Environmental Protection Agency

   Fuel Economy Label



   Phase 1 Focus Groups
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency

-------
       Environmental Protection Agency
                Fuel Economy Label

                Phase 1  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
United States                 z^D^^^             EPA-420-R-10-903
Environmental Protection         ^^r  ^R              A   4.imn
Agency                     ^\^S ^             August 2010

-------
     Table  of   Contents
     Introduction	3
     Vehicle Choice Process and Curren t Label Use	7
        Factors influencing vehicle choice	7
        Current fuel economy label use	10
     Fuel Consumption Metric	13
        Perceptions about fuel consumption	13
        Fuel consumption rating understanding	14
        Understanding the MPG Illusion	16
        Use of fuel consumption metric in vehicle choice	17
     Fuel Cost Metric	19
        Most useful framing of fuel cost	19
        Fuel cost rating understanding	20
        Use of fuel cost metric in vehicle purchase	22
     Environment Metric	25
        Environment rating understanding	25
        Use of terms 'environment' and C02	28
        Use of en vironmen tal impact in vehicle choice	29
     Overall Findings	31
     Appendices	37
        Appendix A: Moderator Guide	37
        Appendix B-. Participant Profiles	46
        Appendix C: Current Fuel Economy Label	54
        Appendix D: Fuel Consumption Tally Sheet	55
        Appendix .- Fuel Cost Tally	59
        Appendix F: Environment Metric Tally	63
Phase 1 Focus Groups

-------
EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign

-------
        ntroduction
      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 is 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.  In 2006 EPA did not include a
      consumption-based metric in the new label design, however EPA did
      recognize at that time that a distance-based metric such as MPG can
      be misleading and that a fuel consumption metric  might be more
      meaningful to consumers. In this rulemaking, EPA wants to explore
      'gallons per 100 miles' as a potential fuel consumption metric on the
      label. Additionally, EPA must provide metrics that are relevant and
      useful for advanced technology vehicles,  such as Electric Vehicles
      and Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles (EVs and PHEVs).
Phase 1 Focus Groups

-------
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

It was decided to use a three-phase approach for the focus groups
in order to accommodate the sheer 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 and design of the label for
        internal combustion engine vehicles

       Phase II - Understandability of  metrics  for advanced
        technology vehicle labels

       Phase III - Assessment of full label designs and messaging
        testing for educational/marketing campaign

This document provides a preliminary overview of the Phase I
focus groups and is  designed specifically to inform the next phases
of  focus groups. It  is not intended as a comprehensive report of
results from the Phase I  focus groups; that will come at the end of
all three phases of focus groups in the form of a full, comprehensive
report. It should be noted that  all results  reported here refer to
the focus group  discussions, except when specifically identified as
results from the pre-group online survey.
                                           EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign

-------
       Methodology

       Focus groups are the optimum approach to use when the task calls
       for qualitative, in-depth understanding of consumer's 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 nudge consumers toward greater use of the fuel
       economy label, as well as nudging them toward the purchase  of
       more fuel-efficient vehicles.

       Eight focus groups were convened between February 25th and March
       9th, 2010 in the cities of Seattle, Chicago, Houston and Charlotte.
       In each city, two groups (one male, one 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).

       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 show. Each of the groups consisted of eight participants
       (with the exception of one group that had  6 participants). 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 screened for having
       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
       and being the sole or primary decision maker with regard to this new
       vehicle purchased to ensure that the groups  included only those who
       had been intimately involved in the new vehicle purchase process.
       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 a mix of participants based
       on the following variables: 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 a variety of demographic variables (see
       Appendix B for participant profiles).
Phase 1 Focus Groups

-------
The  participants  were also  asked to complete an online survey
before they took part in the  focus group discussions. The purpose
of the online survey was to  obtain more information  about their
vehicle purchase process, the role of fuel economy in their purchase
decision, and how they used the current fuel economy label; three
important issues for which there was insufficient time in the  focus
groups to discuss in great depth. 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
are 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 all of the 114 recruited participants.  Only
those who had completed the online survey were accepted into the
focus groups.
                                           EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign

-------
     Vehicle   Choice   Process
     and   Current   Label   Use
     Factors influencing vehicle choice
     Participants across all the groups were asked about the top two
     things that influenced their vehicle choice, whether they had
     considered the impact of driving the type  of vehicle they had
     purchased on the environment, whether they had a specific vehicle
     in mind when they started shopping for a vehicle, if so, whether
     it was the vehicle they ended up purchasing, and what "class of
     vehicle" they  purchased. Further,  they were asked what they
     thought of when they heard "class of vehicle" and whether there
     was a better term to express that concept.

     Top two factors in vehicle choice

     From the participants' point of view, most across all the groups
     thought the term 'vehicle class' was a good term to use to describe
     the group of vehicles in which they were interested, although they
     used this term interchangeably with 'vehicle type.' How participants
     grouped vehicles by type or class varied. Although they generally
     described it in relatively broad terms such as SUVs, minivans, sport
     cars, trucks, economy cars, and midsize cars, some participants
     suggested other classifications such  as luxury vehicles or hybrids.
     Based on participant responses on how to group vehicles by class
     or type, it was clear that they did not necessarily match the typical
     EPA vehicle classes. When asked if there was a better term for "class
     of vehicle", a few participants said that the terms "vehicle type" or
     "type of vehicle" could be used to replace it.
"There was a time when
compact car meant something,
but now there's sub-compact,
mid-sized compact; everyone
has different categories for the
same thing. You're really talking
about a small, mid-sized or
luxury car." -Seattle Male

"Fifty years ago I think vehicle
class meant something, now, I
think it's a marketing tool."
-Seattle Male

"Class could go in many
directions, is it more of
luxury or utilitarian vehicle?"
-Seattle Female

"[In terms of vehicle class] I
was thinking coupe, sedan,
truck, hybrid, etc."
-Seattle Female
Phase 1 Focus Groups

-------
"/ had requirements about
type/make."-Seattle Male

 "We looked for a certain safety
rating within a certain budget...
safety was really big for us we
had a nasty accident in our
family a few years ago"
-Seattle Female

"I went into it thinking price
and reliability, but then
reliability went out the window,
I went for price and style." -
Houston Male
Participants explained  that  their vehicle choice was primarily
governed by their individual needs and priorities and that they had
a general vehicle type in mind before they started searching. They
searched for information that was pertinent to that vehicle type, and
used the information to narrow down their choices to a vehicle that
they subsequently purchased. Further, the online survey revealed
that about 70% had a specific type of vehicle in mind when they
started looking for a new vehicle and the majority of those (81%)
said they ended up purchasing that vehicle type. Yet, when asked
on the online survey what vehicles they seriously considered before
making their final purchase  decisions, most participants  selected
vehicles that crossed traditional EPA  vehicle classes. For example,
participants that considered purchasing a minivan were also likely
to consider an SUV.

According to the online survey, after vehicle type, the  next most
important factor  that influenced their vehicle choice was vehicle
price. .Seventy-seven percent of the participants across  all groups
indicated that price/affordability was one of the top five factors
that influenced their vehicle choice. The other key factors that
influenced participants'  vehicle choice included gas mileage/fuel
economy  (60%),  safety  (52%), reliability  (48%),  size (46%),
interior and exterior appearance (43%), comfort  (41%),  brand
name (38%) and performance (31%). Only 9% of the participants
considered low emissions as  key factor when they were making a
vehicle purchase decision.

These findings were further validated and explained in the focus
group discussions. Across all the cities, most participants said that
once shopping within their chosen vehicles, vehicle price  was the
next factor considered when making a vehicle-purchase decision.
Once they  found  that  the  vehicle  was  affordable,  they then
considered other  factors such as fuel economy, safety, reliability,
size, appearance, etc. Some of the factors that were not included in
the  online survey, but came up in discussions in some of the groups,
included past experience with the brand, brand loyalty, service and
resale value of the vehicle.

In about half of the focus groups, participants  were asked if the
vehicle they selected met their  two highest needs, whether they
would still buy it if it was in their opinion  an ugly vehicle. Without
exception, participants said they would not.
                                                                              EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign

-------
      b. The part played by fuel economy

      When it came to fuel economy, most  (64%  in the online survey
      rated it  8 or higher on a 10 point scale) thought it was an important
      consideration when choosing a new vehicle and two-thirds (67% in
      the online survey) reported that they had searched for fuel economy
      information before buying their most recent new vehicle. Their top
      sources of fuel economy information (in the order as mentioned
      most frequently  in  the  online survey) included  manufacturers'
      Web  sites (67%), Consumer Reports (58%), fuel economy label
      on vehicles  (58%), consulted others with similar vehicles (32%),
      Edmunds.com (30%), auto magazines (30%), and auto dealers
      (25%).  With few exceptions  focus group participants indicated
      that the environmental impact of the vehicle did  not affect the
      type of  vehicle they purchased.  Even those who indicated they had
      considered a hybrid vehicle discounted it for  other factors such as
      vehicle price and fuel economy  when purchasing their new vehicle.

      No major differences were found in the  priority of factors that
      influenced people's vehicle choice based on  city or gender.

      Eased on the above findings,  it may be  said that people  start
      with  specific vehicles and/or vehicle types in  mind and search for
      information relevant to  those  particular vehicles or types. They
      then start narrowing their choices with vehicle price being the next
      most important factor in influencing one's vehicle choice regardless
      of one's gender or geographic  location. While fuel economy also
      figures high on the consideration list, other factors  such as safety,
      size,  brand loyalty, past experience with the  brand, etc.  also
      have  a  strong influence on the purchase  decision. At this time,
      environmental impact does not  impact one's vehicle preference
      considerably. Eased on the online survey and focus group results,
      it is also clear that participant's definitions of vehicle type and/or
      vehicle class vary based on personal perceptions and do not match
      EPA's typical vehicle type classifications.
Phase 1 Focus Groups

-------
       "/ used the label more to
       confirm, I already had an idea
       when shopping for cars."
       -Charlotte Female

        "I knew that my prior car had also
       been a Toyota and I had gotten
       very good gas mileage, so when
       it came time to get a new car,
       I really didn't look too closely. I
       don't recall what the numbers
       were but they were in line with
       what I was accustomed to."
       - Houston Female

       "If you're comfortable with
       the car, you don't have to
       pay attention to those kinds
       of specifics, especially since
       I owned a Honda Accord
       previously." -Charlotte Male
       "The economy is important. If
       you looked at this two years ago,
       it would be a lot more accurate.
       But a year ago, gas was closer to
       $4.1 thought this on the lot, at
       $2.80- a gallon, the information
       wasn't accurate."-Seattle Female
Current fuel economy label use

Participants across all  the groups were asked if they had used
the fuel economy label (see Appendix C) when deciding  on their
new vehicle purchase and whether they had noticed and/or used
the average annual fuel cost information on the label when they
purchased their most recent vehicle.

While  the  online survey found  that  the  vast  majority (91%)
reported using the fuel economy label when deciding on their new
vehicle, the focus  group discussions revealed that some  of  these
participants had only briefly glanced at the label and did not really
use it when deciding on their new vehicle purchase. Most of the
participants explained that they mainly used the label to get city
and  highway gas mileage estimates and used the information to
compare different vehicles within the same vehicle type.

While some used the 'comparison to other vehicles in class' slider
bar information to subsequently make  a purchase decision, most
did not.

