Environmental Protection Agency 

Fuel Economy Label 

Phase 3 Focus Groups 
Environmental Protection Agency 


Fuel Economy Label
 

Phase 3 Focus Groups
 

Office of Transportation and Air Quality 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

and 

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
 

United States Department of Transportation
 

Prepared for EPA by
 

PRR, Inc.
 

EPA Contract No. GS-23F-0364P
 

Task Order 0001
 

EPA-420-R-10-905 

August 2010 
 

Table of Contents 

Introduction ......................................................................3
�

Gasoline Engine Vehicle Label Designs..................................9
�

Understandability of vehicle label designs ...............................9
�

Using the label to determine vehicle fuel efficiency ................12
�

Suggestions to improve the vehicle label ...............................13
�

Electric Vehicle Label Designs............................................15
�

Understandability of vehicle label designs .............................15
�

Using the label to determine vehicle fuel efficiency ................20
�

Suggestions to improve the vehicle label ...............................21
�

Extended Range Electric Vehicle.........................................23
�

Understandability of vehicle label designs .............................23
�

Using the label to determine vehicle fuel efficiency ................27
�

Suggestions to improve the vehicle label ...............................28
�

Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicle...........................................29
�

Understandability of vehicle label designs .............................29
�

Using the label to determine vehicle fuel efficiency ................32
�

Suggestions to improve the vehicle label ...............................33
�

Using Labels To Compare Across Technologies .....................35
�

Elements of vehicle label most useful in 

comparing across technologies .............................................35
�

Which vehicle label design is best for comparing 

across technologies?............................................................35
�

What information is not needed when 

comparing across technologies .............................................38
�

Environmental Metrics ......................................................39 

Environmental metrics preferences .......................................39
�

Inclusion of pollutants generated from 

charging electric vehicles ....................................................42
�

Annual Cost and Annual Gallons Assumptions .....................43
�

Placement of the Fuel Economy Label 

within the Monroney Label.................................................45
�

Overall Summary ..............................................................47
�

Phase 3 Focus Groups 1 
 

 

 

 

Appendices......................................................................51 

Appendix A: Moderator Guide...............................................51 

Appendix B: Participants’ Profiles .........................................60 

Appendix C: Gasoline Engine Labels 

Understandability Handout ..................................................76 

Appendix D: Gasoline Engine Labels Understandability Tally....78 

Appendix E: Gasoline Engine Labels Fuel Efficiency Handout...81 

Appendix F: Gasoline Engine Labels Fuel Efficiency Tally .........82 

Appendix G: Electric Vehicle Labels 

Understandability Handout ..................................................83 

Appendix H: Electric Vehicles Labels Understandability Tally ...84 

Appendix I: Electric Vehicle Labels Fuel Efficiency Handout.....87 

Appendix J: Electric Vehicles Labels Fuel Efficiency Tally.........88 

Appendix K: Extended Range Electric Vehicle 

Labels Understandability Handout ........................................89 

Appendix L: EREV Labels Understandability Tally....................90 

Appendix M: EREV Labels Fuel Efficiency Handout .................93 

Appendix N: EREV Labels Fuel Efficiency Tally .......................94 

Appendix O: PHEV Labels Understandability Handout.............95 

Appendix P: PHEV Labels Understandability Tally...................96 

Appendix Q: PHEV Labels Fuel Efficiency Handout .................99 

Appendix R: PHEV Labels Fuel Efficiency Tally .....................100 

Appendix S: Comparing Across Technology Option A Handout ....101 

Appendix T: Comparing Across Technology Option A Tally ......102 

Appendix U: Comparing Across Technology Option B Handout..... 103 

Appendix V: Comparing Across Technology Option B Tally......104 

Appendix W: Comparing Across Technology Option C Handout ...105 

Appendix X: Comparing Across Technology Option C Tally......106 

Appendix Y: Environmental Metrics Handout ........................107 

Appendix Z: Environmental Metrics Tally..............................108 

Appendix AA: Environmental Metrics Option F Handout ........111 

Appendix AB: Monroney Label Handout...............................112 

2 EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Introduction 

Background 

In 2006, EPA updated how the city and highway fuel economy 

values are calculated to better reflect typical real-world driving 

patterns and provide more realistic fuel economy estimates. In 

addition, EPA redesigned the fuel economy label to make it more 

informative for consumers. The redesigned label more prominently 

featured annual fuel cost information, provided contemporary and 

easy-to-use graphics for comparing the fuel economy of different 

vehicles, used clearer text, and included a Web site reference to 

www.fueleconomy.gov which provided additional information. 

EPA and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 

(NHTSA) are now initiating a new rulemaking to ensure that 

American consumers continue to have the most accurate,meaningful 

and useful information, as well as an understanding of how the 

labeled vehicle impacts the environment. With the introduction 

of advanced technology vehicles on the market the agencies must 

provide metrics that are relevant and useful for vehicles such as 

Electric Vehicles, Extended Range Electric Vehicles and Plug-in 

Hybrid Electric Vehicles. 

To help inform the creation of the new label, EPA engaged PRR 

Inc. to work with them in the design and implementation of several 

information gathering protocols including: 

•	� Literature review 

•	� Focus groups (in 3 phases, including pre-group online 

surveys) 

•	� Online survey of new vehicle buyers 

•	� Expert panel 

Phase 3 Focus Groups 3 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It was decided to use a three-phase approach for the focus groups 

in order to accommodate the amount of information required to be 

covered in the focus groups, as well as to use each phase to inform 

the next phase on overall label design in regard to both content and 

look. The three phases were designed to address the following issues: 

• Phase I – Use of the current label, as well as content and 

design of the label for internal combustion engine vehicles 

• Phase II – Understandability of and preference for metrics 

for advanced technology vehicle labels 

• Phase III – Assessment of full label designs in regard to 

content and look 

This document provides an overview of the Phase III focus groups 

and is designed specifically to refine the full label designs. It is not 

intended as a comprehensive report of results from the Phase III 

focus groups; that will come in the form of a full comprehensive 

report incorporating the results of all three phases of the focus 

groups, including the results of the pre-group online surveys. It 

should be noted that all results reported here refer to the focus 

group discussions. 

Methodology 

Focus groups are the optimum approach to use when the task calls 

for qualitative,in-depth understanding of consumers’ understanding 

of fuel economy labels. Focus groups allow for probing around such 

issues as why some label designs are more understandable, how 

such label designs would be used in the vehicle purchase process, 

and which label metrics are most important to consumers. The 

focus group discussion can also provide insights about how a label 

design may influence consumers’ use of the fuel economy label, as 

well as helping consumers to identify the most fuel-efficient and 

environmentally friendly vehicles that meet their needs. 

Sixteen focus groups were conducted between May 17th and 27th , 

2010 in the cities of Seattle, Chicago, Houston and Charlotte. In 

each city, four groups (two male, two female) were conducted in 

English and each lasted for two hours. A moderator guide was used 

to structure the focus group discussions (see Appendix A). 

4 EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

 

   

 

Participants were recruited from within panels developed and 

maintained by the focus group facility used in each city. Twelve 

persons were recruited for each group, with the assumption that 

eight to ten would be present for participation. With the exception 

of the May 17th Seattle female group (which had six participants), 

May 24th Houston male group (which had five participants) and 

May 25th Houston male group (which had seven participants), the 

rest of the groups consisted of eight participants each. 

In order to screen out ‘professional focus group participants,’ only 

those who had not participated in a focus group in the last six 

months were included. In addition, participants were required to 

demonstrate evidence that they had purchased a new vehicle (not 

a used or pre-owned vehicle; not a motorcycle; not a ‘Cash for 

Clunkers’ purchase) in the last 12 months. In addition, participants 

must have been the sole or primary decision maker with regard 

to this new vehicle purchase. Having internet access was also a 

requirement so that they could complete the pre-group online 

survey. To ensure a good cross-section of participants, each focus 

group included individuals representing diversity in: type of new 

vehicle, price range of new vehicle, distance they typically travelled 

daily in this new vehicle, if they had seriously considered an 

advanced technology vehicle before purchasing their vehicle, and 

demographics (see Appendix B for participant profiles). 

For the Phase III focus groups, participants were asked to provide 

input on fuel economy label designs for conventional gas, EV, EREV 

and PHEV technologies. The fuel economy label designs used for 

the Phase III focus groups were based on input received during the 

Phase I and Phase II focus groups and input from EPA and NHTSA 

officials. Participants were asked to evaluate three different fuel 

economy label designs for the four different vehicle technologies. 

Each fuel economy label design contained similar information, but 

differed in presentation, lay-out, and some of the metrics used. 

•	� Option A labels focused on the use of colored boxes to 

separate information. On the left side of the label, the top 

box presented fuel economy and the bottom box presented 

consumption and cost information.The right side of the label 

was one long box that presented environmental information. 

The Optin A label used stars to rate both fuel economy and 

environmental impact, and provided a combined MPG/ 

MPGe metric along with gallons per hundred miles. 

Phase 3 Focus Groups 5 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

• Option B labels focused on making the fuel metric stand 

out. Information was presented from left to right. The 

box on the left presented information on fuel economy, 

consumption and cost, while the box on the right presented 

environmental information. The Option B label used 

also provided combined and separate city and highway 

fuel consumption information, used the kWh metrics to 

represent vehicle electric operation fuel consumption, 

included a Smartphone scan code, and used leaves to display 

the environmental impact information. For vehicles that 

used electric operation, information on electric vehicle 

range and charge time was prominently displayed in their 

own box on the right above the environmental information 

box. 

• Option C labels focused on providing a large combined 

mileage MPG/MPGe fuel metric to show fuel 

consumption. Information was presented from left to 

right, but used one large box on top to presented mileage 

information. Below that box, consumption and cost 

was presented in a box on the left and environmental 

information was provided in a box on the right. Option 

C labels did not provide separate city and highway MPG/ 

MPGe numbers, but did provide a gallons per hundred 

miles metric. Leaves were again used to display the 

environmental impact information. Unique to Option C 

labels was the fuel economy comparison slider bar, and the 

electric range and charge graphic. 

To provide adequate time for participants to discuss each label 

design, each focus group focused on three of the four different 

vehicles technologies. Which three vehicle technologies were 

included was rotated amongst the focus groups to provide equal 

coverage of all four vehicle technologies. To allow for appropriate 

comparisons to be made, one male and one female group in each 

city were asked about the same three vehicles technologies in the 

same order. 

6 EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Participants were asked to complete an online survey before they 

took part in the focus group discussions. The purpose of the 

online survey was to obtain additional information regarding 

their vehicle purchase process, the role of fuel economy in their 

purchase decision, how they used the current fuel economy label, 

and motivators and barriers to their purchasing alternative fuel 

vehicles. The pre-group online survey did not present new label 

designs (these were covered exclusively in the focus groups). It 

should be noted that the pre-group online surveys were not meant 

to be representative of new vehicle buyers in general (since focus 

group participants are in many ways unique), but rather to provide 

additional information about these specific participants. The 

online survey was approximately 12 to 15 minutes in length and 

was completed by 176 of the recruited participants. Of those who 

had completed the online survey, 60 male recruits and 62 female 

recruits participated in the focus group discussions. The complete 

results for this online survey can be found in the Pre-Focus Group 

Online Survey Report. 

Phase 3 Focus Groups 7 
8 EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Gasoline Engine Vehicle 

Label Designs 

Understandability of vehicle label designs 

Participants in twelve of the sixteen groups were asked to provide 

input on gasoline vehicle label designs1. For this discussion, the 

moderator handed out individual copies of three different gasoline 

vehicle label designs (see Appendix C). The moderator asked each 

participant to indicate which label they viewed as most and least 

understandable (see Appendix D for tally) and to explain their 

rationale for choosing the most and the least understandable designs. 

The majority of the participants in eleven of the twelve groups found “It was the only that gave 

Option B to be the most understandable. Option B was picked as the me city and highway.” 

most understandable by all four Charlotte groups, all four Seattle – Charlotte Male 

groups, the male Chicago group, and the two Houston groups that 

viewed the gasoline vehicle labels. Participants explained that this “Not everyone drives highway, 

option was perceived as the most understandable because it provided need to know city driving too.” 

them with separate city and highway fuel economy estimates just like – Charlotte Female 

the current EPA label. They explained that they usually looked for 

the “two big numbers” (i.e., city/highway MPGs) on the label for the 

Option B

1 Four groups (two female and 

two male) in both Charlotte and 

Chicago, and two groups (one 

female and one male) in both 

Seattle and Houston. 

Phase 3 Focus Groups 9 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

fuel economy of the vehicle. When they were asked if they preferred a 

combined (city and highway) estimate over separate city and highway 

estimates, most reported preferring the latter. They explained that 

people had different driving styles (city versus highway driving) and 

seeing each estimate gave them the basic information to do the math 

and calculate fuel economy for their particular case. They also liked 

having the annual cost and consumption information provided in a 

prominent location, which made it easy to find and read.. Participants 

added that they liked the layout used in Option B because the sideby-side layout format was simple, easy to read and appealing, and the 

arrangement of fuel economy, cost and consumption information in one 

box and the environment related information in a separate box worked 

well for them. Participants also stated that they liked the use of leaves to 

represent the vehicle’s environmental rating. Some participants indicated 

that the yellow color used in Option B grabbed their attention. Most 

participants across groups indicated that they liked the Smartphone 

interactive scan code on Option B and thought it would be useful in 

accessing information easily. This is significant since the moderators 

intentionally did not draw participants’ attention to this feature. 

Although participants were fairly evenly split between Option A 

and Option C as the least understandable label, seven of the groups 

selected Option C, while five groups selected Option A as the least 

understandable label. 

About half of all participants and seven of the twelve focus groups 

(two male Charlotte groups, one female Seattle group, one female 

Houston group, and one female and two male Chicago groups) 

found Option C to be the least understandable. Participants that 

found this option least understandable stated that the information 

on the label was difficult to interpret at a glance, especially the grey 

MPG comparison slider bar graphic. Participants also stated that 

“It’s laid out better, easier on the 

eyes.” – Charlotte Female 

“All the information in the square 

is pretty much what I’m looking 

for, mileage and what my cost 

will be. I’m less concerned about 

environmental issues.” 

– Charlotte Male 

“It is easy to find cost and 

consumption in this format.” 

– Chicago Male 

Option C

10 EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

they thought there was too much information on the label. They also “I like the comparison bar- gives 

did not like the top-to-bottom format used in this option. Instead, me the range of the worst and the 

but preferred the side-by-side format used in Option B. The use of best.” - Chicago Male 

color on the label to separate information was preferred over the 

use of black and white. For the participants that did like this option “The environment part uses green 

(about one-quarter of the total), they stated that they liked the MPG leaves. I like that.” - Chicago Male 

comparison slider bar (since it provided the range of worst to best), 

the presentation of the estimated annual fuel cost in its own box, 

and the estimated monthly fuel cost (because it helped them to 

think of their fuel spending at the monthly level similar to how they 

budgeted other living costs). Some participants added that they liked 

the way environmental information was presented because the leaf 

design was well suited to the environment theme. In addition, having 

a combined metric for CO2 and other pollutants worked well for 

some participants because it was simple and sufficient for them to 

judge how a vehicle fared as compared to others with regard to the 

environmental impact. 

Option A

Close to half of the participants found Option A to be the 

least understandable. Option A was also picked as the least 

understandable by five of the twelve focus groups (one male and two 

female groups in Charlotte, one male Seattle group, and one male 

Houston group). These participants explained that they thought 

this option was the least understandable because it used “too many 

colors,” looked “too busy,” and did not present information in an 

organized way. They added that the information was not separated 

well, and no particular information stood out prominently in this 

design option. It also did not provide them with separate city and 

highway fuel consumption estimates, which is information that “There’s too much going on.” 

the participants were very interested in having available. Some – Charlotte Female 

Phase 3 Focus Groups 11 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

participants also indicated that the font used in this option was 

“not bold enough.” When probed about the use of gallons per 100 

miles as a fuel consumption metric, most participants in all the 

groups said that they preferred it less than MPG as they were not 

familiar with it. 

No major city or gender differences were found with regard to 

participants’ perceived understanding of gasoline engine vehicle 

label designs. 

Based on the above findings, it can be said that Option B was 

perceived as the most understandable overall vehicle label design 

for gasoline vehicles and that participants were split between 

Option A and Option C as the least understandable design. In 

essence, for gasoline engine vehicles, participants preferred a label 

design that gave them separate city and highway fuel consumption 

estimates, provided annual cost and consumption information, and 

was presented in a side-by-side format. 

