prr , Inc. • August 28, 2006 

### US Environmental P rotection Agency 

# Fuel Economy Focus Groups Phase 2 FindingsUS Environmental P rotection AgencyFuel Economy Focus Groups P hase 2 Findings 

# Contents Introduction & P urpose ........................................................... 1 Focus Group Methodology
.................................................... 3 Findings
.................................................................................. 5 Appendices
........................................................................... 13 A: P articipant P rofiles B: Sample Moderator Guide C: Label Element Rating Form D: Label Element P references ResultsUS Environmental P rotection Agency

###  Fuel Economy Focus Groups • P hase 2 Findings 

# Introduction & Purpose

Since the 1970 s, epahas provided city and highway mpgestimates for all new vehicles, which have provided consumers with a shopping tool to help compare the fuel economy of different vehicles. eparecently proposed changes to the methods it requires for de

termining the fuel economy estimates. For the first time, the epafuel economy estimates will reflect vehicle-specific data from tests designed to replicate real-world conditions that can significantly affect fuel economy: high speed/rapid acceleration driving, use of air condition

ing, cold temperature operation, road grade, wind, tire pressure, load, and the effects of different fuel properties. The fuel economy for each vehicle model would continue to be presented to consumers as city and highway mpgestimates. These new fuel economy estimates would be lower for most vehicles. epa has also proposed revising the format and text of the fuel economy window sticker that appears on new automobiles. This is being done to more clearly convey the fuel economy information to consumers. To validate the design and content of the revisions, epa ’s Office of Transportation and Air Quality ( otaq ) is conducting research on automobile buyer response to these labels. In 2005 , prior to epa ’s proposed changes to the fuel economy esti

mates, prrconducted the first phase of focus group research to gather qualitative information that would assist epain enhancing the current fuel economy label. The key objectives of that research included: Determine the level of public awareness and knowledge of the fuel economy label, including knowledge and credibility of epa and doe. Determine consumer reaction to the current label/information, including comprehension of specific label elements. Identify any elements that are difficult to read or understand. Determine consumer reaction to proposed label/information concepts, including comprehension of the elements. ü

ü

ü üUS Environmental P rotection Agency Background 

### In 2006 , the second phase of this research was conducted by prrin order to further test and refine proposed changes to the fuel economy label, based on public comments received during the eparulemaking process. The key objectives of this second phase of focus groups included: Briefly revisit the level of public awareness, knowledge, perception and use of the current fuel economy label. Determine consumer reaction to proposed label designs and label element options, including comprehension of the elements. ü

ü

###  Fuel Economy Focus Groups • P hase 2 Findings 

# Focus Group Methodology

A series of ten focus groups were conducted (in late June and early July) to understand motor vehicle buyer’s response to the current and newly proposed fuel economy labels. Focus groups are a preferred method

ology to uncover authentic core values and beliefs. They can provide access to the underlying reasoning behind people’s thoughts, feelings, and behaviors. It is important to caution that focus groups are limited in their ability to extrapolate findings to larger populations (such as what can be done with random sample surveys). In order to ensure an appropriate mix of participants, and account for possible regional differences, two groups were conducted in each of five areas representing different population densities and geographic regions of the country. These five areas included: Seattle, Washington Detroit, Michigan Kansas City, Missouri Baltimore, Maryland Atlanta, Georgia Each group lasted an hour and forty-five minutes and had a maxi

mum of eight participants (see Appendix A for a profile of participants). Moderator guides (see Appendix B for a sample guide) were used to structure the discussions. The dynamic nature of the focus group process leads to the same topic areas being covered across all groups, albeit in similar but not identical ways. Comments from all groups were captured through the use of both audio and video recordings. Each group also had observers from behind one-way mirrors. Participants were screened for the following qualifications: Person had not participated in a focus group during the last six months. No one in their household worked in the motor vehicle sales field or manufacturing business. Person had purchased a new vehicle in the last three years or had been shopping for one in the past year. ü ü ü ü ü

ü

ü

ü

###  US Environmental P rotection Agency 

### The groups were comprised of a mix of males and females from various ages and education levels. Finally, the groups had a mix of types of new vehicles they had recently purchased or were interested in purchasing (SUV’s, compacts, sedans, etc.), including hybrids.

