Disclaimer: I am piecing together lots of information and may be mistating some issues.
I find it sad that NH is approaching the elimination of inspections differently by asking to be waived from participation in the Ozone Transport Region (OTR) regulations, part of the Clean Air Act legislation, and that the METHOD of our petition is the problem, rather than the actual outcome.
Other states that don't do inspections, as I understand it, didn't ask to withdraw from the OTR but instead got a temporary waiver, (renewed regularly?) that amounts to the same thing; air quality inspections are not being done.
NH's approach is, perhaps, more honest, permanent withdrawal from the OTR requirements, but makes the federal government face up to what it has allowed to happen for the other non inspection states, permanent withdrawal done annually. On the other hand, it's not clear what OTHER impacts withdrawal from the OTR may have. Maybe a permanent withdrawal from the INSPECTION aspects of the OTR might have been possible.
Also, it seems more important that the cars be MANUFACTURED according to clean air standards rather than inspecting to see if they are functioning properly. A "check engine" light indicating a failure usually means the car doesn't run as well and MOST people are going to get it fixed, if for no other reason than making it possible to resell the car. The few that don't are not going to make any significant difference in air quality, and, has NO direct impact on other drivers, unlike other aspects of an inspection might reveal, like bad brakes or failing steering components.
We are caught in a complex battle of legalese between the federal and state governments. The federal government wants to make sure that its legal intentions (regarding clean air) are not thwarted by NH non compliance with a part of the law before they issue any permanent waiver. If badly thought out, it could ripple through all the other states with serious consequences.