Online  survey  respondents considered the average annual  fuel
cost information on the label to be less important information as
compared to the fuel economy information contained on the label.
Sixty-five percent rated 'estimated annual fuel cost' as one of the
top four pieces of information on the label compared to the fuel
economy information where 83% voted 'city mpg'  as one of the
top four pieces of information and 80% voted 'highway  mpg' as
one of the top four pieces of information.

The  focus group discussions helped to explain this finding further.
According to most participants across all groups, the average annual
fuel  cost estimate was not a useful piece  of  information.  They
critiqued it for being an inaccurate measure of the actual fuel cost of
the vehicle because it did not take into consideration the fluctuating
price of gas. In  addition,  others mentioned that it did not reflect
their typical annual mileage or their typical city vs. highway driving
ratios.  On  the  other hand,  most  thought  that the  fuel  economy
information on the label (i.e., city/highway MPGs) provided  them
with useful information for the accurate estimate of fuel cost, which
they could  use to make a purchase decision based on their driving
style - whether they do more city versus highway driving.
10
                                            EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign

-------
       Of the few who used the average  annual fuel  cost information
       on the label when they purchased their most recent vehicle, they
       explained that they used this metric  to compare different vehicles,
       because the estimate was helpful  in figuring how a vehicle fared
       compared to other vehicles at a particular gas price. Some also said
       that the use of a dollar amount to express fuel cost made it easy
       for them to equate it with dollar savings without doing any math.

       No  major city or gender  differences were found  with regard to
       people's use of the fuel economy label or the average annual fuel cost
       information on the label when they were deciding on their new vehicle.

       Based on the above findings, it may  be said that participants currently
       use the fuel economy label to compare different vehicles within the
       vehicle type category and are more interested in information on city
       and highway gas mileage estimates as compared to fuel cost estimates.
"I used fuel economy as
a criterion, but it wasn't a
decision factor. I used the
blended, combined fuel
economy, since that's the
majority of the driving I do...it
was the most realistic number
in our opinion." -Seattle Male

"I used the city mileage; I was
calculating how it would work
for me." -Chicago Male
Phase 1 Focus Groups
                                 11

-------
12                                                                                               EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign

-------
      Fuel   Consumption   Metric
      Perceptions about fuel consumption

      Participants across all groups were asked what they thought of
      when thinking about "fuel consumption." Based on focus group
      discussions, it was found that when participants heard the terms
      "fuel consumption" the following came to mind (in the order as
      mentioned most frequently across all the focus groups):

            Gas mileage of the vehicle ("miles per gallon;" "how far
            can one go on a full tank")

            Fuel cost ("cost of fuel per gallon;" "how much it would
            cost to fill up a tank of gas")

            Frequency of filling gas ("how often they had to fill the tank")

      A few participants also said that they thought about gasoline grades
      ("what  type of gas does one fill - regular, mid grade, premium
      grade"; "the fuel that one put into the vehicle").

      When asked what MPG meant to  them the  vast majority of
      participants across all the groups used the term 'MPG' to describe
      fuel efficiency. All the participants were clear about what MPG meant
      ("how many miles one can drive on a gallon of gas") and thought
      that the city and highway MPG information on the label was very
      useful. When asked why the MPG information was useful to them,
      they explained these estimates helped them to compare vehicles during
      the vehicle purchasing process, and that it was easy to apply these to
      their personal driving styles - whether they were going to do more city
      versus highway driving, how far they drove to work, etc.

      No major gender or city differences were found with regard to what
      participants thought of when thinking about fuel consumption,
      what MPG meant to them and whether they found the city and
      highway MPG information useful or not.
Phase 1 Focus Groups                                                                            13

-------
         Fuel Consumption
             City        Highway
             BA CT 93llons Per  ~7 ~7 gallons per
             *~T. O 100 miles   O. O 100 miles
             (equal to 22 mpg)   (equal to 30 mpg)
          Rating
                ****
                  4 out of 5 stars (S being best)
          Option 1A
          Option IB
          Option 1C
Basedon the above findings, itmay be saidthatmostoftenparticipants
think in terms of distance covered per gallon and 'miles per gallon'
estimates when they think about fuel consumption. People also find
the city and highway MPG information on the label to be useful in
comparing vehicles during the vehicle  purchase process.


Fuel consumption  rating understanding

This part of the discussion involved presenting the participants with
four fuel consumption design options and asking them to rate which
options they found to be most understandable and least understandable,
as well as which they thought had the most and least potential to
influence their consideration  of a more fuel efficient vehicle.1 (See the
fuel consumption design options to the left and below. )2

Subsequently, the participants' ratings were tallied and a discussion
followed regarding the reasons behind their ratings. (See Appendix
D for participant tally scores for each group.)

The table  below reflects  the participants'  ratings (across all  the
groups) for the most understandable and least  understandable
design options. In order to test if participants  actually understood
the fuel consumption metrics they were probed on city vs. highway
gals/100 miles  and on how this vehicle compares  to  others based
on the comparison information on  the label designs. Routinely,
participants displayed understanding  of this fuel  consumption
information based on these  tests.
                                             Fuel Consumption

                                             *
  Option ID
        i   Although participants were asked about both the
           'understandability of ' and the 'influence on purchasing
           a fuel efficient vehicle' of each design option, it was
           found that after discussing 'understandability' not
           much was gained from the discussion of how design
           options might influence their purchase of a fuel efficient
           vehicle. Consequently, we focus our reporting on the
           understandability of the design options.
                   It should be noted that the light gray stars on the Option 1
                   designs did not show up when copies were made for each
                   participant, although they did show on the large size of
                   the design shown on boards in each group. Consequently,
                   participants could readily see how many stars a vehicle was
                   rated, but not necessarily that it was out of a scale of 5 stars.
14
                                             EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign

-------
Option Option Option Option
^1 1A IB 1C ID

All groups
combined


Most
understandable


Least
understandable
Overall *

36


3
33

10


17
-7

10


25
-15

6


17
-11
       *0verall = Number of times rated 'most understandable' minus
       Number of times rated 'least understandable'


      Based on the table above, it can be  inferred that Option 1A was
      perceived as the most understandable design option as compared
      to  the  other  designs.  Interestingly, with the exception of female
      participants in Seattle, Option 1A received the highest number of
      votes across all groups. The reasons mentioned for why participants
      preferred Option 1A include: it was simple, straightforward and to-
      the-point; the star ratings used in Option 1A was a familiar system
      that was clear, concise, readily understandable and catches people's
      attention; the black and white format used in the design was easy to
      read; and the image of the gas pump  was helpful in associating the
      design with fuel economy. The few participants who disliked Option
      1A said that the star ratings did not give them information regarding
      the 'best' and 'worst' vehicles in regard to fuel consumption (as in
      Option 1C) and therefore was not as informative.

      Those  participants who thought   Option  IB  was  the  most
      understandable  design  said  that it  was eye-catching  and clearly
      conveyed  the rating  of  the  vehicle.  On  the contrary, female
      participants  in  Houston  and Charlotte  voted  Option  IB as the
      least understandable design  more  often than participants in the
      other groups. The reasons why participants disliked Option IB
      included:  it was confusing and looked  too busy and distracting;
      the '8'  was too  big  and the rest of the information  was too small
      which made it difficult to follow; and the graphics and the use of red
      were unappealing. Some also mentioned that because IB was more
      elaborate than the basic black and white design of option  1A, that
      they disliked it because it was perceived as being too 'sales' oriented.

      The few  participants who  thought Option ID  was the most
      understandable  said that it looked  clean and they  could  easily
      understand the  information  presented in this option. Participants
      in Charlotte, female participants in  Seattle and male participants
"The rating with the stars is
something we can understand
better because we're used to
seeing it in other ratings."
-Charlotte Female

"There was no confusion. Even
if one doesn't understand the
numbers, they can relate to the
star rating." -Chicago Male
"The eight, if you just look at it
quickly, you wouldn't know what
it was." -Houston Female

"To me, in IB, the graphics
overwhelm, it's too colorful,
the font is too small."
-Houston Male
Phase 1 Focus Groups
                                15

-------
        Option 1C- vertical
          It should be noted that as
          we moved from city to city
          conducting the focus groups
          we tried to improve how we
          presented and illustrated he
          'mpg illusion' information. By
          the time we concluded the focus
          groups in Seattle the approach
          used seemed to work fairly
          well, but still required a lot of
          explanation by the moderator.
in Chicago voted Option ID as  the least  understandable design
more often than participants in  other groups. The  reasons  why
participants disliked Option ID included: it was confusing, difficult
to follow and understand, seemed to include "too many numbers";
and the design format was unappealing and did not  appear to be
representing fuel consumption at first glance.

Option 1C  was perceived  as the least  understandable design.
Participants in Chicago, male participants in Houston and Seattle
voted Option  1C as the least understandable design more often
than participants in other groups. The reasons  why participants
disliked Option  1C included: the 'gallons per 100  miles' as the
metric for fuel  consumption was difficult to  grasp  (especially
when presented  in  the slider scale format  unique to this design),
the slider scale was confusing  and hard to understand with '10'
representing 'worst' and 2 representing 'best'  (although this  was
somewhat more  understandable when the slider was presented in a
vertical orientation); the black  and orange color format was  "too
colorful" and  appeared  like  a warning  sign.  Those participants
who liked Option 1C and chose it as  their most understandable
design explained that they preferred the sliding scale over the star
rating (in Option 1 A) because it provided them a frame of reference
regarding the best and worst vehicles on the market. A few  also
said that they liked the background used in Option 1C and thought
it was catchy.

Based on  the above findings, it can be said that Option  1A  was
perceived as the  most understandable fuel consumption design and
Option 1C was perceived as the least understandable design. In essence,
participants preferred a design that they thought was informative and
presented information in a simple and familiar format.


Understanding the  MPG Illusion

Participants were reminded of the example of the 'MPG Illusion'
from the pre-group  online survey. The moderator then used several
approaches3 to  explain  the  MPG Illusion and probed on the
participants' understanding of why 'gallons per  100 miles' was a
superior metric  of fuel consumption compared to MPG.  Further,
they were asked if gallons per 100 miles  (instead of  MPG) would
get them to switch to  a different class of vehicle and  whether  they
preferred gallons per 100 miles or MPG.
16
                                           EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign

-------
      Regardless of how it was  explained, most participants initially
      had  difficulty  understanding the MPG Illusion and why 'gallons
      per 100 miles' may be a superior measure of fuel consumption.
      However,  even those who eventually did understand still preferred
      MPG. According to them, they were used to thinking in terms of
      MPG and were therefore more comfortable using it.

      Subsequently,  only a few  said 'yes' when asked if gallons per 100
      miles (instead of MPG) would get them to switch to a different type
      of vehicle. Those who said 'no' explained that their vehicle choice
      was  greatly governed by the type vehicle they  were looking to
      purchase and most vehicles in that grouping gave similar mileage.

      No major city or  gender differences were found  with  regard to
      participants' preference for using MPG over gallons per  100 miles
      in spite of understanding the MPG Illusion.

      Based on  the  above findings, it  may be said that understanding
      the MPG  illusion  is extremely difficult to achieve and does  not
      necessarily lead people to switch to a different type of vehicle
      nor does it make them prefer gallons per 100 miles over MPG. In
      essence, people prefer familiarity  over facts.


      Use of fuel  consumption  metric in vehicle

      choice

      Participants across all the groups were asked whether (and why/
      why not)  they would use the information on fuel consumption
      (presented in terms of 'gallons per 100 miles) on the label in their
      vehicle purchase decision.

      While  some   participants said  that  they  would use the fuel
      consumption information on the  label to learn about the vehicle's
      city  and highway  gas  consumption  and use  these  estimates  to
      compare different vehicles in order to make a purchase decision,
      there were others who did not show much enthusiasm about using
      this information on the label.
Phase 1 Focus Groups                                                                                        17

-------
       "/ already know this information
       before I go to the dealer."
       -Seattle Female

       "I was actively looking for a fuel
       efficient vehicle, so it would
       sway me, but if you're looking
       for a sports car or truck, it's
       almost something you don't
       want to see." - Charlotte Male
Of those who  said  that  they were  less likely  to  use the fuel
consumption  information  on  the label,  some  said  that fuel
consumption was not really important to them because they drove
infrequently and/or drove short distances. Others said that they
were more likely to research about the fuel consumption of vehicles
on the  Internet before they  visited the dealers' showroom and
looked at actual fuel economy labels.

No major city or gender  differences  were found with regard to
participants' likelihood to use the information on fuel consumption
on the label in their vehicle purchase decision.

In conclusion, it may be said that people vary with regard to their
likelihood to use the fuel consumption information on the label in
making purchase decisions.
18
                                            EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign

-------
       Fuel   Cost   Metric
      Most  useful framing of fuel cost

      Participants were told that the current label showed fuel cost in
      terms of annual costs and asked if there were other ways to express
      fuel cost that they thought would be more useful to them. When
      asked  in this open-ended fashion, participants across all groups
      said they thought about 'how much it cost to fill up the vehicle's
      tank.' In addition, some participants said they thought about cost
      over time ("how much is it going to cost  daily/each week/each
      month") and cost over distance travelled ("cost per mile"; "cost
      per 100 miles"; "cost per every 5000 miles").

      However, after being shown the following options on the rating sheet
      it was found that close  to one-third (30%) preferred annual costs.
      Over one-fourth (26%)  said that they preferred a monthly estimate
      for fuel cost. Fifteen percent reported that they preferred cost per
      100 miles and another  13%  said that they  liked weekly and per
      mile (each). Only 4% said that they liked a 5-year fuel cost estimate.
      However, across all the groups, there was skepticism around the fuel
      cost metric. Many participants said the fuel cost estimate was an
      inaccurate measure of the actual fuel cost of the vehicle because it
      did not take into consideration the fluctuating price of gas.

      While  those who preferred annual cost said that they were  used
      to looking at cost from a yearly perspective, those who preferred
      monthly costs said that it was in  line  with their other  monthly
      household payments (such as monthly rent  payment) and helped
      them in planning their monthly budgets. According to participants
      who preferred 'per mile' and 'per 100 miles,' these estimates  gave
      them cost information in terms of the distance travelled which in
      turn was easy to understand and did not require them to perform
      mathematical conversions to calculate fuel costs, as did the cost
      metrics based on time (per  month, per  year, etc.). Those  who
"Cosf ;'s irrelevant, because of
the way gas prices are. Cost per
tank helps me figure out my
budget, because I fill up every
two weeks." - Charlotte Female

"Monthly works, because
that's how I think of rent."
- Chicago Male
Phase 1 Focus Groups
                              19

-------
          Fuel Cost
          Annual
          $1
 Q f~\ f^. Estimated fuel cost based on 15.000
, O Vj U miles per year at $3.00 per gallon.
          Rating
                ***
                  3 out of 5 stars (5 being best)
          Option 3A
         $1800^
           Based on 15.000 miles per year
           at $3 00 per gallon
         Option 3B
         Option 3C
         Option 3D
preferred cost per 100 miles also added that the metric was in line
with 'gallons per 100 miles' and  helped in attaining uniformity
across the fuel consumption and fuel cost metrics.

No major gender or city differences were  found with regard to
participants' preference for the unit of analysis for expressing the
cost-metric.

In summary, it may be said that although  participants tend to think
of fuel costs in terms of 'cost to fill my tank,' they recognize that
this is not a  good comparison metric when shopping for a new
vehicle since tank sizes vary by vehicle. For comparison purposes,
participants preferred annual and monthly estimates of fuel cost
over other cost metrics because they were used to looking at cost
from these perspectives. However, there is general skepticism about
the fuel cost metric and few considered it to be an accurate measure.


Fuel cost rating understanding

This part of the discussion involved presenting the participants with
four fuel cost design options  and asking them to rate which options
they found to be most understandable and least understandable. (See
the fuel cost design options to the left). Subsequently, the participants'
ratings were tallied and a discussion followed regarding the reasons
behind their ratings. (See Appendix E for participant tally scores per
group). In order to test if participants actually understood the fuel
cost metrics, they were probed on the cost per year and on how this
vehicle compares to others based on the comparison information on
the label designs. Routinely, participants displayed understanding of
this fuel cost information based  on these tests.

On tallying, the participants' ratings (across all the groups) reflected
the following as most understandable and least understandable:
20
                                                                        EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign

-------
Option Option Option Option
^1 3A 3B 3C 3D
All groups
combined


Most
understandable


Least
understandable
Overall *
34


1
33
9


17
-8
17


20
-3
2


23
-21
       *0verall = Number of times rated 'most understandable' minus
       Number of times rated 'least understandable'


       Based on the table above, it can be inferred that Option 3A (star
       system) was perceived as the most understandable design option as
       compared  to the other designs. Interestingly, with the  exception of
       participants in Seattle and male participants in Charlotte, Option 3A
       received the highest number of votes across all the other groups. The
       reasons why participants  across all the groups thought Option 3A
       was the most understandable included: it was simple, straightforward
       and to-the-point; the star ratings used in Option 3A was a familiar
       system that was clear, concise, readily understandable, and caught
       people's attention; and the black  and white format  was easy to
       read. The one participant who disliked Option 3 A said that the star
       ratings did not give them information on the range of best and worst
       vehicles in regard to fuel costs (as in Option 3C).

       Those  participants  who  thought  Option  3C  was  the  most
       understandable design explained that they liked  the  sliding scale
       used in this option (it provided them a frame of reference in regard
       to the 'worst' and 'best' vehicles for  fuel cost). They also thought
       it  was concise, clear,  informative and  easy  to  understand. In
       addition, some said that they liked  the "$" sign, graphics and color
       format used in  Option 3C and thought it  caught their attention.
       On the contrary, participants in Chicago and female participants
       in Charlotte voted Option 3C as the least understandable design
       more often than participants in the other groups. The  reasons why
       participants disliked Option 3 C included: it was complicated relative
       to the simpler star design, distracting and was difficult to grasp at
       a glance; the sliding scale was confusing and hard to understand
       with  '$4,500' representing 'worst' and '$500' representing 'best';
       and the graphics and the color  format were "too dark," cluttered
       and "too busy". Several participants suggested reversing the sliding
       scale so that 'worst' was on the right and 'best' on the left' to make
       it less confusing.
"3A is black and white, clear. I
get nervous when there's a lot
of information." -Chicago Male

"3A is standard, easy. Nothing
difficult to understand."
-Chicago Female
"3C is the best indication of
how much it will cost me. Could
see it right away what the worst
was."-Seattle Male

"3C is not reader friendly -
there's too much stuff. The
scale, the lower number on right
was strange."-Charlotte Female

"I hate the graph [3C], how
it goes backwards, with the
largest number on the left. The
graph should be reversed."
-Houston Male
Phase 1 Focus Groups
                                21

-------
       "3B gave the range. I knew
       what the $1800 meant." -
       Seattle Male


       "It took me some time to figure
       it out [3B]. If I have to take the
       time, I won't figure it out." -
       Houston Female
       "3D is overly simplistic, empty."
       - Seattle Male
       "The weird sliding scale is not
       attractive and hard to decipher
       [3D]. People want to read it
       quickly and this takes too much
       time and effort to figure it out."
       - Houston Female
The  few participants  who  thought Option 3B was  the most
understandable said that it was concise, straightforward and easy
to understand. They also  said  that they liked the graphics (the
"dollar bills" background) used in this  option and thought it was
attention-grabbing.  As for those who thought  Option 3B was
least understandable, male participants  in Charlotte and Houston
voted Option 3B as the least  understandable design more often
than participants in other groups. Their reasons  included: it was
vague, confusing, "too busy", difficult to follow  and  understand;
and the design format was "too colorful," cluttered, unappealing
and did not appear to be representing fuel cost at  first glance.

Option  3D   emerged  to  be  the  least  understandable design.
Participants in Seattle, male participants in Charlotte and Chicago,
and female participants in Houston voted Option 3D as the least
understandable  design  more  often  than participants  in  other
groups. The reasons why participants disliked Option 3D included:
the scale was confusing and hard  to understand (the '$' sign in
front of the scale made it seem like the scale was measuring dollar
amount); the  font was too small, the format was "too simple", and
had lots of empty space and was unappealing.

Based on the above findings, it can be said  that Option 3A was
perceived  to  be the most understandable  fuel  cost  design and
Option  3D  was perceived as  the  least  understandable design.
However, there was some support for  the sliding scale from the
3C design and several participants  suggested including it  on the
3A design in some way.  The  most understandable  design was
simple, straight forward, concise, and clearly pertained to cost. The
least understandable were designs people found  to be  confusing,
distracting, and complicated. In essence,  participants preferred a
design that they thought was informative and that presented the
information in a simple and familiar format.


Use of fuel cost metric  in vehicle purchase

Participants across all  the groups were asked whether  (and why/
why not)  they would  use the information on fuel cost in their
vehicle purchase decision if it were available on the label.
22
                                          EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign

-------
      Many participants across all groups said that they would use the
      fuel cost information on the label to learn about the vehicle's fuel
      efficiency in terms of dollars and use  these numbers to compare
      different vehicles in order to make a purchase decision.

      However, there were others who did not show much enthusiasm
      for using this information  on the label. Of these, some said that
      they considered the fuel cost estimate to be an inaccurate measure
      (because it  did not take into consideration the fluctuating cost of
      gas) and  hence were skeptical  of using it. Others said  that they
      were more  likely to research fuel cost estimates of vehicles on the
      Internet before they visited the dealers' showroom and looked at
      the actual fuel economy labels.

      No major city or gender  differences were found with regard to
      participants' likelihood to use the information  on  fuel cost on the
      label in their vehicle purchase decision.

      In summary, it may be said that some people are likely to use the
      fuel cost  information on the label  in  comparing  vehicles  during
      the vehicle  purchase process. However,  in general, the fuel cost
      information was suspect because of fluctuating fuel prices.
"I would use the label to verify
what I looked at online."
- Seattle Male

"The label by itself won't
influence  me, but it is one
piece of information."
-Chicago Male

"This type of information at the
dealer does me no good; I go
online to do the comparison.
So the pretty picture means
nothing to me." - Seattle Male
Phase 1 Focus Groups
                                23

-------
24                                                                                               EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign

-------
      Environment   Metric
      Environment rating understanding

      Participants were asked if the environmental impact of a vehicle in any
      way impacted their purchasing decision. Some participants indicated
      it did, with a sub-section of these indicating they had considered
      hybrid vehicles for this  reason. Even for  those who  indicated
      concern for the environment, it seemed that economic considerations
      were more important  than concerns about  environmental impact.
      However, the vast majority of participants did not use environmental
      impact as a part of their purchasing decision.

      Participants were then presented with four environment metric design
      options and  asked to  rate which options they found  to be most
      understandable and least understandable. (See the environment metric
      design options on the next page). Subsequently, the participants' ratings
      were tallied and a discussion followed regarding the reasons behind
      their ratings. (See Appendix F for participant tally scores per group).
      In order to test if participants actually understood the environmental
      metrics they were probed on how many grams of CO2  and on how
      this vehicle compares to others based on the comparison information
      on the label designs. Routinely, participants displayed understanding
      of how this vehicle compared to others, but did not understand what
      grams of CO  referred to.
"For me it goes hand in hand
with fuel economy, if it saves fuel
costs, it's probably better for the
environment."-Seattle Male


"I own a hybrid. Even though the
Prius cost a little more, it came
down  to the numbers, how much
I would save. The environmental
aspect was as bonus."
-Charlotte Male


"If cost was same, if the car was
affordable, I would consider the
one that had less impact."
- Charlotte Male


"I care about the environment,
but when it comes to money, I
have to put my pocket book first.
The environment isn't going to
pay my bills." - Charlotte Female
Phase 1 Focus Groups
                             25

-------
          Option 4C
                                         On tallying, the participants' ratings (across all the groups) reflected
                                         the following, as most understandable and least understandable:
Option Option Option Option
^H 4A 4B 4C 4D
All groups
combined


Most
understandable


Least
understandable
Overall *
24


3
21
12


10
2
22


16
6
4


31
-27
                                          *0verall = Number of times rated 'most understandable' minus
                                          Number of times rated 'least understandable'


                                         As reflected in the table above, it can be inferred that Option 4A
                                         (star system) was perceived to be the most understandable design
                                         option, closely followed by  Option  4C. Interestingly, with the
                                         exception of participants in Seattle, female participants in Chicago
                                         and male participants in Charlotte, Option 4A received the highest
                                         number of votes across the  other four groups. The reasons why
                                         participants across all the groups liked Option  4A included:  it
                                         was simple, concise and easy to read; and the star ratings used in
                                         Option 4A was a familiar system that was clear, straightforward,
                                         readily  understandable, and  caught people's attention. The  few
                                         participants who disliked Option 4A said that the star ratings did
                                         not give them the range of CO2 information  (as in Option  4C)
                                         and was not informative enough. Suggestions for improving 4A
                                         included using green as the star color.
                                           Environment
                                               OO^L grams/mile
                                                                  4 out of 5 stars (5 being best)
                                                                                      USlPAClrtlfinl
                                                                                     >SmartWay
                                           Option 4A
                                           Option 4D
26
EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign

-------
       Overall Option 4C was tallied as the second most understandable,
       with male participants in Charlotte, and female participants in Seattle
       voted Option 4C as the most understandable design more often than
       participants  in  other groups. The reasons why participants liked
       Option 4C included: it was clear, to-the-point, readily understandable
       and attractive; the sliding  scale was easy to read and provided  the
       reader a frame of reference in addition to range of CO2 information
       for an environment metric; the green and black color format with the
       picture of a leaf was appealing and was symbolic of the environment.
       On  the contrary,  participants in  Chicago  and male participants in
       Houston voted  Option  4C as the least understandable design more
       often than participants in other groups. The reasons why participants
       disliked Option 4C included: it was complicated and difficult to grasp
       at a glance; the sliding  scale was confusing and hard to understand
       with '888' representing 'worst'  and  '178' representing 'best' since
       higher is usually associated with better; the concept of CO2 grams was
       in and of itself difficult to understand; and the graphics and the color
       format were  "too  dark" (some suggested it reminded them of smog),
       cluttered and unappealing. Suggestions for improving 4C included
       using a different background color and  not using black as  the leaf
       color. Some participants suggested that including a rating on the label
       (such as the  star rating  in 4A or the number rating  in 4B) would be
       helpful since  the concept of CO2 grams was not well  understood.

       As for those who thought Option 4B was most understandable, male
       participants  in Seattle and female participants in Chicago voted it
       as the most  understandable design  more  often than participants
       in other groups.  The reasons why participants liked Option 4B
       included: it was clear and easy to read; the rating "8" was attention
       grabbing and easily understood; and the green color format was
       symbolic of the environment. On the contrary, the participants who
       disliked Option 4B said that it was vague, confusing, "too busy",
       and difficult  to  follow and understand. They also found the design
       format to be unappealing.

       Option  4D  emerged to  be  the least  understandable design  as
       compared to the other designs. Participants in Seattle and Charlotte,
       and female participants in Houston  voted Option 4D as the least
       understandable design  more often than other groups. The  reasons
       why participants  disliked Option 4D included: it was confusing,
       not  reader-friendly and "poorly-laid out"; the scale was hard to
       understand;  and the format was  "too plain" and unappealing.
"[4A] I wasn't sure about the
information it's measuring, but
the stars make sense."
-Seattle Male

"[4C] I don't understand the
numbers. Its unfamiliar to me,
so to have a graph of it doesn't
make sense."-Chicago Male
"[4B] This is a new kind of thing
people are measuring. I don't
really know what it is, so the 8 is
helpful."- Seattle Female

"4B puts the emphasis on the
wrong thing. The 352 is the
important number."
- Charlotte Female

"I don't know what these
numbers mean. There needs to
be something to indicate what
is good or bad, such as 'most
efficient or least efficient,' 'most
polluting or least polluting. Use
the ends of the scale to explain
it."- Charlotte Female
Phase 1 Focus Groups
                                 27

-------
       "C02 is the one you hear most
       about, I wouldn't add anything
       else."- Charlotte Female


       "C02 is the basic one, no others
       needed." - Chicago Female


       "Would need to know more what
       it's about - it's meaningful if you
       know that only a few vehicles get
       the ranking."-Seattle Female


       "If I knew what the threshold was
       for the SmartWay certification it
       would mean something more to
       me." - Houston Female
Use of terms 'environment' and C02

Participants across all  the  groups were asked what the term
environment meant to them, whether  there was a better word to
use, if the label needed to include information on pollutants other
than CO2 and whether they would use that information in making
their vehicle choice.

Many participants across all the groups said that  they thought
about air quality,  air pollution  and global warming when they
thought of the word 'environment' relative to vehicle emissions. A
few participants also said that they thought about carbon footprint.
The majority of participants said that the word 'environment'  on
the label worked for  them. When asked to identify other terms,
suggestions  included: 'emissions', 'eco-friendly',  'environmental
rating',  'green', and  'air  quality'. A  few  suggested 'clean air',
'energy-efficient', 'green  footprint' and 'longevity'. However, none
of these suggestions were  considered by participants to be  better
than 'environment'.

Most participants  across  all groups indicated that  they  did not
understand CO2 and having other pollutants listed would not have
greater influence on their purchasing decision. They also indicated
that they did not need to know the 'science' behind environmental
ratings -  "just  give us a  rating." In addition, some participants
expressed that they trusted the EPA to  make sure that vehicles met
environmental requirements.

Participants were also  asked if they knew what the 'SmartWay' logo
stood for and whether it  would influence  their buying decision.
None of the participants recognized the  logo. When asked what
they thought it meant,  some participants  made the assumption
that  'SmartWay' was an  EPA  certification and was  similar  to
'EnergyStar.' They  further expressed that it probably represented
an EPA certified environmentally friendly car. Some participants
indicated the logo had the potential of drawing credibility toward
a vehicle. Interestingly, none of the participants indicated that they
would be  less likely to choose a vehicle if the logo was not on the
label. They stated  that they attached more importance to other
factors such as vehicle class, price, fuel economy, etc.  and could
discount the "environmental impact" factor relative to these other
factors. Importantly, several participants suggested that the absence
28
                                           EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign

-------
      of the 'SmartWay' logo on a vehicle would have little impact until
      consumers became aware of its meaning and actively looked for
      the logo. Some even suggested a statement  on  the fuel  economy
      label designating a vehicle as 'not SmartWay certified' so that its
      designation was clear.

      No major city or gender differences were found with regard to what
      participants thought of when thinking about environment, whether
      the label needed to include  information on pollutants other than
      CO2, and what they thought about the 'SmartWay' logo.

      Based on the above findings, it can be said that Option 4A was the
      most understandable environment rating design. However,  4C might
      easily become more  preferred  with  the suggested modifications.
      Option 4D emerged as the least understandable design. Participants
      preferred a design that was informative and presented information
      in a simple and familiar format. Further, participants stated that
      the use of the term 'environment' and reporting just the CO2 count
      on the label worked for them as they wanted the  label to be easy to
      read and understand. As participants struggle with understanding
      the meaning of CO2, they stated that having additional information
      on other pollutants included on the label would not influence their
      vehicle purchasing decision. Finally, participants felt an  overall
      environmental impact designation was of most value and liked the
      idea of the 'SmartWay' logo, but suggested that significant public
      education will be needed to inform the public of its meaning.


      Use of environmental  impact  in  vehicle

      choice

      Participants across all the groups were asked whether (and why/
      why not) they would use the environment information on the label
      in their vehicle purchase decision. They were also  asked  if they
      would go to a  website (if so directed  on the label) and use this
      information in their vehicle choice if it was not on the label.

      While some participants said that they would use environmental
      impact information on the label to compare  different vehicles, the
      majority of individuals did not show much enthusiasm about using
      this information on the label. According to the latter, environmental
      impact of driving a vehicle was not really important to them because
"How much the number means
depends on how much you care
about the environment."
- Seattle Male
Phase 1 Focus Groups
                               29

-------
        "It would all depend on price
        and style. It's part of the bigger
        package you consider when you're
        shopping." - Seattle Female

        "It's a nice to have, not a need to
        have."- Chicago Male

        "It wouldn't sway me, if I wanted
        that car, it wouldn't change my
        mind."- Chicago Female
they gave more precedence to other factors such as vehicle class,
cost, fuel economy, appearance, brand loyalty, etc. Consequently,
participants across all groups indicated they were not likely to visit
a website for environmental  information. In fact, when asked if
they could only have  two  of the three discussed metrics  on the
label, the vast majority of participants chose fuel consumption and
fuel cost over environmental impact.


No major city or gender  differences were found with regard to
participants' likelihood to use the environmental impact information
on the label  in their vehicle purchase decision, and  whether they
would go to a website for this information if it was not on the label.

In summary, it may be  said that most people  said  they will not
be very likely to use the  environmental impact information on the
label, although they were open to the presence of such information
on the label, and indicated they would not visit a website for this
information in making their vehicle purchase decisions.
30
                                            EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign

-------
      Overall   Findings
      Gender and  Location Affects

      Based on the results of these Phase 1 focus groups, no systematic
      gender or city location differences were found. Those reported here
      appear to be random, but will be further tracked and reviewed as
      Phases 2 and 3 of the focus groups are completed.


      Vehicle Choice Process and Current Label Use

      People actively begin the vehicle purchasing process with specific
      vehicles and/or vehicle types in  mind that fit their individual
      need and preferences. They then search for relevant information
      to help narrow their vehicle choices. Participants  stated that the
      next important factor  they considered when determining which
      vehicle they ultimately purchased was vehicle price followed by
      fuel economy regardless of one's gender or geographic location.  .
      Based on the online survey and focus group results, it is also clear
      that participant's used the  terms vehicle type and vehicle class
      interchangeably and defined vehicle type and/or vehicle class based
      on personal perceptions. Participant's vehicle type classifications
      were typically broad and did not coincide with EPA's typical vehicle
      type classifications.