Using the label to determine vehicle fuel 

efficiency 

The moderator passed out individual copies of three pairs of 

gasoline vehicle labels (one pair of labels for each of the three 

design options discussed above) to the participants (see Appendix 

E). Each label pair was identical except that one was for a more fuel 

efficient vehicle. The goal of this exercise was to determine whether 

the participants were able to use the information on the labels to 

determine which vehicle was more fuel efficient within each pair, to 

understand what information they used to make that determination, 

and whether any information caused misunderstanding. 

The majority of participants across all groups were easily able to 

determine which gasoline vehicle was most fuel efficient for each 

pair (see Appendix F for tally). Higher MPG and lower fuel costs 

were used by participants to determine which vehicle was most 

fuel efficient. Some participants also looked at gallons per hundred 

miles and CO2 emissions. All but a few participants correctly chose 

Options A2, B1, and C2 as the most fuel efficient. 

“I don’t know anyone who thinks 

that way.” – Charlotte Male 

“It’s always easy to look at the 

dollar amount.” – Seattle Male 

12 EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No major city or gender differences were found with regard to 

participants’ use of the labels to determine vehicle fuel efficiency. 

Based on the above findings, it can be said that regardless of 

label design, participants relied primarily on MPG and fuel cost 

information to correctly determine which vehicle was most fuel 

efficient. Some participants also looked at gallons per hundred 

miles and CO2 emissions to make fuel efficiency judgments. 

Suggestions to improve the vehicle label 

The following suggestions were provided by participants across 

groups to improve the label design for gasoline engine vehicles: 

•	� Use different font size with larger and bolder font for more 

critical information: 

•	� Emphasize city and highway MPG estimates by using 

larger and bolder font 

•	� Reduce the font size for combined MPG estimate 

•	� Reduce the font size for estimated gallons per year 

•	� Include Smartphone interactive scan code 

•	� Do not use stars for environmental ratings (as in Option A) 

•	� Use a side-by-side format (as in Option B) 

•	� Include the gas pump symbol (as in Option C) 

Phase 3 Focus Groups 13 
14 EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Electric Vehicle Label Designs
�

Understandability of vehicle label designs 

Participants in twelve2 of the sixteen groups were asked to provide 

input on electric vehicle (EV) label designs. The moderator 

distributed individual copies and read out loud the following 

description of an electric vehicle and confirmed that participants 

understood how such vehicles function: 

“Electric Vehicles use electricity stored in batteries to propel the 

vehicle. The battery is charged by plugging it into an electrical 

outlet. This could be a standard electric outlet, or a high voltage 

custom-installed station for more rapid charging. Like hybrid 

vehicles, some energy is recovered when the brakes are applied.
�

The vehicle travels until the charge is depleted, or it is re-charged.
�

There is no option to run it on gasoline.”
�

For this discussion, the moderator handed out individual copies 

of three different electric vehicle label designs (see Appendix G). 

The moderator asked each participant to indicate which label they 

viewed as most and least understandable (see Appendix H for tally) 

and to explain why. 

Interestingly, for electric vehicles, the majority of the groups 

thought that Option C was both the most understandable and 

the least understandable vehicle label. Option C was selected as 

most understandable by seven (all Houston groups, the two Seattle 

male groups, and the Charlotte male group) of the twelve focus 

groups. Option C was selected as least understandable by five 

(the Charlotte female group, the two Seattle female groups, and 

the Chicago male group) of the twelve focus groups. Two more of 

the groups (one Houston female group, and the Chicago female 

group) were undecided on which of the three options were least 

understandable. 

2 Four groups each (two female 

and two male) in both Seattle 

and Houston, and two groups 

each (one female and one male) 

in both Charlotte and Chicago. 

Phase 3 Focus Groups 15 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Those participants who thought that Option C was the most 

understandable stated that it was well organized and very 

informative. They thought it was “less cluttered,” “clear,” easy 

to read, and had good graphics (especially the range & charge 

graphic). Most useful was the large MPGe number and the annual 

fuel cost and consumption information. Participants also liked 

Option C because it carried charging time information. According 

to participants, charging time was a crucial piece of information 

especially for EVs and it was essential for the label to carry this 

information. Participants liked how this information was presented 

on the label in the range and charge bar graphic. 

When the moderator asked if they understood what MPGe was, 

most were not sure, but assumed it was some way of comparing 

electric power with gasoline power. While there were some who 

reported reading its description on the label, others guessed it 

to be an electric-equivalent of MPG (“MPG-electric,” “MPGequivalent”). Many participants also liked the use of the large font 

for the MPGe numbers which made it easy to find on the label. 

Most individuals did not read the description even if they had 

noticed the asterisk placed next to the MPGe. 

Many participants liked the estimated monthly fuel cost in addition 

to the annual fuel cost on the label. According to them, it was 

consistent with how they plan and monitor their budgets (monthly) 

and allowed them to project how their budget would change for 

each month if they bought the vehicle. Some participants also 

reported liking the format used in Option C. They explained that 

they liked the fuel cost, consumption and economy information in 

a black and white format because it looked straightforward and 

“I like the graphic on the range 

and the charging capabilities. 

It was nicely laid and easy to 

understand.” – Chicago Male 

“I like the green at the bottom 

that shows on a fully charged 

battery how far you can travel 

because it’s there, it’s a picture, 

so people don’t have to really to 

guess what it means by having 

to convert kW-hr or trying to 

figure out what I’m going to get 

city vs. highway.” 

– Houston Female 

“I liked that it [Option C] gave 

you the equivalent gallons per 

month that you utilize, because 

most of us still think in terms of 

gasoline. It gives me more of a 

benchmark about what I would 

be paying to run an electric car 

per month, opposed to what I 

would spend on 13 gallons of 

gasoline a month.” 

– Houston Male 

Option C

16 EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

to-the-point. The use of green color for the environmental elements “To me, this 2.9 miles per kWwas symbolic of the environment theme. Further, some participants hr [referring to Option B], if I’m 

mentioned liking the symbol of the plug and thought that it was comparing it to a gasoline car, 

intuitive and well suited for electric vehicles. A few participants that doesn’t help me, where 

mentioned liking the comparison bar used to compare vehicles as the 98 MPG [as presented 

within its class and among all vehicles, but suggested including a in Option C], my brain knows 

clearer description of what “within class” stood for – whether it MPG.” – Houston Female 

was comparing vehicles that were based on the same technology or 

those that were of the same size/type of vehicle. 

For the participants that found Option C least understandable, the “I don’t need to know how many 

black and white format did not appeal to them and they did not gallons its equivalent to, I don’t 

like the grey MPGe comparison bar. They also struggled with what really care about that, I just 

the MPGe metric and charge time meant. With regard to MPGe, need to know overall how much 

participants described that they had a hard time equating electricity it’s going to cost for the month.” 

to gallons and struggled with how to estimate their cost for electricity. – Houston Male 

As for charge time, a few female participants thought that it referred 

to how long one could drive the vehicle. A few participants in one of 

the Seattle male groups struggled with the vehicle charge time and 

range graphic because they did not understand that it was trying 

to provide information that was different than the estimate (‘98 

MPGe’) for combined city/highway driving. 

Option B

Option B was found to be least understandable by a majority of the 

participants, but just one Seattle male group and one Houston male 

group (2 of 12) definitively selected it as the least understandable 

label design. Also, two more of the groups (one Houston female 

group, and the Chicago female group) were undecided on which of 

the three options were least understandable. The Charlotte female 

group and the two Seattle female groups found Option B most 

understandable (3 out of 12). 

Phase 3 Focus Groups 17 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

All focus groups conducted in Seattle, Charlotte, and two of the 

groups conducted in Houston were shown a version of the Option 

B label that used a kW-hr per 100 miles as the fuel economy metric, 

rather the miles per kW-hr metric shown above. Groups that were 

shown the kW-hr per 100 miles metric tended to struggle with 

the concept of a smaller number indicating better fuel efficiency 

rather than a larger number as with MPG for gasoline powered 

vehicles. To determine if a different representation of the kW-hr 

metric would improve its understandability, miles per kW-hr was 

used on the Option B labels shown to two of the Houston groups 

and all of the Chicago groups. The change in this kW-hr did cause 

less confusion when participants were asked to choose which of 

two vehicles was more fuel efficient, but did not change which 

label option the groups selected as most and least understandable. 

Regardless of the presentation of the kW-hr metric, Option B faired 

the same in overall understandability in relation to Options A or C. 

Those participants who found Option B most understandable did so 

because it provided them separate city and highway fuel economy 

estimates. They explained that they typically looked for the “two 

big numbers” (i.e., city/highway fuel economy estimates) for vehicle 

fuel efficiency information on the label. Some participants said that 

they liked the layout used in Option B. According to them, the 

placement of fuel economy, consumption, and cost in a separate 

box, as well as range, and environment in separate boxes was well 

organized and made it easier for them to read and understand. In 

addition, participants liked the Smartphone interactive code on 

Option B and thought it was very useful. Those participants who 

found Option B to be the least understandable said that they did not 

like kW- hr as a metric for fuel consumption as they were unfamiliar 

with what a kW-hr represented. Those groups that viewed labels 

with the kW-hr per 100 miles metric struggled with the concept 

that a smaller number meant better fuel efficiency (as opposed 

to MPG where the bigger number indicates a more fuel efficient 

vehicle). The groups that viewed labels with the miles per kW-hr 

metric, understood that the bigger number represented a more fuel 

efficient vehicle, but again they struggled with understanding what 

a kW-hr presented and how to equate that with MPG. 

“It goes back to what you were 

saying about focusing on key 

information, which is range. 

Most people wouldn’t be able 

to tell you how many kW-hr 

they use each month in their 

homes, so it’s a very ambiguous 

measure of energy usage.” 

– Houston Male 

18 EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Option A was not selected as either the most or least understandable 

label design by a majority of the participants or groups.The Chicago 

female and male groups found it most understandable (2 of 12), 

while the Charlotte female group, one Houston female group, and 

one Houston male group (3 of 12) found it least understandable. 

Also, as explained for Options C and B, three of the groups (one 

Houston female group, one Seattle male group and the Chicago 

female group) were undecided on which of the three options were 

least understandable. 

Option A

“It didn’t give enough 

information. It was kind vast Participants who found Option A least understandable did so 

and flat, blah.” – Houston because it used the same font size for all the numbers irrespective 

Female of whether these numbers were viewed as critical or not. This made 

it unappealing to them as they wanted critical information such 

as fuel economy and range to appear more prominent than other “The focus is in the wrong 

information. Participants also said that they did not like the color place. The things I would be 

format (use of red color) and the star rating system used in this looking at, I would want to 

option (“too many stars”). Many also said that Option A was less know how far I can go on a full 

informative because it did not carry charging time information and charge.” – Houston Female 

the Smartphone interactive scan code on the label. 

No major city or gender differences were found with regard to “It has no information on

charging.”-Chicago Male participants’ understanding of electric vehicle label designs. 

Based on the above findings, it can be said that Option C was perceived 

as both the most and least understandable electric vehicle label design. 

Participants thought Option C was the most understandable because 

it was well organized and easy to read. It contained the information 

that was important to them like the charge time and the MPGe. They 

also liked the estimated annual and monthly fuel cost, and the black 

Phase 3 Focus Groups 19 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

and white format. Participants who thought Option C was the least 

understandable did not like the black and white format, or the grey 

fuel economy comparison bar, and struggled with the MPGe metric. 

Using the label to determine vehicle 

fuel efficiency 

The moderator passed out individual copies of three pairs of electric 

vehicle labels to the participants (see Appendix I). Each label pair 

was identical except that one was for a more fuel efficient vehicle. 

The goal of this exercise was to determine whether the participants 

were able to use the information on the labels to determine which 

vehicle was the more fuel efficient in each pair, to understand what 

information they used to make that determination, and whether 

any information was misunderstood. 

All but a few participants were able to easily determine the most 

fuel efficient vehicle for Options A and C (see Appendix J for tally). 

For Option A, participants who chose correctly based their choice 

on MPGe, and fuel consumption and cost estimates. Those who 

chose incorrectly reported using KW-hr per 100 miles as their basis 

of comparison and thought that a bigger number stood for a better 

estimate. For Option C, participants who chose Option C2 (which 

was the more fuel efficient vehicle) as the more fuel efficient vehicle 

based their choice on MPGe, and fuel consumption and cost 

estimates. A few who chose Option C1 as the more fuel efficient 

vehicle thought that the annual cost estimates indicated annual 

dollar savings per vehicle and that a bigger number therefore stood 

for a more fuel efficient vehicle. 

For Option B, participants in the groups that viewed Option 

B labels with the kW-hr per 100 miles metric struggled with 

determining which vehicle was more fuel efficient. About 40% of 

the participants in those groups did not correctly select the more 

fuel efficient vehicle. Most of these participants used the larger kWhr per 100 miles, rather than smaller number as more fuel efficient 

because they related it larger MPG numbers indicating more fuel 

efficient vehicles. Those participants that correctly chose the more 

fuel efficient vehicle stated that they relied on the annual cost and/ 

or they correctly applied the kW-hr per 100 miles metric by stating 

that the vehicle that used the least amount of electricity was the 

most fuel efficient. 

20 EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

All but one of the participants in groups that viewed Option B labels 

with the miles per kW-hr metric was able to correctly determine 

which vehicle was more fuel efficient. This was due to the larger 

miles per kW-hr number indicating the more fuel efficient vehicle. 

These participants also used the annual fuel cost and consumption 

information to make their selection. 

Based on the above findings, it can be said that participants used 

MPGe, annual fuel costs and consumption information to correctly 

determine which vehicle was more fuel efficient for Options A and 

C. For Option B, the participants used the kW-hr metrics along with 

the annual fuel cost and consumption information, but struggled 

with correctly applying the ‘kW-hr/100 miles’ metric. Participants 

who were shown the miles per kW-hr metric were able to correctly 

apply it and select the more fuel efficient vehicle. 

Suggestions to improve the vehicle label 

The following suggestions were provided by participants across 

groups to improve label design for EVs: 

•	� Use MPGe estimates instead of KW-hr estimates on the label 

•	� Include charging time information 

•	� Include Smartphone interactive scan code 

•	� Include monthly as well as annual fuel cost estimates 

•	� Do not use white printing on a black or colored background 

because it is very difficult to read 

•	� Use leaves, not stars for environmental metrics 

•	� Use the electric plug icon 

•	� Group all fuel economy information together 

Phase 3 Focus Groups 21 
22 EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Extended Range Electric 

Vehicles 

Understandability of vehicle label designs 

Participants in twelve3 of the sixteen groups were asked to provide 

input on extended range electric vehicle (EREV) label designs. The 

moderator distributed individual copies and read out loud the 

following description of an extended range electric vehicle and 

confirmed that participants understood how EREVs functioned: 

“An EREV has two modes of operation and can be plugged in 

to charge the battery.
�

1.	� It uses wall electricity to propel the vehicle (like an EV) 

until the wall electricity is used up.
�

2.	� Once the stored wall electricity is used up, it runs like a 

gasoline hybrid, using gasoline to propel the vehicle and 

some energy is recovered when the brakes are applied.
�

Important: Daily driving distance can GREATLY affect the 

amount of gasoline used. It can go all the way from zero gasoline 

(with shorter commutes and plenty of recharging) to entirely 

gasoline (with longer drives and no recharging.)”
�

For this discussion, the moderator handed out individual copies 

of three different extended range electric vehicle label designs (see 

Appendix K). The moderator asked each participant to indicate 

which label they viewed as most and least understandable (see 

Appendix L for tally) and to explain why. 

3 Four each (two female and 

two male) in both Seattle and 

Houston, and two groups each 

(one female and one male) in 

both Charlotte and Chicago. 

Phase 3 Focus Groups 23 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

“It looks familiar, gives a lot of 

good information, and clearly 

separates electric and gas.” 

– Chicago Male 

“Colors don’t do a lot for me, just 

the facts.” – Charlotte Male 

“I like the range and charge bar 

graph. It clearly tells you how 

far you can go on a full tank 

and full charge for each mode, 

and how long it takes to charge 

up the battery completely.” 

– Chicago Male 

“I like the side by side 

comparison.” – Houston Female 

“It’s the only one that says 

‘environmental impact estimate.’ 

The others say ‘environmental 

information.’ I think as we move 

forward our environmental 

impact is going to be critical for 

About half of the participants found Option C to be the 

most understandable. Option C was also picked as the most 

understandable by six (all four Houston groups, and one male and 

one female Seattle group) of the twelve focus groups. The Chicago 

male group was unable to come to any consensus on which label 

design was most or least understandable. 