###  Fuel Economy Focus Groups • P hase 2 Findings 

# Findings

The city vs. highway distinction is remembered above all. Nearly all participants remembered a fuel economy label being on the last new vehicle they purchased. Without showing them the label, most of the respondents specifically remembered a city vs. highway distinc

tion in how the average mileage for the vehicle was displayed. Other information that participants thought they remembered included: Annual fuel cost General fuel economy information Size of gas tank [which is not on the label] Picture of a gas pump Features of the car (engine size, options, etc.) Type of fuel 

# Review of Current Fuel Economy Label There were many consistencies between the 2005 and 2006rounds of focus groups, in terms of reaction to the current fuel economy label. Details of the 2005 group findings are contained in a separate report, posted in the epaDocket for the proposed fuel economy labeling regu

lation (ref. epaDocket epa- hq-oar- 2005 - 0169 ). Participants in all focus groups agreed that improvements could be made to the existing label and most agreed on many of the specific revisions offered for discussion. The following section details some of the specific items that participants felt needed to be changed or updated on the current fuel economy label. ü ü ü ü ü ü Results from the focus groups in all five cities were fairly consistent. Therefore, findings are presented in regard to all cities, unless otherwise indicated.US Environmental P rotection Agency 

### City vs. highway mileage distinctions are clear and useful guidelines. Overall, participants in all the groups agreed that the city vs. highway distinction on the current label is very useful information. Many of the participants realized that these estimates were not perfect, in that they may never achieve the actual mileage stated on the label. They understood the best use of these mileage estimates was as a guide for comparison purposes when shopping for a new vehicle. Participants also understood that the mileage numbers were not perfect because there is no way to create mileage numbers that are “real” across all situations. How someone drives, the age of the vehicle, regional traffic conditions and use of air conditioning, all affect the miles per gallon of the vehicle. Even though most participants understood that the mileage numbers were estimates, and not ‘perfect,’ many expressed interest in how the numbers were generated. Annual Fuel Cost information has no meaning. Consistent across all the focus groups, participants indicated that the ‘estimated annual fuel cost’ information on the current label is mean

ingless to them. They indicated this information was useless to them because they had no idea what the current annual fuel number was based on how the cost estimate was calculated. The number does not provide participants a ‘true’ indication of how much fuel the vehicle will cost them annually. “Actual mileage will vary with...” statement is important, but seems like a confusing disclaimer. This statement seems to be clarifying the meaning behind the numbers, and reiterating that the estimates are ‘averages’ and subject to varying driving conditions. However, many of the participants agreed that the statement on the label failed to make this clarification. In fact, many participants admitted they had never read or paid attention to this statement before. When forced to read it for the discussion, many felt the way the statement is written makes them suspicious of where the numbers come from, and exactly how they were generated.Though almost all participants track their mileage from time-totime, they didn’t really seem to be concerned about how their mileage compared to the mileage estimates on the current label. As previously mentioned most of them seem to recognize that the current estimates are just that; estimates. Few expected that they might actually get the estimated mileage, and that was okay.Fig. 2: Baseline version, landscape Fig. 1: Baseline version, portrait



###  Fuel Economy Focus Groups • P hase 2 Findings 

### Mixed reaction about the ‘for comparison shopping’ statement. Clarification was almost always needed when discussing the ‘for com

parison shopping’ statement that is on the current label. Many partici

pants expressed confusion, and admitted they did not understand what the statement was explaining. Once the statement was explained, some participants felt the information was necessary and important for com

parison shopping purposes, others felt it was still confusing. Exactly how they could use this information to compare cars was unclear, because the definition of the classification system was unknown. For example, there was no definition of what a “compact” car is. It was not clear where the information came from. Even though the existing label indicates both the epaand doeand each participant had a copy of the label in their hands, they were unclear what organization(s) were responsible for the label. Many assumed it was the manufacturer. Many, but not all, participants knew what epa and doestood for. 

