direct activity.

PFAS problem... wait three years for the ban to take effect.

Energy Policy Act of 2005... NH ban MbTE January 2007

CB mitigation funding... let's just hope for the best.
Because the aluminum sulfate treatment was very expensive, limited in area, and not as effective as advertised.

Unsafe vehicle definition
 

From WMUR:

The change in the state budget passed last year is about to leave New Hampshire without a statute defining an "unsafe" vehicle, at least temporarily.

That means that starting this weekend, there will be no legal basis for state police to issue a citation if they find a defective vehicle on the road.

"I think it's important that consumers have some guidance and that our roads are kept safe, and we define what a safe or unsafe vehicle is," said state Sen. Tim McGough, R-Merrimack.

The Senate is fast-tracking an amended bill to clarify the definition of unsafe vehicle that is expected to pass on Thursday. The House is not going to meet for a session day until next week.

https://www.wmur.com/article/new-ham...12726/70162990

"On August 19, 1997, at about 2:30 p.m., New Hampshire state trooper Scott Phillips stopped Drega in the parking lot of LaPerle's IGA supermarket in neighboring Colebrook for having too much rust on his pickup truck."

An internet search did not yield the number of citations for unsafe vehicles written by the NH state police. I can’t imagine there were many…

Federal judge ruling:

https://www.wmur.com/article/injunct...tests/70173940

Alan

Do we still even have a clean air act and an EPA under this administration?

In part, the "road toll" (gas tax) is used to fund state police and others, like DES. I remember when Gov. Lynch referred to the Dept of Transportation as the state's ATM. Perhaps we (the legilsture and the Commissioner, should reconsider the duties and goals of the state police. We don't need highly trained LEO's giving out tickets for bald tires and missing tail lights. Focus on crime.

Small "s". I think they meant police within the State of NH.

Though State Police could enforce an "unsafe" vehicle statute, so could so many others - even NH F&G; but would most likely be local PDs.

Inspections Suspended
 

The New Hampshire Attorney General has suspended vehicle inspections until further notice.

The Attorney General's Office said inspection stations are no longer authorized to issue state inspection stickers, and vehicles will not be required to get a sticker at this time.

https://www.wmur.com/article/new-ham...ended/70350804

I believe that it is suspended until April 10th.
Though not sure what happens if NH doesn't get the waiver, and a higher court rules.

The President has issued cutbacks on remissions. I assume this will affect the testing in all states.

"The Attorney General's Office said inspection stations are no longer authorized to issue state inspection stickers"

I would think it would be impossible to ticket someone for not having an inspection sticker when the state is no longer providing them. No agency is going to annoy drivers by ticketing them for something that would be laughed out of court.

Judge: I see you failed to renew your inspection sticker.
Defendant: Yes your honor. I tried but the State refused to issue one to me.
Judge: Case dismissed. Officer, why are you bringing this stupidity to my court?
Officer: (Red faced) I'm sorry your honor. Unfortunately, the next 5 cases are the same issue.
Judge: You've GOT to be kidding me.

You missed it.

They would not ticket for a failure to inspect.

They would ticket for the underlying safety item that exists.
You can still get a ticket for having a vehicle that does not meet the standards.

The State tried to make that clear.

All true. However, the state must identify and issue updated safety regulations.


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

I believe that the State left those still on the books.
Just removed the need for the inspection.

This isn't up-to-date but was one of the last public information posts that I saw.
https://www.sunapeenh.gov/police-dep...ns-inspections

Since that was months after the change in statute, I'm hypothesizing that it is correct.

Thanks


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

Ok, so yesterday I see big brite blue lights in the rear view mirror as I'm driving Rt 93, going 70-mph on cruise control. The state trooper asks for my license and says one of the tail lights was out which was news to me and he let me go with just a warning. I did not know the tail light was out?

Anyway, is a good thing my car has the blue 2025 NH inspection sticker because not having it would have changed the dynamic on this driving stop.

Actually, in a way, it showed that having a current sticker did not ensure your car was legal/safe. I'm not sure the trooper would have cared about the sticker as his focus was surely on the failed equipment (as it should be)...

I got the blue 2025 sticker at Valvoline-Laconia about six months ago, and the tail light must have burnt out since then, sometime?

Will get two new light bulbs at Walmart, and replace both tail lights, today! Have heard that it's best to wear gloves and not be touching the light bulbs.

Is highly unlikely the local thrift store will have the correct light bulbs for two dollars, but you never know until you go check.

Because of the change, PD will be more aware as we go forward.
The locals that I have talked to are awaiting the final outcome.
So they aren't really going to start looking until end of April.