Option C

Participants who thought Option C was the most understandable 

stated that this option was the most informative and found the 

format appealing, including how the information was presented 

on the label with similar information together in boxes. They liked 

how information for gas and electric operation was presented sideby-side, but separately. They also liked the range and charge bar 

illustration and the use of MPGe to describe fuel economy. When 

the moderator asked if they understood what MPGe was, most were 

not sure, but assumed it was some way of comparing electric power 

with gasoline power. While some reported reading its description 

on the label, others guessed it to be an electric-equivalent of MPG 

(“MPG-electric,” “MPG-equivalent”). 

Some participants also said that they liked the fuel economy 

comparison bar within class and among all vehicles used in this 

option. According to them, it was useful in comparing vehicles. 

Some also mentioned that they found the vehicle range and charge 

graphic to be helpful in understanding how EREVs functioned with 

regard to distance traveled and transition from electric mode to gas 

mode. A few participants also added that the range information 

was better presented in Option C as compared to other options 

because it clearly demonstrated how the vehicle used electricity 

to travel the initial distance and then changed to gasoline mode 

24 EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

when the vehicle ran out of charge in a graphical form. Those “The white fine print on the black 

participants who found Option C the least understandable stated label is hard to see and read.” – 

that it was difficult to find information on this label which made it Chicago Male
�

time consuming to read.
�

Participants and groups were split between Option A and Option B 

as the least understandable, but six (two female and one male Seattle 

group, and two female and one male Houston group) of the twelve 

groups found Option A as the least understandable, while only four 

(Charlotte female group, Charlotte male group, one Houston male 

group, and one Chicago female group) of the twelve groups found 

Option B to be the least understandable. Again, the Chicago male 

group was unable to come to any consensus on which label design 

was most or least understood.
�

Participants who found Option A to be the least understandable “I didn’t like that it [Option A] 

stated that it was less informative (did not provide information had a merged total cost.” 

regarding charging time), looked “too busy” (too many stars), – Houston Male
�

was “too colorful,” and the fonts used in this option were not 

distinguishable. The information provided was complicated “It [Option A] doesn’t say and difficult to understand, and they could not easily find the combined range [full range of information they were interested in. The participants who found both modes].” – Houston Male Option A most understandable did so because they liked the colors 

and format, and thought that the information was easy to read. 

“It doesn’t say how long it takes to 

charge the car.” – Houston Male 

“[Option A] The distinction 

between the electric and the gas, 

it’s too complicated.” 

– Houston Female 

“I like things that are easy to 

look and give you information 

right away. The little environment 

leaves down there, stars, it just 

works better for me.” 

– Seattle Female 

Option A

Phase 3 Focus Groups 25 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Participants who found Option B to be the least understandable 

thought it was “not well organized,” “looked cluttered,” and “did 

not clearly separate information based on different modes of 

operation.” Regardless of whether the group viewed the Option B 

label with the kW-hr per 100 miles metric, or with the miles per 

kW-hr metric, participants stated that they found the kW-hr metric 

to be confusing, and did not know how to compare or combine it 

with the MPG metric to determine overall fuel efficiency. Instead, 

they suggested using MPGe estimates to describe fuel economy on 

the label because it could be analogous with MPG. Those that liked 

Option B said that it was also more informative than the other 

options because it provided battery charge time information. 

“I think if you’re going to try to 

get folks thinking in this mindset 

you need have both [kW-hr and 

MPG] on there so they are used 

to seeing, and then eventually 

you would phase MPG out once 

folks understand it and are used 

to seeing it.” 

– Charlotte Male 

“The first thing you see is the 

kW-hr. For me it just didn’t 

seem as apparent, for the things 

I would be looking at. It has 

charge time, but you have to 

really look for it. It was not as 

obvious to me.” 

– Seattle Female 

Option B

No major city or gender differences were found with regard to 

participants’ understanding of extended range electric vehicle label 

designs. 

Based on the above findings, it can be said that Option C was 

perceived as the most understandable extended range electric 

vehicle label design. Participants who thought Option C was the 

most understandable thought this option was the most informative, 

the format appealing, and liked how the information was presented 

in separate boxes. They liked how information for gas and electric 

operation was presented side-by-side, but separately. They also 

liked the range and charge bar illustration and the use of MPGe to 

describe fuel economy. 

26 EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Using the label to determine vehicle fuel 

efficiency 

Themoderator passedout individual copies of threepairs ofextended 

range electric vehicle labels to the participants (see Appendix M). 

Each label pair was identical except that one was for a more fuel 

efficient vehicle. The goal of this exercise was to determine whether 

the participants were able to use the information on the labels to 

determine which vehicle in each pair was more fuel efficient, and to 

understand what information they used to make that determination 

and whether any information was misunderstood. 

All but a few participants were able to determine the more fuel 

efficient vehicle for all three label design options (see Appendix 

N for tally). For Option A, participants used MPGe, MPG and 

annual fuel cost, and consumption numbers to determine that A2 

was the most fuel efficient vehicle. For Option B, participants used 

annual cost, the fuel economy consumption and cost star rating, 

and MPG to determine that B1 was the most fuel efficient vehicle. 

Participants that viewed Option B labels with the kW-hrs per 100 

miles metric did not rely on it to help them determine the more 

fuel efficient vehicle. Participants that viewed Option B labels with 

the miles per kW-hr metric also did not rely on it to make their 

selection, but some participants did use it to confirm their choice 

after looking at annual cost and consumption and MPG numbers. 

For Option C, participants used MPGe, MPG, average annual fuel 

cost and consumption numbers, and the comparison slider bar to 

determine C1 was the more fuel efficient vehicle. 

Based on the above findings, it can be said that participants relied 

on annual fuel and cost numbers, MPG and MPGe the most to 

determine which vehicles were more fuel efficient. They did not rely 

on either of the kW-hr metrics presented to make their selections. 

Phase 3 Focus Groups 27 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Suggestions to improve the vehicle label 

The following suggestions were provided by participants across 

groups to improve label design for EREVs: 

• Use MPGe estimates instead of kW-hr estimates on the label 

• Include charging time information 

• Include Smartphone interactive scan code 

• Don’t use multiple colors in the color format (like Option 

A). Instead, use variations of same colors to distinguish 

between the different modes 

• Include comparison slider bar 

• Do not use star rating system for environmental metrics 

28 EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Plug-In Hybrid Electric 

Vehicles 

Understandability of vehicle label designs 

Participants in twelve4 of the sixteen groups were asked to provide 

input on plug-in hybrid electric vehicle (PHEV) label designs. The 

moderator distributed individual copies and read out loud the 

following description of an extended range electric vehicle and 

confirmed that the participants understood how PHEVs functioned: 

A PHEV has two modes of operation and can be plugged in to 

charge the battery.
�

1.	� It uses wall electricity intermingled with some gasoline to 

propel the vehicle until the wall electricity is used up.
�

2.	� Once the stored wall electricity is used up, it runs like a 

gasoline hybrid, using gasoline to propel the vehicle and 

some energy is recovered when the brakes are applied.
�

Important: Daily driving distance can GREATLY affect the 

amount of gasoline used.
�

For this discussion, the moderator handed out individual copies 

of three different plug-in hybrid electric vehicle label designs (see 

Appendix O). The moderator asked each participant to indicate 

which label they viewed as most and least understandable (see 

Appendix P for tally) and to explain why. 

4 Four each (two female and two 

male) in both Charlotte and 

Chicago, and two groups each 

(one female and one male) in 

both Seattle and Houston. 

Phase 3 Focus Groups 29 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The majority of the participants and groups were split between Option 

A and Option C as the most understandable. Option A was selected by 

almost half of the participants and seven (one male and both female 

Charlotte groups5, and all four Chicago groups) of the twelve focus 

groups as most understandable. Option C was also selected by almost 

half of the participants and six (two female and one male Charlotte 

group, one male Seattle group, one female and one male Houston 

group) of the twelve focus groups as the most understandable. 

Participants who found Option A to be the most understandable 

liked how it was laid out and how it was easy to read the information 

on the label from left to right. They liked the use of color and felt 

it did a good job of separating the different types of information. 

They also liked how the label showed the combined modes of 

operation for cost and consumption in a separate box and used the 

plug and gas hose graphics to show the operation modes. 

“The consumption and cost were 

easy to read. It [Option A] is a 

nice layout out.”- Chicago Male 

“The colors draw your attention; 

it’s easier on your eyes [Option 

A].” – Charlotte Female 

“Having the visual with the gas 

hose, it’s just instant [Option A].” 

– Charlotte Female 

“Option A was my favorite. I think 

we live in a society that gives us 

star ratings.”- Charlotte Male 

“Looks like a kid’s book.” 

– Houston Female 

5 The first female group in 

Charlotte were split between 

Option A (preferred by 4 out 

of 8 participants) and Option 

C (preferred by 4 out of 8 

participants) 

Option A

30 EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Participants who found Option C to be the most understandable “It gives you the most important 

liked how it used separate boxes to show the blended gas + electric information first.” 

and separate gas cost and consumption information. They also – Charlotte Male 

liked how those boxes used arrows to point to the range and 

charge graphic, and the use of MPG and MPGe. Those participants 

who found Option C as least understandable said that the ‘zebra 

pattern’ used to depict the blended mode for PHEVs in the range 

and charge graphic on Option C was difficult to read. 

“I also like where it [Option C] 

shows that if you run strictly 

on gas, you can expect roughly 

398 gallons per year, versus the 

229 if you the gas and electric 

combined. To me that would 

matter, how much gas you have 

to pump.” – Houston Female 

“I like the separation of gas and 

electric from gas in Option C. The 

range and charge bar chart is a 

better representation of how far 

the car can go.”- Chicago Male 

Option C “The stripes in Option C are 

difficult to read and it is really 

The majority of the participants and groups found Option B to be difficult to find information.” 

the least understandable. This included over half of the participants – Chicago Male 

and seven (all four Charlotte groups, the male Seattle group, the 

male Houston group, and one male Chicago group) of the twelve 

“It’s [Option C] like what they focus groups. Participants stated that they found Option B the least 

have on appliances, if they all understandable because it was cluttered and they found it hard to 

had that, I wouldn’t need any of find information on the label. They also did not find a combined gas 

the other numbers.” and electric fuel economy metric which they wanted. Participants 

– Charlotte Female in the groups that viewed Option B with the kW-hr per 100 miles 

metric, and those in groups that viewed Option B with the miles per 

kW-hr metric both struggled with how to combine kWh and MPG “The arrows point down to range 

and found the use of MPG and MPG + kWh confusing. Some groups and charge.” – Seattle Female 

also struggled with how to show that overall vehicle fuel efficiency 

could be impacted by how often you charge the vehicle. That is, the 

more often it is charged, the less gas the vehicle uses because it would 

be operated in its gas + electric mode more often. They wondered 

how this concept could be shown on the fuel economy label. 

Phase 3 Focus Groups 31 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Although overall the participants and the groups were split 

between Options A and C as the most understandable PHEV 

label, females preferred Option C, while males preferred Option A. 

Additionally, all four Charlotte groups picked Option B as the least 

understandable, and all four Chicago groups picked Option A as 

the most understandable. 

Based on the above findings, it can be said that Option A and 

Option C were perceived as the most understandable. For both 

label designs, participants liked how the information was laid out 

and grouped together to make it easy to read and understand. 

They liked the use of boxes to separate information and liked the 

use of the MPG and MPGe metrics. Participants found Option B 

least understandable because they thought it was hard to find the 

information they were interested in on the label and struggled with 

how to use and compare the MPG and kWh metrics - no matter 

which kW-hr metric was presented. 

Using the label to determine vehicle fuel 

efficiency 

The moderator then passed out individual copies of three pairs of 

plug-in hybrid electric vehicle labels to the participants (see Appendix 

Q). Each label pair was identical except that one was for a more fuel 

efficient vehicle. The goal of this exercise was to determine whether 

the participants were able to use the information on the labels to 

determine which vehicle in each pair was more fuel efficient, and to 

understand what information they used to make that determination 

and whether any information was misunderstood. 

“It’s [Option B] not side by side, 

you can’t make a comparison.” 

– Charlotte Female 

“The electric gas mileage is not 

intuitively obvious, at least while 

looking quickly at it.” 

– Charlotte Male 

“The range took up too much 

space; the others show the 

information more efficiently.” 

–Charlotte Male 

“Everything is on here that you 

need, but you have to search a 

little bit more to find it. My eyes 

didn’t go exactly where I wanted 

them to go.” – Seattle Female 

Option B

32 EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

All but a few participants were able to correctly determine 

the most fuel efficient vehicle for all of the three Options (see 

Appendix R for tally). For Option A, participants used annual fuel 

cost and consumption numbers, MPG and MPGe, and range to 

determine that A2 was the more fuel efficient vehicle. For Option 

B, participants used annual fuel cost and consumption numbers to 

determine that B1 was the more fuel efficient vehicle. For Option 

C, participants used annual fuel cost and consumption numbers, 

MPGe and MPG, and the grey fuel economy comparison bar to 

determine C2 was the more fuel efficient vehicle. 

Based on these results it can be said the participants relied most on 

fuel cost and consumption numbers, and MPG and MPGe metrics 

to determine which vehicles were more fuel efficient. 

Suggestions to improve the vehicle label 

The following suggestions were provided by participants across 

groups to improve label designs for PHEVs: 

•	� Use MPGe as a metric for electric operation of the vehicle 

•	� Don’t use stars – many equate them with vehicle safety ratings 

•	� Make sure all print is readable 

•	� Include time needed to recharge vehicle battery 

•	� Change the ‘zebra pattern’ in the Option C blended fuel 

part of the range graphic 

Phase 3 Focus Groups 33 
34 EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Using Labels To Compare 

Across Technologies 

Elements of vehicle label most useful in 

comparing across technologies 

The majority of participants across all groups said that it was 

important to be able to compare across vehicle technologies. 

When the moderator asked the participants about the elements “Because its different 

of the vehicle labels that would be most helpful for comparing technologies, you have to 

vehicles with different technologies, the elements that came up compare on costs. Otherwise 

in all the groups were fuel economy (MPG, MPGe), range, cost it’s apples to oranges.” 

(estimated annual cost) and consumption (estimated gallons per – Charlotte Male 

year) information. 

Which vehicle label design is best for 

comparing across technologies? 

To understand how consumers would use vehicle labels to compare 

vehicles of differing technologies, the moderator typically selected 

the label design option that the group chose most often throughout 

the exercises as the most understandable for this exercise.Among the 

sixteen groups, each of the different label design options was used 

several times for this exercise. The goal of this exercise was to gain 

a better understanding of the type of information on the label that 

participants would use to compare across different technologies. 

Each group considered just the three vehicle technologies that they 

had discussed during the focus group to make these comparisons. 

Phase 3 Focus Groups 35 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Information used to compare vehicles across 

technologies 

For this exercise the moderator provided each participant a handout 

that showed the vehicle label for all vehicle technologies for the 

vehicle label design option selected for the exercise. Each participant 

was asked to use this information to determine which vehicle 

technology would be best for each of the following situations. 

• Which type of vehicle is better for a trip of 30 miles? 

• Which type of vehicle is better for a trip of 50 miles? 

• Which type of vehicle is better for a round trip of 100 miles? 

• Which type of vehicle is most environmental friendly? 

Seven groups (Seattle male group 1, Seattle female group 2, Seattle 

male group 2, Charlotte female group 2, Houston female group 1, 

Houston female group 2, and Houston male group 2) used vehicle 

label design Option C (see Appendix W) for this exercise. The 

majority of participants chose EV for 30 miles and 50 miles because 

they could drive that far on a charge. The majority of participants 

chose the EREV for 100 miles because they could drive on electric 

power some of the way and its MPGe was higher than the MPGe 

for the PHEV The participants stated that they primarily used 

electric range to compare the vehicles and make their selections. 

They also used fuel cost (estimated annual cost), mileage (MPG, 

MPGe), and CO2 grams per mile. All but one participant chose the 

EV as the most environmentally friendly because there would be no 

CO2 emissions from the vehicle (see Appendix X for tally). 