# Proposed Fuel Designs and Elements Preference for portrait layout vs. landscape not strongly held. An enlarged baseline version of the proposed new label was shown to participants in both a portrait and landscape configuration (the order of presentation was randomized across groups). The purpose of this exercise was to get a quick, top-of-mind reaction to the two layouts. The majority in most groups (except the final group in Atlanta) preferred the portrait version (Fig. 1) because it allowed one to read all of the label information from top to bottom, making it easier to process the information. However, later in the groups, when asked how they would feel about the landscape version (Fig. 2), if the portrait version was not possible, the vast majority had no concerns. Therefore, it is clear that although the portrait version was preferred, the strength of this preference was not especially strong. During the sixth of the ten focus groups, one of the participants recommended a new version of the landscape layout (Fig. 3). It is basically a version that maintains the placement of label elements similar to the old label, but with updated versions of those elements. When asked what the other members of this group thoughtFig. 4: Modified baseline version Fig. 3: Updated baseline version

US Environmental P rotection Agency 

### of such a label design there seemed to be high interest. Consequently, this new label design was tested at the very end of each of the groups in Baltimore and Atlanta. Results of this testing indicated a slight preference of this layout because: It is most similar to the current label, and it places all of the cost information inside the fuel pump. New label is preferred over old. When shown the proposed new label (in landscape for

mat) and asked to comment on what they thought of it, most mentioned that their concerns with the old label had been addressed. These comments focused on: The improved annual fuel cost information that now indicated both the assumed miles per year and cost per gallon for fuel The comparative fuel economy graphic was seen as a big improvement over the text version of that information on the old label. The updated look of the fuel pump The availability of the fuel economy website However, some participants also pointed out one concern with the revised label design. The new label has text carried over from a white background to a gray background (in the fuel pump area), which they found difficult to read. In response to this concern, a modified version of the label that addressed this issue was developed (fig. 4) and was tested in the last four focus groups (Baltimore and Atlanta). The results of this testing indicated there were mixed results with some people preferring this new layout because it was easier to read, but others did not like it because the “fuel pump was outrageously large.” epa is clear sponsor. When further probed on who is the sponsor of the fuel economy label, most participants knew that it was the epa . Surprisingly, many did not notice the very large text at the top of the label that clearly states “ epa Fuel Economy Estimates”. Rather, they seemed to pay more attention to the much smaller “transition” information at the top of the fuel pump that states “These estimates reflect new epamethods beginning with 2008. ” ü ü

ü

ü

ü

ü

###  Fuel Economy Focus Groups • P hase 2 Findings 

### When asked what the logos at the bottom of the label referred to, it was clear that most had not paid much attention to them. However, when brought to their attention, they stated that the labels lent an “official look” to the label. The size of the logos may be problematic since when shown to participants in the actual size in which they would appear, most found them very difficult to read. More elements of new label likely to be used. Although participants made it clear that even with the new label they would focus most of their attention on the city and highway mpges timates, with the new label they would be more likely (compared to the old label) to use other information on the label. In particular, they would be likely to use the comparative fuel economy graphic. They also would be more likely to use the estimated fuel cost information and many reported they would use the www.fueleconomy.gov website as a tool in their vehicle shopping. 