      When participants used the fuel economy label to compare different
      vehicles they primarily relied on city and highway gas mileage estimates.
      While fuel economy figured high on the consideration list, there were
      other factors such  as safety, reliability, size, comfort, performance,
      brand name, brand loyalty, past experience with the brand, etc. that
      also influenced vehicle purchase decisions. Environmental impact did
      not seem to significantly impact vehicle choice.
Phase 1 Focus Groups                                                                                  31

-------
                                        Fuel  Consumption  Metric
                                        Most often participants thought in terms of distance covered per
                                        gallon and 'miles per gallon' estimates when they thought about
                                        fuel consumption. They also recognized that this reliance is in-part
                                        due to this being the only metric they have ever used.

                                        Option 1A (star system) was perceived as the most understandable
                                        design  for  communicating  fuel consumption,  with Option 1C
                                        being the least understandable. Participants  preferred the Option
                                        1A design because  it was informative and presented information
                                        in a  simple and familiar format. Part of the reason they found
                                        Option  1C least understandable  was because of the difficulty
                                        of understanding 'gallons per  100 miles' as a measure of fuel
                                        consumption especially when presented in the slider scale design of
                                        Option 1C. However, when shown the 1C slider scale in a vertical
                                        orientation (with best at the top  and worst at the  bottom; see
                                        Appendix K) understandability  increased. Nonetheless, even those
                                        who understood the MPG Illusion preferred 'MPG' over 'gallons
                                        per  100 miles' in large part because it was so  familiar to them.
                                        However, most participants were open to including 'gallons per 100
                                        miles' as long as the font to  display it and MPG were of the same
                                        size (as opposed to having MPG in small font and in parentheses
                                        underneath the 'gallons per 100 miles' metric).


                                        Fuel  Cost  Metric

                                        Participants preferred annual and  monthly estimates of fuel cost
                                        over other "time" cost metrics because they were used to  looking at
                                        cost  from these perspectives. However, there is general skepticism
                                        around the fuel cost metric due  to the fluctuating cost of gasoline.

                                        Option 3A (star system) was perceived as the most understandable
                                        fuel  cost design and  Option  3D  was  the  least  understandable
                                        design. In essence, participants preferred a design that they thought
                                        was  informative and that presented  the information in a  simple
                                        and familiar format. It should be noted that compared to the fuel
                                        consumption design option that showed a scale with best and worst
                                        fuel consumption based on 'gallons per 100 miles', there was more
                                        support for Option 3C (scale  showing best and worst fuel cost
                                        vehicles)  because participants had an  easier time understanding
                                        'dollars' compared to 'gallons per 100 miles.'
32                                                                                EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign

-------
       Environment Metric

       Option 4A (star  system) emerged as the most understandable
       environment metric design and Option 4D was the least understandable
       design. Again, participants preferred a design that they thought was
       informative and that  presented the information  in a simple and
       familiar format. Option 4C was a very close second choice. Adopting
       the suggestions provided by participants for improving  4C might
       make this a preferred choice. However, many participants were less
       interested in a scale (such as in Option 4C) that showed the best and
       worst vehicles in regard to CO2 emissions. This was, in part, because
       grams of CO2 has little meaning to them and because environmental
       impact is of much less importance in their vehicle choice process
       (compared to fuel consumption and fuel cost).

       Although participants  did not know what 'SmartWay'  was, they
       eventually figured out as the discussion progressed, that inclusion
       of the 'SmartWay' logo was  an  important EPA certification  to
       designate environmentally friendly vehicles, but significant public
       education will be needed to inform the public of its meaning.


       Overall Label  Design

       The  one thing  that participants across all groups said that they
       wanted to see on a full label was the fuel consumption information
       expressed in terms of MPG. They explained that they were used to
       the MPG system and that it would take time for them to adopt other
       metrics, including 'gallons per 100 miles.' Further, they added that
       the city and highway gas mileage  estimates were important pieces
       of information that helped them to compare vehicles based  on their
       driving styles, and was something that needed to  be prominent on
       the label. When asked to determine which of the three metrics (fuel
       consumption, fuel cost, environmental impact) they would include
       on a label if they could only have two of them, participants across
       all groups  chose fuel  consumption and fuel cost. With regard  to
       the use of graphics and color, many participants said that the black
       and white  format (in design Option A) was appealing for  the fuel
       consumption  and cost  part of the label. According to them, such
       a format made the information appear "clean" and "informative,"
       and did not make it look  like someone was trying to "sell" them
       something. Several mentioned  that it was also similar in  look  to
       the current label. Across all  the groups, participants liked the gas
Phase 1 Focus Groups                                                                                         33

-------
                                          pump icon, the "$" sign, and the green leaf and said that they could
                                          easily associate each of these with fuel consumption, fuel cost, and
                                          environmental impact respectively. However, across the groups there
                                          was also a minority who thought that the star system did not give
                                          them enough information and  recommended including the  scale
                                          from the C design options (showing best and worst vehicles in regard
                                          to fuel consumption and cost, and possibly environmental impact).

                                          While  some  participants  said  that the  statement about the
                                          availability of the Fuel Economy Guide was useful, many others
                                          did not show much enthusiasm toward it. The latter said that they
                                          would do  their research  about the vehicles before  they  visit the
                                          dealer's showroom and having this information on the label would
                                          not affect their decision.

                                          The  issue of comparison  to 'all  vehicles'  and/or comparison
                                          'within class'  was discussed in all  groups. It should  be noted
                                          that participants used the terms 'vehicle class'  and 'vehicle  type'
                                          interchangeably and how they grouped vehicles by type or class
                                          varied  and did not necessarily match the typical  EPA vehicle
                                          classes. Nonetheless, when  shown  the label design options,  most
                                          assumed that  the comparison metrics referred to  'within class'
                                          (when in fact they referred to 'all vehicles'). With the exception of
                                          female participants in Chicago and male participants in Houston,
                                          participants in the all groups preferred seeing both 'within class'
                                          and 'all vehicles' information for fuel consumption and fuel cost on
                                          the label. They explained that including both sets of information for
                                          fuel consumption and cost gave them more and better information
                                          to make vehicle comparisons. The remaining participants said that
                                          they preferred only 'within class' information for fuel consumption
                                          and fuel cost metrics on the label. According to  these participants,
                                          the standard of comparison was fair when comparison was  done
                                          within class ("comparing within class means comparing apples to
                                          apples"). However, this comparison is complicated by participant's
                                          varied definitions  of what constitutes a 'vehicle type' or  'vehicle
                                          class' and that those definitions are not consistent with EPA vehicle
                                          type classifications. When probed whether they would feel guilty
                                          if the vehicle  they  recently purchased had ratings that showed
                                          that it  rated  better  'within class,'  but worse when compared to
                                          'all vehicles,'  almost  all disagreed.  Participants explained  that
                                          vehicle type played a crucial role in their vehicle choice process and
                                          vehicles within a particular type had similar range estimates for
                                          fuel consumption and fuel cost.
34                                                                                  EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign

-------
       Recommendations regarding  metrics

       and  label design

       The following recommendations are based on the overall results
       of the  Phase  1 focus groups and reflect findings regarding metric
       and label design understanding, preferences, as well as metric and
       design options to which participants are open.

             Give  prominence to fuel consumption,  followed by fuel
              cost and environment metric.

             Retain the black and white format for the fuel consumption
              and fuel cost metric, and use the color green in communicating
              the environment part of the label.

             For the fuel consumption part of the label:

                 Use  MPG estimates as the primary metric  for fuel
                 consumption. If there is a desire to introduce 'gallons
                 per 100 miles' estimates, do so in a way that positions
                 it as additional information and use the same font size
                 for presenting the MPG  and gallons per  100 miles
                 information.

                 Utilize external marketing and education activities to
                 help consumers understand the value and benefit of
                 using gallons  per 100 miles.

                 Provide both city and highway gas mileage estimates.

                 Provide both "within class" and "all vehicles" comparison
                 scales for fuel  consumption.

                 Include star ratings (and possibly  a sliding  scale as
                 well) for easy comparison:
                    To show accurate star rating, use partial coloring
                     of stars.
                    Make the sliding scale into a vertical scale with the
                     worst at the bottom and best at top.
                    Use better descriptors (such as "best fuel consumption",
                     "worst fuel consumption") to explain the tail ends
                     of the scale.
Phase 1 Focus Groups                                                                                         35

-------
                                                 Mention EPA as the source for the fuel consumption ratings.

                                              For the fuel cost part of the label:

                                                 Use bigger and bolder font compare to that used on some
                                                  of the labels to describe annual fuel cost.

                                                 Provide both "within class" and "all vehicles" comparison
                                                  scales for fuel consumption.

                                                 Include star ratings (and possibly a sliding scale as well)
                                                  for easy comparison:
                                                     To show accurate star rating, use partial coloring of
                                                      stars.
                                                     Make the sliding  scale into  a vertical scale with the
                                                      worst at the bottom of the scale and best at the top
                                                     Use better  descriptors  (such  as "most cost efficient",
                                                      "least cost efficient") to explain the tail ends of the
                                                      scale.

                                                 Mention EPA as the source for the fuel cost ratings.

                                              For the environment part of the label:

                                                 Use green for this part of the label and change the color of
                                                  the stars to green.

                                                 Include star ratings (and possibly a sliding scale as well)
                                                  for easy comparison:
                                                     To show accurate star rating, use partial coloring of
                                                      stars.
                                                     Make the sliding  scale into  a vertical scale with the
                                                      worst at the bottom of the scale and best at the top.
                                                     Use better descriptors (such as "most polluting", "least
                                                      polluting")  to explain the tail ends of the scale.

                                                 Mention EPA as the source for the environment ratings.

                                                 Include the Smart Way logo for those vehicles that are certified.

                                                 Conduct an  education/marketing  campaign to increase
                                                  awareness and  value in the SmartWay logo.
36                                                                                    EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign

-------
      Appendices
      Appendix A: Moderator Guide
      Introduction (8 minutes)
             Moderator introduces herself/himself.
             [Explain:] A focus group is a group discussion where we can learn
             more in-depth about peoples' ideas and opinions  (compared to
             telephone or written surveys).
             My job is to facilitate the discussion and make sure that everyone
             has an  opportunity to speak and to make sure that no one
             dominates the conversation.
             Mention observers in separate room.
             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.
                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. However,  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. Any questions before we begin?
Phase 1 Focus Groups                                                                                    37

-------
                                                 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:
                                                    Your first name
                                                    When did you buy your last new vehicle?
                                                    What type of vehicle did you buy recently (make and
                                                     model)?
                                                    Did you consider buying a hybrid, or clean diesel, or some
                                                     other alternative fuel vehicle?
                                          Current Label Use (8 minutes)


                                              1.  What were the top two things that influenced your vehicle
                                                 choice?

                                              2.  Did you have a specific vehicle in mind when you started
                                                 shopping for a vehicle? Is that the vehicle you ended up
                                                 purchasing? Why or why not?

                                              3.  In what 'class' of vehicles is the vehicle you ended up
                                                 purchasing? What do we mean by 'class of vehicle'? Is there a
                                                 better term to use to get at this issue? What better terms?

                                              4.  Did you use the fuel economy label when deciding on your
                                                 new vehicle purchase? Why or why not? How did you use it?
                                                 Then show participants a large size example of the current
                                                 label (as well as 8 xll copy for each participant) and ask
                                                 what information on the label most influenced their purchasing
                                                 decision. Probe briefly on why.


                                          Fuel Consumption Metric (37  minutes)


                                          SHOW THEM THE CURRENT LABEL AND SHOW THEM THAT IT HAS
                                          COMPONENTS FOR MPG, FUEL COSTS, ETC.  THEN EXPLAIN  THAT
                                          WE ARE GOING TO LOOK AT FUEL CONSUMPTION  FOR A NEW LABEL
                                          SEPARATELY, BUT THAT IT  WILL EVENTUALLY BE PART OF A TOTAL
                                          LABEL.

                                              5.  When you think of fuel consumption, how do you think
                                                 about it? (Listen  for  mpg, miles per tank full, gallons to go a
                                                 particular distance,  how often they have to fill the tank.)

                                              6.  The current label includes mpg for both city and highway. What
                                                 does mpg mean to you? Is this useful information? Why or why not?
38                                                                                   EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign

-------
           7.   (Hand out the fuel consumption metric work sheets and the
               individual copies of the designs. Show them the 4 options on
               large boards.)
               a.   Would any of the four options make you more likely to
                   purchase a fuel efficient vehicle? (Have them indicate
                   which one on their rating sheet. Do  NOT discuss yet.)
                   LISTEN FOR  CONCERNS ABOUT MPG BEING  DE-
                   EMPHASIZED. ASSURE THEM THAT IT IS HERE TO
                   STAY AND THAT THE LABEL COULD SHOW MPG AND
                   GAL/100 Ml  IN THE SAME SIZE FONT (SHOW LABEL
                   EXAMPLE OF THIS.)
               b.   Then instruct them to "indicate on your worksheet
                   which option  is most understandable and  which is least
                   understandable. For each choice write brief bullet points
                   explaining why."
               c.   Moderator then tallies rankings and  opens up to discussion
                   regarding reasons behind their choices. (Probe on which of
                   the 4 options explains fuel consumption most effectively?
                   Test correct interpretation of metrics by asking what the
                   metrics mean, if they are 'easy to understand'. Test to
                   include probing on: city vs. highway gals/100 miles,  how
                   does this vehicle compare to  others?)
               d.   Then tally from 7a above and ask which of the  4 options,
                   if any, would  make you  more likely to purchase a fuel
                   efficient vehicle. (Probe on why)

           8.   If the label had a sentence that said:
                  In the city, this vehicle would use approximately 4.5
                   gallons  of gasoline to travel 100  miles.
                  On the  highway, this vehicle would use approximately 3.3
                   gallons  of gasoline to travel 100  miles.
                   Would that be more helpful or less helpful compared to the
                   metric that appears on the label? Why?

           9.   Can you suggest other ways to express this information
               visually?

           10. If this information was available on the label, would you use it
               in your decision about which vehicle to purchase? Why or why
               not? If so, at what point?
Phase 1 Focus Groups                                                                                              39

-------
                                                11. All of the options we've shown you include a comparison to
                                                    all other vehicles. Does having this assist you in choosing the
                                                    most fuel efficient new vehicle? Why or why not? Is it useful
                                                    to also have such a fuel consumption comparison in regard
                                                    to vehicles in your class? Why or why not? Is it too  much
                                                    information?

                                                12. Remind them of the example of the "mpg illusion" from the
                                                    pre-group survey.
                                                    a.   Show them the front of the handout that includes annual
                                                        gallons used and annual cost. Ask them what do they see
                                                        that is different than the current label?
                                                    b.   Then have them look at the top two examples on the back
                                                        of the form and ask them to indicate what is different
                                                        between the two. (Probe on how 5 mpg translates into
                                                        fewer gallons and lower costs.)
                                                    c.   Then have them look at the bottom two examples on the
                                                        back of the form and ask them to indicate what is different
                                                        between the two (Probe on how 5 mpg translates into
                                                        fewer gallons and lower costs.)
                                                    d.   Ask them to then compare the difference between the
                                                        top two labels and bottom two labels. What is the lesson
                                                        learned? (Probe on fact that although both indicate a 5
                                                        mpg increase, that 5 mpg increase has different gallons
                                                        and cost implications depending on whether vehicle is a
                                                        gas guzzler or not.)
                                                    e.   Ask them if gals/100 mi (instead of mpg) would get them
                                                        to switch to a different class of vehicle. Why or why not?
                                                        (Probe on whether the gallons used and cost is important
                                                        to them. Why or why not?)

                                                    Ask: If you had the choice of 'gallons per  hundred miles' or
                                                    mpg, which would you use? Why?

                                                13. Range of comparable vehicles. (Show 4 examples of the same
                                                    design - one with 'within class' and one 'within class' and 'for
                                                    all vehicles'. 2 will emphasize 'gallons per 100 miles' and the
                                                    other 2 will emphasize 'mpg'.) Hand out the 4 comparable
                                                    designs sheet. Tell them that some vehicles will compare well
                                                    to other vehicles in their class and to all vehicles. But other
                                                    vehicles may compare well within class, but not well  when
                                                    compared to all vehicles.
                                                        Which of the 4  labels would be most useful to them?
                                                        Why?
                                                        Discuss where the same vehicle falls on scale in  regard to
                                                        'gallons per 100 miles' vs. 'mpg'.
                                                        If the vehicle you recently purchased had ratings that
40                                                                                       EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign

-------
                  showed it was better 'within class' compared to 'all
                  vehicles' how would you feel about your choice? Use
                  choice 5B1 as an example. (Probe on whether they feel
                  guilty or not.)

          14. Then probe on comparison bars in regard to: (IF THIS COMES
              UP  EARLIER THEN DISCUSS EARLIER.)
                 How do we best visually tell a story when in some cases a
                  big number is good and in other cases a big number is bad?
                  (Show them the example where the lower fuel consumption
                  number is better and where the higher mpg is better.)

      Ask client if they have any questions at this time.


      Fuel Cost  Metric (25  minutes)


      SHOW THEM THE CURRENT LABEL AND SHOW THEM THAT IT HAS
      COMPONENTS FOR MPG, FUEL COSTS, ETC. THEN EXPLAIN  THAT
      WE ARE NOW GOING TO  LOOK AT FUEL COST FOR A NEW LABEL
      SEPARATELY, BUT THAT IT WILL EVENTUALLY BE PART OF A TOTAL
      LABEL.

          15. Did you notice the  average annual fuel cost information on the
              current label when you purchased your most recent vehicle?
              (Show current label.)  How do you think about this fuel cost
              information on the  current label? Did you use this information
              in making your decision? Why or why not?

              We  would now like to explore talking about cost. The cost per
              year depends greatly on variables such  as fuel price, driving
              patterns  and mix of city and highway driving. For the label,
              we rely on basic assumptions such as a person drives 15,000
              miles a year and gas costs $3.00 a gallon.

          16. The current label shows annual costs. Are there other ways to
              express cost that would be more useful (salient) to you? (Write
              their suggestions on flip chart and probe on the why behind
              their suggestions.  If they don't mention monthly, 5-year, weekly,
              cost per  100 miles, cost per mile, add these to the list and
              get their  reactions to these.) Show them actual  numbers (on a
              handout  sheet) for  each of the following metrics and ask which
              of these is most useful to them.
                 Annual
                 Monthly
                 5-year
                 Weekly
                 Cost per mile (BE SURE TO PROBE ON  .12 OR 12 CENTS)
                 Cost per 100  miles
Phase 1 Focus Groups                                                                                            41

-------
                                                  Then show board with the combinations and ask what
                                                  combination of these, if any, would be the most powerful? Why?

                                              17. (Hand out the fuel  cost metric work sheet and the individual
                                                  copies of the designs. Show them the 4 options on large
                                                  boards.)
                                                  a.   Would any of the four options make you more likely to
                                                      purchase a vehicle with lower fuel costs? (Have them indicate
                                                      which one on their rating sheet. Do NOT discuss yet.)
                                                  b.   Then instruct them to "indicate on your worksheet
                                                      which option is most understandable and which is least
                                                      understandable. For each choice write brief bullet points
                                                      explaining why."
                                                  c.   Moderator then tallies rankings and opens up to discussion
                                                      regarding reasons behind their choices. (Probe on which
                                                      of the 4 options explains fuel costs most effectively? Test
                                                      correct interpretation of metrics by asking what the metrics
                                                      mean, if they are 'easy to understand'. Test to include
                                                      probing on:  cost per year, how does this vehicle compare
                                                      to others?)
                                                  d.   Then tally from 17a above and ask which of the 4 options,
                                                      if any, would make you more likely to purchase a vehicle
                                                      with lower fuel costs. (Probe on why)

                                              18. Can you suggest other ways to express this information
                                                  visually?

                                              19. If this information was available on the label, would you  use it
                                                  in your decision  about which vehicle to purchase? Why or why
                                                  not?  If so, at what  point?

                                              20. All of the options we've shown you include a comparison to all
                                                  other vehicles. Does having this assist you in choosing which
                                                  vehicle to purchase? Why or why not?  Is it useful to also have
                                                  such a fuel cost  comparison in regard to vehicles in your class?
                                                  Why or why not? Is it too much information?

                                          Ask client if they have any questions at this time.


                                          Environmental Metric (20 minutes)

                                          SHOW THEM THE CURRENT LABEL AND SHOW THEM THAT IT HAS
                                          COMPONENTS  FOR MPG, FUEL COSTS, ETC.  THEN  EXPLAIN THAT
                                          WE ARE NOW GOING  TO LOOK AT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS FOR A
                                          NEW  LABEL  SEPARATELY,  BUT THAT IT MAY EVENTUALLY BE PART
                                          OF A TOTAL LABEL.
42                                                                                    EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign

-------
           21. Does the impact of driving on the environment affect the type
               of vehicle you purchase? Why or why not?

           22. (Hand out the environmental metric work sheet and the
               individual copies of the designs. Show them the 4 options on
               large boards)
               a.  Would  any of the four options make you more likely to
                   purchase a  more environmentally friendly vehicle? (Have
                   them indicate which one on their rating sheet. Do NOT
                   discuss yet.)
               b.  Then instruct them to "indicate on  your worksheet
                   which option  is most understandable and which is least
                   understandable. For each choice write brief bullet points
                   explaining why."
               c.  Moderator then tallies rankings and opens up to discussion
                   regarding reasons behind their choices. (Probe on which
                   of the 4 options explains environmental impact most
                   effectively?  Test correct interpretation of metrics by asking
                   what the metrics mean, if they are 'easy to understand'.
                   Test to include probing on: how many grams per mile, how
                   does this vehicle compare to  others?)
               d.  Then tally from 22a above and  ask which  of the 4 options,
                   if any, would  make you  more likely to purchase a more
                   environmentally friendly vehicle. (Probe on why)

           23. Can you suggest other ways to express this information visually?

           24. If this information was available on the label, would you  use it
               in your decision about which vehicle to purchase? Why or why
               not? If so, at what point?

           25. If it wasn't on the label, but you were directed  to a web site for
               it, would you go to the website and  use this information? Why
               or why not?

           26. All of the options we showed you used the term "Environment".
               What does that mean to you? Do you think there is a better word
               to use? (Moderator to write suggestions on flip chart. Then open
               up to discussion regarding reasons behind their  suggestions.)

           27. All of the options also report on C02, but not on other
               pollutants.  Does the label need to include information on these
               other pollutants? Would you use that information in making
               your vehicle choice? Why or why  not?

           28. Moderator to point to the 'SmartWay' logo and  ask them  'what
               is this?' (Probe on what they think it means.) Ask- 'if it was
               not on the label  would that make you less likely to choose that
               vehicle.' Why or why not? (Note to moderator:  SmartWay label
               refers to more than C02.)
Phase 1 Focus Groups                                                                                                 43

-------
                                           Range Metric (10 minutes IF TIME PERMITS)


                                              29. What do we mean by a vehicles range? When you think about
                                                  your vehicle, do you think about its range?

                                              30. Show them the  1 option on large board. Then ask if range
                                                  affects their purchase decision. What if one vehicle had a range
                                                  of 600 miles and another had a range of 300 miles, would that
                                                  affect your choice of vehicle? Why or why not?

                                              31. Can you suggest other ways to express this information
                                                  visually?

                                              32. If it wasn't on the label,  but you were directed to a web site for
                                                  it, would you go to the website and use this information? Why
                                                  or why not?


                                           Overall Label Design Issues (15 minutes)


                                              33. How should we  present the information we just discussed on
                                                  a full  label? Should some information be emphasized over
                                                  other information? Moderator to use consumption, cost, and
                                                  environment design choices most favored by the group to lead
                                                  this discussion.  Probe on:
                                                     relative importance of each  metric
                                                     prominence
                                                     placement of information
                                                     use of graphical elements
                                                     use of color
                                                     importance of including the statement about the
                                                      availability of the Fuel Economy Guide (show from
                                                      current label).

                                              34. If you could only have TWO items on the label what would they
                                                  be? Why? (Probe on how those would influence their choice of
                                                  the most fuel efficient vehicle.)

                                              35. We have discussed a number of elements that could be on  the
                                                  label. Are there any other elements that we have not discussed
                                                  that would  influence you  to buy  a fuel efficient vehicle?
44                                                                                     EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign

-------
           36. Other than the label, are there other methods that would be
               useful in providing the information we have been discussing?
               For example (show label code), if a code such as this were on
               every label and you could scan it with your phone camera and
               it could tell you about this vehicle, or you could scan multiple
               vehicle and compare them, would that be useful? Any others
               ideas that would  be useful to assist you in  choosing the  most
               fuel efficient vehicle?

           37. For those of you who chose a vehicle with  a partner, how did
               that process work?  (Probe on who was involved in the decision
               making process, what input did each person  have, who  made
               the final choice, etc.)


       Wrap-Up (5 minutes)

              Summarize findings from focus group and ask for confirmation
               of summarized findings.
              Is there information that we have not discussed today that would
               influence you to choose a fuel efficient vehicle?
              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 1 Focus Groups                                                                                                 45

-------
Appendix  B: Participant Profiles
CHARLOTTE MALE Group
     Q9. What type of  Q10. How is this   Qll. What is the  Q12. Price range  Q13. Age
     vehicle did you    vehicle powered?   distance in miles  of new vehicle
     purchase?                       of your typical
                                    daily travel in
                                    this vehicle?
Q14. Education   Q15. Ethnicity
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Passenger car
Passenger car
Passenger car
Station wagon/
minivan
Pickup truck
Passenger car
Passenger car
Passenger car
Gasoline powered
Gasoline powered
Hybrid
Gasoline powered
Gasoline powered
Gasoline powered
Hybrid
Gasoline powered
40+
30-39
50
40+
40+
20-29
25
15
$20-$30k
$30-$40k
$20-$30k
$20-$30k
$20-$30k
$30-$40k
$20-$30k
$20-$30k
35-49
20-34
35-49
35-49
50-64
35-49
50-64
35-49
Some college or
college graduate
Some high school
or high school
graduate or GED
Some college or
college graduate
Some college or
college graduate
Some college or
college graduate
Graduate degree
Graduate degree
Some college or
college graduate
White
White
White
White
White
White
White
White

-------
CHARLOTTE FEMALE Group
    Q9. What type of  Q10. How is this   Qll. What is the  Q12. Price range  Q13. Age
    vehicle did you    vehicle powered?   distance in miles  of new vehicle
    purchase?                         of your typical
                                     daily travel in
                                     this vehicle?
Q14. Education   Q15. Ethnicity
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
SUV
Mini Van
Passenger car
Passenger car
Passenger car
Passenger car
Passenger car
Passenger car
Gasoline powered
Gasoline powered
Gasoline powered
Hybrid
Gasoline powered
Gasoline powered
Hybrid
Gasoline powered
40+
Less then 10
Less then 10
45
40+
40+
20-29
20-29
$20-$30k
$30-$40k
$15-$20k
$20-$30k
$20-30k
$20-$30k
$20-$30k
$15-$20k
20-34
35-49
20-34
20-34
65 +
35-49
50-64
35-49
Some college or
college graduate
Some college or
college graduate
Some college or
college graduate
Some college or
college graduate
Some college or
college graduate
Graduate degree
Some college or
college graduate
Some college or
college graduate
White
White
White
White
White
White
African American
African American

-------
HOUSTON FEMALE Group
     Q9. What type of  Q10. How is this  GUI. What is the  Q12. Price range  Q13. Age
     vehicle did you    vehicle powered?  distance in miles  of new vehicle
     purchase?                        of your typical
                                     daily travel in
                                     this vehicle?
Q14. Education   Q15. Ethnicity
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
SUV
Truck
Passenger Car
Passenger Car
Passenger Car
Passenger Car
Passenger Car
SUV
Gasoline
Gasoline
Diesel
Gasoline
Gasoline
Gasoline
Gasoline
Gasoline
27
50
80
20
30+
50
50
60
$20-30k
$40-50k
$20-30k
$20-30k
$20-30k
$15-20k
$30-40k
$20-30k
35-49
35-49
35-49
50-64
20-34
50-64
50-64
35-43
Some College or
College Graduate
Some College or
College Graduate
Some College or
College Graduate
Some College or
College Graduate
Graduate Degree
Some College or
College Graduate
Graduate Degree
Some College or
College Graduate
Hispanic
African American
White
Asian
White
Asian
White
Asian

-------
HOUSTON MALE Group
    Q9. What type of   Q10. How is this  GUI. What is the  Q12. Price range   Q13. Age
    vehicle did you     vehicle powered?  distance in miles  of new vehicle
    purchase?                         of your typical
                                     daily travel in
                                     this vehicle?
Q14. Education   Q15. Ethnicity
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Passenger Car
Passenger Car
Passenger Car
Passenger Car
Passenger Car
Passenger Car
Passenger Car
Passenger Car:
Gasoline
Gasoline
Gasoline
Gasoline
Gasoline
Gasoline
Gasoline
Gasoline
30-39
40+
20-29
40+
40+
40+
40+
20-29
$15-20k
$23k
$20k
$32k
$30-40k
$20-30k
$1 Ik after trade-
in
$20-30k
35-49
20-34
20-34
35-49
35-49
35-49
50-64
35-49
Graduate degree
Some college or
college graduate
Some college or
college graduate
Some college or
college graduate
Some college or
college graduate
Some college or
college graduate
Graduate degree
Some high school
or high school
graduate or GED
White
African American
White
White
White
White
White
Asian

-------
CHICAGO MALE Group
     Q9. What type of  Q10. How is this  GUI. What is the  Q12. Price range  Q13. Age
     vehicle did you    vehicle powered?  distance in miles  of new vehicle
Q14. Education   Q15. Ethnicity

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
purchase?
Passenger car
Minivan
Passenger car
Passenger car
Passenger car
SUV
Passenger car
SUV

Gasoline powered
Gasoline powered
Hybrid vehicle
Hybrid vehicle
Hybrid vehicle
Gasoline powered
Gasoline powered
Gasoline powered
of your typical
daily travel in
this vehicle?
10-19 miles
Less than 10
miles
20-29 miles
40 or more miles
30-39 miles
40 or more miles
10-19 miles
20-29 miles

$20,000 to
$30,000
$30,000 to
$40,000
$15, 000 to
$20,000
$20,000 to
$30,000
$30,000 to
$40,000
$30,000 to
$40,000
$30,000 to
$40,000
$20,000 to
$30,000

35-49
50-64
20-34
60-64
20-34
20-34
50-64
35-49

Graduate degree
Some college or
college graduate
Graduate degree
Graduate degree
Some college or
college graduate
Graduate degree
Some college or
college graduate
Graduate degree

African American
White
White
White
Asian
White
White
Hispanic

-------
CHICAGO FEMALE Group
    Q9. What type of  Q10. How is this  Qll. What is the  Q12. Price range  Q13. Age
    vehicle did you    vehicle powered?  distance in miles  of new vehicle
    purchase?                        of your typical
                                     daily travel in
                                     this vehicle?
Q14. Education   Q15. Ethnicity
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Passenger car
SUV
Passenger car
SUV
SUV
Passenger car
SUV
Passenger car
Hybrid
Gasoline powered
Gasoline powered
Gasoline powered
Gasoline powered
Gasoline powered
Gasoline powered
Hybrid
40 or more miles
40 or more miles
40 or more miles
20-29 miles
40 or more miles
10-19 miles
30-39 miles
40 or more miles
$20,000 -
$30,000
$50,000 or more
$40,000 -
$50,000
$50,000 or more
$40,000 -
$50,000
Less than $15, 00
$15,000-
$20,000
$20,000 -
$30,000
20-34
50-64
35-49
35-49
20-34
35-49
20-34
20-34
Graduate degree
Graduate degree
Graduate degree
Some college or
college graduate
Graduate degree
Some college or
college graduate
Graduate degree
Graduate degree
White
White
White
White
White
White
White
White

-------
SEATTLE MALE Group
            Q9. Type
            of vehicle
            purchased
Q10. How is
this vehicle
powered?
Qll. Distance
in miles of
typical daily
travel in the
vehicle
Q12. Price
range of new
vehicle
Q13. Age range   Q14. Education  Q15. Ethnicity
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Station Wagon
or Minivan
Pickup Truck
SUV
Passenger car
SUV
Passenger car
Pickup Truck
Gasoline
Powered Vehicle
Gasoline
powered vehicle
Gasoline
Powered Vehicle
Gasoline
Powered Vehicle
Gasoline
Powered Vehicle
Gasoline
Powered Vehicle
Gasoline
Powered Vehicle
Less than 10
miles
Less than 10
miles
10-19 miles
10-19 miles
10-19 miles
19-Oct
10-19 miles
$20,000-
30,000
$15,000-
20,000
$40,000-
$50,000
$15,000-
$20,000
$30,000-
$40,000
less than
15,000
$30,000-
$40,000
50-64
20-34
50-64
20-34
35-49
35-49
50-64
Graduate Degree
Graduate Degree
Some College or
College Graduate
Some College or
College Graduate
Some College or
College Graduate
Some College or
College Graduate
Graduate Degree
White
White
White
White
White
Hispanic
White
            SUV
Gasoline
Powered Vehicle
10-19 miles
$20,000-
$30,000
50-64
Some College or   White
College Graduate

-------
            SEATTLE FEMALE Group
                        Q9. Type
                        of vehicle
                        purchased
Q10. How is
this vehicle
powered?
Qll. Distance
in miles of
typical daily
travel in the
vehicle
Q12. Price
range of new
vehicle
Q13. Age range  Q14. Education  Q15. Ethnicity
1
2
3
4
5
6
Passeni
SUV
Passeni
Passeni
Passeni
Passeni
let Car

let Car
?er Car
?er Car
let Car
Gasoline
powered
Gasoline
powered
Gasoline
powered
Gasoline
powered
vehicle
vehicle
vehicle
vehicle
Hybrid Vehicle
Gasoline
powered
vehicle
Less than 10
miles
20-29
10-19
20-29
10-19
miles
miles
miles
miles
40+ miles
$15,000-
20,000
$30,000-
40,000
$20,000-
30,000
$20,000-
$30,000
$20,000-
$30,000
$30,000-
40,000
35-49
35-49
35-49
65+
35-49
50-64
Some College or
College Graduate
Some College or
College Graduate
Graduate Degree
Some College or
College Graduate
Graduate Degree
Some College or
College Graduate
White
White
White
Asian
Mixed Race
Asian
en
Co

-------
     Appendix C: Current Fuel Economy Label
              EPA Fuel Economy Estimates
                     These estimates reflect new EPA methods beginning with 2008 models.
         CITY MPG
          18
          Expected range
          for most drivers
          15 to 21 MPG
                     HIGHWAY MPG
   Estimated
Annual Fuel Cost

  $2,039
based on 15,000 miles
 at $2.80 per gallon
                                Combined Fuel Economy
                                     This Vehicle
                                       21
                                              131
Expected range
for most drivers
21 to 29 MPG
                        Your actual
                       mileage will vary
                      depending on how you
                       drive and maintain
                        your vehicle.
                                      All SUVs
               See the FREE Fuel Economy Guide at dealers or www.fueleconomy.gov
54
                         EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign

-------
      Appendix D: Fuel Consumption Tally Sheet
      (1: Most understandable; X: Least understandable; C: Most Compelling;
      Overall = Number of times rated 'most understandable' - Number of times rated 'least understandable')
                                  Option  1A    Option  IB    Option 1C    Option ID
      Charlotte Male Group: 02/25/2010








Total
Participant 1
Participant 2
Participant 3
Participant 4
Participant 5
Participant 6
Participant 7
Participant 8
Most
understandable
Least
understandable
Overall
1
1
1
1



1
5

5




X
1

X
1
2
-1



X
1

X

1
2
0
X
X
X


X
1

1
4
-3
      Charlotte Female Group: 02/25/2010








Total
Participant 1
Participant 2
Participant 3
Participant 4
Participant 5
Participant 6
Participant 7
Participant 8
Most
understandable
Least
understandable
Overall
1



1

1
1
4

4

X
1
X



X
1
3
-2

1
X
1

X


2
2
-1
X



X
1
X

1
3
-2
Phase 1 Focus Groups
55

-------
                                     Option 1A     Option IB    Option 1C     Option ID
        Houston Female Group: 03/03/2010








Total
Participant 1
Participant 2
Participant 3
Participant 4
Participant 5
Participant 6
Participant 7
Participant 8
Most
understandable
Least
understandable
Overall


1,C
1,C
1,C
1
X
1
5
1
4
X
i,c
X
X
X



1
4
-3
i,c




C
1
C
2

2

X



X

X

3
-3
        Houston Male Group: 03/03/2010
       Seattle Female Group: 03/09/2010








Total
Participant 1
Participant 2
Participant 3
Participant 4
Participant 5
Participant 6
Participant 7
Participant 8
Most
understandable
Least
understandable
Overall
1,C
X
C
1
1,C
1,C
1,C
1,C
6
1
5


X



X


2
-2
X
i,c

X
X
X

X
1
5
-4


1
C




1

1






Total
Participant 1
Participant 2
Participant 3
Participant 4
Participant 5
Participant 6
Most
understandable
Least
understandable
Overall



1
1,C

2

2

1,C
X

X
1,C
2
2
0
i,c

1


X
2
1
1
X
X

X



3
-3
56
EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign

-------
                                    Option 1A     Option IB    Option 1C     Option ID
       Seattle Male Group: 03/08/2010








Total
Participant 1
Participant 2
Participant 3
Participant 4
Participant 5
Participant 6
Participant 7
Participant 8
Most
understandable
Least
understandable
Overall
1,C
1,C
1
X


1,C

4
1
3

X

1
1
X

i,c
3
2
1
X

X

C
i,c
X
X
1
4
-3


C
C
X




1
-1
       Chicago Female Group: 03/04/2010








Total
Participant 1
Participant 2
Participant 3
Participant 4
Participant 5
Participant 6
Participant 7
Participant 8
Most
understandable
Least
understandable
Overall
1, C
1
1
1
1


1,C
6

6

X
C
C
C
1,C


1
1
0
X
C
X
X
X
X
X
X

7
-7






i,c

1

1
Phase 1 Focus Groups
57

-------
Option 1A Option IB Option 1C Option ID
Chicago
Male Group:
03/04/2010








Total

Participant 1
Participant 2
Participant 3
Participant 4
Participant 5
Participant 6
Participant 7
Participant 8
Most
understandable
Least
understandable
Overall

1
1,C




1,C
1,C
4

4



1,C
X




1
1
0

X,C
X
X

1
X


1
4
-3




i,c
X,C
i,c
X
X
2
3
-1
        COMBINED TALLY FOR ALL GROUPS
        Total            Most           36
                        understandable  	
                        Least           3
                        understandable
                        Overall
58
EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign

-------
      Appendix  E: Fuel  Cost  Tally
      (1: Most understandable; X: Least understandable; C: Most Compelling;



      Overall = Number of times rated 'most understandable' - Number of times rated 'least understandable')
Option 3A Option 3B Option 3C Option 3D
Charlotte Male Group: 02/25/2010








Total
Participant 1
Participant 2
Participant 3
Participant 4
Participant 5
Participant 6
Participant 7
Participant 8
Most
understandable
Least
understandable
Overall
1
1


1



3

3

X
X
1



X
1
3
-2


1
X
X
1
1
1
4
2
2
X




X
X


3
-3
Charlotte Female Group: 02/25/2010








Total
Participant 1
Participant 2
Participant 3
Participant 4
Participant 5
Participant 6
Participant 7
Participant 8
Most
understandable
Least
understandable
Overall

1
1
1
1
1

1
6

6
X








1
-1
1
X
X

X
X
1
X
2
5
-3



X


X


2
-2
Phase 1 Focus Groups
59

-------
Houston Female Group: 03/03/2010








Total
Participant 1
Participant 2
Participant 3
Participant 4
Participant 5
Participant 6
Participant 7
Participant 8
Most
understandable
Least
understandable
Overall
1
1
1,C
1
1,C
1,C
1,C
1,C
8

8

X
X

X




3
-3
C
C

C


X


1
-1
X


X

X

X

4
-4
Houston Male Group: 03/03/2010








Total
Participant 1
Participant 2
Participant 3
Participant 4
Participant 5
Participant 6
Participant 7
Participant 8
Most
understandable
Least
understandable
Overall

1,C
1,C
1
1,C

1,C
1,C
6

6
X

X

X
X

X

5
-5
i,c
X

X

i,c


2
2
0



C







Seattle Female Group: 03/09/2010






Total
Participant 1
Participant 2
Participant 3
Participant 4
Participant 5
Participant 6
Most
understandable
Least
understandable
Overall



X
1

1
1
0

i,c


X

1
1
0
i,c
X
i,c
i,c
C
i,c
4
1
3
X

X


X

3
-3
60
EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign

-------
Seattle Male Group: 03/08/20104








Total
Participant 1
Participant 2
Participant 3
Participant 4
Participant 5
Participant 6
Participant 7
Participant 8
Most
understandable
Least
understandable
Overall
1,C






1,C
2

2

i,c

i,c
i,c
i,c


4

4

X
i,c



i,c

2
1
1
X

X
X
X
X
X
X

7
-7
Chicago Female Group: 03/04/2010








Total
Participant 1
Participant 2
Participant 3
Participant 4
Participant 5
Participant 6
Participant 7
Participant 8
Most
understandable
Least
understandable
Overall


1,C
C


1,C
i,c
3

3

i,c
X

i,c


X
2
2
0
X
X

X
X
i,c
X

1
5
-4
i,c


1

X


2
1
1
Phase 1  Focus Groups
61

-------








Total


Participant 1
Participant 2
Participant 3
Participant 4
Participant 5
Participant 6
Participant 7
Participant 8
Most
understandable
Least
understandable
Overall
1,C
1



1,C
1,C
1,C
5

5



X
i,c

X

1
2
-1
X
C
i,c
i,c
X
X


2
3
-1

X
X




X

3
-3
COMBINED TALLY FOR ALL GROUPS
                          Most            34
                          understandable  	
                          Least            1
                          understandable
                         Overall
62
EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign

-------
X"^ ^"N
Appendix F: Environment Metric Tally
(1: Most understandable; X: Least understandable; C: Most Compelling;
Overall = Number of times rated 'most understandable' - Number of times rated 'least understandable')
^H Option 4A Option 4B Option 4C Option 4D 1
Charlotte Male Group: 02/25/2010








Total
Participant 1
Participant 2
Participant 3
Participant 4
Participant 5
Participant 6
Participant 7
Participant 8
Most
understandable
Least
understandable
Overall
X
1






1
1
0

X
1





1
1
0
1


1
1
1
1

5

5


X
X
X
X
X
1
1
5
-4
Charlotte Female Group: 02/25/2010








Total
Participant 1
Participant 2
Participant 3
Participant 4
Participant 5
Participant 6
Participant 7
Participant 8
Most
understandable
Least
understandable
Overall
1
1
1


1
1

5

5



X
X

X


3
-3



1
1


1
3

3
X
X
X


X

X

5
-5

Phase 1  Focus Groups
63

-------
        Houston Female Group: 03/03/2010








Total
Participant 1
Participant 2
Participant 3
Participant 4
Participant 5
Participant 6
Participant 7
Participant 8
Most
understandable
Least
understandable
Overall

1
1,C
1,C
1,C



4

4
C





i,c

1

1
1
C



i,c

l.C
3

3
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

8
-8
        Houston Male Group: 03/03/2010
        Seattle Female Group: 03/09/2010








Total
Participant 1
Participant 2
Participant 3
Participant 4
Participant 5
Participant 6
Participant 7
Participant 8
Most
understandable
Least
understandable
Overall
1,C
1,C
1,C

1

1,C
1,C
6

6
X



X
X



3
-3

X
X
X

i,c

X
1
4
-3



i,c
C



1

1






Total
Participant 1
Participant 2
Participant 3
Participant 4
Participant 5
Participant 6
Most
understandable
Least
understandable
Overall
1




X
1
1
0

C

1,C

C
1

1
C
1
1,C

1,C
1
4

4
X
X
X
X
X


5
-5
64
EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign

-------
       Seattle Male Group: 03/08/2010








Total
Participant 1
Participant 2
Participant 3
Participant 4
Participant 5
Participant 6
Participant 7
Participant 8
Most
understandable
Least
understandable
Overall
1,C
X






1
1
0

1,C
1,C

1,C

1,C
1,C
5

5
X


i,c

1


2
1
1


X
X
X
X
X
X

6
-6
       Chicago Female Group: 03/04/2010








Total
Participant 1
Participant 2
Participant 3
Participant 4
Participant 5
Participant 6
Participant 7
Participant 8
Most
understandable
Least
understandable
Overall


1,C



1,C

2

2

1,C
X
i,c
X


i,c
3
2
1
X
X

X
1
X
X
X
1
6
-5
i,c



C
i,c


2

2
Phase 1 Focus Groups
65

-------
        Chicago Male Group: 03/04/2010








Total
Participant 1
Participant 2
Participant 3
Participant 4
Participant 5
Participant 6
Participant 7
Participant 8
Most
understandable
Least
understandable
Overall
1,C
1,C
1,C



C
1,C
4

4





i,c
X

1
1
0
X
X
X
i,c
i,c
X
1
X
3
5
-2



X
X




2
-2
COMBINED TALLY FOR ALL GROUPS
                         Most            2
                         understandable
                         Least            3
                         understandable
66
EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign

-------