Six groups (Seattle female group 1, Charlotte female group 1, 

Charlotte male group 1, Houston male group 1, Chicago female 

group 2 and Chicago male group 2) used vehicle label design Option 

A (see Appendix S) for this exercise. The majority of participants 

chose the EV for 30 miles, Participants were split between the 

EV or PHEV for the 50 mile trip because they noted that the EV 

would travel the entire way with no emissions, and the PHEV had 

a 50 mile range to travel as a hybrid. The majority of participants 

also chose, the PHEV for 100 miles. The majority of participants 

selected the EV as the most environmentally friendly (see Appendix 

“I figure regardless of the length 

of the trip, the electric is always 

cheapest.” – Charlotte Male 

“I think a lot more education is 

needed for consumers to really 

understand the benefits of electric 

vehicles.” – Seattle Female 

36 EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

T for tally). Like those groups that used Option C for this exercise, 

participants used the information on the label to maximize the use 

of electricity to travel the specified distance. The participants stated 

that they primarily used electric range to compare the vehicles and 

make their selections. They also used fuel cost (estimated annual 

cost), consumption (estimated gallons per year), mileage (MPG/ 

MPGe), and CO2 grams per mile information. When the EV was 

an available choice, all participants selected the EV as the most 

environmentally friendly vehicle. If the EV was not a choice for the 

group, they split their choices between the EREV and the PHEV as 

the most environmentally friendly vehicle. 

Three groups (Charlotte male group 2, Chicago female group 1 

and Chicago male group 1) used vehicle label design Option B 

(see Appendix U) for this exercise. The Charlotte group used the 

Option B label with the kW-hr per 100 metric, while the two 

Chicago groups used the miles per kW-hr metric. The two Chicago 

groups also did not have the EV as an available choice for this 

exercise. The majority of participants chose the EREV for 30 miles, 

the PHEV for 50 miles and 100 miles, and the EREV as the most 

environmentally friendly (see Appendix V for tally). As with all the 

groups, the participants tried to maximize the use of electric power 

for the specified distance within their available choices. For these 

three groups, the participants stated that they primarily used electric 

range to compare the vehicles and make their selections. They also 

used fuel cost (estimated annual cost), mileage (MPG/MPGe), and 

the CO2 grams per mile information. The two Charlotte groups did 

not have EV as an available choice, so they were split between the 

EREV and the PHEV as the most environmentally friendly vehicle. 

In summary, it can be said that no matter the label design used by 

the group, participants made choices based on maximizing the use 

of electric power for the distance traveled. The information they 

used to make these choices were electric range of the vehicle, MPG 

and MPGe numbers, estimated annual fuel costs, and CO2 grams 

per mile. When the EV was a choice, participants chose that vehicle 

technology as the most environmentally friendly. When the EV was 

not an option, participants were split between the EREV and PHEV. 

Phase 3 Focus Groups 37 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What information is not needed when 

comparing across technologies 

Considering the label design option used for the previous exercise, 

the moderator asked the participants to consider what information 

included on the labels was not needed to compare across vehicle 

technologies. No consensus was reached among the groups, 

although participants provided some suggestions. Many stated that 

they did not like or use the star ratings, and others did not find 

gallons per hundred miles to be a useful metric. Other suggestions 

included getting rid of the costs per month because annual costs 

were sufficient, and getting rid of the grey fuel economy bar because 

it was hard to understand what was being compared. 

“It [carbon emissions information] 

means nothing to me. Again, 

it depends on the way that 

electricity is produced in your 

town. If its coal it’s one thing, 

wind power another. How can you 

determine if it’s environmentally 

friendly or not?” – Charlotte Male 

“To me, to have the cost of the 

electric and the cost of the gas 

separately, and not a combined 

average, is more confusing.” 

– Houston Female 

“You know, I bought a gasoline 

engine car because I don’t 

understand any of this.” 

– Seattle Female 

38 EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Environmental Metrics 

Environmental metrics preferences 

For this discussion, the moderator handed out individual copies of 

a sheet with five different presentations of environmental metrics 

(see Appendix Y). The goal of this exercise was to help determine 

what information and format is most useful for comparing the 

environmental impacts of different vehicles. The environmental 

metrics for this exercise were presented to participants separately, 

not within the context of the larger fuel economy label. Participants 

were asked to individually rank their first and second choice for which 

presentation was most understandable (see Appendix Z for tally). 

Across all the groups, Option C emerged as the most understandable “It covers all the informationdesign for the environmental metric on the fuel economy label, gives a better breakdown and 

closely followed by Option A. Option C was picked as the most ratings.”-Chicago Male 

understandable option (rated as “#1”or “#2”) by female participants 

(both female groups in Charlotte, Seattle female group 1, Houston “I like the leaves and it tells me female group 2) more often as compared to male participants right away that I am looking at (Charlotte male group 1, Houston male group 1, and Chicago male environment.” -Chicago Male group 1). According to the participants who liked Option C, it 

was simple, easy to understand, and more informative (it provided 

information separately for CO2 and other pollutants) than the option 

that carried a combined rating for CO2 and other pollutants (Option 

D). Many participants also reported liking the leaf layout used in “Option A is easiest to read. I 

Option C and said that it was symbolic of the environment theme. don’t need to know how many 

CO2 grams.” – Houston Male 

Those who liked Option A said that it was easy to understand 

(“read like a thermometer”), and more informative (it provided 

“1 out of 10 is very easy to information separately for CO2 and other pollutants) than the 

understand.” – Charlotte Male option that carried a combined rating for CO2 and other pollutants 

(Option D). Male groups (Charlotte male group 2, Seattle male 

group 1, Houston male group 2 and Chicago male group 2) liked “The scale is familiar, 1 – 10 is 

Option A more often as compared to female groups (both Houston familiar. It’s simple, easy.” 

female groups and Chicago female group 1). – Houston Female 

Phase 3 Focus Groups 39 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Those who liked Option B said that they were familiar with the 

star ratings system and liked it being used to depict CO2 and other 

air pollutants in this option. Option B was picked as the most 

understandable design (rated as “#1” or “#2”) for the environment 

metric by Seattle female group 2 and Chicago female group 2. 

Those who liked Option E said that it was more informative than 

other options. According to them, Option E provided them with 

more accurate range information (i.e. best “178” case and worst 

“888” case). Option E was chosen as the most understandable 

design (rated as “#1” or “#2”) for the environment metric by Seattle 

male group 2. A few participants liked Option D and explained that 

it was simple. In addition, they said that they did not really look 

for an environmental metric on the label and that they preferred a 

combined rating for CO2 and other pollutants. 

“I liked that it [Option E] 

identified what the worst case 

scenario, you know where the 

347 falls in relation to the 

scale.” – Houston Male 

“It’s simple [Option D], 

it combines the CO2 and 

pollutants, without having that 

extra comparison to make.”

 – Houston Female 

Option C Option A Option B

Option D Option E Option F

40 EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The ten groups (one Seattle male group, one Chicago female group, 

both of the Houston female and Chicago male groups and all of 

the Charlotte groups) of the sixteen groups that were interested 

in Options A and/or E were also shown “Option F” handout (see 

Appendix AB) and asked if they liked it better than either Option A 

or Option E. The majority of participants in the Seattle male group, 

Chicago female group, Charlotte male group 1, and Houston female 

groups stated they would have picked Option F if it had been 

available. Option F was also preferred by half of the participants 

in each of the Charlotte female groups. For the two Chicago male 

groups, Option F was viewed as a more attractive choice by only 

1 participant in each group. None of the participants in Charlotte 

male group 2 chose Option F as their preferred option. 

The moderator then explained to the participants that the ‘CO2 

grams per mile’ slider scale shown in this option was an absolute 

scale with the tail ends representing the best (“178 g/miles”) and 

worst (“888 g/miles”) environment-friendly vehicles that were 

currently available in the market across all vehicle class. On the 

other hand, the ‘other air pollutants’ slider scale was a relative scale 

that calibrated all vehicles on a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 representing 

the worst case and 10 representing the best case across all vehicle 

classes. When the participants were subsequently probed with 

regard to what they thought about these scales, most said this did 

not matter to them as long as the information was clearly explained. 

They explained that they wanted something that was easy and 

quick to read and understand. Additionally, for those participants 

that preferred Option F, they were more comfortable having both 

a relative and absolute scale represented on the environmental 

label as opposed to an absolute scale for CO2 and leaves for other 

pollutants (as in option E). 

When participants were asked their views on the use of SmartWay 

logo on the environmental metrics options, almost all stated that 

they did not know to what it referred. However, once it was 

explained, they liked it. Some said that it was like “EnergyStar for 

vehicles” and explained that it would be something you could look 

for when shopping for vehicles that would let you know right away 

that it was an environmentally friendly vehicle, without having to 

understand the rest of the environmental information on the label. 

Phase 3 Focus Groups 41 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Inclusion of pollutants generated from 

charging electric vehicles 

The moderator then asked the participants whether they thought 

anything might be missing from the environmental ratings that 

they had looked at. The moderator probed the groups to determine 

whether anyone realized that these environmental ratings did 

not take into account the pollutants emitted from power plants 

that generated the electricity to charge the vehicle battery. When 

the moderator asked directly whether participants thought this 

pollution was included in the environmental information on the 

vehicle fuel economy labels, about half of the participants across all 

the groups indicated that they had realized that it was not included. 

The moderator then asked the participants whether they thought 

this label should include information on pollutants created 

from generating electricity to charge the vehicle battery. Most 

participants reported that this point was not that important to 

them. Many participants discussed how you would not include the 

pollutants created to generate the gas for your car as part of the 

pollutants created by your car, so why include the pollutants from 

generating electricity to charge a car battery. Many participants, 

especially those in the Seattle groups, pointed out that the amount 

of pollutants created from generating the electricity needed to 

charge vehicle batteries varies greatly depending on the power 

source. For example, in the Pacific Northwest most power comes 

from hydroelectric plants which are much cleaner than power 

created by coal plants in the other parts of the country. Generally, 

participants stated that they did not think this information needed 

to be included on the vehicle labels, but thought it would be helpful 

to have this information available on a website. 

The moderator then asked whether they liked the phrase ‘the 

environmental ratings are based on tailpipe emissions” being added 

to the fuel economy label. Almost all participants in all the groups 

stated that that terminology was acceptable, although many did 

not think it was necessary. 

Although the Seattle groups were a bit more passionate about this 

subject, there were no specific gender or city differences in terms of 

how this information should be included on the vehicle label. 

“It’s hard to account for regional 

things.” – Charlotte Male 

“It’s going to be understood by 

the way you buy your power. 

When I buy the power for my 

house, I have the choice to 

choose green. So I choose to 

buy green, that’s the choice I 

make at that point. So I don’t 

think it’s necessary to put it on 

the vehicle.” – Houston Female 

“You have to clarify, otherwise 

that will come back to you.” 

– Charlotte Female 

42 EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Annual Cost and Annual 

Gallons Assumptions 

The moderator asked the participants to consider whether they had 

a preference on the annual mileage assumption used to calculate 

the annual cost and annual gallon information used on the fuel 

economy labels. Participants were asked to consider whether it 

made any difference to them if these calculations were based on 

the average number of miles driven by U.S. consumers during the 

first year they owned their vehicle (15,000 miles), or the average 

number of miles driven annually by all U.S. drivers (12,000 miles). 

The majority of participants stated that this did not matter to them “It doesn’t matter. It’s a tool to 

as long as the basis used was consistent and clearly explained. A compare one vehicle to the next. 

few participants stated that they thought that using 15,000 miles I’m really only using it to see if 

would be a better assumption to have on the label because they it’s more efficient or not.” 

drove at least 15,000 miles each year. The few who stated that they – Charlotte Female 

preferred the annual cost and annual gallon assumption based on 

12,000 miles said that they drove their vehicles for more than a 

year from their time of purchase and assumption based on 12,000 

miles was a more accurate assumption in their case. 

No major city or gender differences were found with regard to 

participants’ preference for the annual mileage assumption used to 

calculate the annual cost and annual gallon information used on 

the fuel economy label. 

Phase 3 Focus Groups 43 
44 EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Placement of the Fuel 

Economy Label within the 

Monroney Label 

The moderator showed participants three different options for “The price is most important, so 

placement of the fuel economy label within the Monroney Label that’s what I want to see first. It 

(see Appendix AB). The options included placing the fuel economy doesn’t matter how economical 

label in the upper right, lower left, or upper left area of the it is if I can’t afford it.” – 

Monroney label. Charlotte Female 

“It’s the second most important The majority of participants across most groups chose the upper 

thing for what you’re buying.” right as the best placement for the fuel economy label. This 

– Charlotte Male included participants that were left-handed. According to those 

who liked upper right as the best placement, price and other vehicle “I want to see the features of specifications such as safety ratings were more critical to them what I’m buying first. Odds are and they wanted to see that information before the fuel economy that I already know about gas information on the Monroney label. mileage...I just want to know the 

features.” – Houston Female The participants who liked upper left as the best placement for 

fuel economy label explained that they considered fuel economy “You read left to right.” 

as a very important consideration in their vehicle purchase and – Charlotte Female 

wanted to see it at a prominent place on the Monroney label. Their 

thinking was that people read from left to right and therefore this “If what you’re trying to sell is 

placement made the most sense. Only a handful of participants the efficiency, that’s where my 

across any of the groups liked the placement of the fuel economy eye goes first.” – Charlotte Male 

label on the lower left side of the Monroney label. 

“It’s not important when you put 

it in the bottom.” –Houston Male In addition, when asked if they thought the Monroney label itself 

should be larger, almost all participants stated that the size was fine as “It’s at the bottom, your eye doesn’t presented. Just a few participants stated they thought it should be bigger. go there.” – Houston Female 

No major city or gender differences were found with regard to 

participants’ preference for label size and placement. 

Phase 3 Focus Groups 45 
46 EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Overall Summary
�

Understandability of label design options 

When considering all vehicle technologies, Option C was chosen 

most often as the most understandable label design. Option C was 

selected as the most understandable for electric vehicles, extended 

range electric vehicles, and by the six female groups for the plug-in 

hybrid electric vehicles. The groups selected Option B as the most 

understandable label design for gasoline engine vehicles, and Option 

A was selected by the six male groups as most understandable for 

plug-in hybrid electric vehicles. 

Gasoline vehicle labels 

Option B was perceived as the most understandable gasoline engine 

vehicle label design. Participants were split between Option A and 

Option C as the least understandable design. Participants preferred 

Option B because they wanted the separate city and highway fuel 

consumption estimates and the annual cost and consumption 

information, and liked how the information was laid out in a sideby-side format. 

Electric vehicle labels 

Option C was perceived as both the most and the least understandable 

electric vehicle label design. Participants who thought Option C 

was the most understandable said it was well organized and easy 

to read. It contained the information that the participants stated 

was important to them such as charge time and MPGe, they liked 

the estimated annual and monthly fuel cost, and the black and 

white format. Participants who thought Option C was the least 

understandable did not like the black and white format or the grey 

fuel economy comparison bar and struggled with the MPGe metric. 

Phase 3 Focus Groups 47 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Extended range electric vehicle labels 

Option C was perceived as the most understandable extended range 

electric vehicle label design. Participants who thought Option C 

was the most understandable thought this option was the most 

informative and found the format appealing including how the 

information was presented on the label with related information 

together in separate boxes. They liked how information for gas 

and electric operation was presented side-by-side (but in separate 

boxes), the range and charge bar illustration, and the use of MPGe 

to describe fuel economy. 

Plug-in hybrid electric vehicle labels 

Option A and Option C were both perceived as the most 

understandable plug-in hybrid electric vehicle designs. Option A was 

chosen as the most understandable primarily by the six male groups, 

while Option C was chosen as the most understandable primarily 

by the six female groups. For both label designs, participants 

liked how the information was laid out and grouped together to 

make it easy to read and understand. They liked the use of boxes 

to separate information and liked the use of the MPG and MPGe 

metrics. Participants found Option B least understandable because 

they found it hard to find the information they were interested in on 

the label and struggled with how to use MPG with kW-hr metrics. 

Using the fuel economy labels to 

determine vehicle fuel efficiency 

Generally, for all label design options and vehicle technologies, 

participants were able to determine which of the vehicles was the 

most fuel efficient when comparing labels across design options. 

Participants used MPG, MPGe. annual fuel cost and consumption 

information, kW-hr per 100 miles, miles per Kw-hr, and CO2 

emissions. For Options A and C, all but a few participants were 

easily able to determine which was the most fuel efficient vehicle. 

For Option B, participants in the groups that viewed the label with 

the kW-hr per 100 miles metric struggled more with determining 

which was the most fuel efficient vehicle. This was especially true for 

EVs where forty percent were unable to determine which vehicle was 

the most fuel efficient. This was because participants struggled with 

48 EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

the concept that a lower kW-hr per 100 miles number is more fuel 

efficient. This problem was not as prevalent for these groups when 

they did this exercise with the EREV and PHEV Option B labels 

because they could rely on the MPG numbers in addition to the 

annual fuel cost and consumption numbers. Participants in groups 

that viewed the Option B label design that used the miles per kWhr metric did not experience this same difficulty because the larger 

miles per kW-hr number indicated the more fuel efficient vehicle. 

