Winnebago audit query AQ17003
Lazydays RV Retail Delivery Issue. NHTSA’s Office of Defects Investigation opened this audit query about the lines and fittings on 2 model years (2016–2017). Opened Jun 20, 2017, closed Jun 13, 2022 after 5.0 years without a recall. closed
What NHTSA says
Source: Office of Defects Investigation, as filedNHTSA opened AQ17-003 to determine whether Lazydays RV of Seffner, Florida (Lazydays) has complied with the requirements of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 (Safety Act) and its implementing regulations. NHTSA received information suggesting Lazydays delivered a new Winnebago recreational vehicle (RV) without having remedied a recall. The Safety Act requires, among other things, that a manufacturer notify its dealers of defects related to motor vehicle safety and noncompliances with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and, in turn, that a dealer not deliver a new vehicle subject to a recall unless the recall remedy has been performed (49 U.S.C. 30120(i)). In June 2017, NHTSA issued information request (IR) letters to Lazydays and Winnebago Industries, Inc. (Winnebago), and again to Lazydays in August 2017. NHTSA's investigation indicated that Lazydays delivered at least seven recalled vehicles that did not have the recall remedy completed at the time the vehicles were delivered to the customers. On May 3, 2022, NHTSA entered into a Settlement Agreement with Lazydays to resolve the Audit Query. In the agreement, Lazydays agreed to pay a $45,000 civil penalty and to certain training and auditing requirements. Specifically, Lazydays committed to mandatory employee training regarding the delivery of new vehicles with open recalls and the implementation of new vehicle sale and delivery process controls at its dealership and any newly acquired dealerships. This Audit Query is closed.
A Audit Query is an audit of whether the manufacturer met its early-warning reporting obligations — the data and reports it must send NHTSA — rather than of a vehicle condition. The summary is the agency’s own text from its investigation file, unedited; the resumes carrying the full reasoning are linked below.
The paperwork NHTSA filed
Source: every document on this action, at nhtsa.gov- Opening resume — ODI’s own summary of why it opened this — the subject, what prompted it, and the vehicles in scope.
- Closing resume — ODI’s own summary of why it closed this, and what it concluded.
| Document | Code | Filed | At NHTSA |
|---|---|---|---|
| Opening resume | INOA | 2017 | |
| Closing resume | INCLA | 2017 | |
| Information request to the manufacturer | INIM | 2017 | 3 files 123 |
| Manufacturer's response — data | INRD | 2017 | 13 files 12345678910111213 |
| Manufacturer's response — full submission | INRL | 2017 | 3 files 123 |
| Memo to the investigation file | INME | 2017 | |
| Correspondence | INOT | 2017 |
These are NHTSA’s own files, served from the agency’s site — the resumes are what ODI wrote when it opened and closed the action, and the rest is the correspondence behind them, including what the manufacturer sent when the agency asked. They are linked, not copied: where a document names the people who wrote in, that redaction is the agency’s to make and its copy is the one you should read.
What owners had already reported
Source: complaints on file the day it openedWhen NHTSA opened this on Jun 20, 2017, owners had filed 5 complaints with the agency about the model years above. Owner complaints are the agency’s main early signal: ODI screens them, and a Preliminary Evaluation is usually where a pattern in them ends up.
This is what the complaint file held on that date, not a claim about which reports prompted the investigation — NHTSA’s complaint records carry no investigation number, so nobody can make that link from the data alone. The opening resume linked above names the reports ODI itself cited. Complaint records on this site begin with 2016.
What this means for an owner
Source: and what happens nextAn investigation is not a finding that a defect exists, and it puts no duty on anyone. NHTSA opens a Preliminary Evaluation when complaints and other reports suggest a condition worth asking the manufacturer about; it upgrades to an Engineering Analysis when the answers warrant testing; it closes either when it recommends a recall, when the manufacturer recalls on its own, or when no defect trend is found. The agency’s own goals are about four months for a petition, eight for a Preliminary Evaluation or a Recall Query and eighteen for an Engineering Analysis; many run longer.
This one is closed. A audit query ends with NHTSA’s finding on the recall it examined — the remedy stands, is widened, or a new campaign follows; the file names the recall it concerned and NHTSA’s closing resume carries the reasoning.
Model years it names
Source: as NHTSA filed themAlso named: 2016 Winnebago Travato; 2017 Winnebago Travato.
A vehicle page’s investigation list carries the same action; a name here is the scope NHTSA opened, not a list of affected VINs.
Common questions
Source: NHTSA Office of Defects InvestigationIs AQ17003 a recall?
No. A audit query is NHTSA asking questions, not a recall. A safety recall carries an NHTSA campaign number and a duty to repair for free; this one closed without one. Whether one particular vehicle has an open recall is a VIN question at nhtsa.gov/recalls.
Is AQ17003 still open?
No. It closed on Jun 13, 2022 without a recall.
Which vehicles does AQ17003 cover?
NHTSA opened it on 2 model years: 2016 Winnebago Travato, 2017 Winnebago Travato. That is the scope of the inquiry, not a list of affected vehicles; a recall, if one follows, defines its own population by VIN.