Interestingly Florida is now considering eliminating the yearly or bi yearly registration decal for the license plate saying it will save the state a lot of money and the police don't need it in the digital age. Maybe NH will follow. I think they said 2.5 million would be saved.

Florida has not required an inspection sticker for many years. The state eliminated its inspection program in 1981, and there is no recurring requirement to have a vehicle checked.

I'm sorry, I meant the little decal on the license plate, registration decal not inspection sticker. Guess I wasn't awake when I wrote that. I will change it. Thanks.

..... Is best to keep the old 2025 blue sticker!
 

When your NH car does not have an old blue 2025 inspection sticker because you scraped it off, and you get stopped for a non-working tail light, here's what happens.

The NH State Police now have a tractor trailer complete with a green/bronze State Police design and this 53' van trailer is a mobil inspection station complete with a car lift for inspecting the brakes, steering, suspension, and rust on your car while you stand there on the side of the road! It will immediately show up, wherever you is in New Hampshire!

...... hmmmmmm ...... well ...... not yet, anyway ...... but I think NOT having a sticker will likely up their eyes to take a stronger look at everything like tires, wiper blades, glass damage, and rust so you probably want to be keeping that blue 2025 sticker on your windshield.

You know it's just human nature that no sticker is just like asking for a more strong, roadside inspection!

I would think that driving an older vehicle makes you a more likely candidate to have a police officer take a harder look at it for defective equipment. But, some people with older vehicles have plenty of time. I doubt the police would spend much time looking over a vehicle that is less than a few years old.

any PD stops people every day for having defective running lights. Either head lights or tail lights. That has nothing to do with the inspection sticker stuff that is going on right now.

Then they may want to focus on 104, Meredith Center, and 106... absolute feast for raising money.

two Sylvania tail light lightbulbs/$7.25
 

Two replacement Sylvania tail light bulbs cost $7.25/package of two plus Walmart had a large reference catalog hanging by a beaded chain from their very large display of Sylvania automobile replacement lightbulbs. It had every lightbulb for every Toyota Scion ever made from 2005-2015, and the lightbulb guide at the Plymouth Walmart was in excellent, new condition.

So, is always best to replace both light bulbs, driver and passenger side, because if one is burnt out, the other one is probably soon to burn out, too. Plus they come packaged with two/pack. Is best to wear thin work gloves and NOT touch the bulb.

Maybe it's just my paranoia but it seemed the state trooper ... :cool: ... eye-balled the blue state sticker on the windshield lower left corner while approaching from the back, watching him via the mirror, but maybe not ...... hmmmm? Do the police take a quick look at the blue inspection sticker when doing a car stop?

Are Sylvania automobile light bulbs really made in Hillsborough, New Hampshire?

So it looks like a judge ruled on the 2nd that the inspections are back ON again?

Also, the article I read said that "the lawsuit was brought on Dec. 8 by Gordon-Darby, the Kentucky-based company that administers the inspection program."

A quick Google search revealed that Kentucky doesn't have inspections itself—ironic or what?

Sent from my SM-S931U using Tapatalk

Got stopped by the state cops on Rt 25 in Ossipee a couple of nights ago because one of the two license plate bulbs was out on my car. So they are clearly paying attention to defective equipment. He asked if I have a current sticker (i do since my birthday is in Nov). He took a look at it, gave me back my papers, and sent me on my way. Obviously he told me to fix it too.

Not sure Kentucky went to tailpipe emission to meet the Clean Air Act.

The most they could do to NH is suspend federal transport dollars until we comply; maybe add a fine.

Again, has nothing to do with inspection stickers. They have been pulling people over for years for lights and such being defective.

I wouldn't know it from the amount of failed head and tail lights going down Rte 104, across Meredith Center, and south on Rte 106 toward Concord.

It seems at time to be quite a few.

I think it does... he specifically asked me about the sticker and looked at it. Its a worse look to have no sticker (when you should have) and have something defective that an inspection would have revealed. He asked me if I knew the bulb was out (of course I did not) and then said it must have burned out since the inspection and sent me on my way...

So even though a new sticker isn't required it appears the Police are looking to be sure you received a sticker in 2025 which presumes it is good for 12 months. Interesting.......

I love that a Judge is siding with a business with a specific interest in sales and nothing else, over the state government.

Decision was based on the fact that the State didn't have a waiver.
The State of NH is in violation of its "contract" with the federal government, and thus with this ruling, subject to suspension of funding and contractual fines.

The business doesn't make out one way or the other, as the judge did not rule that even if NH had continued its tailpipe emission testing that it had to recontract with the business.

But the state is waiting for a waiver. That was part of the whole deal.

And the court ruling was that they should have the waiver before discontinuing.

The put the cart before the horse.

Without the waiver, the State is in violation of the federal requirements, and could see monies associated with those requirement to be suspended.

Basically, if the federal government now decides to do so, the State has no court redress; because the finding had already been entered.

The EPA can take over a year to provide the waiver; and may decide not to.
In the mean time... the State may have to adjust its budget.
That is only a may, as the feds have not implied they would take any action.
But it is a possibility.

But how can they when other states aren't required to have them?

I think the concern is/was that people bailed on getting the stickers one or two months ahead of the end of the requirement. Upon looking at my registration, he knew I was supposed to have a November sticker. I did and he treated the matter of having one of two plate lights out as the minor issue that it is... I have no way of knowing, but if I had defective equipment AND failed to get a sticker last Nov like I was supposed to, I suspect a ticket would have been forthcoming...

Each State - actually each county - has to meet the Clean Air Standards to receive the funding.

So they may be meeting their standards without going after tailpipe emissions.

If I remember correctly, NH had several choices and felt that was the one that had the least amount of impact. The OBD system was less intrusive and costly than the actual tail pipe testing, and meant that NH didn't have to focus on other sourcing.

Meet the standards from other sources rather than vehicles?

The Clean Air Act sets out a standard; not a specific means to meet it.
Different States use different means.

Key Compliance Challenge: Vehicle Inspections

New Hampshire is currently facing a compliance crisis related to its State Implementation Plan (SIP) and its membership in the Ozone Transport Region (OTR).

The Repeal Law: Under House Bill 2 (HB2), the state officially repealed its mandatory vehicle emissions inspection program effective January 31, 2026.
Federal Injunction: A U.S. District Court judge issued a preliminary injunction in early 2026, ordering the state to continue the program while a lawsuit by the equipment contractor (Gordon-Darby) proceeds.

Current Violation Status: Despite the court order, the NH Executive Council voted in February 2026 to let the emissions testing contract expire.

The Risk: The NH Attorney General warned that without an active program, the state is in technical violation of the CAA, risking fines of up to $1.6 million per month and the potential loss of federal highway funding after 18 months.

The Goal: NHDES has petitioned the EPA to officially remove New Hampshire from the OTR, which would legally permit the end of mandatory testing.

Clean air standards for vehicles to me is kind of a dead issue at this point in time, and is a waste of time because of government regulations on manufacturers of vehicles.

vehicles that are 15 years or newer are subject to tail pipe admissions and those vehicles have already been subject to this at time of manufacturing and the cars now have systems that kill the engine, sets off lights on the dash, and puts cars into limp mode or the car wont run correclty if there is an emission problems, so why are we now spending the money to test cars that already correct themselves when there is a problem
MAP sensors, O2, idling sensors all the others if not operating correctly and recognize a problem they cause the vehicle to run improper or not at all

anything older is not subject to any emissions requirements, lets face is we are old now, because when most think of a 15 year old vehicle we think 1990s when in reality 15 years ago is a 2011 vehicle and by then all requirements and electronic systems and sensors were installed in vehicles already.

Can you run a new vehicle without catalytic converters sure you can but the cost to make it work properly or even operate without it giving problems far outweigh, very far, an annual inspection cost from a consumer standpoint - every vehicle that runs on EFI which is all since well before 2011 have to run 02 sensors and others in order to run properly, even sooouuupped up and modified vehicles

The point is the $$$ is tied to the SIP.
Non-compliance with the SIP results in the fines and loss of funding.

So if NH can afford the $20 million annually in fines, and any cuts to federal transportation dollars... then the waiver doesn't matter.

In the United States, relatively few states require an annual auto safety inspection.

14 states require an annual safety inspection for passenger vehicles.

Hawaii
Maine
Massachusetts
New York
North Carolina
Pennsylvania
Vermont
Virginia
West Virginia
Louisiana


Forced support of auto service enterprises in the form of state sponsored vehicle inspections might not be a wholistic approach to safety.

Should our heavily tattooed Barney Fifes spend afternoons on tail light patrol and dreaming of public sector pensions in Wolfboro instead of addressing violent crime, fentanyl, and domestic violence in Manchester and Salem ?

I take exception to your characterization of police and their duties and motivation. The vast majority are nothing like you describe and most all of them do a great job performing their work.

The federal government doesn't care if we have an annual safety inspection.

The money is a contractual obligation based on NH providing and following its own SIP.

We chose not to follow it, now the federal government gets to choose whether to let it go or impose the penalties for breaching the contract.

Assuming your neighbors will drive old unsafe cars if they aren't required to submit to state inspections is the prevailing perspective of all 76 year old forum readers in Naples and Tampa planning their annual return to the lakes region.

If Vinny the courtesy shuttle driver, car washer and state inspection sticker person at the multi-state car dealership conglomerate won't keep our NH roads safe, who will ?