Suggestions to improve the vehicle label 

designs 

The following participant suggestions to improve the vehicle label 

designed were consistent across all label design options and vehicle 

technologies. More specific suggestions for each vehicle technology 

can be found within the body of this memorandum. 

•	� Use larger font sizes for the most critical pieces of 

information like MPG and MPGe, and annual fuel cost 

and consumption information 

•	� Avoid the use of white text on black or colored backgrounds 

•	� Use the MPG and MPGe metrics to show fuel economy 

•	� Include separate MPG and MPGe for city and highway 

travel on gasoline and electric vehicles (more important to 

participants then having a combined city/highway number) 

•	� Include Smartphone interactive scan code 

•	� Do not use stars for environmental ratings 

•	� Use a side-by-side format for different fuel modes 

•	� Include the gas pump and plug-in graphics 

•	� Change ‘within class’ language to reflect actual class (minivans, SUVs, etc.) 

•	� Use terms ‘best’ and ‘worst’ in comparisons 

Phase 3 Focus Groups 49 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Using fuel economy label to compare 

across vehicle technologies 

Participants were asked to determine the most fuel efficient vehicle 

to use for a 30 mile, 50 mile, and 100 mile trip. Each group 

was asked to choose among the three vehicle technologies they 

discussed in their group. For each situation, participants used the 

information available on the vehicle labels to make their choices 

based on maximizing the use of electric power for the distance 

to be traveled. Participants used the electric range of the vehicle, 

MPG and MPGe numbers, estimated annual fuel costs, and CO2 

grams per mile to make their choices. Participants chose the EV 

then the EREV for the 30 mile trip, the EV then the PHEV for the 

50 miles trip, and the majority were split between the EREV and 

PHEV, with a few choosing the EV, for the 100 mile trip. In terms 

of choosing which vehicle was the most environmentally friendly, 

when the EV was a choice for the group, participants chose that 

vehicle technology as the most environmentally friendly. If the 

EV was not a choice for the group, participants split their choices 

between EREV and PHEV. 

Annual cost and gallons assumptions 

Participants in all groups expressed no real preference between 

using the 15,000 miles per year that drivers typically drive their 

new cars during their first year of ownership, or the 12,000 miles 

that all drivers drive on average each year to calculate annual fuel 

consumption and cost information. Participants stated it didn’t 

matter as long as it was consistent and the assumption used was 

clearly stated on the vehicle label. 

Placement of the fuel economy label 

within the Monroney label 

Almost all participants stated that they preferred the fuel economy 

label be placed in the upper right corner of the Monroney label. 

In addition, almost all participants stated that the size of the fuel 

economy label was fine as it was, with just a few participants stating 

it should be larger. 

50 EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign 
 

Appendices 

Appendix A: Moderator Guide 

Introduction (7 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. 

•	� Mention observers in separate room. As you know from when 

we recruited you, our discussion today is being recorded. These 

recordings allow us to write a more complete report, and to 

make sure we accurately reflect your opinions. 

•	� Housekeeping – Toilets and refreshments. 

•	� Mention ground rules: 

•	� There is no right or wrong answer; we’re interested in your 

honest and candid opinions and ideas. 

•	� Our discussion is totally confidential. We will not use your 

name or contact information in any report. 

•	� Please only speak one at a time, so that the recorder can 

pick up all your comments. 

•	� It is important to tell YOUR thoughts, not what you think 

others will think, or what you think others want to hear. 

•	� Please turn off cell phones 

•	� Your stipend will be provided as you leave. 

•	� Relax and enjoy 

Thank you all for participating in the survey we sent to you in advance. 

Today we will continue the discussion talking about new car purchases 

and the fuel economy label that appears on all new vehicles. Any questions 

before we begin? 

Phase 3 Focus Groups 51 
 

• Let’s start off by getting to know a little more about each other. 

I’d like us to go around the room with each person answering the 

following questions (Listed on poster chart): 

• Your first name 

• When did you buy your last new vehicle? 

• Did you consider buying a hybrid, or clean diesel, or some 

other alternative fuel vehicle? 

• Do you drive more city, highway, or combined? 

• About how many miles do you drive a year? 

(THREE OF THE FOLLOWING 4 VEHICLE TECHNOLOGIES WILL BE 

COVERED IN EACH GROUP. THE ORDER OF PRESENTATION WILL 

BE ROTATED ACROSS GROUPS. TOTAL TIME SPENT ON THESE 3 

TECHNOLOGIES WILL BE 75 MINUTES.) 

Moderator starts off by letting them know that the fuel economy label 

appears within what is called a Monroney label (show large version of this 

on the wall; hand out copies in actual size to each participant so they can 

see the size of the fuel economy label within the larger label). Moderator 

to regularly remind them to keep this in mind as we work through the 

remainder of the focus group. 

Now we are going to take a look at some fuel economy label designs for 

3 different vehicle types. (For each of the groups, three out of the four 

technologies were discussed) 

Gasoline Engine Vehicle Label Designs (25 minutes) 

1. (Hand out the gasoline engine label work sheet #1 and the 

individual copies of the designs. Show them the 3 options on 

large boards.) 

a. Please indicate on your worksheet which option is most 

understandable and which is least understandable. For 

each choice write brief bullet points explaining why. 

b. (Then show two versions of each of the 3 label designs, 

each pair identical in every way except that one label will 

be for a vehicle that is more fuel efficient.) On the same 

worksheet I would like you to identify the vehicle which is 

more fuel efficient from each label pair and what you are 

basing that on. 

(Tally results from section ‘a’ above and this section 

and open up to discussion). Probe on how the vehicles in 

each pair compare in regard to the following metrics: fuel 

consumption, fuel cost, and environmental impact. This 

52 EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign 
 

probing needs to uncover any misunderstandings. 

•	� If costs are broken out by city/highway or just 

combined, draw their attention to this and probe on 

which they prefer. 

c.	� Of these designs, which most clearly demonstrates the fuel 

efficiency of the vehicle? 

2.	� What top 2 pieces of information did you get from the labels? 

Can you suggest improvements to these label designs, not 

just in how they look, but also in regard to content? Probe 

on metrics or other information that would increase their 

understanding and how that would influence their choice of a 

fuel efficient vehicle. 

Collect worksheets and ask client if they have any questions at this time. 

Electric Vehicle Label Designs (25 minutes) 

Read the following (Handout copies and read the following statement: 

Leave the conventional vehicle label showing for reference.) 

Electric Vehicles use electricity stored in batteries to propel the 

vehicle. The battery is charged by plugging it into an electrical 

outlet. This could be a standard electric outlet or a high voltage 

custom-installed charging station for more rapid charging. Like 

hybrid vehicles, some energy is recovered when the brakes are 

applied. The vehicle travels until the charge is depleted or it is recharged. There is no option to run it on gasoline. 

3.	� (Hand out the EV label work sheet #2 and the individual copies 

of the designs. Show them the 3 options on large boards.) 

•	� Please indicate on your worksheet which option is most 

understandable and which is least understandable. For 

each choice write brief bullet points explaining why. 

•	� (Then show two versions of each of the 3 label designs, 

each pair identical in every way except that one label will 

be for a vehicle that is more fuel efficient.) On the same 

worksheet I would like you to identify the vehicle which is 

more fuel efficient from each label pair and what you are 

basing that on. 

• (Tally results from section ‘a’ above and this section 

and open up to discussion). Probe on how the vehicles in 

each pair compare in regard to the following metrics: fuel 

consumption, fuel cost, and environmental impact. This 

probing needs to uncover any misunderstandings. 

Phase 3 Focus Groups 53 
 

• If costs are broken out by city/highway or just 

combined, draw their attention to this and probe on 

which they prefer. 

• Which of the designs would most influence you to 

purchase a fuel efficient vehicle? Why? Listen for and 

probe on any misunderstandings of metrics. 

4. What top 2 pieces of information did you get from the labels? 

Can you suggest improvements to these label designs, not 

just in how they look, but also in regard to content? Probe 

on metrics or other information that would increase their 

understanding and how that would influence their choice of a 

fuel efficient vehicle. 

Collect worksheets and ask client if they have any questions at this time. 

Extended Range Electric Vehicle Label Designs (25 minutes) 

Read the following (Handout copies and read the following statement: 

Leave the conventional vehicle label and EV label showing for reference.) 

An EREV has 2 modes of operation and can be plugged in to 

charge the battery. 

1. It uses wall electricity to propel the vehicle (like an EV) until 

the wall electricity is used up. 

2. Once the stored wall electricity is used up, it runs like a 

gasoline hybrid, using gasoline to propel the vehicle and some 

energy is recovered when the brakes are applied. 

Important: daily driving distance can GREATLY affect amount of 

gasoline used. Can go all the way from zero gasoline (if shorter 

commutes and plenty of recharging) to entirely gasoline (if longer 

drives and no recharging). Validate that they understand this. 

5. (Hand out the EREV engine label work sheet #3 and the 

individual copies of the designs. Show them the 3 options on 

large boards.) 

a. Please indicate on your worksheet which option is most 

understandable and which is least understandable. For 

each choice write brief bullet points explaining why. 

b. (Then show two versions of each of the 3 label designs, 

each pair identical in every way except that one label will 

be for a vehicle that is more fuel efficient.) On the same 

worksheet I would like you to identify the vehicle which is 

more fuel efficient from each label pair and what you are 

basing that on. 

54 EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign 
 

 

 

 

(Tally results from section ‘a’ above and this section 

and open up to discussion). Probe on how the vehicles in 

each pair compare in regard to the following metrics: fuel 

consumption, fuel cost, and environmental impact. This 

probing needs to uncover any misunderstandings. 

•	� If costs are broken out by city/highway or just 

combined, draw their attention to this and probe on 

which they prefer. 

c.	� Of these designs, which most clearly demonstrates the fuel 

efficiency of the vehicle? 

6.	� What top 2 pieces of information did you get from the labels? 

Can you suggest improvements to these label designs, not 

just in how they look, but also in regard to content? Probe 

on metrics or other information that would increase their 

understanding and how that would influence their choice of a 

fuel efficient vehicle. 

Collect worksheets and ask client if they have any questions at this time. 

Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicle Label Designs (25 minutes) 

(Handout copies and read the following statement). 

A PHEV has 2 modes of operation and can be plugged in to 

charge the battery. 

1.	� It uses wall electricity intermingled with some gasoline to 

propel the vehicle until the wall electricity is used up. 

2.	� Once the stored wall electricity is used up, it runs like a 

gasoline hybrid, using gasoline to propel the vehicle and 

some energy is recovered when the brakes are applied. 

Important: daily driving distance can GREATLY affect amount 

of gasoline used. Validate that they understand this. 

7.	� (Hand out the PHEV label work sheet #4 and the individual 

copies of the designs. Show them the 3 options on large boards.) 

a.	� Please indicate on your worksheet which option is most 

understandable and which is least understandable. For 

each choice write brief bullet points explaining why. 

b.	� (Then show two versions of each of the 3 label designs, 

each pair identical in every way except that one label will 

be for a vehicle that is more fuel efficient.) On the same 

worksheet I would like you to identify the vehicle which is 

more fuel efficient from each label pair and what you are 

basing that on. 

Phase 3 Focus Groups 55 
 

 

(Tally results from section ‘a’ above and this section 

and open up to discussion). Probe on how the vehicles in 

each pair compare in regard to the following metrics: fuel 

consumption, fuel cost, and environmental impact. This 

probing needs to uncover any misunderstandings. 

• If costs are broken out by city/highway or just 

combined, draw their attention to this and probe on 

which they prefer. 

c. Which of the designs would most influence you to 

purchase a fuel efficient vehicle? Why? Listen for and 

probe on any misunderstandings of metrics. 

8. What top 2 pieces of information did you get from the labels? 

Can you suggest improvements to these label designs, not 

just in how they look, but also in regard to content? Probe 

on metrics or other information that would increase their 

understanding and how that would influence their choice of a 

fuel efficient vehicle. 

9. What top 2 pieces of information did you get from the labels? 

Can you suggest improvements to these label designs, not 

just in how they look, but also in regard to content? Probe 

on metrics or other information that would increase their 

understanding and how that would influence their choice of a 

fuel efficient vehicle. 

Collect worksheets and ask client if they have any questions at this time. 

Using Labels to Compare Across Technologies (14 minutes) 

10. Is there a particular part of the label that would help you 

compare across vehicle technologies? Probe on fuel cost and 

fuel consumption. Is there something that would work better? 

MODERATOR: ASK GROUP WHICH LABEL DESIGN TO USE FOR THIS 

NEXT EXERCISE. IF NO CONSENSUS, WORK TO TEST THE TOP PICKS. 

THE LABEL DESIGN TYPE TO BE USED IN THE EXERCISE NEEDS 

TO ENSURE THAT EACH DESIGN IS USED AT LEAST ONCE (AND 

PREFERABLY TWICE) ACROSS ALL FOCUS GROUPS . 

11. Show participants a label for each of the three vehicle types 

and pass out worksheet #5. 

• Please indicate on your worksheet: 

• Which type of vehicle is better for a trip of 30 miles? 

• Which type of vehicle is better for a trip of 50 miles? 

56 EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign 
 

•	� Which type of vehicle is better for a round trip of 100 

miles? 

•	� Which type of vehicle is most environmentally friendly? 

(Possible Tally) 

Then open up to discussion and probe on what information they 

used to compare and make their choices. 

12. Looking across the labels you preferred for each technology, 

are there portions of the labels that could be removed without 

affecting your ability to compare within or across vehicle 

technologies? 

•	� Could the design of the label be modified to assist you in 

making these comparisons? 

•	� Is the information you would want to see for comparison 

purposes easily found on label? 

13. If group has not reached a consensus on a label design that 

is the same for all technologies, moderator to display the 

choice options from the group and tell them to work to reach 

consensus. Probe on eventual level of agreement -- is it a fairly 

strong consensus vs. “I can live with that design.” 

Collect worksheets. 

Environmental Metrics (15 minutes) 

Now we’d like to explore some ways to communicate the environmental 

impact of vehicles. 

14. (Hand out worksheet #6) Show participants the 4 possible 

metrics (see below) and ask them to individually rank their 

preference for understanding and to briefly explain why they 

chose their #1 and #2 rankings. Tally results in regard to 

how many ranked each option as their number 1 or number 

2 choices. Then open to discussion regarding reasons behind 

their preferences. Probe group on what the metric information 

meant to them to see if they understood, which one was most 

intuitive, does it provide enough information, and which one 

they would be most likely to use. 

Also probe on their reaction to the following: 

•	� Leafs and stars and 0-10 rating bars are a relative scale 

(comparisons to other vehicles rather than objective 

measure for a specific vehicle) 

Phase 3 Focus Groups 57 
 

 

 

 

• Rating criteria could change each year as the fleet of 

vehicles improved, that is, a vehicle with a certain 

emissions level in one year might get 4 leafs, but the 

next year might only get 3 leafs if the technology did not 

change 

(1) 2 enviro ratings which are relative --1-10 for both 

CO2 and Air Pollution (Label A) 

(2) 1 enviro rating which is relative for CO2 (using 

stars) and another that is relative (using stars) for air 

pollution (Label B) 

(3) 2 enviro ratings depicted by leafs for both CO2 and Air 

Pollution (Label C) 

(4) A mixed approached-- leafs for air pollution but 

absolute number for CO2 (Label D) 

15. For vehicles that run on electricity, the environmental ratings do 

not take into account any pollutants emitted from the power plant 

that generated the electricity to charge the battery. Probe on: 

• How many realized that (show of hands)? 

• Should that information be on the fuel economy label? 

(show of hands) Why or why not? 

• Is the following language sufficient – “The environmental 

ratings are based on tailpipe emissions.” Why or why not? 

Collect worksheets. 

Annual Cost and Annual Gallons Assumptions (3 

minutes) 

16. Moderator to point to the “annual cost number and annual 

gallons” and indicate that this is based on the average number 

of miles driven by a U.S. consumer the first year they own 

their new vehicle. Get their reaction to this. 

Then ask if EPA instead based the annual estimate for both the 

annual gallons of gasoline used and the cost on the average 

annual miles driven by all US drivers (which is closer to 

12,000). Get reaction to this. Probe on why or why not? 

58 EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign 
 

Monroney Label Placement (3 minutes) 

17. Show 3 versions of Monroney label with the EPA fuel economy 

label in different locations. Ask for show of hands as to which 

version they would find: 

•	� Most useful and why? 

