Demil Order:
In 1971, the Department of the Army requested comments and recommendations from the U.S. DOT about its plans to sell M151's to the public. The Army hoped to dispose of 73,000 vehicles in sales to the public over a six to ten year period which represented approximately $54 million in returns to the Army if the vehicles were sold. The M151 was well known for its high rollover propensity. On average, about 30 percent of accidents involving the M151 were rollovers. The Army proposed selling the vehicles with a warning label that read as follows:
"CAUTION-----This vehicle is designed primarily for operation over rough terrain. The design features, short wheel base and high center of gravity, establishes limitations in handling characteristics of the vehicles. Drivers are cautioned that there is little warning by body tilt or feel when turning corners too sharp for the speed of the vehicle. This could contribute to vehicle rollover."
NHTSA responded to the Department of the Army in a letter, September 21, 1971 as follows:
Dear Colonel Bagg:
This is in reply to your letter of May 19, 1971, requesting our comments and recommendations concerning the sale of M151 Jeep vehicles to the public. You indicate that there are presently 6,000 of these vehicles in the supply system awaiting disposal. You further indicate that if the vehicles are released the Army will, as a precautionary measure, place decals on them that describe the handling limitations and incorporate certain exculpatory clauses in the invitations for bids and in a certificate to be issued to a donee when a vehicle is donated. Since receipt of your letter, representatives of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration have met with representatives of the Department of the Army and the Defense Supply Agency, on June 11, 1971, and again on July 23, 1971, do discuss this matter.
Based upon the information we have received, we recommend against the sale of these vehicles to the public, even with the decals containing the warning you describe affixed to them, or with the proposed disclaimers contained in the invitations for bids and the certificates furnished to donees. We do not believe that the handling problem, a propensity to roll over without warning to the user that rollover may be imminent, can be adequately guarded against through the use of warnings. This is reflected in the Army's own policy, which we understand allows only persons who have received a specialized training course to operate these vehicles. Of course, a training program for the public is impracticable. Even if a warning of a decal or in a certificate could suffice, such a decal could be removed or destroyed, and the certificate lost, and the pruchaser or subsequent purchasers would not receive notice of the potential hazard.
As part of our recommendation, we suggest that disposal of these vehicles be accomplished in a manner that prevents subsequent reassembly of the vehicle, such as cutting, or similarly destroying the suspension and frame. The recommendation includes all types of these vehicles (i.e. M151, M151A1, M151A2, M718, and M825).
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this matter.
Sincerely, Douglas W. Toms, Administrator"
Floyd
