# 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 17 th 

### and 27 th



### , 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 17 th 

### Seattle female group (which had six participants), May 24 th 

### Houston male group (which had five participants) and May 25 th 

### 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 7EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign 8

# 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 designs 1 

### . 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.. Participantsadded 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 CO 2 

### 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 CO 2 

### 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 CO 2 

### 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 13EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign 14

# Electric Vehicle Label Designs�

Understandability of vehicle label designs

Participants in twelve 2 

### 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 itto 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 kW



### was 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.

“It has no information on 

### No major city or gender differences were found with regard to 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 morefuel 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 21EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign 22

# Extended Range Electric Vehicles

Understandability of vehicle label designs

Participants in twelve 3 

### 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 likedhow 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 v 

# ehicle label designs

Participants in twelve 4 

### 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 groups 5 

### , 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 33EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign 34

# 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 CO 2 

### grams per mile. All but one participant chose the EV as the most environmentally friendly because there would be no

CO 2 

### 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 CO 2 

### 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 CO 2 

### 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 CO 2 

### 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 information

### design 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 CO 2 

### and other pollutants) than the option that carried a combined rating for CO 2 

### 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 CO 2 

### and other pollutants) than the
understand.” – Charlotte Male 

### option that carried a combined rating for CO 2 

### 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 CO 2 

### 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 CO 2 

### 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 E Option D**  **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 ‘CO 2 

### 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 CO 2 

### 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 43EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign 44

# 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 45EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign 46

# 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 consumptioninformation, 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 CO 2 

### 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 kW

hr 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 (mini

vans, 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 CO 2 

### 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 re

charged. 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 59EPA Fuel Economy Label RedesignAppendix B: Participants’ Profile**Seattle 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 rangeof new vehicleQ13. Age Q14. Education Q15. Ethnicity$20K- less thanWhite/non1 Passenger car Gasoline 20-2965 +Graduate degree$30KHispanic$20K- less thanSome college or White/non2 SUVGasoline 20-2935-49$30Kcollege graduate Hispanic$20K- less thanSome college or White/non3 Passenger car Hybrid10-1950-64$30Kcollege graduate Hispanic$20K- less thanSome college or Black/non4 Passenger car Gasoline 20-3950-64$30Kcollege graduate HispanicStation Wagon or$30K - less thanSome college or White/non5Gasoline 40+50-64mini van$40Kcollege graduate Hispanic$20K- less thanSome college or White/non6 SUVGasoline 10-1950-64$30Kcollege 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 rangeof new vehicleQ13. Age Q14. Education Q15. Ethnicity1 SUVGasoline 40+ miles$30K - less than$40K20-34Graduate degreeWhite/nonHispanic2 SUVGasoline 10-19 miles$40K - less than$50K50-64Some college orcollege graduateWhite/nonHispanic3Station wagon orminivanGasoline Less than 10$30K - less than$40K50-64Graduate degreeWhite/nonHispanic4 Passenger car Hybrid20-29$20K- less than$30K50-64Some college orcollege graduateWhite/nonHispanic5Station wagon orminivanGasoline Less than 10$20K- less than$30K35-49Some college orcollege graduateWhite/nonHispanic6 SUVGasoline Less than 10$30K - less than$40K50-64Graduate degreeWhite/nonHispanic7 Passenger car Gasoline 20-29 miles$30K - less than$40K50-64Some college orcollege graduateWhite/nonHispanic8 Passenger car Gasoline 20-29 miles$20K- less than$30K50-64Some college orcollege graduateWhite/nonHispanic

Phase 3 Focus Groups 61EPA 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 rangeof new vehicleQ13. Age Q14. Education Q15. Ethnicity$30K - less thanSome college or White/Non-1 Pickup Truck Gasoline 10-19 miles35-49$40Kcollege graduate HispanicLess than 10 $40K - less thanWhite/Non-2 Pickup Truck Gasoline50-64Graduate DegreeMiles$50KHispanic$20K- less thanSome college or White/Non-3 Passenger Car Hybrid20-29 Miles65+$30Kcollege graduate HispanicLess than 10 $30K - less thanSome college or White/Non-4 Pickup Truck Gasoline35-49Miles$40Kcollege graduate Hispanic$20K- less thanSome college or5 Passenger Car Gasoline 30-39 miles35-49Hispanic$30Kcollege graduate$30K - less thanSome college or White/Non-6 SUVGasoline 10-19 miles65+$40Kcollege graduate Hispanic$30K - less thanSome college or White Non-7 SUVGasoline 10-19 miles65+$40Kcollege graduate Hispanic$20K- less thanWhite Non-8 Passenger Car Hybrid40+ Miles50-64Graduate Degree$30KHispanic