•	� Most appealing and why? 

(Probe on left-handed and right-handed person issue.) 

18. What do you think about the size of the fuel economy label? 

(Listen for and probe on whether it needs to be bigger and why 

or why not.) 

Wrap-Up (3 minutes) 

19. Is there information that we have not discussed today that 

would influence you to choose a fuel efficient vehicle? 

20. Anything else you would like our clients to know about you 

thoughts about fuel economy labels? 

Ask client if they have any last questions. 

Phase 3 Focus Groups 59 
EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign 

Appendix B: Participants’ ProfileSeattle female group: May 17th, 2010

Q9. What type ofvehicle did youpurchase? 

Q10. How is thisvehicle powered? 

Q11. What is thedistance in milesof your typicaldaily travel inthis vehicle? 

Q12. Price range of new vehicle 

Q13. Age Q14. Education Q15. Ethnicity 

$20K- less than White/non 1 Passenger car Gasoline 20-29 65 + Graduate degree $30K Hispanic 

$20K- less than Some college or White/non 2 SUV Gasoline 20-29 35-49 $30K college graduate Hispanic 

$20K- less than Some college or White/non 3 Passenger car Hybrid 10-19 50-64 $30K college graduate Hispanic 

$20K- less than Some college or Black/non 4 Passenger car Gasoline 20-39 50-64 $30K college graduate Hispanic 

Station Wagon or $30K - less than Some college or White/non 5 Gasoline 40+ 50-64 mini van $40K college graduate Hispanic 

$20K- less than Some college or White/non 6 SUV Gasoline 10-19 50-64 $30K college graduate Hispanic 

60 
 Seattle male group: May 17th, 2010

Q9. What type ofvehicle did youpurchase? 

Q10. How is thisvehicle powered? 

Q11. What is thedistance in milesof your typicaldaily travel inthis vehicle? 

Q12. Price range of new vehicle 

Q13. Age Q14. Education Q15. Ethnicity 

1 SUV Gasoline 40+ miles $30K - less than $40K 20-34 Graduate degree White/non Hispanic 

2 SUV Gasoline 10-19 miles $40K - less than $50K 50-64 Some college or college graduate White/non Hispanic 

3 Station wagon or minivan Gasoline Less than 10 $30K - less than $40K 50-64 Graduate degree White/non Hispanic 

4 Passenger car Hybrid 20-29 $20K- less than $30K 50-64 Some college or college graduate White/non Hispanic 

5 Station wagon or minivan Gasoline Less than 10 $20K- less than $30K 35-49 Some college or college graduate White/non Hispanic 

6 SUV Gasoline Less than 10 $30K - less than $40K 50-64 Graduate degree White/non Hispanic 

7 Passenger car Gasoline 20-29 miles $30K - less than $40K 50-64 Some college or college graduate White/non Hispanic 

8 Passenger car Gasoline 20-29 miles $20K- less than $30K 50-64 Some college or college graduate White/non Hispanic 

Phase 3 Focus Groups 61 
EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign 

Seattle female group: May 18th, 2010

Q9. What type ofvehicle did youpurchase? 

Q10. How is thisvehicle powered? 

Q11. What is thedistance in milesof your typicaldaily travel inthis vehicle? 

Q12. Price range of new vehicle 

Q13. Age Q14. Education Q15. Ethnicity 

$30K - less than Some college or White/Non- 1 Pickup Truck Gasoline 10-19 miles 35-49 $40K college graduate Hispanic 

Less than 10 $40K - less than White/Non- 2 Pickup Truck Gasoline 50-64 Graduate Degree Miles $50K Hispanic 

$20K- less than Some college or White/Non- 3 Passenger Car Hybrid 20-29 Miles 65+ $30K college graduate Hispanic 

Less than 10 $30K - less than Some college or White/Non- 4 Pickup Truck Gasoline 35-49 Miles $40K college graduate Hispanic 

$20K- less than Some college or 5 Passenger Car Gasoline 30-39 miles 35-49 Hispanic $30K college graduate$30K - less than Some college or White/Non- 6 SUV Gasoline 10-19 miles 65+ $40K college graduate Hispanic 

$30K - less than Some college or White Non- 7 SUV Gasoline 10-19 miles 65+ $40K college graduate Hispanic 

$20K- less than White Non- 8 Passenger Car Hybrid 40+ Miles 50-64 Graduate Degree $30K Hispanic 

62 
 Seattle male group: May 18th, 2010

Q9. What type ofvehicle did youpurchase? 

Q10. How is thisvehicle powered? 

Q11. What is thedistance in milesof your typicaldaily travel inthis vehicle? 

Q12. Price range of new vehicle 

Q13. Age Q14. Education Q15. Ethnicity 

1 Other Gasoline Less than 10 $30K - less than $40K 50-64 Some college or college graduate White/Non- Hispanic 

2 SUV Gasoline Less than 10 $20K- less than $30K 50-64 Graduate Degree White/Non- Hispanic 

3 Station wagon or minivan Gasoline Less than 10 $20K- less than $30K 35-49 Some college or college graduate White/Non- Hispanic 

4 SUV Gasoline Less than 10 $20K- less than $30K 50-64 Some college or college graduate White/Non- Hispanic 

5 Passenger car Gasoline 20-29 miles $20K- less than $30K 35-49 Some college or college graduate Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 

6 Station wagon or minivan Gasoline 10-19 miles $20K- less than $30K 50-64 Some college or college graduate White/Non- Hispanic 

7 Passenger car Gasoline Less than 10 $15K- less than $20K 35-49 Some college or college graduate Asian 

8 Passenger car Gasoline 20-29 miles $20K- less than $30K 50-64 Some college or college graduate White/non Hispanic 

Phase 3 Focus Groups 63 
EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign 

Charlotte female group: May 19th, 2010

Q9. What type ofvehicle did youpurchase? 

Q10. How is thisvehicle powered? 

Q11. What is thedistance in milesof your typicaldaily travel inthis vehicle? 

Q12. Price range of new vehicle 

Q13. Age Q14. Education Q15. Ethnicity 

Some college or White/Non- 1 Passenger Car Gasoline 20-29 $15-$20k 50-64 college graduate Hispanic Some college or White/Non- 2 SUV Gasoline 30-39 $40-$50k 35-49 college graduate Hispanic 

Some college or White/Non- 3 SUV Gasoline 10-19 $40-$50k 50-64 college graduate Hispanic 

Some college or White/Non- 4 Passenger Car Gasoline 30-39 $15-$20k 20-34 college graduate Hispanic

White/Non- 5 Passenger Car Gasoline 40+ $30-$40k 35-49 Graduate degree HispanicWhite/Non- 6 SUV Gasoline 30-39 $20-$30k 20-34 Graduate degree Hispanic 

Some college or 7 SUV Gasoline 20-29 $30-$40k 50-64 African American college graduate

Some college or White/Non- 8 Passenger Car Gasoline 40+ $15-$20k 35-49 college graduate Hispanic 

64 
 Charlotte male group: May 19th, 2010

Q9. What type ofvehicle did youpurchase? 

Q10. How is thisvehicle powered? 

Q11. What is thedistance in milesof your typicaldaily travel inthis vehicle? 

Q12. Price range of new vehicle 

Q13. Age Q14. Education Q15. Ethnicity 

1 Passenger Car Gasoline 40+ $20-$30k 50-64 

Some high schoolor high schoolgraduate or GED 

Hispanic 

2 SUV Gasoline 40+ $20-$30k 50-64 Some college or college graduate White/Non- Hispanic 3 Passenger Car Gasoline 40+ $30-$40k 20-34 Some college or college graduate African American 4 SUV Gasoline 30-39 $20-$30k 20-34 Some college or college graduate White/Non- Hispanic 5 Passenger Car Gasoline 20-29 $20-$30k 35-49 Some college or college graduate White/Non- Hispanic 6 SUV Hybrid 30-39 $30-$40k 20-34 Some college or college graduate African American 

7 Passenger Car Gasoline 40+ $20-$30k 35-49 Some college or college graduate White/Non- Hispanic 8 Passenger Car Gasoline 10-19 $15-$20k 35-49 Some college or college graduate African American 

Phase 3 Focus Groups 65 
EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign 

Charlotte female group: May 20th, 2010

Q9. What type ofvehicle did youpurchase? 

Q10. How is thisvehicle powered? 

Q11. What is thedistance in milesof your typicaldaily travel inthis vehicle? 

Q12. Price range of new vehicle 

Q13. Age Q14. Education Q15. Ethnicity 

Some college or White/Non- 1 Passenger Car Gasoline 20-29 $20-$30k 35-49 college graduate Hispanic Some high school White/Non- 2 Passenger Car Gasoline 40+ $15-$20k 50-64 or high school Hispanic graduate or GED

Some college or White/Non- 3 Passenger Car Gasoline less than 10 $15-$20k 65+ college graduate Hispanic Some college or White/Non- 4 Passenger Car Gasoline less than 10 $30-$40k 50-64 college graduate Hispanic

White/Non- 5 Passenger Car Gasoline 20-29 $30-$40k 50-64 Graduate degree Hispanic 

Some college or White/Non- 6 Crossover Gasoline 30-39 $20-$39k 35-49 college graduate Hispanic Some college or White/Non- 7 Passenger Car Gasoline 20-29 $15-$20k 50-64 college graduate Hispanic Some college or White/Non- 8 SUV Gasoline 40+ $20-$30k 20-34 college graduate Hispanic 

66 
 Charlotte male group: May 20th, 2010

Q9. What type ofvehicle did youpurchase? 

Q10. How is thisvehicle powered? 

Q11. What is thedistance in milesof your typicaldaily travel inthis vehicle? 

Q12. Price range of new vehicle 

Q13. Age Q14. Education Q15. Ethnicity 

1 Passenger Car Gasoline 20-29 $20-$30k 20-34 Some college or college graduate White/Non- Hispanic 

2 Passenger Car Gasoline 10-19 $30-$40k 35-49 Graduate degree White/Non- Hispanic 3 SUV Gasoline 20-29 $20-$30k 65+ Some college or college graduate White/Non- Hispanic 4 Passenger Car Gasoline Less than 10 $15-$20k 35-49 Graduate degree Hispanic 5 Passenger Car Hybrid 40+ $20-$30k 50-64 Some college or college graduate White/Non- Hispanic 6 Passenger Car Gasoline Less than 10 $20-$30k 20-34 Some college or college graduate African American 7 Passenger Car Hybrid 30-39 $20-$30k 20-34 Graduate degree White/Non- Hispanic 8 Passenger Car Gasoline 10-19 $30-$40k 50-64 Graduate degree African American 

Phase 3 Focus Groups 67 
EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign 

Houston female group: May 24th, 2010

Q9. What type ofvehicle did youpurchase? 

Q10. How is thisvehicle powered? 

Q11. What is thedistance in milesof your typicaldaily travel inthis vehicle? 

Q12. Price range of new vehicle 

Q13. Age Q14. Education Q15. Ethnicity 

1 Passenger Car Gasoline 10-19 $15-20k 20-34 Graduate degree Asian 

Some college or 2 Passenger Car Gasoline 10-19 $30-40k 50-64 African American college graduate

Some college or 3 Passenger Car Gasoline 30-39 $15-20k 20-34 African American college graduateSome college or 4 Passenger Car Gasoline 40+ $30-40k 20-34 White/Non college graduateSome college or 5 SUV Gasoline 20-29 $20-30k 35-49 White/Non college graduateSome college or 6 Passenger Car Gasoline 30-39 $20-30k 50-64 White/Non college graduateSome college or 7 SUV Gasoline 40+ $20-30k 65+ White/Non college graduate 

White/Non- 8 Passenger Car Gasoline 30-39 $15-20k 35-49 Graduate degree Hispanic 

68 
 Houston male group: May 24th, 2010

Q9. What type ofpurchase? of your typical

daily travel inthis vehicle? 

vehicle did you 

Q10. How is thisvehicle powered? 

Q11. What is thedistance in miles 

Q12. Price range of new vehicle 

Q13. Age Q14. Education Q15. Ethnicity 

1 SUV Gasoline 40+ $20-30k 35-49 Graduate degree African American

Some college or White/Non- 2 Crossover Gasoline 40+ $20-30k 20-34 college graduate Hispanic Some college or White/Non- 3 Passenger Car Gasoline 40+ $15-20k 50-64 college graduate Hispanic

4 Passenger Car Hybrid 20-29 $30-40k 20-34 Graduate degree Middle Eastern

Some college or White/Non- 5 Passenger Car Gasoline 40+ $20-30k 20-34 college graduate Hispanic 

Phase 3 Focus Groups 69 
EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign 

Houston female group: May 25th, 2010

Q9. What type ofvehicle did youpurchase? 

Q10. How is thisvehicle powered? 

Q11. What is thedistance in milesof your typicaldaily travel inthis vehicle? 

Q12. Price range of new vehicle 

Q13. Age Q14. Education Q15. Ethnicity 

Some college or White/Non- 1 Passenger Car Gasoline 40+ $20-30k 35-49 college graduate Hispanic Some college or White/Non- 2 Passenger Car Gasoline 30-39 $30-40k 50-64 college graduate Hispanic 

Some college or 3 Passenger Car Gasoline 40+ $30-40k 20-34 African American college graduate 

White/Non- 4 Passenger Car Gasoline 10-19 $15-20k 50-64 Graduate degree Hispanic 

5 SUV Gasoline 40+ $30-40k 35-49 Graduate degree African American

Some college or 6 SUV Gasoline 20-29 $30-40k 35-49 Hispanic college graduate

Some college or 7 SUV Gasoline 10-19 $30-40k 35-49 Hispanic college graduate

8 Passenger Car Flex Fuel 40+ $30-40k 35-49 Graduate degree African American 

70 
 Houston male group: May 25th, 2010

Q9. What type ofvehicle did youpurchase? 

Q10. How is thisvehicle powered? 

Q11. What is thedistance in milesof your typicaldaily travel inthis vehicle? 

Q12. Price range of new vehicle 

Q13. Age Q14. Education Q15. Ethnicity 

1 SUV Gasoline 30-39 $20-30k 20-34 Graduate degree White/Non- Hispanic 

2 Passenger Car Gasoline 40+ $15-20k 20-34 Some college or college graduate Hispanic 3 Passenger Car Gasoline 30-39 <$15k 20-34 Some college or college graduate Hispanic 

4 SUV Gasoline 10-19 $30-40k 50-64 Some college or college graduate Hispanic 5 Pickup Truck Gasoline 20-29 $20-30k 20-34 Some college or college graduate White/Hispanic 6 Passenger Car Gasoline 20-29 $20-30k 20-34 Graduate degree White/Non- Hispanic 7 Pickup Truck Gasoline 30-39 $20-30k 50-64 

Some high schoolor high schoolgraduate or GED 

African American/ 

8 SUV Gasoline 30-39 $20-30k 50-64 Some college or college graduate White/Non- Hispanic 

Phase 3 Focus Groups 71 
EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign 

Chicago female group: May 26th, 2010

Q9. What type ofvehicle did youpurchase? 

Q10. How is thisvehicle powered? 

Q11. What is thedistance in milesof your typicaldaily travel inthis vehicle? 

Q12. Price range of new vehicle 

Q13. Age Q14. Education Q15. Ethnicity 

Some college or White/Non- 1 Minivan Gasoline 10-19 miles $30-40k 50-64 college graduate Hispanic Some college or White/Non- 2 Passenger car Flex fuel 40 or more miles $20-30k 35-49 college graduate Hispanic

White/Non- 3 SUV Gasoline 40 or more miles $30-40k 35-49 Graduate degree Hispanic 

Some college or 4 Passenger car Hybrid 40 or more miles $30-40k 50-64 African American/ college graduate 

White/Non- 5 Passenger car Gasoline 30-39 miles $20-30k 50-64 Graduate degree Hispanic 

Some college or 6 Passenger car Gasoline 40 or more miles $15-20k 20-34 Asian college graduateSome high school White/Non- 7 Passenger car Gasoline 40 or more miles $20-30k 50-64 or high school Hispanic graduate or GED 

White/Non- 8 SUV Gasoline 10-19 miles $20-30k 50-64 Graduate degree Hispanic 

72 
 Chicago male group: May 26th, 2010

Q9. What type ofvehicle did youpurchase? 

Q10. How is thisvehicle powered? 

Q11. What is thedistance in milesof your typicaldaily travel inthis vehicle? 