# Specific Label Element Preferences Participants were provided a label elements rating sheet (See Appendix C.) and then shown a variety of options for specific elements of the pro

posed new label. All of the element options appeared clearly on the rating sheet and were also shown on enlarged copies of the landscape version of the proposed new label. Participants were instructed to individually choose their preferred option for each of five specific elements and to also briefly explain the reasoning behind their preferences. As each of five label elements were tested, the results were tallied. (See Appendix D for tally.) This was followed by a discussion of participants’ choices. Below we discuss the results of each of the label elements that were tested. Fuel cost information Participants were presented with two options for the fuel cost infor

mation. Overall, Option 1 was slightly preferred ( 53 %) over Option 2( 48 %). In general, those who preferred Option 1 liked the simplicity of the information stating that it gave them all they needed to know. They also stated that Op

tion 2was less useful for them since they knew that they did not drive exclusively in either city or highway conditions. However, Option 1 is “simpler, most people drive both city and highway”

— detroit 

### Option 2 is better because “I can select the number that best matches my driving profile.”

— seattle

### Option 2 is best “because it clarifies that 10–63 is all vehicles and it shows how your class of vehicle ranks compared to all other vehicles.”

— baltimore 

### Option 1 is best because “I only need the fuel economy information in the class of vehicle I am looking to purchase.”

— atlanta



### 10 US Environmental P rotection Agency 

### those who preferred Option 2did so precisely because they were more likely to drive almost exclusively in either city or highway conditions. Some who preferred Option 2also mentioned that they were the type of person who likes as much detail before making a vehicle choice and that the additional detail in Option 2met this need. Comparable fuel economy graphics Participants were presented with three options, and the results were somewhat more definitive compared to the fuel cost options discussed above.

Option 3 was clearly the least preferred, with only 4 percent prefer

ring it. The major problem with Option 3 was that it was not clear to most participants what the range of 10to 63 referred to. Option 2was preferred by 44 % of all participants. (In Seattle, 81 % preferred this option). The major benefit of this option was seen as allowing customers to see how their vehicle choices compared to all vehicles, as well as in their class of vehicle. It was mentioned by many that such information might hopefully influence people to reconsider vehicle classes with higher fuel economy. Option 1 was the slight majority choice with 52 % of all participants preferring this option (especially in Baltimore and Kansas City). Several participants mentioned that they preferred this option over Option 2 because they already knew what class of vehicle they would be shopping for and the additional information in Option 2might make them feel guilty about their choice. Some also mentioned that they preferred the simplicity of Option 1 . It told them everything they needed to know. Disclaimer Text Here too, participants were presented with three options. Initial pref

erences prior to the group discussion resulted in an almost even split across all three options: Option 1 ( 33 %), Option 2( 32 %) and Option 3 ( 35 %).

### Option 1 is best because it is “less wordy, to the point.”

— detroit 

### Option 2 is best because it “gives drivers specific tips on how to drive for more fuel efficiency.”

— seattle 

### Option 3 is best because “with gas so high you want to know every option besides the obvious.”

“This gives you more info and at the same time allows you to get even more doing your own research.”

— seattle



### 11 Fuel Economy Focus Groups • P hase 2 Findings 

### Many participants spontane

ously referred to the disclaimer information as obvious, particularly those who earlier had mentioned reasons why gas mileage can vary. Some assumed that it needed to be there for legal reasons. Others however, indicated that not everyone knows why fuel economy may vary and how it can be improved. More specifically, those who preferred Option 1 focused on the simplicity of the message, whereas those who preferred Option 2liked the additional information providing specific tips on how to increase fuel economy. And those who preferred Option 3 mentioned both its simplicity and the fact that it directed people to where they could learn more about how to improve fuel economy. These participants also mentioned that listing some but not all of the ways to improve fuel economy (as in Option 2 ) was counter-productive. Very importantly, in literally every group (except one group in Kansas City), participants spontaneously suggested a combination of options 1 and 3 (or in a few cases, a combination of options 2and 3 ). Options 1 & 3 Combined Your actual mileage will vary depending on how you drive and maintain your vehicle and other factors. For tips on improving your fuel economy see www.fueleconomy.gov 

### Their thinking was that this combination provided the clear message that mileage may vary, and directed people to where they could learn more about improving fuel economy. When participants in all groups were asked to rethink their preferences for the disclaimer language with this fourth option included, a large number shifted to this fourth option. Transition Text When asked what their reaction was to the transition text that appears at the top of the fuel pump, most reactions were accepting of the text. The real issue here was to determine if such text was really necessary and if so, for how long should the transition text remain on the label. Many initially thought the transition text was unnecessary. Those who did not favor including the text at all indicated they felt that it is assumed the best methods at the time are being used and that saying these are new

### “I like this, but I would add on the page where the website is referenced that the information about the new methods can be found there.”

— A tlanta



### 12 US Environmental P rotection Agency 

### is redundant to this assumption. However, after the group discussion, many saw the importance of it, but also wanted to know exactly what the “new epamethods” are. However, most thought the inclusion of the www.fueleconomy.gov website was sufficient to allow those who want to know more about the “new methods” find that information. There was less consensus on how long the transition text should remain on the label. Some thought one year was sufficient, while others thought it should remain in use until the next time the methods are changed. Others suggested that the length of time the information should remain on the label should somehow be tied to the average length of time between ve

hicle purchases. This would allow those who purchase vehicles, say, three years from now, to know that the methods of estimating fuel economy had changed since their last vehicle purchase. This reasoning was even more evident when participants were told that the new methods would result in an approximate 15 percent decrease in estimated fuel economy. Environmental Statement The environmental statement was clearly the most polarizing of all the issues connected with the new label. Strong feelings were expressed on both sides of the issue, with some believing that such a statement was long overdue and necessary to encourage people to purchase more fuel efficient vehicles. Others felt that the statement was unnecessary since everyone already knows this. So obvious was this to some participants that they referred to it as “duh!” information. Others, particularly in the case of the Detroit groups, thought the statement should not be on the label since it would hurt the American auto industry by encouraging people to buy more fuel efficient foreign models. Others felt that this was consistent with the mission of epa and what they should be expected to say in their role. A consistent and unprompted comparison made by many of the groups was to the Surgeon General’s statement on tobacco products. Here, too, they felt it is something that everyone knows, but is important to state since it expresses a concern among most of the population. “Makes it seem like the auto industry is thinking about the environment and our problems.”

— seattle 

### “Not needed. Anyone con

cerned with fuel economy realizes all of this.”

— kansas city 

### “Could make people look at cars by foreign auto makers. So [our] economy might suffer.”

— detroit 

### “Comparable to the warning label on cigarettes. Reminds U.S. buyers of our ‘addiction’ to oil.”

— detroit

### 13 Fuel Economy Focus Groups • P hase 2 Findings 

# Appendices

A: P articipant P rofiles B: Sample Moderator Guide C: Label Element R ating Form D: Label Element P references Results

### 1 4 US Environmental P rotection Agency

### 15 Fuel Economy Focus Groups • P hase 2 Findings 

### Appendix A 

# Participant Profiles

Gender Age Education Car Type Hybrid Interest Atlanta, GA — 6:00 p.m. M 28 Graduate degree SUV No M 59 Some college or undergrad degree P assenger car No M 27 Some college or undergrad degree P assenger car No F 44 Graduate degree SUV No F 53 Some college or undergrad degree P assenger car No F 4 9 Graduate degree P assenger car No M 4 9 Graduate degree P assenger car No F 36 Graduate degree SUV No Atlanta, GA — 8:00 p.m. F 4 2 Some college or undergrad degree P assenger car No F 4 5 Some college or undergrad degree Station wagon or minivan No F 31 Some college or undergrad degree P assenger car No M 62 Some college or undergrad degree P assenger car No F 57 Graduate degree P assenger car No F 32 Some college or undergrad degree SUV No M 26 Some college or undergrad degree P assenger car No Baltimore, MD — 6:00 p.m. F 20-3 4 Graduate degree SUV No M 35- 4 9 Some college or undergrad degree P assenger car No

### 16 US Environmental P rotection Agency Gender Age Education Car Type Hybrid Interest M 50-64 Some college or undergrad degree P assenger car No F 35- 4 9 Some college or undergrad degree P assenger car No M 50-64 Some college or undergrad degree Station wagon No F 20-3 4 Graduate degree Minivan No F 65+ High school grad P assenger car No Baltimore, MD — 8:00 p.m. M 20-3 4 Some college or undergrad degree P assenger car No M 35- 4 9 Some college or undergrad degree SUV No F 35- 4 9 Some college or undergrad degree P assenger car No F 35- 4 9 Some college or undergrad degree SUV Yes M 50-64 Graduate degree P assenger car No F 50-64 Some college or undergrad degree P assenger car No M 65+ Some college or undergrad degree P ickup truck No Detroit, MI — 6:00 p.m. M 20-3 4 Some college or undergrad degree SUV No M 35- 4 9 Graduate degree Station Wagon/Minivan No F 50-64 Some college or undergrad degree P assenger car No F 35- 4 9 Some college or undergrad degree SUV No F 50-64 Graduate degree P assenger car No M 35- 4 9 Some college or undergrad degree SUV No F 65+ Some college or undergrad degree Station Wagon/Minivan Yes M 65+ Some college or undergrad degree Station Wagon/Minivan Yes Detroit, MI — 8:00 p.m. M 35- 4 9 Some college or undergrad degree P assenger Car Yes

### 17 Fuel Economy Focus Groups • P hase 2 Findings Gender Age Education Car Type Hybrid Interest M 35- 4 9 Graduate P assenger Car No M 50-64 Some college or undergrad degree Station Wagon/Minivan Yes F 50-64 Some college or undergrad degree SUV No F 65+ Some college or undergrad degree SUV No F 20-3 4 High school degree P ickup Truck No F 65+ High school degree Station Wagon/Minivan Yes M 35- 4 9 Graduate degree P assenger Car No Kansas City, MO — 6:00 p.m. F 20-3 4 Some college or undergrad degree P assenger Car No M 35- 4 9 Graduate degree SUV No M 65+ Graduate degree P ickup Truck Yes F 50-64 High school degree P assenger Car No M 65+ Some college or undergrad degree Station Wagon/Minivan No F 50-64 Some college or undergrad degree SUV No M 50-64 Some college or undergrad degree Station Wagon/Minivan No M 35- 4 9 Some college or undergrad degree Station Wagon/Minivan No Kansas City, MO — 8:00 p.m. M 35- 4 9 Graduate degree P ickup Truck No M 35- 4 9 Some college or undergrad degree P assenger Car No F 35- 4 9 Some college or undergrad degree SUV No F 20-3 4 Graduate degree Station Wagon/Minivan No F 50-64 Some college or undergrad degree SUV No F 20-3 4 Some college or undergrad degree Station Wagon/Minivan Yes M 50-64 High school degree P ickup Truck No

### 18 US Environmental P rotection Agency Gender Age Education Car Type Hybrid Interest F 20-3 4 High school degree Station Wagon/Minivan No Seattle, WA — 6:00 p.m. M 35- 4 9 Some college or undergrad degree P ickup Truck No F 20-3 4 Some college or undergrad degree P assenger Car Yes F 35- 4 9 Some college or undergrad degree Station Wagon/Minivan No F 35- 4 9 Some college or undergrad degree P assenger Car No M 35- 4 9 Some college or undergrad degree P assenger Car Yes F 35- 4 9 High school degree Station Wagon/Minivan No F 35- 4 9 Graduate degree P assenger Car No M 50-64 Some college or undergrad degree Station Wagon/Minivan No Seattle, WA — 8:00 p.m. M 50-64 Graduate degree P assenger Car Yes M 35- 4 9 Graduate degree SUV Yes F 35- 4 9 Some college or undergrad degree P assenger Car No M 35- 4 9 Some college or undergrad degree P assenger Car No M 50-64 Graduate degree P assenger Car No M 50-64 Some college or undergrad degree P assenger Car No F 50-64 High school degree Station Wagon/Minivan No F 65+ High school degree P assenger Car No

### 19 Fuel Economy Focus Groups • P hase 2 Findings 

### Appendix B 

# Sample Moderator Guide

Fuel Economy Label Focus Group Moderator Guide Introduction (10 minutes) [Moderator introduces herself/himself.] [Explain:] A focus group is a group discussion where we can learn more in-depth about peoples’ ideas and opinions (compared to telephone or written surveys). My job is to facilitate the discussion and make sure that everyone has an opportunity to speak and to make sure that no one dominates the conversation. [Mention facility, audio and video equipment (so I do not have to take notes), observers in separate room.] Housekeeping – Toilets and refreshments. [Mention ground rules.] There are no right or wrong answers; we’re interested in your honest and candid opinions and ideas. One person speaks at a time. This will allow all of us to be heard by each other and by the recording equipment. It is important to tell YOUR thoughts, not what you think others will think, or what you think others want to hear. Your ideas and opinions will be kept anonymous. Relax and enjoy We’re going to spend our time today talking about fuel economy information. Any questions about the purpose of our focus group or the ground rules before we begin? I’d like you each to introduce yourselves. Please tell us: Your name When did you buy your last new vehicle? When do you plan to buy your next new vehicle Was/is fuel economy a consideration in your vehicle purchase? ü

ü

ü

ü

ü

ü

ü

ü

ü

ü

ü

ü

ü ü ü ü

### 20 US Environmental P rotection Agency 

### Current Label Awareness, Understanding and Use (20 minutes) How many are aware of the fuel economy/mileage rating label found on new cars? Do you remember what information is given on the label? [if not, “what sort of information do you think might be on the label”]? [Then discuss as a group to create the group’s sense of the label content. Write this on flip chart.] [Show participants a large size example of the current label embedded in a price sticker. Then show just the fuel econ label part in a large size.] Discuss how they use the label when making vehicle choices. (Probe on whether they shop within class or not, such as within brand, price range, or utility type.) Discuss their understanding of each component of the label: what is useful, what the information means, what is clear, what is unclear, what is the most important information, is there more information that is needed, etc. (Probe on the “expected range” information in regard to their understanding of it and how useful it is.) Ask if they know where the information on the label comes from? Who's responsible for it? (don't spend too much time on this, but see if they know if it's the government.) Do you have any experience measuring your own fuel economy? How did you measure it? How did the numbers compare to the label values? Why do you think you got the results you did? Let’s talk briefly about those things that we as drivers do that can impact the miles per gallon we get. [don't spend too much time on this - we covered it pretty well in the previous groups] Ask client if they have any questions at this time. Consumer Reaction to Proposed Labels (60 minutes) 

### First show them either the the portrait version of the label or the landscape version (alternate order in groups for each city). Ask for a quick reaction to how these labels look visually compared to the existing label. DO NOT DISCUSS CONTENT AT THIS POINT.) Then open up to group discussion and review large version of the new landscape label with the preferred EPA language ü

ü

ü

ü

ü

ü

ü

### 2 1 Fuel Economy Focus Groups • P hase 2 Findings 

### in terms of what is clear, what is unclear, what is useful, not useful, and what is missing. Ask if this label makes it any clearer as to who is responsible for the label. [just want to be sure that the gov’t logos are large enough and that the term “EPA” at the top is understood] Then show them the new label and the old label and ask how they would be likely to use the new label when shopping for cars compared to how they used the old label. Then hand out the rating sheet and show them separate posters that illustrate the choices for the following five label elements. Have them individually circle preferences and record on rating sheet. Then tally preferences for each issue and and discuss reasons behind preferences for each element. fuel cost info [show this element on the label to see if they think it adds to much info/words] comparable FE range graphic options [show this element on the label to see if they think it adds to much info/words] disclaimer text (be sure to test if they will use the fueleconomy. gov website) transition text (Do they understand what the words mean? If the changes start with 2008 models should this text go on later models as well? For how many years?) environmental statement (be sure to probe on if they think this is necessary and their reaction to the tone of the message) At end of discussion of elements, summarize their expressed preferences, see if they’d add anything else. (Attempt to link their responses here to earlier brainstorming statements of how they use the label, i.e., “You said earlier that you used the label to do X: how does the new label affect how you do X?”) Show them the portrait version and landscape versions again and ask about preferences (given the discussion about the new label). Then show them the baseline in which all “city/highway text” is within the white part of the pump. See if they prefer this to baseline and probe on why. ü

ü

ü

ü

ü

ü

ü

ü

ü

### 22 US Environmental P rotection Agency 

### Then show the label version in which the annual fuel costs are in the white part of the label. Compare it to the baseline. Ask for preference and reasons for preferences. Ask client if they have any last questions. Wrap-Up (5 minutes) Anything else you would like our clients to know about you thoughts about fuel economy labels? ü

üBuying a vehicle with better fuel economy helps protect the environment and reduces dependence on oil. See the FREE Fuel Economy Guide at dealers or www.fueleconomy.gov These estimates reflect new EPA methods beginning with 2008 models. 

# 18 Your actual mileage will vary

depending on how you drive

and maintain your vehicle and other factors. Your actual mileage will vary. For best mileage avoid high speeds and rapid acceleration, keep tires properly inflated and reduce air conditioning. Your actual mileage will vary. For tips on improving your fuel economy see www.fueleconomy.gov. Estimated Annual Fuel Cost Combined : $2,100 City
......... $2,333 Highway
.......... $1,680 based on 15,000 miles

at $2.80 per gallon Estimated Annual Fuel Cost 

### $2,100 based on 15,000 miles

at $2.80 per gallon

Combined fuel economy

10 31 q All SUVs 

# 25

21 This Vehicle 10 31 All SUVsAll Vehicles 63 

# 25
Combined fuel economy
q 

### 21 This Vehicle 

### 21 This Vehicle Combined fuel economy 

# 25

10 31

All SUVs 63

q 

# Rating Sheet — Fuel Economy Label Options City: _____________________________ Date: ______________ Time: ______________ Fuel Cost

Fuel Economy Comparison

Disclaimer Text

Transition Text

Environmental Statement Option 2 Option 1

Option 2 Option 1 Option 3

Why this preference?

What is your reaction to this? What is your reaction to this? Why this preference? Why this preference?
Option 2 Option 1 Option 3

The government estimates the average time needed to fill out this form is 0.6 hours and welcomes suggestions

for reducing this level of effort. Send comments (referencing OMB control number 2060-058) to the Director,

Collection Strategies Division, U.S. EPA (2822T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, D.C. 20460. OMB ICR No. 2060-058 exp. 8/31/2006



### 2 3 Fuel Economy Focus Groups • P hase 2 Findings 

### Appendix C 

# Label Element Rating Form

# Appendix D: Label Element Preferences Results
6p 8p Ct. 6p 8p Ct. 6p 8p Ct. 6p 8p Ct. 6p 8p Ct. Ct. %
5 4 9 2 5 7 6 2 8 5 3 8 6 4 10 42 53%

3 4 7 6 3 9 2 6 8 3 5 8 2 4 6 38 48%

6p 8p Ct. 6p 8p Ct. 6p 8p Ct. 6p 8p Ct. 6p 8p Ct. Ct. %
6 3 9 7 4 11 4 3 7 5 6 11 2 1 3 41 52%

2 4 6 1 4 5 3 4 7 2 2 4 6 7 13 35 44%

0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 4%

6p 8p Ct. 6p 8p Ct. 6p 8p Ct. 6p 8p Ct. 6p 8p Ct. Ct. % 3 3 6 2 2 4 0 1 1 4 3 7 3 5 8 26 33%

2 3 5 5 4 9 4 1 5 2 1 3 2 1 3 25 32%

2 2 4 1 2 3 4 6 10 2 4 6 3 2 5 28 35% KC Seattle Totals Disclaimer Text Atlanta Baltimore Detroit Totals KC Seattle

Fuel Economy Comparison Atlanta Baltimore Detroit KC Seattle Totals Fuel Cost Atlanta Baltimore Detroit



### 2 4 US Environmental P rotection Agency 

### Appendix D 

# Label Element Preferences Results