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 rangeof new vehicleQ13. Age Q14. Education Q15. Ethnicity1 OtherGasoline Less than 10$30K - less than$40K50-64Some college orcollege graduateWhite/Non-Hispanic2 SUVGasoline Less than 10$20K- less than$30K50-64Graduate DegreeWhite/Non-Hispanic3Station wagon orminivanGasoline Less than 10$20K- less than$30K35-49Some college orcollege graduateWhite/Non-Hispanic4 SUVGasoline Less than 10$20K- less than$30K50-64Some college orcollege graduateWhite/Non-Hispanic5 Passenger car Gasoline 20-29 miles$20K- less than$30K35-49Some college orcollege graduateHawaiian/PacificIslander6Station wagon orminivanGasoline 10-19 miles$20K- less than$30K50-64Some college orcollege graduateWhite/Non-Hispanic7 Passenger car Gasoline Less than 10$15K- less than$20K35-49Some college orcollege graduateAsian8 Passenger car Gasoline 20-29 miles$20K- less than$30K50-64Some college orcollege graduateWhite/nonHispanic

Phase 3 Focus Groups 63EPA 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 rangeof new vehicleQ13. Age Q14. Education Q15. EthnicitySome college or White/Non-1 Passenger Car Gasoline 20-29$15-$20k 50-64college graduate HispanicSome college or White/Non-2 SUVGasoline 30-39$40-$50k 35-49college graduate HispanicSome college or White/Non-3 SUVGasoline 10-19$40-$50k 50-64college graduate HispanicSome college or White/Non-4 Passenger Car Gasoline 30-39$15-$20k 20-34college graduate HispanicWhite/Non-5 Passenger Car Gasoline 40+$30-$40k 35-49Graduate degreeHispanicWhite/Non-6 SUVGasoline 30-39$20-$30k 20-34Graduate degreeHispanicSome college or7 SUVGasoline 20-29$30-$40k 50-64African Americancollege graduateSome college or White/Non-8 Passenger Car Gasoline 40+$15-$20k 35-49college 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 rangeof new vehicleQ13. Age Q14. Education Q15. Ethnicity1 Passenger Car Gasoline 40+$20-$30k 50-64Some high schoolor high schoolgraduate or GEDHispanic2 SUVGasoline 40+$20-$30k 50-64Some college orcollege graduateWhite/Non-Hispanic3 Passenger Car Gasoline 40+$30-$40k 20-34Some college orcollege graduateAfrican American4 SUVGasoline 30-39$20-$30k 20-34Some college orcollege graduateWhite/Non-Hispanic5 Passenger Car Gasoline 20-29$20-$30k 35-49Some college orcollege graduateWhite/Non-Hispanic6 SUVHybrid30-39$30-$40k 20-34Some college orcollege graduateAfrican American7 Passenger Car Gasoline 40+$20-$30k 35-49Some college orcollege graduateWhite/Non-Hispanic8 Passenger Car Gasoline 10-19$15-$20k 35-49Some college orcollege graduateAfrican American