Q12. Price range of new vehicle 

Q13. Age Q14. Education Q15. Ethnicity 

1 SUV Gasoline Less than 10 miles $40-50k 20-34 Some college or college graduate Asian 

2 SUV Gasoline 40 or more miles $20-30k 20-34 Graduate degree White/Non- Hispanic 

3 Passenger car Gasoline 40 or more miles $40-50k 35-49 Some college or college graduate White/Non- Hispanic 4 Passenger car Gasoline 30-39 miles $20-30k 20-34 Some college or college graduate White/Non- Hispanic 5 Passenger car Gasoline 10-19 miles $20-30k 35-49 Some college or college graduate White/Non- Hispanic 6 Passenger car Gasoline 40 or more miles $20-30k 20-34 Some college or college graduate White/Non- Hispanic 7 Passenger car Gasoline 20-29 miles $15-20k 35-49 Graduate degree White/Non- Hispanic 8 SUV Gasoline 40 or more miles $30-40k 50-64 Some college or college graduate White/Non- Hispanic 

Phase 3 Focus Groups 73 
EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign 

Chicago female group: May 27th, 2010

Q9. What type ofvehicle did youpurchase? 

Q10. How is thisvehicle powered? 

Q11. What is thedistance in milesof your typicaldaily travel inthis vehicle? 

Q12. Price range of new vehicle 

Q13. Age Q14. Education Q15. Ethnicity 

Some college or 1 SUV Gasoline 20-29 miles $20-30k 35-49 Hispanic college graduate 

White/Non- 2 SUV Gasoline 20-29 miles $40-50k 35-49 Graduate degree Hispanic 

Some college or White/Non- 3 Passenger car Gasoline 10-19 miles $15-20k 50-64 college graduate Hispanic Some college or 4 SUV Gasoline 10-19 miles $40-50k 20-34 Asian college graduateSome college or White/Non- 5 Passenger car Gasoline 40 or more miles $30-40k 20-34 college graduate Hispanic

White/Non- 6 Passenger car Gasoline 20-29 miles $20-30k 35-49 Graduate degree Hispanic 

Some high school

7 SUV Gasoline 10-19 miles $30-40k 20-34 or high school Asian 

graduate or GED 

White/Non- 8 Passenger car Gasoline 20-29 miles $30-40k 35-49 Graduate degree Hispanic 

74 
 Chicago male group: May 27th, 2010

Q9. What type ofvehicle did youpurchase? 

Q10. How is thisvehicle powered? 

Q11. What is thedistance in milesof your typicaldaily travel inthis vehicle? 

Q12. Price range of new vehicle 

Q13. Age Q14. Education Q15. Ethnicity 

1 Passenger car Gasoline 30-39 miles $20-30k 20-34 Some college or college graduate White/Non- Hispanic 2 Pickup truck Gasoline 20-29 miles $30-40k 50-64 Some college or college graduate White/Non- Hispanic 3 Passenger car Gasoline 20-29 miles $20-30k 50-64 Graduate degree White/Non- Hispanic 4 Passenger car Gasoline 10-19 miles $20-30k 50-64 Some college or college graduate White/Non- Hispanic 5 Passenger car Gasoline 10-19 miles $20-30k 20-34 Graduate degree White/Non- Hispanic 6 SUV Gasoline Less than 10 miles $20-30k 35-49 Some college or college graduate White/Non- Hispanic 

7 Station wagon or mini van Gasoline 10-19 miles $20-30k 20-34 Graduate degree White/Non- Hispanic 

8 SUV Gasoline 20-29 miles $30-40k 50-64 Graduate degree White/Non- Hispanic 

Phase 3 Focus Groups 75 
 

Appendix C: Gasoline Engine Labels Understandability Handout 

76 EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign 
Phase 3 Focus Groups 77 
 

Appendix D: Gasoline Engine Labels Understandability Tally
�

Option 1A Option 1B Option 1C 

Seattle Female Group: 05/17/2010 

Most Understandable 4 2 0 

Least Understandable 0 2 4 

Seattle Male Group: 05/17/2010 

Most Understandable 2 3 3 

Least Understandable 5 0 3 

Seattle Female Group: 05/18/2010 – Not Used for this Group 

Seattle Male Group: 05/18/2010 – Not Used for this Group 

Total 

Female Most Understandable 4 2 0 

Female Least Understandable 0 2 4 

Male Most Understandable 2 3 3 

Male Least Understandable 5 0 3 

Overall Most Understandable 6 5 3 

Overall Least understandable 5 2 7 

Group Most Understandable 1 1 0 

Group Least Understandable 1 0 1 

Charlotte Female Group: 05/19/2010 

Most Understandable 0 5 3 

Least Understandable 6 1 1 

Charlotte Male Group: 05/19/2010 

Most Understandable 0 7 1 

Least Understandable 2 1 5 

Charlotte Female Group: 05/20/2010 

Most Understandable 0 6 2 

Least Understandable 4 1 3 

78 EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign 
 

Option 1A Option 1B Option 1C 

Charlotte Male Group: 05/20/2010 

Most Understandable 0 6 2 

Least Understandable 2 1 5 

Total 

Female Most Understandable 0 11 5 

Female Least Understandable 10 2 4 

Male Most Understandable 0 13 3 

Male Least Understandable 4 2 10 

Overall Most Understandable 0 24 8 

Overall Least understandable 14 4 14 

Group Most Understandable 0 4 0 

Group Least Understandable 2 0 2 

Houston Female Group: 05/24/2010 

Most Understandable 0 7 1 

Least Understandable 2 1 5 

Houston Male Group: 05/24/2010 

Most Understandable 0 5 0 

Least Understandable 3 0 2 

Houston Female Group: 05/25/2010 – Not Used for this Group 

Houston Male Group: 05/25/2010 – Not Used for this Group 

Total 

Female Most Understandable 0 7 1 

Female Least Understandable 2 1 5 

Male Most Understandable 0 5 0 

Male Least Understandable 3 0 2 

Overall Most Understandable 0 12 1 

Overall Least Understandable 5 1 7 

Groups Most Understandable 0 2 0 

Groups Least Understandable 1 0 1 

Phase 3 Focus Groups 79 
 

Option 1A Option 1B Option 1C 

Chicago Female Group: 05/26/2010 

Most Understandable 0 6 2 

Least Understandable 6 0 2 

Chicago Male Group: 05/26/2010 

Most Understandable 1 4 3 

Least Understandable 2 2 4 

Chicago Female Group: 05/27/2010 

Most Understandable 2 6 0 

Least Understandable 2 2 4 

Chicago Male Group: 05/27/2010 

Most Understandable 1 4 3 

Least Understandable 2 2 4 

Total 

Female Most Understandable 2 12 2 

Female Least Understandable 8 2 6 

Male Most Understandable 2 10 6 

Males Least Understandable 4 4 8 

Overall Most Understandable 4 20 11 

Overall Least understandable 12 6 `14 

Groups Most Understandable 0 4 0 

Groups Least Understandable 1 0 3 

COMBINED TALLY FOR ALL GROUPS 

Total 

Female Most Understandable 6 32 8 

Female Least Understandable 20 7 19 

Male Most Understandable 4 31 12 

Male Least Understandable 16 6 23 

Overall Most Understandable 10 61 23 

Overall Least Understandable 36 13 42 

Groups Most Understandable 1 11 0 

Groups Least Understandable 5 0 7 

80 EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign 
 

Appendix E: Gasoline Engine Labels Fuel Efficiency Handout
�

Phase 3 Focus Groups 81 
 

Appendix F: Gasoline Engine Labels Fuel Efficiency Tally
�

Option 1A1 Option 1A2 Option 1B1 Option 1B2 Option 1C1 Option 1C2 

Seattle Female Group: 05/17/2010 

0 5 5 0 0 5 

Seattle Male Group: 05/17/2010 

0 8 8 0 0 8 

Seattle Female Group: 05/18/2010 – Not Used for this Group 

Seattle Male Group: 05/18/2010 - Not Used for this Group 

Most fuel efficient 0 13 13 0 0 13 

Charlotte Female Group: 05/19/2010 

0 8 8 0 1 7 

Charlotte Male Group: 05/19/2010 

0 8 7 1 0 8 

Charlotte Female Group: 05/20/2010 

1 7 8 1 0 7 

Charlotte Female Group: 05/20/2010 

1 7 8 0 0 8 

Most fuel efficient 2 30 31 2 1 30 

Houston Female Group: 05/24/2010 

1 7 8 0 2 6 

Houston Male Group: 05/24/2010 

1 4 5 0 1 4 

Houston Female Group: 05/25/2010 – Not Used for this Group 

Houston Male Group: 05/25/2010 – Not Used for this Group 

Most fuel efficient 2 11 13 0 3 10 

Chicago Female Group: 05/26/2010 

0 8 8 0 0 8 

Chicago Male Group: 05/26/2010 

0 8 8 0 0 8 

Chicago Female Group: 05/27/2010 

0 8 8 0 0 8 

Chicago Male Group: 05/27/2010 

0 8 8 0 0 8 

Most fuel efficient 0 32 32 0 0 32 

COMBINED TALLY FOR ALL GROUPS 

Total Most fuel efficient 4 86 89 2 4 85 

82 EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign 
Appendix G: Electric Vehicle Labels Understandability Handout

Phase 3 Focus Groups 83
Appendix H: Electric Vehicles Labels Understandability Tally

Option 2A Option 2B Option 2C

Seattle Female Group: 05/17/2010

Most Understandable 2 2 2

Least Understandable 1 2 3

Seattle Male Group: 05/17/2010

Most Understandable 2 2 4

Least Understandable 1 6 1

Seattle Female Group: 05/18/2010

Most Understandable 2 3 3

Least Understandable 2 2 3

Seattle Male Group: 05/18/2010

Most Understandable 3 1 4

Least Understandable 3 2 3

Total

Female Most Understandable 4 5 5

Female Least Understandable 3 5 6

Male Most Understandable 5 3 8

Male Least Understandable 4 8 4

Overall Most Understandable 9 8 13

Overall Least understandable 7 13 10

Group Most Understandable 0 2 2

Group Least Understandable 1 1 2

Charlotte Female Group: 05/19/2010 – Not used for this Group

Charlotte Male Group: 05/19/2010 – Not used for this Group

Charlotte Female Group: 05/20/2010

Most Understandable 1 5 2

Least Understandable 2 3 3

Charlotte Male Group: 05/20/2010

Most Understandable 1 3 4

Least Understandable 4 3 1

Total

Female Most Understandable 1 3 4

Female Least Understandable 4 3 1

Male Most Understandable 1 5 2

Male Least Understandable 2 3 3

Overall Most Understandable 2 8 6

Overall Least Understandable 6 6 4

Groups Most Understandable 0 1 1

Groups Least Understandable 1 0 1

84 EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign
 

Option 2A Option 2B Option 2C 

Houston Female Group: 05/24/2010 

Most Understandable 0 3 5 

Least Understandable 6 2 0 

Houston Male Group: 05/24/2010 

Most Understandable 0 2 3 

Least Understandable 2 1 2 

Houston Female Group: 05/25/2010 

Most Understandable 1 3 4 

Least Understandable 2 3 3 

Houston Male Group: 05/25/2010 

Most Understandable 1 1 6 

Least Understandable 2 5 1 

Total 

Female Most Understandable 1 3 4 

Female Least Understandable 2 3 3 

Male Most Understandable 1 1 6 

Male Least Understandable 2 5 1 

Overall Most Understandable 2 4 10 

Overall Least Understandable 4 8 4 

Groups Most Understandable 0 0 4 

Groups Least Understandable 2 2 2 

Chicago Female Group: 05/26/2010 - Not used for this Group 

Chicago Male Group: 05/26/2010 - Not used for this Group 

Chicago Female Group: 05/27/2010 

Most Understandable 4 2 2 

Least Understandable 2 3 3 

Chicago Male Group: 05/27/2010 

Most Understandable 3 2 3 

Least Understandable 2 2 4 

Total 

Female Most Understandable 4 2 2 

Female Least Understandable 2 3 3 

Male Most Understandable 3 2 3 

Male Least Understandable 2 2 4 

Overall Most Understandable 7 4 5 

Overall Least Understandable 5 5 7 

Groups Most Understandable 2 0 0 

Groups Least Understandable 0 1 2 

Phase 3 Focus Groups 85 
 

Option 2A Option 2B Option 2C 

COMBINED TALLY FOR ALL GROUPS 

Total 

Female Most Understandable 10 13 15 

Female Least Understandable 11 14 13 

Male Most Understandable 10 11 19 

Male Least Understandable 10 18 12 

Overall Most Understandable 20 24 34 

Overall Least Understandable 22 32 25 

Groups Most Understandable 2 3 7 

Groups Least Understandable 4 4 7 

86 EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign 
 

Appendix I: Electric Vehicle Labels Fuel Efficiency Handout
�

Phase 3 Focus Groups 87 
 

Appendix J: Electric Vehicles Labels Fuel Efficiency Tally
�

Option 2A1 Option 2A2 Option 2B1 Option 2B2 Option 2C1 Option 2C2 

Seattle Female Group: 05/17/2010 

6 0 2 4 0 6 

Seattle Male Group: 05/17/2010 

7 1 2 6 0 8 

Seattle Female Group: 05/18/2010 

8 0 4 4 0 8 

Seattle Male Group: 05/18/2010 

8 0 2 6 0 8 

Most fuel efficient 29 1 10 20 0 30 

Charlotte Male Group: 05/19/2010 

5 3 4 4 1 7 

Charlotte Female Group: 05/19/2010 

8 0 3 5 0 8 

Charlotte Male Group: 05/20/2010 – Not Used for this Group 

Charlotte Female Group: 05/20/2010 – Not Used for this Group 

Most fuel efficient 13 3 7 9 1 15 

Houston Female Group: 05/24/2010 

6 2 3 5 1 7 

Houston Male Group: 05/24/2010 

4 1 4 1 0 5 

Houston Female Group: 05/25/2010 

8 0 0 8 1 7 

Houston Male Group: 05/25/2010 

7 0 0 7 0 7 

Most fuel efficient 25 3 7 21 2 26 

Chicago Female Group: 05/26/2010 – Not used for this Group 

Chicago Male Group: 05/26/2010 – Not used for this Group 

Chicago Female Group: 05/27/2010 

8 0 0 8 0 8 

Chicago Male Group: 05/27/2010 

8 0 0 8 0 8 

Most fuel efficient 16 0 0 16 0 16 

COMBINED TALLY FOR ALL GROUPS 

Total Most fuel efficient 83 7 24 66 3 87 

88 EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign 
 

Appendix K: Extended Range Electric Vehicle Labels 

Understandability Handout 

Phase 3 Focus Groups 89 
 

Appendix L: EREV Labels Understandability Tally
�

Option 3A Option 3B Option 3C 

Seattle Female Group: 05/17/2010 

Most Understandable 0 2 4 

Least Understandable 3 2 1 

Seattle Male Group: 05/17/2010 

Most Understandable 2 1 5 

Least Understandable 4 3 1 

Seattle Female Group: 05/18/2010 

Most Understandable 1 6 1 

Least Understandable 6 0 2 

Seattle Male Group: 05/18/2010 

Most Understandable 2 3 3 

Least Understandable 2 2 3 

Total 

Female Most Understandable 1 8 5 

Female Least Understandable 9 2 3 

Male Most Understandable 4 4 8 

Male Least Understandable 6 5 4 

Overall Most Understandable 5 12 13 

Overall Least understandable 15 7 7 

Group Most Understandable 0 2 2 

Group Least Understandable 3 0 1 

Charlotte Female Group: 05/19/2010 

Most Understandable 5 0 3 

Least Understandable 2 3 3 

Charlotte Male Group: 05/19/2010 

Most Understandable 5 2 1 

Least Understandable 1 5 2 

Charlotte Female Group: 05/20/2010 - Not used for this Group 

Charlotte Male Group: 05/20/2010 - Not used for this Group 

90 EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign 
 

Option 3A Option 3B Option 3C 

Total 

Female Most Understandable 5 0 3 

Female Least Understandable 2 3 3 

Male Most Understandable 5 2 1 

Male Least Understandable 1 5 2 

Overall Most Understandable 10 2 4 

Overall Least Understandable 3 8 5 

Groups Most Understandable 2 0 0 

Groups Least Understandable 0 2 0 

Houston Female Group: 05/24/2010 

Most Understandable 0 2 6 

Least Understandable 5 3 0 

Houston Male Group: 05/24/2010 

Most Understandable 0 1 4 

Least Understandable 4 1 0 

Houston Female Group: 05/25/2010 

Most Understandable 0 1 7 

Least Understandable 4 3 1 

Houston Male Group: 05/25/2010 

Most Understandable 0 1 7 

Least Understandable 2 5 1 

Total 

Female Most Understandable 0 3 13 

Female Least Understandable 9 6 1 

Male Most Understandable 0 2 11 

Male Least Understandable 6 6 1 

Overall Most Understandable 0 5 24 

Overall Least Understandable 15 12 2 

Groups Most Understandable 0 0 4 

Groups Least Understandable 3 1 0 

Phase 3 Focus Groups 91 
 

Option 3A Option 3B Option 3C 

Chicago Female Group: 05/26/2010 - Not used for this Group 

Most Understandable 5 1 2 

Least Understandable 1 6 1 

Chicago Male Group: 05/26/2010 - Not used for this Group 

Most Understandable 2 3 3 

Least Understandable 2 3 3 

Chicago Female Group: 05/27/2010 - Not used for this Group 

Chicago Male Group: 05/27/2010 - Not used for this Group 

Total 

Female Most Understandable 5 1 2 

Female Least Understandable 1 6 1 

Male Most Understandable 2 3 3 

Male Least Understandable 2 3 3 

Overall Most Understandable 7 4 5 

Overall Least Understandable 3 9 4 

Groups Most Understandable 1 1 1 

Groups Least Understandable 0 2 1 

COMBINED TALLY FOR ALL GROUPS 

Total 

Female Most Understandable 11 12 23 

Female Least Understandable 21 17 8 

Male Most Understandable 11 11 23 

Male Least Understandable 15 19 10 

Overall Most Understandable 22 23 46 

Overall Least Understandable 36 36 18 

Groups Most Understandable 3 3 7 

Groups Least Understandable 6 5 2 

92 EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign 
 

Appendix M: EREV Labels Fuel Efficiency Handout
�

Phase 3 Focus Groups 93 
 

Appendix N: EREV Labels Fuel Efficiency Tally
�

Option 

3A1 

Option 

3A2 

Option 

3B1 

Option 

3B2 

Option 

3C1 

Option 

3C2 

Seattle Female Group: 05/17/2010 

0 6 6 0 6 0 

Seattle Male Group: 05/17/2010 

0 8 8 0 8 0 

Seattle Female Group: 05/18/2010 

0 7 7 0 6 0 

Seattle Male Group: 05/18/2010 

1 7 8 0 8 0 

Most fuel efficient 1 1 28 29 0 28 

Charlotte Female Group: 05/19/2010 

0 8 8 0 8 0 

Charlotte Male Group: 05/19/2010 

1 6 4 3 5 2 

Charlotte Male Group: 05/20/2010 – Not Used for this Group 

Charlotte Female Group: 05/20/2010 – Not Used for this Group 

Most fuel efficient 1 14 12 3 13 2 

Houston Female Group: 05/24/2010 

0 8 8 0 8 0 

Houston Male Group: 05/24/2010 

0 5 4 1 5 0 

Houston Female Group: 05/25/2010 

0 8 8 0 8 0 

Houston Male Group: 05/25/2010 

1 7 5 3 5 3 

Most fuel efficient 1 28 25 4 26 3 

Chicago Female Group: 05/26/2010 

0 8 8 0 8 0 

Chicago Male Group: 05/26/2010 

0 8 8 0 8 0 

Chicago Female Group: 05/27/2010 – Not used for this Group 

Chicago Male Group: 05/27/2010 – Not used for this Group 

Most fuel efficient 0 16 16 0 16 0 

COMBINED TALLY FOR ALL GROUPS 

Total Most fuel efficient 3 86 82 7 83 5 

94 EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign 
 

Appendix O: PHEV Labels Understandability Handout
�

Phase 3 Focus Groups 95 
 

Appendix P: PHEV Labels Understandability Tally
�

Option 4A Option 4B Option 4C 

Seattle Female Group: 5/17/2010 - Not used for this Group 

Seattle Male Group: 5/17/2010 - Not used for this Group 

Seattle Female Group: 5/18/2010 

Most Understandable 1 4 3 

Least Understandable 4 2 2 

Seattle Male Group: 5/18/2010 

Most Understandable 2 1 5 

Least Understandable 2 5 1 

Total 

Female Most Understandable 1 4 3 

Female Least understandable 4 2 2 

Male Most Understandable 2 1 5 

Male Least Understandable 2 5 1 

Overall Most Understandable 3 5 8 

Overall Least Understandable 6 7 3 

Groups Most Understandable 0 1 1 

Groups Least Understandable 1 1 0 

Charlotte Female Group: 05/19/2010 

Most Understandable 4 0 4 

Least Understandable 2 5 1 

Charlotte Male Group: 05/19/2010 

Most Understandable 6 2 0 

Least Understandable 0 6 2 

Charlotte Female Group: 05/20/2010 

Most Understandable 3 0 5 

Least Understandable 1 6 1 

Charlotte Male Group: 05/20/2010 

Most Understandable 3 1 4 

Least Understandable 2 4 2 

Total 

Female Most Understandable 7 0 9 

Female Least Understandable 3 11 2 

Male Most Understandable 9 3 4 

Male Least Understandable 2 10 4 

Overall Most Understandable 16 3 13 

Overall Least Understandable 5 21 6 

Groups Most Understandable 2 0 3 

Groups Least Understandable 0 4 0 

96 EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign 
 

Option 4A Option 4B Option 4C 

Houston Female Group: 5/24/2010 - Not used for this Group 

Houston Male Group: 5/24/2010 - Not used for this Group 

Houston Female Group: 5/25/2010 

Most Understandable 0 1 7 

Least Understandable 6 2 0 

Houston Male Group: 5/25/2010 

Most Understandable 1 0 7 

Least Understandable 2 6 0 

Total Female Most Understandable 0 1 7 

Female Least Understandable 6 2 0 

Male Most Understandable 1 0 7 

Male Least Understandable 2 6 0 

Overall Most Understandable 3 1 14 

Overall Least Understandable 8 8 0 

Groups Most Understandable 0 0 2 

Groups Least Understandable 1 1 0 

Chicago Female Group: 05/26/2010 

Most Understandable 3 2 3 

Least Understandable 2 2 4 

Chicago Male Group: 05/26/2010 

Most Understandable 4 1 3 

Least Understandable 2 4 2 

Chicago Female Group: 05/27/2010 

Most Understandable 6 2 0 

Least Understandable 0 4 4 

Chicago Male Group: 05/27/2010 

Most Understandable 5 2 1 

Least Understandable 1 1 6 

Total 

Female Most Understandable 9 4 3 

Female Least Understandable 2 6 8 

Male Most Understandable 9 3 4 

Male Least Understandable 3 5 8 

Overall Most Understandable 18 7 7 

Overall Least Understandable 5 11 16 

Groups Most Understandable 4 0 0 

Groups Least Understandable 0 1 3 

Phase 3 Focus Groups 97 
 

Option 4A Option 4B Option 4C 

COMBINED TALLY FOR ALL GROUPS 

Total 

Female Most Understandable 17 9 22 

Female Least Understandable 15 21 12 

Male Most Understandable 21 7 20 

Male Least Understandable 9 26 13 

Overall Most Understandable 40 16 42 

Overall Least Understandable 24 47 25 

Groups Most Understandable 6 1 6 

Groups Least Understandable 2 7 3 

98 EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign 
 

Appendix Q: PHEV Labels Fuel Efficiency Handout
�

Phase 3 Focus Groups 99 
 

Appendix R: PHEV Labels Fuel Efficiency Tally
�

Option 4A1 Option 4A2 Option 4B1 Option 4B2 Option 4C1 Option 4C2 

Seattle Female Group: 05/17/2010 – Not used for this Group 

Seattle Male Group: 05/17/2010 – Not used for this Group 

Seattle Female Group: 05/18/2010 

1 7 8 0 1 7 

Seattle Male Group: 05/18/2010 

0 8 7 1 0 8 

Most fuel efficient 1 15 15 1 1 15 

Charlotte Female Group: 05/19/2010 

2 6 5 3 1 7 

Charlotte Male Group: 05/19/2010 

0 8 8 0 0 8 

Charlotte Female Group: 05/20/2010 

3 5 7 1 2 6 

Charlotte Male Group: 05/20/2010 

1 7 7 1 0 8 

Most fuel efficient 6 26 27 5 3 29 

Houston Female Group: 05/24/2010 – Not used for this Group 

Houston Male Group: 05/24/2010 – Not used for this Group 

Houston Female Group: 05/25/2010 

1 7 8 0 0 8 

Houston Male Group: 05/25/2010 

0 8 7 1 0 8 

Most fuel efficient 1 15 15 1 1 16 

Chicago Female Group: 05/26/2010 

1 7 7 1 2 5 

Chicago Male Group: 05/26/2010 

1 7 8 0 0 8 

Chicago Female Group: 05/27/2010 

0 8 8 0 1 7 

Chicago Male Group: 05/27/2010 

0 8 8 0 0 8 

Most fuel efficient 2 30 31 1 3 28 

COMBINED TALLY FOR ALL GROUPS 

Total Most fuel efficient 10 86 88 8 8 88 

100 EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign 
 Appendix S: Comparing Across Technology Option A Handout

Phase 3 Focus Groups 101 
 

Appendix T: Comparing Across Technology Option A Tally

Environment Friendly 

GAS EV EREV PHEV 

0 6 0 N/A 0 N/A 4 4 0 N/A 4 4 0 5 0 N/A 0 7 N/A 1 1 5 N/A 1

10

8 23 1 

100 miles 

GAS EV EREV PHEV 

2 2 2 N/A 0 N/A 2 6 0 N/A 2 6 0 2 3 N/A 4 1 N/A 3 3 0 N/A 4

19 7 5 9 

50 Miles 

GAS EV EREV PHEV 

0 6 0 N/A 0 N/A 2 6 0 N/A 2 6 0 4 1 N/A 0 2 N/A 6 0 7 N/A 1

19

5 19 0 

30 miles

GAS EV EREV PHEV 

0 5 1 N/A 0 5 N/A 3 0 N/A 8 0 0 3 2 N/A 0 6 N/A 2 0 8 N/A 0 0 27 11 5 

SeattleFemale Group 1CharlotteFemale Group 1CharlotteMaleGroup 1HoustonMaleGroup 1ChicagoFemale Group 2ChicagoMaleGroup 2

Total 

OPTION A 

102 EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign 
 Appendix U: Comparing Across Technology Option B Handout

Phase 3 Focus Groups 103 
 

Appendix V: Comparing Across Technology Option B Tally

Environment Friendly 

GAS EV EREV PHEV 

0 8 N/A 0 0 N/A 8 6 0 N/A 7 1 0 8 15 7 

100 miles 

GAS EV EREV PHEV 

1 4 N/A 3 1 N/A 1 6 0 N/A 1 7 2 4 2 16 

50 Miles 

GAS EV EREV PHEV 

0 5 N/A 3 0 N/A 4 4 0 N/A 2 6 0 5 6 13 

30 miles

GAS EV EREV PHEV 

0 6 N/A 2 1 N/A 7 0 0 N/A 6 2 1 6 13 4 

CharlotteMaleGroup 2ChicagoFemale Group 1ChicagoMaleGroup 1

Total 

OPTION B 

104 EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign 
 Appendix W: Comparing Across Technology Option C Handout

Phase 3 Focus Groups 105 
 

Appendix X: Comparing Across Technology Option C Tally

30 miles 50 Miles 100 miles Environment Friendly 

OPTION C 

GAS EV EREV PHEV GAS EV EREV PHEV GAS EV EREV PHEV GAS EV EREV PHEV 

CharlotteFemale Group 2 

0 5 N/A 3 0 6 N/A 2 0 0 N/A 8 0 8 N/A 0 

SeattleMale Group1 

0 0 8 N/A 0 8 2 N/A 0 1 7 N/A 0 8 0 N/A 

SeattleFemale Group 2 

N/A 5 3 0 N/A 7 0 1 N/A 3 5 0 N/A 8 0 0 

SeattleMale Group2 

N/A 7 3 0 N/A 7 1 0 N/A 0 7 1 N/A 8 0 0 

HoustonFemale Group 1 

0 7 1 N/A 1 6 2 N/A 0 3 5 N/A 0 8 0 N/A 

HoustonFemale Group 2 

N/A 7 1 0 N/A 2 2 4 N/A 0 7 1 N/A 8 0 0 

HoustonMale Group2 

N/A 8 0 0 N/A 1 2 5 N/A 7 0 1 N/A 7 0 1 

Total 0 39 16 3 1 37 9 12 0 14 31 11 0 55 0 1 

106 EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign 
 

Appendix Y: Environmental Metrics Handout
�

Phase 3 Focus Groups 107 
 

Appendix Z: Environmental Metrics Tally
�

LABEL A LABEL B LABEL C LABEL D LABEL E 

Seattle Female Group: 05/17/2010 

Rated as #1 2 3 0 1 1 

Rated as #2 0 0 4 1 1 

Total 2 3 4 2 2 

Seattle Male Group: 05/17/2010 

Rated as #1 5 2 0 0 1 

Rated as #2 2 3 1 0 2 

Total 7 5 1 0 3 

Seattle Female Group: 05/18/2010 

Rated as #1 1 2 5 0 0 

Rated as #2 2 3 1 2 0 

Total 3 5 4 2 0 

Seattle Male Group: 05/18/2010 

Rated as #1 2 0 1 1 4 

Rated as #2 2 2 2 0 2 

Total 4 2 3 1 6 

Total 

Rated as “#1” 10 7 6 2 6 

Rated as “#2” 6 8 8 3 5 

Overall 16 15 14 5 11 

Charlotte Female Group: 05/19/2010 

Rated as #1 1 1 3 1 3 

Rated as #2 0 3 4 0 1 

Total 1 4 7 1 4 

Charlotte Male Group: 05/19/2010 

Rated as #1 2 1 2 1 2 

Rated as #2 1 3 3 1 0 

Total 3 4 5 2 2 

Charlotte Female Group: 05/20/2010 

Rated as #1 0 0 3 3 2 

Rated as #2 2 3 3 0 0 

Total 2 3 6 3 2 

108 EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign 
 

LABEL A LABEL B LABEL C LABEL D LABEL E 

Charlotte Male Group: 05/20/2010 

Rated as #1 5 1 0 0 2 

Rated as #2 1 0 4 1 2 

Total 6 1 4 1 4 

Total 

Rated as “#1” 8 3 8 5 9 

Rated as “#2” 4 9 14 2 3 

Overall 12 12 22 7 12 

Houston Female Group: 05/24/2010 

Rated as #1 2 0 3 2 3 

Rated as #2 0 3 5 1 0 

Total 2 3 8 3 3 

Houston Male Group: 05/24/2010 

Rated as #1 2 1 1 1 0 

Rated as #2 0 0 3 1 1 

Total 2 1 4 2 1 

Houston Female Group: 05/25/2010 

Rated as #1 3 2 1 2 0 

Rated as #2 1 1 3 2 1 

Total 4 3 4 4 1 

Houston Male Group: 05/25/2010 

Rated as #1 6 2 0 0 0 

Rated as #2 1 1 0 2 4 

Total 7 3 0 2 4 

Total 

Rated as “#1” 13 5 5 5 3 

Rated as “#2” 2 5 11 6 6 

Overall 15 10 16 11 9 

Chicago Female Group: 05/26/2010 

Rated as #1 4 0 1 3 0 

Rated as #2 1 2 3 1 1 

Total 5 2 4 4 1 

Chicago Male Group: 05/26/2010 

Rated as #1 2 2 2 0 2 

Rated as #2 1 1 2 3 1 

Total 3 3 4 3 3 

Phase 3 Focus Groups 109 
 

LABEL A LABEL B LABEL C LABEL D LABEL E 

Chicago Female Group: 05/27/2010 

Rated as #1 2 1 3 1 1 

Rated as #2 1 4 1 1 1 

Total 3 5 4 2 2 

Chicago Male Group: 05/27/2010 

Rated as #1 6 1 1 0 0 

Rated as #2 0 3 0 1 4 

Total 6 4 1 1 4 

Total 

Rated as “#1” 14 4 7 4 3 

Rated as “#2” 3 10 6 6 7 

Overall 17 14 13 10 10 

COMBINED TALLY FOR ALL GROUPS 

Total 

Rated as “#1” 45 19 26 16 21 

Rated as “#2” 15 32 39 17 21 

Overall 60 51 65 33 42 

110 EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign 
 

Appendix AA: Environmental Metrics Option F Handout
�

Phase 3 Focus Groups 111 
 

Appendix AB: Monroney Label Handout 

112 EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign