PERSONAL IDENTIFYING INFORMATION

In reviewing the document regarding the NMVTIS project it becomes
apparent of the necessity of all states to adhere to the Uniform
Certificate of Title Act. The

information in the NMVTIS system is only as good as the data that the
states keep and enter. If the state has a different definition of a
Salvage vehicle the branding

now becomes an arbitrary issue. An example is in many states the
transfer of a motor vehicle to an insurance company is settle of a claim
makes the vehicle a "

salvage" vehicle. If the vehicle is a theft recovery vehicle, and the
title transfers to an insurance company, it now becomes a different
issue based on the state where

the claim was settled. If the vehicle had no damage many states do not
brand, others brand due the fact that it was transferred to an insurance
company, still others

allow the removal of the "salvage" brand if the insurance adjusters
report reflects that there was no damage or if the damage did not exceed
a specific amount of the

vehicle value. This situation also occurs in many states who only
consider a vehicle salvage if the damage exceeds a specific percent of
the vehicle value. Too many

different approaches to a "salvage" brand being placed on a title
document. If the NMVTIS project is to succeed it would be a reasonable
assumption to require a

uniform approach to the assignment of the "salvage" brand by any member
state. The system is only as good as the data in it, if the data is not
applicable to uniform

situations there will always be discrepancies.

Situations will be created by states that have not carried the brands
over as part of their statutory responsibilities. These issue will
create a gap in the reporting,

vehicles with a clean title will now appear with a "previously branded"
designation. This will create many situations in the dealer community
(for the dealer who gave

the higher trade allowance and retailed it to a customer as a "clean"
vehicle) as well as the current owner/dealer/consumer. Instantly
assessing a lower value to a

vehicle due to a brand not being carried over can also create many
issues.

There is still confusion in many motor vehicle departments regarding the
circumstances for a states issuance of a title in the name of an
insurance company. The

validity and implications of this vary by each state, some distinguish
between a salvage vehicle and a vehicle that has had a claim paid off
against it by an insurance

company and declared a total loss. Different meaning to each part of the
language, different application of the title brand (if any), no
uniformity all become issues.

Again a requirement to adhere to specific guidelines etc for the
declaration of the salvage (and other issues that should be
standardized) prior to entry into NMVTIS

would ensure success.

The portion of the reference to "fair salvage value" by the insurance
carriers also causes concern. Any vehicle with a high salvage value will
be totaled with a lower

damage appraisal, any vehicle with a low salvage value will be totaled
with a high damage appraisal. Again no uniformity as to the assignment
of the salvage

declaration, only a brand designated by market demand. This is not a
good consumer protection policy. There has to be a more uniform
application of the rules for a

salvage value that are not driven by the salvage value. This proposed
market assessment of the vehicle value can either make or break the
rule.

The reporting requirement of the junk and salvage yards may need some
change. There are many different routes for a vehicle to come into a
yard, very often it is

not by the "owner of record" or the titled owner. A more definitive
approach to recording the information of the entity placing the vehicle
into the salvage yard

should be taken, more identifying information regarding the entity
placing the vehicle into the salvage yard should be captured, Many
instances of a "Nevada titled

vehicle placed in the yard by a Rhode island resident who purchased it
for rebuilding, as it had a bad engine, from a Maine resident" occur.
How does the system

handle this in a manner that will notify the title state of a cancel
record and provide a bona-fide chain of events leading to the yard?

The portion of the salvage reporting exclusion if the state already has
a reporting mechanism set up is also flawed. If the state receives
records they are posted to the

title files, if the vehicle is from another state there is no title file
for the attachment to be posted to. This creates issues and the record
may drop into a black hole --

this defeats the titling cancelation, the reporting efforts etc. Let the
reports all go into NMVTIS and let/allow the states to extract the
information to update their title

records from the NMVTIS records.

The reporting of a vehicle into the NMVTIS system and the access of that
information by law enforcement need some work. If an inquiry is made
into the system

and there is no "hit" the assumption is made that the vehicle is OK.
Many times the theft/stolen report is received days later and posted to
the systems. There is a

locator that allows a law enforcement agency to determine that there was
a previous inquiry regarding this vehicle but it is often missed. If the
NMVTIS system

could provide for an alarm to a agency that there had been an inquiry on
a vehicle 5 to 10 days previously through the NCIC channels it might
help this situation.

The definitions should encompass a definition of a "self-insurer", be it
a municipality, lease company or large corporation, this is a current
"hole" in the system. The

definition of a "Salvage automobile" should also include any automobile
that an insurance company has taken ownership of in settlement of a
claim or any vehicle

that a state has issued a title to an insurer for. The definition of a
"Junk yard" is too broad, in can actually include a used dealer, body
shop who purchases vehicles

to assemble/reconstruct similar vehicles. These vehicle are later
disposed of to junk yards may go other places as they usually have
titles and VIN tags. In most

states once a vehicle is received into the salvage yard it is a dead
vehicle, it cannot be sold in its entirety or repaired and resold by a
junk/salvage yard. It can only

be sold in its entirety is it is being recycled for metals -- no
rebuilding, restoration by a junk/salvage business. Again we come into
an area where the different state

laws will cause a problem with the reporting mechanisms, a requirement
for a state who wishes to participate that certain licensing measures
are in effect and those

measures limit or govern the operation of a junk/salvage yard.

The responsibilities of the operator of the NMVTIS system are confusing
in subsection (b)(3) and (b)(5), they appear to have the same meaning
and impact.

The responsibilities of the insurance carriers should include, in the
area of the reporting, if the insurance company obtained a title from
the state in their name, the

state in which they obtained it and the type of title. In the State of
Florida we have a "Salvage Title Certificate" as well as a "Certificate
of Destruction". The salvage

will allow resale by the insurance company for rebuilding while the
destruction will allow resale but for parts only. These titles will be
tracked through NMVTIS.

There is also a provision to brand the title as a "total loss vehicle"
if the insurance company agrees to repair but the cost of repairs exceed
100% of the vehicle value

and the owner retains possession of the vehicle. This only gets more
confusing as we look at more state law, again a case for state
uniformity in any and all reporting

to NMVTIS.

The responsibilities of the Junk/salvage yards again reference the
reporting requirement exclusion if the state already has a mechanism set
up. In most states the

record is only captured if the state has issued a title for the vehicle.
If it is an out of state vehicle the report is ineffective. If the state
does not have a method of

capture to forward this information to NMVTIS the system becomes
inefficient.