Phase 3 Focus Groups 65EPA 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 rangeof new vehicleQ13. Age Q14. Education Q15. EthnicitySome college or White/Non-1 Passenger Car Gasoline 20-29$20-$30k 35-49college graduate HispanicSome high schoolWhite/Non-2 Passenger Car Gasoline 40+$15-$20k 50-64or high schoolHispanicgraduate or GEDSome college or White/Non-3 Passenger Car Gasoline less than 10 $15-$20k 65+college graduate HispanicSome college or White/Non-4 Passenger Car Gasoline less than 10 $30-$40k 50-64college graduate HispanicWhite/Non-5 Passenger Car Gasoline 20-29$30-$40k 50-64Graduate degreeHispanicSome college or White/Non-6 Crossover Gasoline 30-39$20-$39k 35-49college graduate HispanicSome college or White/Non-7 Passenger Car Gasoline 20-29$15-$20k 50-64college graduate HispanicSome college or White/Non-8 SUVGasoline 40+$20-$30k 20-34college 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 rangeof new vehicleQ13. Age Q14. Education Q15. Ethnicity1 Passenger Car Gasoline 20-29$20-$30k 20-34Some college orcollege graduateWhite/Non-Hispanic2 Passenger Car Gasoline 10-19$30-$40k 35-49Graduate degreeWhite/Non-Hispanic3 SUVGasoline 20-29$20-$30k 65+Some college orcollege graduateWhite/Non-Hispanic4 Passenger Car Gasoline Less than 10 $15-$20k 35-49Graduate degree Hispanic5 Passenger Car Hybrid40+$20-$30k 50-64Some college orcollege graduateWhite/Non-Hispanic6 Passenger Car Gasoline Less than 10 $20-$30k 20-34Some college orcollege graduateAfrican American7 Passenger Car Hybrid30-39$20-$30k 20-34Graduate degreeWhite/Non-Hispanic8 Passenger Car Gasoline 10-19$30-$40k 50-64Graduate degree African American

Phase 3 Focus Groups 67EPA 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 rangeof new vehicleQ13. Age Q14. Education Q15. Ethnicity1 Passenger Car Gasoline 10-19$15-20k 20-34Graduate degree AsianSome college or2 Passenger Car Gasoline 10-19$30-40k 50-64African Americancollege graduateSome college or3 Passenger Car Gasoline 30-39$15-20k 20-34African Americancollege graduateSome college or4 Passenger Car Gasoline 40+$30-40k 20-34White/Noncollege graduateSome college or5 SUVGasoline 20-29$20-30k 35-49White/Noncollege graduateSome college or6 Passenger Car Gasoline 30-39$20-30k 50-64White/Noncollege graduateSome college or7 SUVGasoline 40+$20-30k 65+White/Noncollege graduateWhite/Non-8 Passenger Car Gasoline 30-39$15-20k 35-49Graduate degreeHispanic

68**Houston male group: May 24th, 2010**Q9. What type ofpurchase?of your typicaldaily travel inthis vehicle?vehicle did youQ10. How is thisvehicle powered?Q11. What is thedistance in milesQ12. Price rangeof new vehicleQ13. Age Q14. Education Q15. Ethnicity1 SUVGasoline 40+$20-30k 35-49Graduate degree African AmericanSome college or White/Non-2 Crossover Gasoline 40+$20-30k 20-34college graduate HispanicSome college or White/Non-3 Passenger Car Gasoline 40+$15-20k 50-64college graduate Hispanic4 Passenger Car Hybrid20-29$30-40k 20-34Graduate degree Middle EasternSome college or White/Non-5 Passenger Car Gasoline 40+$20-30k 20-34college graduate Hispanic

Phase 3 Focus Groups 69EPA 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 rangeof new vehicleQ13. Age Q14. Education Q15. EthnicitySome college or White/Non-1 Passenger Car Gasoline 40+$20-30k 35-49college graduate HispanicSome college or White/Non-2 Passenger Car Gasoline 30-39$30-40k 50-64college graduate HispanicSome college or3 Passenger Car Gasoline 40+$30-40k 20-34African Americancollege graduateWhite/Non-4 Passenger Car Gasoline 10-19$15-20k 50-64Graduate degreeHispanic5 SUVGasoline 40+$30-40k 35-49Graduate degree African AmericanSome college or6 SUVGasoline 20-29$30-40k 35-49Hispaniccollege graduateSome college or7 SUVGasoline 10-19$30-40k 35-49Hispaniccollege graduate8 Passenger Car Flex Fuel 40+$30-40k 35-49Graduate 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 rangeof new vehicleQ13. Age Q14. Education Q15. Ethnicity1 SUVGasoline 30-39$20-30k 20-34Graduate degreeWhite/Non-Hispanic2 Passenger Car Gasoline 40+$15-20k 20-34Some college orcollege graduateHispanic3 Passenger Car Gasoline 30-39<$15k20-34Some college orcollege graduateHispanic4 SUVGasoline 10-19$30-40k 50-64Some college orcollege graduateHispanic5 Pickup Truck Gasoline 20-29$20-30k 20-34Some college orcollege graduateWhite/Hispanic6 Passenger Car Gasoline 20-29$20-30k 20-34Graduate degreeWhite/Non-Hispanic7 Pickup Truck Gasoline 30-39$20-30k 50-64Some high schoolor high schoolgraduate or GEDAfrican American/8 SUVGasoline 30-39$20-30k 50-64Some college orcollege graduateWhite/Non-Hispanic

Phase 3 Focus Groups 71EPA 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 rangeof new vehicleQ13. Age Q14. Education Q15. EthnicitySome college or White/Non-1 Minivan Gasoline 10-19 miles $30-40k 50-64college graduate HispanicSome college or White/Non-2 Passenger car Flex fuel 40 or more miles $20-30k 35-49college graduate HispanicWhite/Non-3 SUVGasoline 40 or more miles $30-40k 35-49Graduate degreeHispanicSome college or4 Passenger car Hybrid40 or more miles $30-40k 50-64African American/college graduateWhite/Non-5 Passenger car Gasoline 30-39 miles $20-30k 50-64Graduate degreeHispanicSome college or6 Passenger car Gasoline 40 or more miles $15-20k 20-34Asiancollege graduateSome high schoolWhite/Non-7 Passenger car Gasoline 40 or more miles $20-30k 50-64or high schoolHispanicgraduate or GEDWhite/Non-8 SUVGasoline 10-19 miles $20-30k 50-64Graduate degreeHispanic

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 rangeof new vehicleQ13. Age Q14. Education Q15. Ethnicity1 SUVGasolineLess than 10miles$40-50k 20-34Some college orcollege graduateAsian2 SUVGasoline 40 or more miles $20-30k 20-34Graduate degreeWhite/Non-Hispanic3 Passenger car Gasoline 40 or more miles $40-50k 35-49Some college orcollege graduateWhite/Non-Hispanic4 Passenger car Gasoline 30-39 miles $20-30k 20-34Some college orcollege graduateWhite/Non-Hispanic5 Passenger car Gasoline 10-19 miles $20-30k 35-49Some college orcollege graduateWhite/Non-Hispanic6 Passenger car Gasoline 40 or more miles $20-30k 20-34Some college orcollege graduateWhite/Non-Hispanic7 Passenger car Gasoline 20-29 miles $15-20k 35-49Graduate degreeWhite/Non-Hispanic8 SUVGasoline 40 or more miles $30-40k 50-64Some college orcollege graduateWhite/Non-Hispanic

Phase 3 Focus Groups 73EPA 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 rangeof new vehicleQ13. Age Q14. Education Q15. EthnicitySome college or1 SUVGasoline 20-29 miles $20-30k 35-49Hispaniccollege graduateWhite/Non-2 SUVGasoline 20-29 miles $40-50k 35-49Graduate degreeHispanicSome college or White/Non-3 Passenger car Gasoline 10-19 miles $15-20k 50-64college graduate HispanicSome college or4 SUVGasoline 10-19 miles $40-50k 20-34Asiancollege graduateSome college or White/Non-5 Passenger car Gasoline 40 or more miles $30-40k 20-34college graduate HispanicWhite/Non-6 Passenger car Gasoline 20-29 miles $20-30k 35-49Graduate degreeHispanicSome high school7 SUVGasoline 10-19 miles $30-40k 20-34or high school Asiangraduate or GEDWhite/Non-8 Passenger car Gasoline 20-29 miles $30-40k 35-49Graduate degreeHispanic

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 rangeof new vehicleQ13. Age Q14. Education Q15. Ethnicity1 Passenger car Gasoline 30-39 miles $20-30k 20-34Some college orcollege graduateWhite/Non-Hispanic2 Pickup truck Gasoline 20-29 miles $30-40k 50-64Some college orcollege graduateWhite/Non-Hispanic3 Passenger car Gasoline 20-29 miles $20-30k 50-64Graduate degreeWhite/Non-Hispanic4 Passenger car Gasoline 10-19 miles $20-30k 50-64Some college orcollege graduateWhite/Non-Hispanic5 Passenger car Gasoline 10-19 miles $20-30k 20-34Graduate degreeWhite/Non-Hispanic6 SUVGasolineLess than 10miles$20-30k 35-49Some college orcollege graduateWhite/Non-Hispanic7Station wagon ormini vanGasoline 10-19 miles $20-30k 20-34Graduate degreeWhite/Non-Hispanic8 SUVGasoline 20-29 miles $30-40k 50-64Graduate degreeWhite/Non-Hispanic

Phase 3 Focus Groups 75

# Appendix C: Gasoline Engine Labels Understandability Handout

76 EPA Fuel Economy Label RedesignPhase 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

EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign 78

### 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

EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign 80

# 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

EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign 82

# Appendix G: Electric Vehicle Labels Understandability Handout

83 Phase 3 Focus Groups

# 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 RedesignOption 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 85Option 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

EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign 86

# 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

EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign 88

# 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

EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign 90Option 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 91Option 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

EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign 92

# 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

EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign 94

# 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

EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign 96Option 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 97Option 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

EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign 98

# 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

EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign 100Appendix S: Comparing Across Technology Option A Handout

Phase 3 Focus Groups 101Appendix T: Comparing Across Technology Option A TallyEnvironment FriendlyGAS EV EREV PHEV0 6 0 N/A0 N/A 4 40 N/A 4 40 5 0 N/A0 7 N/A 11 5 N/A 1108231100 milesGAS EV EREV PHEV2 2 2 N/A0 N/A 2 60 N/A 2 60 2 3 N/A4 1 N/A 33 0 N/A 41975950 MilesGAS EV EREV PHEV0 6 0 N/A0 N/A 2 60 N/A 2 60 4 1 N/A0 2 N/A 60 7 N/A 119519030 milesGAS EV EREV PHEV0 5 1 N/A0 5 N/A 30 N/A 8 00 3 2 N/A0 6 N/A 20 8 N/A 00 27 11 5SeattleFemaleGroup 1CharlotteFemaleGroup 1CharlotteMaleGroup 1HoustonMaleGroup 1ChicagoFemaleGroup 2ChicagoMaleGroup 2Total

OPTION A

EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign 102Appendix U: Comparing Across Technology Option B Handout

Phase 3 Focus Groups 103Appendix V: Comparing Across Technology Option B TallyEnvironment FriendlyGAS EV EREV PHEV0 8 N/A 00 N/A 8 60 N/A 7 10 8 15 7100 milesGAS EV EREV PHEV1 4 N/A 31 N/A 1 60 N/A 1 72 4 2 1650 MilesGAS EV EREV PHEV0 5 N/A 30 N/A 4 40 N/A 2 60 5 6 1330 milesGAS EV EREV PHEV0 6 N/A 21 N/A 7 00 N/A 6 21 6 13 4CharlotteMaleGroup 2ChicagoFemaleGroup 1ChicagoMaleGroup 1Total

OPTION B

EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign 104Appendix W: Comparing Across Technology Option C Handout

Phase 3 Focus Groups 105Appendix X: Comparing Across Technology Option C Tally30 miles50 Miles100 milesEnvironment Friendly

OPTION CGAS EV EREV PHEV GAS EV EREV PHEV GAS EV EREV PHEV GAS EV EREV PHEVCharlotteFemaleGroup 20 5 N/A 3 0 6 N/A 2 0 0 N/A 8 0 8 N/A 0SeattleMale Group10 0 8 N/A 0 8 2 N/A 0 1 7 N/A 0 8 0 N/ASeattleFemaleGroup 2N/A 5 3 0 N/A 7 0 1 N/A 3 5 0 N/A 8 0 0SeattleMale Group2N/A 7 3 0 N/A 7 1 0 N/A 0 7 1 N/A 8 0 0HoustonFemaleGroup 10 7 1 N/A 1 6 2 N/A 0 3 5 N/A 0 8 0 N/AHoustonFemaleGroup 2N/A 7 1 0 N/A 2 2 4 N/A 0 7 1 N/A 8 0 0HoustonMale Group2N/A 8 0 0 N/A 1 2 5 N/A 7 0 1 N/A 7 0 1Total 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

EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign 108LABEL 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 109LABEL 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

EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign 110

# Appendix AA: Environmental Metrics Option F Handout�

Phase 3 Focus Groups 111Appendix AB: Monroney Label Handout

112 EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign