Federal Communications Commission FCC 24-27 Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of Inquiry Concerning the Deployment of Advanced Telecommunications Capability to All Americans in a Reasonable and Timely Fashion ) ) ) ) ) ) GN Docket No. 22-270 2024 SECTION 706 REPORT Adopted: March 14, 2024 Released: March 18, 2024 By the Commission: Chairwoman Rosenworcel and Commissioners Starks and Gomez issuing separate statements; Commissioners Carr and Simington dissenting and issuing separate statements. TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION 1 II. STATUTORY STANDARD FOR THE SECTION 706 INQUIRY 5 III. EVALUATION OF ADVANCED TELECOMMUNICATIONS CAPABILITY UNIVERSAL SERVICE GOALS 16 A. Physical Deployment 17 1. Fixed Broadband Service 22 2. Mobile Broadband Service 71 3. Fixed and Mobile Broadband Data 85 B. Affordability 89 C. Adoption 105 D. Availability 115 E. Equitable Access 124 F. School and Classroom Access 130 IV. COMMISSION ACTIONS ALREADY TAKEN TO PROMOTE UNIVERSAL SERVICE GOALS FOR ADVANCED TELECOMMUNICATIONS CAPABILITY 136 A. Measuring Broadband Deployment and Policy Development and Coordination 136 B. Removing Barriers to and Encouraging Broadband Investment 151 C. Improving Access to Spectrum 154 D. Supporting Affordability, Adoption, and Reasonable Access 180 E. Providing High Cost Universal Service Support 197 F. Facilitating Access For Schools, Libraries, and Health Care 211 V. SECTION 706 DETERMINATION 222 VI. ORDERING CLAUSE 227 APPENDIX A - POPULATION ALLOCATION METHODOLOGY APPENDIX B - SUPPLEMENTAL FIGURES I. INTRODUCTION 1. Access to affordable, reliable broadband is essential to full participation in modern life. Consumers rely on both their fixed and mobile connections to work, learn, access health care, and connect with each other. Today, we issue this Report pursuant to our obligation under section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, concluding our inquiry into whether “advanced telecommunications capability is being deployed to all Americans in a reasonable and timely fashion.” 47 U.S.C. § 1302(b). For simplicity in past inquiries, the Commission has sometimes used the term “broadband” to refer to “advanced telecommunications capability.” However, “advanced telecommunications capability” is a statutory term with a definition that is more limited than the term “broadband.” See 47 U.S.C. § 1302(d)(1) (“The term ‘advanced telecommunications capability’ is defined, without regard to any transmission media or technology, as high-speed, switched, broadband telecommunications capability that enables users to originate and receive high-quality voice, data, graphics, and video telecommunications using any technology.”). As this definition makes clear, while all services providing advanced telecommunications capability are “broadband,” not all broadband services provide advanced telecommunications capability. Thus, in this Report, we do not equate the term “broadband” with the statutory term “advanced telecommunications capability,” but we do necessarily consider the availability of various broadband services that contribute to advanced telecommunications capability in our analysis under the statute. See Inquiry Concerning the Deployment of Advanced Telecommunications Capability to All Americans in a Reasonable and Timely Fashion, and Possible Steps to Accelerate Such Deployment Pursuant to Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, as Amended by the Broadband Data Improvement Act, GN Docket No. 15-191, 2016 Broadband Progress Report, 31 FCC Rcd 699, 700 n.1 (2016) (2016 Report). We find that more work remains to ensure that all Americans have access to advanced telecommunications capability. 2. Consumers’ use of broadband service continues to evolve, and so must our standards for evaluating broadband deployment and availability, the quality of our available data, and the framework that we use to make our finding under section 706. Congress, in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (Infrastructure Act), included the largest ever federal investment in high-speed broadband as well as a number of directives focused on the universal service goals of section 706—universal deployment, affordability, adoption, availability, and equitable access to broadband throughout the United States. Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, Pub. L. No. 117-58, 135 Stat. 429 (2021) (Infrastructure Act). In this first Report issued following the enactment of the Infrastructure Act, we examine these universal service goals as part of our inquiry. With respect to physical deployment, we adopt a new, long-overdue, benchmark for defining advanced telecommunications capability for fixed broadband of 100 megabits per second (Mbps) download speed paired with 20 Mbps upload speed. We also establish a long-term fixed broadband speed goal of 1,000 Mbps, or 1 gigabit per second (Gbps), download speed paired with 500 Mbps upload speed. While we continue to evaluate service availability of mobile broadband without adopting a benchmark, for the first time we assess 5G-NR mobile coverage data for speeds of at least 35/3 Mbps. We also update our short-term goal for school and classroom broadband access to 1 Gbps per 1,000 students and staff. 3. This Report also represents an important milestone with regard to the data that we use for our inquiry. For the first time, we use data from the Commission’s Broadband Data Collection (BDC). The Commission’s Section 706 Reports have for many years relied primarily on the FCC Form 477 deployment data to evaluate consumers’ broadband options for fixed and mobile services. See, e.g., Inquiry Concerning Deployment of Advanced Telecommunications Capability to All Americans in a Reasonable and Timely Fashion, GN Docket No. 20-269, Fourteenth Broadband Deployment Report, 36 FCC Rcd 836, 847-48, para. 21 (2021) (2021 Report); Inquiry Concerning Deployment of Advanced Telecommunications Capability to All Americans in a Reasonable and Timely Fashion, GN Docket No. 17-199, 2018 Broadband Deployment Report, 33 FCC Rcd 1660, 1677, para. 43 (2018) (2018 Report); 2016 Report, 31 FCC Rcd at 729, para. 73. The BDC data, unavailable for past section 706 inquiries, represent significant improvements over FCC Form 477 data, through the use of more precise location-by-location fixed data, mobile data based on standardized parameters, and the Commission’s ability to improve the data through public challenge processes and conducting verifications and audits of provider-reported data. 4. Based on our evaluation of the data, we find that our universal service goals for section 706 have not been met, and we therefore conclude that advanced telecommunications capability is not being deployed to all Americans in a reasonable and timely fashion. Most significantly, at present, 100/20 Mbps terrestrial fixed broadband service When this Report presents broadband speed figures, both download and upload speeds are used. In the case of 100/20 Mbps, for example, we refer to broadband service that has a download speed of 100 Mbps and an upload speed of 20 Mbps. has not been physically deployed to approximately 7% of Americans. Rural areas and Tribal lands significantly trail more urban areas, with approximately 28% of people living in rural areas and approximately 23% of people living on Tribal lands lacking access to 100/20 Mbps fixed broadband services. See infra Fig. 1. While we expect the Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) Program and other federal and state programs will narrow these divides in the coming years, at this time, we find that these physical deployment shortcomings are sufficient to warrant a negative finding under section 706 before we even begin to consider our other universal service goals, for which we hope to have more comprehensive data available in future inquiries. II. STATUTORY STANDARD FOR THE SECTION 706 INQUIRY 5. Section 706 requires the Commission to annually conduct an inquiry “concerning the availability of advanced telecommunications capability to all Americans (including, in particular, elementary and secondary schools and classrooms)” as part of an effort to “determine whether advanced telecommunications capability is being deployed to all Americans in a reasonable and timely fashion.” 47 U.S.C. § 1302(b). If that determination is negative, the Commission “shall take immediate action to accelerate deployment of such capability by removing barriers to infrastructure investment and by promoting competition in the telecommunications market.” Id. As proposed in the Notice, we adopt universal deployment, affordability, adoption, availability, and equitable access to broadband throughout the United States as our goals for conducting our section 706 inquiry. Inquiry Concerning Deployment of Advanced Telecommunications Capability to All Americans in a Reasonable and Timely Fashion, GN Docket No. 22-270, Notice of Inquiry, FCC 23-89, at 3-4, paras. 5-7 (Nov. 1, 2023) (Notice). We find that these universal service goals, which are not limited to the narrow question of physical deployment of service, are consistent with those adopted in the Report on the Future of the Universal Service Fund (Future of USF Report), and accurate indicators of whether advanced telecommunications capability is universally available. Report on the Future of the Universal Service Fund, 37 FCC Rcd 10041, 10046, para. 11 (2022) (Future of USF Report). In the Future of USF Report, the Commission adopted the universal service goals of universal deployment, affordability, adoption, availability, and equitable access to broadband throughout the United States as the Commission’s universal service goals for broadband. The Commission defined these goals in order to “improv[e] our effectiveness in achieving the universal goals for broadband.” Id. (emphasis added). 6. As we observed in the Notice, for the first time since enacting section 706, Congress, in the Infrastructure Act, provided additional statutory text regarding the meaning of the provision. Notice at 3, para. 6. Specifically, Congress describes section 706 as setting out “the statutorily mandated goals of universal service for advanced telecommunications capability.” Infrastructure Act, div. F, tit. I, § 60104(a)(2), 135 Stat. at 1205. Congress’s description of section 706 is consistent with the approach the Commission has historically undertaken as recently as in 2016, when it stated that “the standard for success is universal availability of advanced telecommunication capability.” 2016 Report, 31 FCC Rcd at 751, para. 124 (citing Inquiry Concerning the Deployment of Advanced Telecommunications Capability to All Americans in a Reasonable and Timely Fashion, and Possible Steps to Accelerate Such Deployment Pursuant to Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, as Amended by the Broadband Data Improvement Act, 2015 Broadband Progress Report and Notice of Inquiry On Immediate Action to Accelerate Deployment, 30 FCC Rcd 1375, 1455, para. 140 (2015 Report); Inquiry Concerning the Deployment of Advanced Telecommunications Capability to All Americans in a Reasonable and Timely Fashion, and Possible Steps to Accelerate Such Deployment Pursuant to Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, as Amended by the Broadband Data Improvement Act, Eighth Broadband Progress Report, 27 FCC Rcd 10342, 10403, para. 138; Inquiry Concerning Deployment of Advanced Telecommunications Capability to All Americans in a Reasonable and Timely Fashion, and Possible Steps to Accelerate Such Deployment Pursuant to Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, as Amended by the Broadband Data Improvement Act, GN Docket No. 10-159, Seventh Broadband Progress Report and Order on Reconsideration, 26 FCC Rcd 8008, 8033, para. 48 (2011) (2011 Report); Inquiry Concerning the Deployment of Advanced Telecommunications Capability to All Americans in a Reasonable and Timely Fashion, and Possible Steps to Accelerate Such Deployment Pursuant to Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, as Amended by the Broadband Data Improvement Act; A National Broadband Plan for our Future, GN Docket Nos. 09-137, 09-51, Sixth Broadband Deployment Report, 25 FCC Rcd 9556 at 9574, para. 28 (2010) (2010 Report)). We therefore believe the Infrastructure Act supports the view that the Commission must determine whether advanced telecommunications capability is available universally throughout the country, or, in the words of the statute, “to all Americans.” 47 U.S.C. § 1302(b) (emphasis added). While we agree with TechFreedom that the Infrastructure Act did not amend section 706, See, e.g., TechFreedom Comments at 6. We also disagree with TechFreedom’s contention that the Notice reversed the Commission finding in the Restoring Internet Freedom Order that section 706 is hortatory. See id. at 4-5. The Commission is currently considering that question in a separate rulemaking, Safeguarding and Securing the Open Internet, WC Docket No. 23-320, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 23-83 (Oct. 20, 2023) (2023 Open Internet NPRM), but in any event, the Notice merely sought comment on how the Commission should interpret section 706 for the purposes of carrying out section 706(b)’s annual reporting requirement. we find that the Commission cannot ignore the Infrastructure Act’s clear description of section 706 as containing “statutorily mandated goals of universal service.” Infrastructure Act, div. F, tit. I, § 60104(a)(2), 135 Stat. at 1205. 7. As the Commission has previously recognized, “[t]here is arguably a tension between the directive in section 706 to make broadband available to all Americans and the directive to consider whether service is being deployed in a reasonable and timely fashion.” 2015 Report, 30 FCC Rcd at 1452, para. 133 (emphasis in original). We acknowledge that this standard differs from that used by the Commission in for its Reports in 2018-21. See 2021 Report, 36 FCC Rcd at 838-39, paras. 7-9; Inquiry Concerning the Deployment of Advanced Telecommunications Capability to All Americans in a Reasonable and Timely Fashion, GN Docket No. 19-285, 2020 Broadband Deployment Report, 35 FCC Rcd 8986, 8989-90, paras. 7-10 (2020) (2020 Report); Inquiry Concerning the Deployment of Advanced Telecommunications Capability to All Americans in a Reasonable and Timely Fashion, GN Docket No. 18-238, 2019 Broadband Progress Report, 34 FCC Rcd 3857, 3859-60, paras. 8-9 (2019) (2019 Report); 2018 Report, 33 FCC Rcd at 1663-64, paras. 10-13. We disagree, however, with certain commenters that argue that our approach ignores the “reasonable and timely” statutory language. See, e.g., ACA Connects Comments at 3-4 (“reasonable and timely”); NCTA–The Internet & Television Association (NCTA) Comments at 7 (“reasonable and timely”); CTIA Comments at 5-6 (“is being”); Free State Foundation at 21 (“is being”). We find that statutory phrase must be interpreted in the underlying factual context of the Commission’s inquiry. For this inquiry, that context includes Congress’s recent enactment of the Infrastructure Act, in which Congress made a historic federal investment in an effort to effectuate what it described as section 706’s “statutorily mandated goal of universal service for advanced telecommunications capability.” Infrastructure Act, div. F, tit. I, § 60102(b)(2), 135 Stat. at 1184 (authorizing $42.45 billion of appropriations for the BEAD program). On June 26, 2023, the BEAD Program allocations for all 50 states and the U.S. Territories were announced. National Telecommunications and Information Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Biden-Harris Administration Announces State Allocations for $42.45 Billion High-Speed Internet Grant Program as Part of Investing in America Agenda (June 26, 2023), https://www.ntia.gov/pressrelease/2023/biden-harris-administration-announces-state-allocations-4245-billion-high-speed; Infrastructure Act, div. F, tit. I, § 60104(a)(2), 135 Stat. at 1205. We therefore find that for deployment to occur in a “reasonable and timely fashion,” it must occur in rapid fashion so as to not leave large groups of Americans without access to broadband. 47 U.S.C. § 1302(b) (emphasis added). 8. We also disagree with TechFreedom’s argument that because section 706 has both a “temporal component (whether broadband is being deployed in a ‘reasonable and timely basis’)” and supposedly “self-limiting component (the Commission may use only those ‘measures that promote competition’ and those ‘methods that remove barriers to infrastructure investment’),” that “[t]he current proceeding is essentially the antithesis of this statutory mandate.” See TechFreedom Comments at 2 (internal citations omitted in original). We believe that the Commission should remain vigilant of enhanced measures and methods to accelerate broadband deployment even while previously enacted measures are still unfolding (for example, BEAD Program funding). For this reason, we disagree that our approach is inconsistent with our statutory mandate under section 706. 9. For similar reasons, we disagree with commenters that suggest that we continue to take an incremental approach to measuring broadband deployment progress. See e.g., ADTRAN Comments at 1; CTIA Comments at 22; Free State Foundation Comments at 21; NCTA Comments at 5-7; NCTA Reply at 2. We find that such commenters place undue significance on the tense of certain words in section 706—namely “is being” in the context of the section 706 deployment statement—and too little significance on the words “all Americans,” which were clearly Congress’s focus in enacting the Infrastructure Act. We find the universal availability of broadband to all Americans—informed by incorporating the universal service goals defined in the Future of USF Report—to be the relevant goal for determining what constitutes the reasonable and timely deployment of broadband in the United States. 10. In addition, we find, consistent with the Notice, that the Infrastructure Act’s language referring to section 706 as embodying “the statutorily mandated goals of universal service for advanced telecommunications capability,” Infrastructure Act, div. F, tit. I, § 60104(a)(2), 135 Stat. at 1205 (emphasis added). is best read to mean that the Commission’s inquiry must include an examination of multiple universal service goals and not be limited to the narrow question of physical deployment of service. While Congress did not define the terms “deployment” and “availability” as used in section 706, Congress stated that the Commission must assess the “availability” of advanced telecommunications capability, and it then directed that specific findings be made regarding “deployment.” 47 U.S.C. § 1302(b). Section 706 does not equate these two terms, and we find that in order to give meaning to both terms we have discretion in assessing “availability” to consider factors other than solely the state of “deployment.” See, e.g., Inquiry Concerning the Deployment of Advanced Telecommunications Capability to All Americans in a Reasonable and Timely Fashion, and Possible Steps to Accelerate Such Deployment Pursuant to Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, as Amended by the Broadband Data Improvement Act, Eighth Broadband Progress Report, 27 FCC Rcd 10342, 10363, para. 27 (2012) (observing that these terms are broader than physical deployment); 2011 Report, 26 FCC Rcd at 8022-23, paras. 18-20 (providing a legal analysis that, under section 706, “broadband ‘deployment’ and ‘availability’ are broader than physical deployment.”). The legislative history of section 706 further supports the view that Congress expects us to examine more than physical availability, For example, the Senate Report explained that the Commission “shall include an assessment . . . of the availability, at reasonable cost, of equipment needed to deliver advanced broadband capability.” S. Rep. No. 104-23, at 50 (1995) (Senate Report); see also 2011 Report, 26 FCC Rcd at 8023, para. 19. and explicitly identifies affordability in describing the goals of section 706. The Senate Report states that the goal of section 706 is “to promote and encourage advanced telecommunications networks, capable of enabling users to originate and receive affordable, high-quality voice, data, image, graphics, and video telecommunications services.” Senate Report at 50 (1995) (emphasis added). 11. Consistent with this Congressional direction, the Commission, in the Future of USF Report issued pursuant to the requirements of the Infrastructure Act, determined the broadband universal service goals of section 706 to be “universal deployment, affordability, adoption, availability, and equitable access to broadband throughout the United States.” Future of USF Report, 37 FCC Rcd at 10046, para. 12. While broadband deployment is a necessary predicate to its availability, we agree with certain commenters that examination of only broadband deployment is insufficient and that our section 706 inquiry must be broadened to include an examination of additional goals. See e.g., Benton Institute for Broadband & Society (Benton Institute) Comments at 5-8, Appx. A, at 2; Next Century Cities Comments; National Digital Inclusion Alliance (NDIA) Reply at 3-4; National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (NRECA) Comments at 3; Open Technology Institute at New America (OTI) Comments at 9-10; WTA – Advocates for Rural Broadband (WTA) Comments at 12-18. 12. We thus disagree with commenters that argue that if Congress had intended for provisions of the Infrastructure Act to influence our section 706 inquiry, it would have directly amended section 706. See, e.g., CTIA Comments at 21; Free State Foundation Comments at 7; NCTA Comments at 8; TechFreedom Comments at 8-9. A later-enacted statute may inform interpretation of an earlier statute, even if the latter statute does not amend the former. See, e.g. Food & Drug Admin. v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 529 U.S. 120 (2000); United States v. Estate of Romani, 523 U.S. 617, 530-31 (1998) (specifically with respect to a later statute not amending an earlier-enacted statute). We therefore use the Infrastructure Act’s language to advise our interpretation of section 706, particularly when, as here, the Infrastructure Act explicitly encourages the Commission to employ such an expansive interpretation of the Commission’s universal service goals for broadband. The Infrastructure Act itself explicitly instructs the Commission to “not in any way reduce the congressional mandate to achieve the universal service goals for broadband.” Infrastructure Act, div. F, tit. I, § 60104(c)(3)(A), 135 Stat. at 1206 (emphasis added). See also id. at (c)(3)(B) (stating that the Commission “may provide recommendations for Congress to expand the universal service goals for broadband.”) (emphasis added). Further, we disagree with commenters that assert that our inquiry should be limited to an analysis of deployment data and the delineated demographic information in section 706(c). TechFreedom Comments at 7-9 (referencing 47 U.S.C. § 1302(c)); CTIA Reply at 3-5. We also disagree with CTIA that the reporting requirements associated with our Universal Service Fund (USF) programs render our evaluation of the other universal service goals in this Report unnecessary. CTIA Comments at 22; CTIA Reply at 2-3. We also disagree with CTIA’s arguments that the potential difficulty in collecting and evaluating data for purposes of non-physical deployment goals, as well as the Infrastructure Act’s lack of provision for such collections despite providing for other collections should limit the scope of our inquiry. CTIA Reply at 6; CTIA Comments at 23. To begin, based on information currently available to us, at present, we do not believe that such a collection would be unreasonably difficult or burdensome. Second, and more importantly, the Infrastructure Act could not have provided for the subject collections because it preceded the Future of USF Report in which we defined the universal service goals and therefore could not have anticipated what the collections would be. For the same reasons, we disagree with NCTA’s assertions that the complexity of evaluating affordability prevents us from including the matter in our section 706 evaluation. See Letter From Steven F. Morris, Vice President & Deputy General Counsel, NCTA, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, GN Docket No. 22-270, 2-3 (filed Mar. 1, 2024) (NCTA Ex Parte). Consistent with section 706, our evaluation in this Report is intended to provide information that goes beyond any USF program-specific reporting requirements. 13. We observe that there is substantial support in the record for including an examination of the universal service goals of affordability, adoption, and equitable access, rather than limiting our inquiry to the narrow question of physical deployment of broadband. See e.g., OTI Comments at 9-11; WTA Comments at 12-18; Benton Institute Comments at 5-8; Next Century Cities Comments; NDIA Reply at 4. With respect to affordability, many commenters agree that “[t]o truly close the connectivity gap and ensure that all Americans have access to advanced telecommunications capability, broadband services must be affordable.” Notice at 22, para. 54. See e.g., NDIA Reply at 4; NRECA Comments at 9; OTI Comments at 9-10 (“Broadband adoption and availability are directly affected by affordability and cost of service.”); Wireless Infrastructure Association (WIA) Comments at 6-7 (“Indeed, while not incorporating adoption into the section 706 mandate, Congress considered this in the [BEAD] program by requiring states to address affordability in their plans for broadband deployment; expressly using participation in the ACP program as evidence of an affordable offering.”). As the Benton Institute states, “[c]onsumer behavior is part of the picture: we cannot reach our universal broadband goals without widespread adoption and we cannot achieve universal broadband adoption if service is not affordable.” See Benton Institute Comments, Appx. A, at 1. We find that broadband affordability is critical to our assessment of its availability and agree with commenters, such as the Wireless Infrastructure Association (WIA), which states that “[f]or many Americans on the wrong side of the digital divide the biggest barrier is not the availability of service but the lack of resources to connect.” See WIA Comments at 6-7; see also OTI Comments at 9. We also agree with Open Technology Institute at New America’s (OTI’s) statement that “if the cost of broadband service is higher than millions of people can afford, service cannot be said to be available.” OTI Comments at 9. 14. The record also supports considering information relating to adoption as relevant to the section 706 inquiry. Benton Institute Comments at 5 (stating, in part, “we cannot reach our universal broadband goals without widespread adoption…”); Next Century Cities Comments at 8 (stating, in part, that “the gathering and sharing broadband adoption data is similarly critical for meeting the Commission’s universal service goals,” and that “[c]ollecting and disseminating broadband pricing and adoption data will help other agencies, states, and communities target those households that need broadband support the most.”). As we discuss below, we do not require 100% adoption for our universal service goal relating to adoption to be met – Americans are free to make a voluntary choice not to subscribe to broadband. See Section III.C, infra. We do, however, believe that certain barriers to adoption can effectively evidence a lack of availability. Commenters that oppose including the universal service goal of adoption in our section 706 analysis present what they consider to be individual barriers to adoption that they consider irrelevant to our section 706 analysis. See, e.g., USTelecom-The Broadband Association (USTelecom) Comments at 7 (lack of access to devices, or lack of digital skills). But see Next Century Cities Comments at 7 (also giving alternative reasons that people may fail to adopt broadband even when available, such as access to devices and digital skills training, but nonetheless supporting our inclusion of the universal service goal of adoption in the section 706 inquiry). While there are theoretically barriers to adoption that may not be relevant to our inquiry, this does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that all potential barriers to adoption are not germane. Indeed, statistically lower rates of adoption in areas of the country where broadband is currently deployed may be an indicator that broadband is unaffordable in those areas, that there is insufficient competition, or some other reason altogether. See Benton Institute Comments at 6-7. Further, low adoption rates in areas where broadband is technically deployed and available, for example, may evidence that other factors are in play that make it effectively unavailable for some portion of the population. See, e.g., OTI Comments at 9 (suggesting that “the Commission could compare and contrast data revealed in its National Broadband Map with other federal data, including maps of high-income and low-income areas, to see whether there are differences in adoption for higher speed services between higher income and lower income areas.”). 15. We also conclude that in addition to affordability and adoption, our section 706 inquiry into the availability of broadband to “all Americans” must include an analysis of the universal goal of equitable access, as identified in the Future of USF Report. Future of USF Report, 37 FCC Rcd at 10046, para. 12. In the Future of USF Report, the Commission explained the goal of equitable access with respect to its work to prevent and eliminate digital discrimination, referencing the pertinent provision of the Infrastructure Act. Id. at 10049, para. 20. We describe this goal in greater detail in Section III.E, infra. Commenters in the record support our incorporation of equitable access into the Commission’s section 706 inquiry, See e.g., OTI Comments at 8-11 (stating at 11 that, “[f]or the Commission to accomplish its mission of ensuring that broadband is being deployed to all Americans in a reasonable and timely fashion as the statute requires, it must [inter alia] incorporate affordability and markers of inclusive and equitable access into its analysis.”); See Benton Institute Comments at 6 (noting that universal broadband cannot be achieved without inter alia equitable access and observing that “[w]hether service offerings are affordable and how adoption of them unfolds along lines of income, race, ethnicity, and geography are also important metrics.”); NDIA Reply at 4. including the Benton Institute, which appends a survey of recent research on the topic. See Benton Institute Comments at Appx. A., Are We There Yet? Affordability, Adoption, Equity and the U.S.’s Universal Broadband Goals, John B. Horrigan, PhD. We agree with commenters, such as OTI, that suggest that our section 706 inquiry must incorporate markers of inclusive and equitable access into the analysis to accomplish our mission of ensuring that broadband is being deployed to all Americans in a reasonable and timely fashion as the statute requires. See, e.g., OTI Comments at 8-11; Benton Institute Comments at 6; NDIA Reply at 4. This view is further reinforced by the Commission’s work to implement section 60506 of the Infrastructure Act, directing us to take action to prevent and eliminate digital discrimination of access. Infrastructure Act, div. F, tit. V, § 60506(b), 135 Stat. at 1246 (codified at 47 U.S.C. § 1754(b)) (stating that not later than two years after November 15, 2021, “the Commission shall adopt final rules to facilitate equal access to broadband internet access service, taking into account issues of technical and economic feasibility presented by that objective, including—(1) preventing digital discrimination of access based on income level, race, ethnicity, color, religion, or national origin; and (2) identifying necessary steps for the Commission to take to eliminate discrimination described in paragraph (1)”); see also Digital Discrimination Report and Order. We note that the record contained objections to including analysis of equitable access as a universal service goal in our section 706 inquiry by commenters that found it inappropriate to include because the section 706 inquiry should focus strictly on deployment, See e.g., ACA Connects Comments at 7; ADTRAN Comments at 9; CTIA Comments at 2-3. and others that, among other things, stated that the Commission was already pursuing this topic in other proceedings. See e.g., USTelecom Comments at 7 (“While equitable access to broadband is undoubtedly an important issue, Congress did not authorize examination of this issue as part of the Section 706 inquiry. Moreover, Congress has already charged the Commission with adopting rules to “facilitate equal access to broadband” under section 60506 of the Infrastructure Act.”). While true that the Commission has adopted rules to promote equitable access to broadband as part of our effort to combat digital discrimination of access as mandated by section 60506 of the Infrastructure Act, Infrastructure Act, div. F, tit. V § 60506, 135 Stat. at 1246; see also Digital Discrimination Report and Order. the Commission’s other concurrent efforts to address digital discrimination of access should not act as a bar to the Commission evaluating equitable access in its section 706 inquiry. We therefore conclude that the defined universal service goal of equitable access, in addition to affordability and adoption, is an integral part of our analysis to examine whether broadband is available pursuant to our section 706 inquiry. As we discuss further below, see infra, Section III.E, because we have just begun the process of implementing our digital discrimination of access rules, and the standards and metrics for determining compliance with those rules will be highly context specific, we limit our discussion of equitable access in this Report solely to presenting the demographic analysis required by section 706(c). 47 U.S.C. § 1302(c). III. EVALUATION OF ADVANCED TELECOMMUNICATIONS CAPABILITY UNIVERSAL SERVICE GOALS 16. Having concluded that our section 706 evaluation framework will be based on the goals of universal deployment, affordability, adoption, availability, and equitable access to broadband throughout the United States, we turn to evaluating and measuring these goals. We begin with physical deployment and we then turn to our other universal service goals. A. Physical Deployment 17. Today, we take a fresh, multifaceted approach to determining what constitutes “advanced telecommunications capability” in order to evaluate its availability to all Americans. In the Notice, the Commission proposed to take a fresh look at the standards that we use to determine what constitutes “advanced telecommunications capability.” Notice, FCC 23-89, at 4, para. 8. Advanced telecommunications capability is defined by section 706 as “high-speed, switched, broadband telecommunications capability that enables users to originate and receive high-quality voice, data, graphics, and video telecommunications using any technology.” 47 U.S.C. § 1302(d)(1). What constitutes “high-speed” and “high-quality” will necessarily be an evolving standard, requiring regular re-examination and re-evaluation by the Commission in its annual inquiry. As the Commission has stated in the past, we believe this approach best reflects Congress’s intent in adopting section 706. 2015 Report, 30 FCC Rcd at 1390-91, paras. 20-21. 18. As in past reports, we continue to find that both fixed and mobile services can provide “advanced telecommunications capability” under section 706. See 2021 Report, 36 FCC Rcd at 840-41, para. 10; see also 2016 Report, 31 FCC Rcd at 699-719, paras. 1-44. The language of the statute defines advanced telecommunications capability “without regard to any transmission media or technology.” 47 U.S.C. § 1302(d)(1); see also 2016 Report, 31 FCC Rcd at 718, para. 43. Because both services are “high-speed, switched, broadband telecommunications capability that enable users to originate and receive high-quality voice, data, graphics, and video telecommunications using any technology,” 47 U.S.C. § 1302(d)(1). they both meet the section 706 definition. As observed in prior reports, however, the salient differences between the two service types are not found in their technological differences, but instead in the distinct capabilities that they provide to consumers. Id.; 2016 Report, 31 FCC Rcd at 718, para. 43 (“Although fixed and mobile broadband may use different network technologies, the salient differences between the two service types are found not in their technological differences, but in the distinct capabilities that they provide consumers. Nothing in the language of section 706 prevents the Commission from considering these features, indeed, they are of particular importance to our inquiry insofar as they affect consumer access to ‘high-quality’ and ‘advanced’ telecommunications services.”); see also NCTA Comments at 14-15. Based on the separate use cases for fixed and mobile broadband as well as evidence that consumers tend to subscribe to both services when they can, we find that fixed and mobile broadband services are not full substitutes. If the demand for a second good increases when the price of a first good increases, then the two goods are substitutes. If the demand for a second good increases when the price of the first good decreases, then the two goods are complements. Hal R. Varian, Intermediate Microeconomics: A Modern Approach 111-12 (9th ed. 2014) (W. W. Norton & Company, 2014). Both services are necessary to ensure that all Americans have access to advanced telecommunications capability. See 2021 Report, 36 FCC Rcd at 840-41, para. 10; 2020 Report, 35 FCC Rcd at 8990-91, paras. 11-12; 2019 Report, 34 FCC Rcd at 3860-61, para. 11; 2016 Report, 31 FCC Rcd at 699-719, paras. 1-44. Accordingly, we find that consumers have advanced telecommunications capability only to the extent that they have access to both fixed and mobile broadband service. 2016 Report, 31 FCC Rcd at 706-707, para. 17 (making the same finding); see also 2021 Report, 36 FCC Rcd at 840, para. 10 (concluding that mobile and fixed are not full substitutes). NCTA states that the Commission should conclude that advanced telecommunications capability is present if either mobile or fixed are available. See NCTA Comments at 14. But, as Americans need both for the full range of advanced telecommunications capability, we reject that approach. Consistent with this finding, we undertake a holistic analysis, as discussed below, of whether advanced telecommunications capability is available to all Americans 2016 Report, 31 FCC Rcd at 705, 707, 721, paras. 14, 19, 49. and as part of that analysis, we assess where both fixed and mobile advanced telecommunications capability are deployed. See id. at 721, para. 49. While we focus the main analysis on where 100/20 Mbps fixed service and 35/3 Mbps outdoor stationary mobile service are both available, we also analyze where they are each available and assess other mobile advanced telecommunications capability data for a complete analysis. See NCTA Comments at 14-15 (“the appropriate choice is for the Commission to continue to evaluate these services separately and together for the time being”); NRECA Comments at 7-8. 19. The clear majority of comments in the record support the conclusion that fixed and mobile broadband services are complementary, See CTIA Comments at 20; INCOMPAS Comments at 8-9; Mississippi Center for Justice (Miss. Center for Justice) Reply at 2 (noting that low-income communities rely on mobile advanced telecommunications capability where fixed advanced telecommunications capability is not available); NRECA Comments at 7-8; NTCA – The Rural Broadband Association (NTCA) Comments at 9-10; OTI Comments at 6; WTA Comments at 15. and not full substitutes. As explained in the following paragraph, only Free State Foundation argues that mobile and fixed can serve as full substitutes “for a significant portion of the user base.” Free State Foundation Comments at 19. Fixed advanced telecommunications capability services are used at a given location to connect all of the devices at that location to the Internet, allowing many of those devices to be used at the same time. Benton Institute Comments at 2 (“As of 2021, the average U.S. household had a total of 25 connected devices, across 14 different categories (up from 11 in 2019), including laptops, tablets, and smartphones; video streaming devices and smart TVs; wireless headphones and earbuds; gaming consoles and smart home devices; and fitness trackers and connected exercise machines.”); OTI Comments at 8; WTA Comments at 15. Fixed advanced telecommunications capability services typically offer higher speeds, INCOMPAS Comments at 9; OTI Comments at 7. higher usage allowances, INCOMPAS Comments at 9; NTCA Comments (noting that some mobile advanced telecommunications capability now have unlimited usage allowances but limit data usage for sufficient capacity to all subscribers, much more than for fixed advanced telecommunications capability); OTI Comments at 7-8 and more reliable service quality. OTI Comments at 7. Fixed advanced telecommunications capability services best enable applications that require these faster speeds and better reliability, such as remote learning, Miss. Center for Justice Reply at 2; NTCA Comments at 9-10, NTCA Reply at 6; OTI Comments at 9; NDIA Reply at 3-4. telehealth, OTI Comments at 9. telework and in-depth research, NDIA Reply 3-4; OTI Comments at 9. smart home devices, Benton Institute Comments at 2; see also Angela Moscaritolo, The Best Smart Home Devices for 2024, PC Mag (June 30, 2023), https://www.pcmag.com/picks/the-best-smart-home-devices; NYT, Smart Home Devices, https://www.nytimes.com/wirecutter/home-garden/smart-home/ (last visited Jan. 12, 2024). larger transfers of data, WTA Comments at 15. and larger screens. Id. Mobile advanced telecommunications capability services allow consumers to access advanced telecommunications capability on the go. NDIA Reply at 3-4; NRECA Comments at 7-8; WTA Comments at 15. Although speeds, service quality, and usage allowances tend to be lower for mobile than for fixed services, See, e.g., INCOMPAS Comments at 9; NDIA Reply at 3-4; OTI Comments at 7, 9. mobile broadband services offer consumers the ability to stay connected outside of their homes, including in emergency situations Miss. Center for Justice Reply at 2 (noting that “mobile broadband service[s] assist communities experiencing disaster”). —such as sending video or other documentation of crimes and weather events See id. —ubiquitous access to health information, See id. at 3. engagement in commerce, Miss. Center for Justice Reply at 3 (noting that mobile advanced telecommunications capability is needed where “residents cannot access necessary telehealth, food, banking, and other resources if fixed broadband is unavailable or too expensive.”); see also Michelle Faverio & Monica Anderson, For Shopping, Phones are Common, Pew Research Center (Nov. 21, 2022), https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2022/11/21/for-shopping-phones-are-common-and-influencers-have-become-a-factor-especially-for-young-adults/. and as a stopgap when fixed advanced telecommunications capability services are not available. See Miss. Center for Justice Reply at 2 (noting usage of mobile hotspots for schooling), 3-4. Capable mobile devices can also run over mobile networks, such as health monitors, See, e.g., Philips, Philips Mobile Cardiac Telemetry—MCOT, https://www.myheartmonitor.com/device/mcot-patch/ (sending ECG data via a wireless connection); see also 2016 Report, 31 FCC Rcd at 708, para. 20. Internet-connected outdoor cameras, See, e.g., Alfred Camera, Blog, Security On Your 4G Data Plan? Best Cellular Security Cameras & More, https://alfred.camera/blog/cellular-security-camera/. and smart wearables. See Alfredo J. Perez & Sherali Zeadally, Recent Advances in Wearable Sensing Technologies, Sensors (Oct. 14, 2021), available at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8541055/pdf/sensors-21-06828.pdf. Having access to both mobile and fixed advanced telecommunications capability services in an area is important for communities not to fall behind. Miss. Center for Justice Reply at 2; NRECA Comments at 7-8; NTCA Comments at 9-10. 20. The fact that consumers tend to subscribe to both fixed and mobile broadband if they can also highlights that the two advanced telecommunications capability services are not substitutes for one another in many use cases. INCOMPAS Comments at 9; NCTA Comments at 14-15; NRECA Comments at 7-8; OTI Comments at 6. Based on 2022 estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey (ACS), approximately 91% of households in the United States paid for at least one type of Internet service subscription. Estimates based on the ACS 1-Year Estimates—Public Use Microdata Sample for year 2022. U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, American Community Survey Data, https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs/data.html (last visited Jan. 9, 2024) (American Community Survey 2022 Microdata). The ACS asks participants who indicate that they gain access to the Internet at their “house, apartment, or mobile home” by “paying a cell phone company or Internet service provider” whether they, “or a member of [their] household have access to the Internet using” a “broadband (high speed) Internet service such as cable, fiber optic, or DSL service installed in [the] household,” “cellular data plan for a smartphone or other mobile device,” or other means, including satellite or dial-up Internet. See U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, Why We Ask Questions About Computer and Internet Use, https://www.census.gov/acs/www/about/why-we-ask-each-question/computer/ (last visited Jan. 9, 2024). The survey question does not ask about the speed of service to which respondents subscribe and, therefore answers do not necessarily correspond with the Commission’s past or current benchmarks for advanced telecommunications capability. We note that an additional 3.2 million households (more than 2%) connected to the Internet without a paid subscription. Among households that paid for an Internet subscription, approximately 13% relied on a mobile data plan as their only means of access and approximately 6% relied on fixed broadband as their only means of access; the remaining 81% of households subscribed to both services. American Community Survey (ACS) 2022 Microdata. Pew Research similarly found that 85% of consumers own a smartphone, that 77% have home broadband, and that only 15% of U.S. adults are “smartphone-only” Internet users, indicating the majority of Americans subscribe to both fixed and mobile advanced telecommunications capability services at the same time. Andrew Perrin, Pew Research Center, Mobile Technology and Home Broadband 2021 at 3-5, 7 (Jun. 2021) (Pew Research 2021), https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/wp-content/uploads/sites/9/2021/06/PI_2021.06.03_Mobile-Broadband_FINAL.pdf; see also CTIA Comments at 12 (“Some 15 percent of Americans only use wireless as their broadband connection, including nearly 30 percent of adults under 30”), citing id. CTIA observes that, for voice, most U.S. adults are wireless-only, which they argue indicates that wireless and wireline are substitutes for voice service. CTIA Comments at 12 n.49. The decision of households to subscribe to both services may be driven by differences in quality and other plan characteristics. See Communications Marketplace Report, GN Docket No. 22-203, 2022 Communications Marketplace Report, 37 FCC Rcd 15514, 15628, para. 157 (2022) (2022 Communications Marketplace Report). Free State Foundation is the sole commenter that argues that fixed and mobile are full substitutes for some groups, pointing to the Pew Research study and contending that for a “significant portion of the user base, mobile broadband offerings, both 4G LTE and 5G, can serve as full substitutes for a home Internet connection.” Free State Foundation at 19; see also NCTA Comments at 14-15 (noting that 12% of people rely solely on mobile service). However, we find that while some groups do not incur the additional expense of subscribing to both services—including younger consumers and lower income groups See Pew Research 2021 at 5 (showing lower income groups with lower subscription levels); Miss. Center for Justice Reply at 2; NCTA Comments at 14-15; NRECA Comments at 7-8; OTI Comments at 6. —the evidence clearly shows that the vast majority of Americans subscribe to both services at the same time. 21. The significant and distinct use cases for fixed and mobile advanced telecommunications capability service, as well as the evidence on how these services are used, demonstrate that consumers and businesses “expect to have both types of networks available to them because the experience of using these services can be distinctly different.” INCOMPAS Comments at 8-9. The pandemic has only served to underscore that need. See ADTRAN Comments at i; Benton Institute Comments at 1-2; Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA) Comments at 1; CTIA Comments at 10-11; NCC Comments at 2-3; NRECA Comments at 5-6; NTCA Comments at 7-8; OTI Comments at 5-6, 9; Tech Freedom Comments at 13-14; Dr. William H. Hawkins (Hawkins) Comments at 1-2; WTA Comments at 10-11; Miss. Center for Justice Reply at 2 (“In order to continue conducting classes during a pandemic, schools provided mobile hotpots to families without fixed broadband access. Other families used their cell phones to conduct virtual learning”); NCTA Reply at 3-4. Because consumers continue to rely on both types of technologies for different use cases, See NTCA Reply at 6. we find that access to both fixed and mobile broadband services are necessary for Americans to have access to advanced telecommunications capability. 2016 Report, 31 FCC Rcd at 706-07, para. 17. 1. Fixed Broadband Service a. Speed Benchmark 22. We increase the fixed broadband speed benchmark from 25/3 Mbps to 100/20 Mbps based on the current state of broadband needs, usage, and deployment. We also adopt a long-term goal of 1,000 Mbps, or 1 gigabit per second (Gbps), download speed paired with 500 Mbps upload speed. In the Notice, we discussed service quality both in the context of the universal service goals of physical deployment and availability. Notice, FCC 23-89, at 12-13, 26, paras. 27-29, 62. In this Report, we discuss service quality exclusively with respect to our goal of availability. See Section III.D, infra. The speed benchmark for determining whether broadband service constitutes advanced telecommunications capability is indisputably an evolving standard, which the Commission has previously raised on two separate occasions. 2010 Report, 25 FCC Rcd at 9563, para. 11 (raising the benchmark to 4/1 Mbps); 2015 Report, 30 FCC Rcd at 1393, para. 26 (raising the benchmark to 25/3 Mbps). For reports in which the Commission considered increasing the benchmark, but elected not to do so, see, e.g., 2021 Report, 36 FCC Rcd at 837, 841-43, paras. 2, 12-14; 2016 Report, 31 FCC Rcd at 721-23, paras. 49-55. Based on our evaluation of available data, we can no longer conclude that broadband at speeds of 25/3 Mbps—the fixed benchmark established in 2015 and relied on in the last seven reports—supports “advanced” functions. In the 2015 Report, the Commission updated this speed benchmark from 4 Mbps download and 1 Mbps upload. 2015 Report, 30 FCC Rcd at 1377, para. 3. See also 2016 Report, 31 FCC Rcd at 707, para. 19. We find that having “advanced telecommunications capability” for fixed broadband service requires access to download speeds of at least 100 Mbps and upload speeds of at least 20 Mbps. We decline to adopt Environmental Health Trust’s request that we not set or increase fixed or mobile wireless speed benchmarks, speed goals, or deployment goals until the federal government has determined safe levels of radiofrequency radiation exposure from wireless technology, especially from cell towers and transmission infrastructure, for humans, wildlife, and the environment. Environmental Health Trust Comments at 1. We have a statutory reporting obligation to fulfill under section 706 and this proceeding is ill-suited to examine the issues that Environmental Health Trust raises, which are not directly relevant to the Commission’s section 706 reporting obligation. The record overwhelmingly supports increasing the fixed speed benchmark in this manner. See, e.g., ACAM Coalition Comments at 1-2; ADTRAN Comments at 9-10; Benton Institute Comments at 1-5; CCIA Comments at 1-2; Letter From Dinni Jain, CEO, Google Fiber, et al., to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, GN Docket No. 22-270, 1 (filed Dec. 11, 2023) (Google Fiber et al. Ex Parte); Next Century Cities Comments at 3-4; NRECA Comments at 3-7; NTCA Comments at 3-4; Letter From Stephanie Weiner, Chief Counsel, NTIA, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, GN Docket No. 22-270, 1-2 (filed Dec. 26, 2023) (NTIA Ex Parte); New York Public Service Commission (New York PSC) Comments at 1-2; OTI Comments at 5-6; USTelecom Comments at 2-3; WISPA – Broadband Without Boundaries (WISPA) Comments at 3; WTA Comments. 23. We base our conclusion that 100/20 Mbps is the appropriate fixed speed benchmark on several considerations. Section 706 defines “advanced telecommunications capability” as, without regard to transmission media, “high-speed, switched, broadband telecommunications capability that enables users to originate and receive high-quality voice, data, graphics, and video telecommunications using any technology.” 47 U.S.C. § 1302(d)(1). As the Commission has done in the past when determining the speed benchmark, 2015 Report, 30 FCC Rcd at 1394, para. 27. Factors are evaluated systematically in the 2015 Report. 2015 Report, 30 FCC Rcd at 1392-1403, paras. 24-44. we interpret terms in the definition, such as “advanced,” “high-speed,” and “high-quality”—terms Congress left to the Commission to define—by examining trends in providers’ speed offerings (that is, what they are deploying to American households), what speeds are required to use various common applications, and data regarding what speeds consumers are adopting when they have the option to purchase various speeds. We believe that looking at these factors, along with other relevant programs and recent Congressional action, remains helpful to evaluate the benchmark. We also note commenter support for the notion of looking that these factors. For example, CTIA notes that examining actual broadband use and needs of consumers is valuable information to assist in determining a benchmark speed, and by considering these factors transparently it allows the public to better understand the Commission’s decision making. CTIA Reply at 10. 24. We find substantial commenter support for the 100/20 Mbps standard generally, See ACA Connects Comments at 3-4, 8; ACAM Coalition Comments at 1-2, 4; ADTRAN Comments at 8-9; Benton Institute Comments at 1-5; CTIA Comments at 15-16; Fiber Broadband Association (FBA) Comments at 3 (supports a benchmark faster than 100/20 Mbps); NDIA Reply at 2 (noting that higher, symmetrical speeds are required); Nebraska Public Service Commission (Nebraska PSC) Reply at 2 (supports a benchmark faster than 100/20 Mbps); New York PSC, 1-2; Next Century Cities Comments at 3-4; NRECA Comments at 4; NTCA Comments at 3, 6-7, 13; OTI Comments at 3, 5-6; Dave Taht & Members and supporters of the Bufferbloat.net community (Taht/Bufferbloat) Comments 9-12 (referencing improved upload speeds to 20 Mbps as necessary and a potential download to upload ratio of at least 5:1); USTelecom Comments at 2-3, 8; Vantage Point Solutions (Vantage Point) Comments at 5; WIA Reply at 3; WISPA Reply at 2; WTA Comments at 2. and for taking into consideration Congress’s judgment that areas receiving broadband speeds of less than 100/20 Mbps are not adequately served with high enough speeds. CTIA Comments at 4, 14-15; WTA Comments at 2; ADTRAN Comments at 9; ACAM Coalition Comments at 3; OTI Comments at 5; WISPA Comments at 2-3. Commenters also point to programs and initiatives at the federal, state, local, and Tribal levels that require speeds at or above 100/20 Mbps. See, e.g., ACAM Coalition Comments at 2-3 (BEAD and Enhanced A-CAM); New York PSC, 2 (BEAD); Next Century Cities Comments at 3-4 (BEAD); NRECA Comments at 5-6 (noting the importance of Congress and federal agencies establishing high-speed standards, including the Treasury Department’s Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds establishing a standard of reliable 100/100 Mbps and the Department of Agriculture’s ReConnect program requiring applicants deploy symmetrical 100 Mbps); NTCA Comments at 1, 3 (BEAD); WTA Comments at ii, 2, 7, 17 (BEAD). NRECA highlights the Department of the Treasury’s rationale in adopting a standard of 100/100 Mbps: a lower threshold would lower near-term cost to build but would, in the near-term, become obsolete and no longer meet household needs. NRECA Comments at 5-6 (citing Department of the Treasury, Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds, Final Rule, 87 Fed. Reg. 4338, 4443 (Jan. 22, 2022), available at https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2022-01-27/pdf/2022-00292.pdf. Notably, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) points to Congress’s action in passing the Infrastructure Act and the creation of the BEAD program as supporting a 100/20 Mbps benchmark. NTIA Ex Parte at 1-2. We agree that considering Congress’s action and examining other federal and state programs are important for this inquiry. 25. We agree with commenters such as the New York State Public Service Commission that noted the current benchmark of 25/3 Mbps is not aligned with typical consumer needs. See, e.g., New York PSC Comments at 1 (“[U]se of the current 25/3 Mbps benchmark – a standard that has not been updated since 2015 – is simply out of step with a typical customer’s broadband needs.”). As discussed below, the speeds marketed by many Internet service providers (ISPs) generally substantially exceed 25/3 Mbps. Deployment of infrastructure of at least 100/20 Mbps is widespread, consumers are adopting higher speeds where they are available, and the requirements for high-quality applications necessitating higher speeds have dramatically increased since we last updated the benchmark and appear to trend towards requiring more bandwidth over time. These factors all support raising the benchmark to 100/20 Mbps. 26. Federal and State Programs Require Broadband Speeds at or Above 100/20 Mbps. Congress’s passage of the Infrastructure Act, which provides funding for broadband only when such service providers offer broadband service at speeds of at least 100/20 Mbps provides strong support for the Commission to update its fixed speed benchmark. Infrastructure Act, div. F, tit. I, § 60102(b)(1), (f)(1), (h)(4)(A)(i)(I), 135 Stat. at 1199; Notice, FCC 23-89, at 5, para. 11. Specifically, the Infrastructure Act directed NTIA to establish the BEAD Program, through which NTIA allocated $42.45 billion to states for grants “to bridge the digital divide.” Infrastructure Act, div. F, tit. I, § 60102(b)(1), 135 Stat. at 1184. On June 26, 2023, the BEAD Program allocations for all 50 states and the U.S. Territories were announced. National Telecommunications and Information Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Biden-Harris Administration Announces State Allocations for $42.45 Billion High-Speed Internet Grant Program as Part of Investing in America Agenda (June 26, 2023), https://www.ntia.gov/press-release/2023/biden-harris-administration-announces-state-allocations-4245-billion-high-speed. NTIA points to the Congressional action through the Infrastructure Act and the BEAD program generally as support for raising the benchmark to 100/20 Mbps. NTIA Ex Parte at 1-2. Broadband networks funded by the BEAD Program must provide download speeds of at least 100 Mbps and upload speeds of at least 20 Mbps. Notice, FCC 23-89, at 7-8, para. 15. Any areas that do not meet these specific speed requirements are considered underserved. Infrastructure Act, div. F, tit. I, § 60102(a)(1)(C)(ii), 135 Stat. at 1182-83. See also National Telecommunications and Information Administration, Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment Program Notice of Funding Opportunity 16 (2022), https://broadbandusa.ntia.doc.gov/sites/default/files/2022-05/BEAD%20NOFO.pdf (NTIA BEAD NOFO) (specifying that locations are “underserved” if they do not meet download/upload speeds of at least 100/20 Mbps and have a latency above 100 milliseconds, and that locations are “unserved” if they do not meet download/upload speeds of at least 25/3 Mbps). We find that Congress’s determination that areas receiving broadband speeds of less than 100/20 Mbps are not adequately served necessitates that the Commission raise its fixed speed benchmark accordingly. A diverse group of commenters agree. ACAM Coalition Comments at 2-3; ADTRAN Comments at 9; CTIA Comments at 4, 14-15; Google Fiber et al. Ex Parte at 1; New York PSC Comments at 2; Next Century Cities Comments at 3-4; NTCA Comments at 1, 3; NTIA Ex Parte at 1-2; OTI Comments at 5; WISPA Comments at 2-3; WTA Comments at 2. 27. In raising our fixed speed benchmark, we also account for the standards established by states and other federal agencies. Numerous programs set broadband speed targets of at least 100 Mbps. Notice, FCC 23-89, at 7-8, para. 15. Many states have developed broadband deployment programs requiring funded projects to deliver speeds at or exceeding this threshold benchmark. See, e.g., Iowa Department of Management, Empower Rural Iowa Broadband Grant Program Notice of Funding Availability at 4 (2023), https://ocio.iowa.gov/sites/default/files/exhibit_a_-_notice_of_funding_availability_-_nofa_008.pdf (Iowa Program) (offering definitions only for 100/100 Mbps and 100/20 Mbps broadband in grant funding notice); Maine Connectivity Authority, Broadband Service Triennial Strategic Plan 2022-24 (2022), https://www.maine.gov/connectme/sites/maine.gov.connectme/files/inline-files/Plan_Triennial_2022.pdf (declaring 25 Mbps/3 Mbps insufficient and “designat[ing] broadband service as 100/100 mbps”); Maryland Department of Housing and Community Development, Connect Maryland: FY23 Network Infrastructure Grant Program: Request for Applications at 6 (2022), https://dhcd.maryland.gov/Broadband/Documents/FY23NIGP/ApplicationPackage.pdf (Maryland Program) (defining “broadband service” as providing “the minimum data rate of one hundred (100) megabits per second downstream and twenty (20) megabit per second upstream”); Michigan Department of Labor and Economic Opportunity, Realizing Opportunities with Broadband Infrastructure Networks (ROBIN) Grant Program Guidance at 2 (2023), https://www.michigan.gov/leo/-/media/Project/Websites/leo/Documents/MIHI/ROBIN-Grant/ROBIN_Program_Guidance.pdf (Michigan Program) (defining “broadband service” as supporting “a symmetrical rate of at least 100 megabits per second downstream and upstream”); Miss. Code Ann. § 77-19-3(b) (defining “broadband service” as mass-market retail service at speeds of at least 100/20 Mbps); North Dakota Legislative Branch, 2018-2019 Annual Report, Appendix at 8 (2019), https://www.legis.nd.gov/files/committees/66-2019/21_5124_03000appendixj.pdf (noting that their objective is statewide Gigabit connectivity and that “more than 75% of North Dakotans already have access to Gigabit broadband delivered in more than 325 communities”); Washington State Department of Commerce, CERB Rural Broadband Program, https://www.commerce.wa.gov/building-infrastructure/community-economic-revitalization-board/rural-broadband/ (last visited Jan. 18, 2024) (Washington Program) (setting speed benchmarks for broadband provided via cable modem, powerlines, and microwave at 100/20 Mbps, 100/100 Mbps, and 100/20 Mbps, respectively). At least one state has set 100 Mbps as a goal for all state programs and at least one other has made 100 Mbps an official standard for multiple state programs. California Broadband Council, Broadband Action Plan 2020 at 20 (2020), https://broadbandcouncil.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/68/2020/12/BB4All-Action-Plan-Final-Draft-v26.pdf (setting 100 Mbps as a goal); Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 86-135(1), 86-324(1), 86-5, 109, 86-1302(11). With regard to federal programs other than BEAD, the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Rural Utilities Service (RUS) provides broadband loans with a set of minimum speed requirements, which vary based on the duration of the project. For 5-10 year award terms, which are comparable to the term of support for many high-cost Universal Service Fund broadband programs, See, e.g., 47 CFR § 54.309(a)(2)(ii) (10-year term for CAF Phase II Auction Support); 47 CFR § 54.802(b) (10-year term for RDOF); 47 CFR § 54.1504(a) (10-year term for Stage 2 fixed support under the Bringing Together Puerto Rico and Connect USVI Funds). the RUS requires awardees to provide service at a minimum speed of 100/12 Mbps. See Department of Agriculture, Rural Broadband Loans, Loan/Grant Combinations, and Loan Guarantees, 85 Fed. Reg. 14393, 14396 (Mar. 12, 2020) (noting that the RUS’s broadband lending speed benchmark is currently set at 25/3 Mbps); 7 CFR § 1738.55(a)(2) (requiring projects with an award term of 5-10 years to provide service at a benchmark of “four times the broadband lending speed,” which equates to a benchmark of 100 Mbps in download speed for such loans). In addition, the U.S. Department of Treasury, as part of its implementation of the American Rescue Plan Act’s (ARPA’s) provisions relating to broadband infrastructure funding, American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (ARPA), Pub. L. No. 117-2, tit. IX, § 9901(c)(1)(D), 135 Stat. 4, 226 (codified at 42 U.S.C. § 802(c)(1)(D)) (ARPA). has adopted a requirement that projects be designed to deliver service that reliably meets or exceeds 100/100 Mbps. See 31 CFR § 35.6(e)(2)(i)(B)(2) (if providing an upload speed of 100 Mbps “is not practicable, because of the excessive cost of the project or geography or topography of the area to be served by the project,” recipients are permitted to deploy service at an upload speed of 20 Mbps, so long as the upload speed is scalable to 100 Mbps). We also note the 2021 recommendation of the Commission’s Task Force for Reviewing the Connectivity and Technology Needs of Agriculture in the United States (Precision Agriculture Connectivity Task Force) to increase the Commission’s benchmark speed to 100/20 Mbps, on the grounds that 25/3 Mbps is insufficient to enable innovation and utilization of precision agriculture and for transferring large amounts of data from field or farm to the cloud for storage. Task Force for Reviewing the Connectivity and Technology Needs of Precision Agriculture in the United States, Report of the Task Force for Reviewing the Connectivity and Technology Needs of Precision Agriculture in the United States at 6 (2021), https://www.fcc.gov/sites/default/files/precision-ag-report-11102021.pdf; see also Task Force for Reviewing the Connectivity and Technology Needs of Precision Agriculture in the United States, Report adopted as of November 6, 2023, 5 (2023), https://www.fcc.gov/sites/default/files/2024-Report-PrecisionAg-Task-Force-without-Signatures.pdf. 28. The Commission’s high-cost USF policies also strongly support raising the benchmark to at least 100/20 Mbps. As explained in the Notice, the Commission has, in recent years, awarded high-cost universal service support almost exclusively to projects with broadband service at speeds of 100/20 Mbps or faster. Notice, FCC 23-89, at 6, para. 14. All recipients of the Bringing Together Puerto Rico Stage 2 fixed support program, for example, are required to provide service at a minimum speed of 100/20 Mbps, with service obligations at some locations as high as 1 Gbps/500 Mbps. See Wireline Competition Bureau Authorizes Stage 2 Support for Puerto Rico Telephone Company and Liberty Communications of Puerto Rico, WC Docket Nos. 18-143 and 10-90, Public Notice, 36 FCC Rcd 9914 (WCB 2021) (Bringing Together Puerto Rico Winning Applicant Announcement) (identifying Puerto Rico Telephone Co., Inc. (PRTC) and Liberty Communications of Puerto Rico (Liberty) as the winning applicants); PRTC Uniendo a Puerto Rico Fund Stage 2 Fixed Support Application Form, WC Docket Nos. 18-143 and 10-90, Initial Overview at 1 (filed June 22, 2021) (PRTC Network Description); Liberty Uniendo a Puerto Rico Fund Stage 2 Fixed Support Application Form, WC Docket Nos. 18-143 and 10-90, Initial Overview at 4 (filed June 22, 2021) (Liberty Network Description). We refer to the Bringing Together Puerto Rico Winning Applicant Announcement, PRTC Network Description, and Liberty Network Description together as the Bringing Together Puerto Rico Broadband Speed Requirements. In addition, 1 Gbps/500 Mbps service will have to be deployed to all locations subject to Connect USVI Stage 2 fixed support in the U.S. Virgin Islands. See Connect USVI Fund Stage 2 Support Authorized for Broadband VI, WC Docket Nos. 18-143 and 10-90, Public Notice, 36 FCC Rcd 9405 (WCB 2021) (USVI Fund Winning Applicant Announcement) (identifying Broadband VI as the winning applicant); Broadband VI Uniendo a Puerto Rico Fund Connect USVI Fund Stage 2 Fixed Support Application Form, WC Dockets Nos. 18-143 and WC 10-90, Initial Overview at 1 (filed June 11, 2021) (together with the USVI Fund Winning Applicant Announcement, the USVI Fund Broadband Speed Requirements). Authorized Rural Digital Opportunity Fund (RDOF) auction winners are required to provide 1 Gbps/500 Mbps service to over 97% of locations being funded. See FCC, Auction 904: Rural Digital Opportunity Fund, https://www.fcc.gov/auction/904 (Results webpage tab, Authorized Auction 904 Long-Form Applicant Spreadsheet (updated 1/13/2023), Performance Tier and Latency Tab). We believe the wide variety of federal and state programs setting standards at or above 100/20 Mbps is compelling evidence that the benchmark should be raised at least to this level. Multiple commenters state that support raising the benchmark speed also reference federal, state, and local programs in support of their arguments. See, e.g., ACA Connects Comments at 4; ACAM Coalition Comments at 2-3; Next Century Cities Comments at 3-4; New York PSC Comments at 2; NRECA Comments at 5-6; NTCA Comments at 1, 3; WTA Comments at ii, 2, 7, 17. WTA does, however, observe that Enhanced A-CAM does not require complete build-out of 100/20 Mbps until 2028, which may serve as a “complication” with this benchmark. WTA Comments at 7. For the reasons discussed in Section II, supra, we believe that the standard for our section 706 evaluation should be universal deployment and that we should strive for full deployment at our speed benchmark threshold, regardless of specific programmatic obligations. As Vantage Point puts it, by adopting 100/20 Mbps, we are “formally recognizing the de facto minimum standard broadband speed in the country.” Vantage Point Comments at 5. We note Benton Institute’s request that we “adopt a methodology to continually set the threshold to mirror market realities.” Benton Institute Comments at 3. We believe the forgoing analysis does so and intend to continue to use such an analysis in future inquiries. 29. Consumer Use Trends Support a Faster Benchmark. The COVID-19 pandemic forced families to adapt to working, learning, receiving healthcare, and interacting with the outside world simultaneously using multiple devices on the same household connection. These changes resulted in increased demands for faster broadband services and more bandwidth. We find that many of the adaptations Americans made during the COVID-19 pandemic are here to stay—for example, more wide-spread teleworking and continued expansion of telehealth. See, e.g., U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Business Response Summary (Mar. 22, 2023), https://www.bls.gov/news.release/brs1.nr0.htm (Bureau of Labor Statistics 3Q2022 Survey); MGMA Staff Members, Telehealth utilization and patient demand in 2023: Best guesses and best practices (Nov. 3, 2022), https://www.mgma.com/data/data-stories/telehealth-utilization-and-patient-demand-in-2023 (MGMA Telehealth Survey). The vintage of the data referenced throughout our discussion of current uses, including usage statistics, many cited in the Notice, directly contradicts TechFreedom’s claims that the above-referenced data solely relate to the era of COVID lockdowns. See TechFreedom Comments at 13-14. Indeed, almost 68% of households have subscribed to services meeting a 100 Mbps download speed threshold where it is available. The number of American households subscribing to services meeting a 100 Mbps download speed threshold increased from approximately 57.4 million in December 2018 to approximately 89.4 million in December 2022. Based upon staff evaluation of FCC Form 477 subscription data as of December 31, 2018 and December 31, 2022. As of December 2022, the mean download speed for all residential fixed broadband subscriptions was 439 Mbps while the median residential download speed was 300 Mbps, and nearly 79% of all residential subscriptions had a download speed of at least 100 Mbps. Based upon staff evaluation of FCC Form 477 subscription data as of December 31, 2022. 30. Consumers are not only subscribing to faster speeds, but also using more bandwidth. NTIA points out that current and anticipated user needs demonstrate the necessity of a 100/20 Mbps benchmark. NTIA Ex Parte at 1-2. According to OpenVault, average U.S. household bandwidth consumption increased by approximately 86% between the end of 2019 and the end of 2023. See OpenVault, Broadband Insights Report (OVBI) 4Q23, at 4 (2024), https://openvault.com/resources/ovbi/ (OpenVault 4Q2023 Report). OpenVault has previously observed that such a dramatic increase in bandwidth consumption “confirms the linkage between significant growth trajectories in both bandwidth consumption and faster speed adoption.” OpenVault, Broadband Insights Report (OVDI) 4Q21, at 2 (2021), https://openvault.com/resources/ovbi/. In addition, many ISPs upgraded the speed provided to customers to accommodate their consumers’ need for higher bandwidth services. See, e.g., Charter Launches Spectrum One, Offering Customers Unrivaled Connectivity and Value (Oct. 31, 2022), https://corporate.charter.com/newsroom/charter-launches-spectrum-one (announcing the launch of Spectrum One for new and existing subscribers across all its markets with starting speeds of 300 Mbps); Comcast Boosting Speeds for more than 20 Million Xfinity Internet Customers Across the Country (Oct. 17, 2022), https://corporate.comcast.com/press/releases/faster-internet-speeds-xfinity-customers-2022 (announcing upgraded speeds at all plan levels for customers in Xfinity’s Northeast, Central, and West divisions); Eli Blumenthal, AT&T is boosting the speeds of its Fiber home internet plans for new and existing users, CNET (Apr. 28, 2021), https://www.cnet.com/home/internet/at-t-is-boosting-the-speeds-of-its-fiber-home-internet-plans-for-new-and-existing-users/; Spectrum Continues to Double Internet Starting Speed to 200 Mbps (Mar. 3, 2021), https://corporate.charter.com/newsroom/spectrum-doubles-spectrum-internet-starting-speed-to-200-mbps-in-17-additional-markets. 31. Telehealth has become an established method of providing and receiving healthcare, As the Commission has previously recognized, “[t]he success of these solutions, however, relies on broadband connectivity—i.e., access to broadband to enable virtual care and other digital solutions—and broadband service providers offering Internet service at adequate speed and at an affordable price.” Broadband Connectivity and Maternal Health—Implementation of the Data Mapping to Save Moms’ Lives Act, GN Docket No. 23-309, Notice of Inquiry, FCC 23-85, at para. 7 (Oct. 20, 2023); see also Connect2HealthFCC Task Force, Broadband Connectivity: A “Super” Determinant of Health, Staff Research Monograph, FCC, GN Docket No. 16-46, at 12 (May 23, 2019), https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/109020780702729/1 (concluding that broadband itself may have a direct influence on health and health outcomes and is a social determinant of health, if not a “super” determinant of health). While there are many factors associated with a consumer’s ability to use telehealth/telemedicine (e.g., rurality, age, literacy, income, etc.), studies have found that adequate broadband speeds are a “critical factor.” See, e.g., Amy M.J. O’Shea et al., Association of Adequacy of Broadband Internet Service With Access to Primary Care in the Veterans Health Administration Before and During the COVID-19 Pandemic, JAMA Network (Oct. 17, 2022), https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2797400 (“Our findings support the expanded availability of broadband, in particular, upload and download speeds of 100 [Mbps] or more to better meet the growing need for high-speed connectivity for daily life.”). with one poll of medical group leaders finding that 72% of medical groups expect patient demand for telehealth to stay the same or increase in 2023. MGMA Stat, Telehealth Utilization and Patient Demand in 2023: Best Guesses and Best Practices (Nov. 3, 2022), https://www.mgma.com/data/data-stories/telehealth-utilization-and-patient-demand-in-2023see also Tanya Albert Henry, Millions of Medicare Patients Kept Telehealth Habit Post-Vaccines, AMA (Feb. 6, 2023), https://www.ama-assn.org/practice-management/digital/millions-medicare-patients-kept-telehealth-habit-post-vaccines (finding that about 4 million Medicare patients received medical care through telehealth in each of the first two quarters in 2022); Jiang Li, Telemedicine And Telehealth In 2023 And Beyond: From Leveling Out To Leveling Up (Dec 27, 2022), https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbestechcouncil/2022/12/27/telemedicine-and-telehealth-in-2023-and-beyond-from-leveling-out-to-leveling-up/?sh=5a02ef654843; FAIR Health, Monthly Telehealth Regional Tracker, https://www.fairhealth.org/fh-trackers/telehealth. With regard to telework, a Bureau of Labor Statistics survey conducted in the third quarter of 2022 of private-sector establishments found that over 27% have some or all of their employees teleworking some or all of the time (with over 11% of respondents reporting that all of their employees teleworked all of the time), and over 95% expecting current levels of telework to stay the same over the next six months. See Bureau of Labor Statistics 3Q2022 Survey. See also Jennifer Liu, More Americans are Now Working Fully Remote than 3 Months Ago, Despite Fewer WFH Job Openings, CNBC (Feb. 13, 2023) https://www.cnbc.com/2023/02/13/remote-work-ticked-up-in-january-and-could-signal-the-future-of-wfh.html (noting that 46% of respondents in a January 2023 LinkedIn survey are working a hybrid or remote schedule); Kim Parker, About a Third of U.S. Workers Who Can Work From Home Now Do So All the Time, Pew Research Center (Mar. 30, 2023) https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2023/03/30/about-a-third-of-us-workers-who-can-work-from-home-do-so-all-the-time/ (finding that 59% of hybrid workers work from home three or more days in a typical week). Similar to telehealth and telework, increased levels of online learning are likely here to stay beyond the COVID-19 pandemic. For example, virtual school enrollment across ten states increased 176% in the 2021-22 school year, as compared to the 2019-20 school year. Asher Lehrer-Small, Virtual School Enrollment Kept Climbing Even As COVID Receded, New Data Reveal, The 74 (Nov. 14, 2022), https://www.the74million.org/article/virtual-school-enrollment-kept-climbing-even-as-covid-receded-new-data-reveal/ (updated Nov. 16, 2022). And even students who are attending school in person still rely on home connectivity for schoolwork outside of school hours. CoSN, CoSN Releases Findings of 2022 Home Connectivity Study (July 14, 2022), https://www.cosn.org/cosn-news/cosn-releases-findings-of-2022-home-connectivity-study/. 32. Current consumer broadband usage involves an increasing number of streams serving applications ranging from telehealth, remote learning, streaming video and gaming, and video conferencing/telework. See, e.g., U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Business Response Summary (Mar. 22, 2023), https://www.bls.gov/news.release/brs1.nr0.htm (Bureau of Labor Statistics 3Q2022 Survey); MGMA Staff Members, Telehealth utilization and patient demand in 2023: Best guesses and best practices (Nov. 3, 2022), https://www.mgma.com/data/data-stories/telehealth-utilization-and-patient-demand-in-2023 (MGMA Telehealth Survey). With approximately 21% of U.S. households having four or more people and an increasing number of homebuyers seeking multigenerational housing, this can lead to substantial household demand. In 2023, 16,038,000 households had four members, 7,192,000 had five, 2,721,000 had six, and 1,656,000 had seven or more, or 27,601,000 in total. 27,601,000 out of all 131,434,000 households in 2023 is approximately 21%. U.S. Bureau of the Census, Historical Households Tables, https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/families/households.html (Nov. 2023) (Table HH-4 Households by Size: 1960 to Present). See also Oyin Adedoyin, More Parents are Moving In With Adult Children – at Younger Ages, Wall Street Journal, (Feb. 22, 2023) https://www.wsj.com/articles/more-parents-are-moving-in-with-adult-childrenat-younger-ages-a931f3d7 (reporting that 14% of all home buyers in 2022 set up multigenerational homes, up from 11% in 2021). In addition, the number of connected devices per U.S. household continues to grow, from an average of 13 in 2021 to an average of 17 in 2023. Parks Associates, At CES 2024, Parks Associates announces new research showing average number of connected devices per US internet household reached 17 in 2023 (Jan. 11, 2024), https://www.parksassociates.com/blogs/press-releases/at-ces-2024-parks-associates-announces-new-research-showing-average-number-of-connected-devices-per-us-internet-household-reached-17-in-2023 with LinkedIn, US internet household have an average of 16 connected devices (May 4, 2022), https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/us-internet-household-have-average-16-connected-devices- (Parks Associates post). Several commenters agree that households increasingly have multiple people demanding bandwidth at the same time and note the need higher speeds. See ADTRAN Comments at 9; INCOMPAS Comments at 3; OTI Comments at 9. Additionally, several commenters note that changes brought about by the COVID-19 pandemic are here to stay that would affect household use. See ADTRAN Comments at 9; Next Century Cities Comments at 2, 11; NTCA Comments at 4. Commenters also remarked about how these applications demand greater usage than what is possible under the current benchmark. See ADTRAN Comments at 8; CCIA Comments at 1; NTCA Comments at 5-6; Next Century Cities Comments at 5; WTA Comments at 6. ADTRAN, in particular, asserts that in multiple-person households, multiple people make use of applications simultaneously, which requires extra capacity. ADTRAN Comments at 9. We do not anticipate usage decreasing, and accordingly must recognize that households of all sizes must have sufficient bandwidth to satisfy their needs. 33. Several commenters noted that fast speeds are vital to enable remote applications to work properly. For example, Next Century Cities observes that higher speeds are necessary for accessing healthcare, education, and legal services. Next Century Cities Comments at 5. See also FBA Comments at 14; Letter from Angie Kronenberg, Chief Advocate & General Counsel, INCOMPAS, 2 (filed Aug. 1, 2022) (INCOMPAS August 2022 Ex Parte). ADTRAN explains that consumers use of broadband service has changed significantly since 2015 and that “the pandemic catalyzed the development of numerous applications to support remote education, telehealth and work-from-home applications and services” which require “robust and reliable broadband service.” ADTRAN Comments at 8; see also Letter from Angie Kronenberg, Chief Advocate & General Counsel, INCOMPAS, 2 (filed Aug. 1, 2022) (INCOMPAS August 2022 Ex Parte) (“INCOMPAS’ members are experiencing more customers demanding higher-speed services”). Graphics-intensive telework, alone, can require 45 Mbps or more. Fast Feed Editorial Staff, How To Get the Fastest Internet in a Home Office (Mar. 12, 2020), https://blog.frontier.com/2020/03/how-much-speed-do-you-need-to-do-your-job-from-home/; see also Chantel Buchi, The Best Internet Setup for Working from Home (Sept. 26, 2023), https://www.reviews.org/internet-service/work-from-home-internet-guide/ (recommending 100 Mbps for “most” teleworkers”). 34. Changes in the use of remote applications are not the only drivers of higher speed requirements. A combination of remote applications, streaming, and other needs play a role in household broadband use. Services such as video and music streaming applications necessitate access to higher speeds. For example, as 4K video increases in popularity, individual households may have an increasing number of 25 Mbps video streams serving applications such as video conferencing, telehealth, and remote learning, in addition to streaming of video entertainment and gaming. Some recommend 25 Mbps download speed for streaming 4K video. See, e.g., Anthony Spadafora, What internet speed do I need? Here’s how many Mbps is enough, https://www.tomsguide.com/us/internet-speed-what-you-need,news-24289.html (last visited Feb. 14, 2024); Find movies with 4K, HDR, Dolby Vision, or Dolby Atmos in the Apple TV app, https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT207949, (last visited Feb. 14, 2024). While we acknowledge that not all services require 25 Mbps for 4K video, those citing lower-than-25 Mbps is required appear to either require bandwidth close to 25 Mbps or else would in many cases still consume a significant amount of household bandwidth. See, Google, System requirements & supported devices for YouTube, https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/78358?hl=en (last visited Feb. 14, 2024) (YouTube Video Bandwidth Recommendations) (recommends 20 Mbps); Netflix, Internet connection speed recommendations, https://help.netflix.com/en/node/306 (last visited Feb. 14, 2024) (recommends 15 Mbps). 35. We believe that broad consumer demand for 100/20 Mbps service alone sufficiently demonstrates that the practical reality of consumer broadband usage often requires speeds of at least 100/20 Mbps, regardless of whether we have delineated a specific “use case,” as Free State Foundation claims is required. Free State Foundation Comments at 6-7, 17-18. Several commenters support the significance of these adoption statistics. See, e.g., FBA Comments at 5-13; NTCA Comments at 3-4, 10. In addition, as we explained in the Notice, in examining household use cases, a simple summation of required speeds for individual activities may provide a misleading picture of actual broadband needs for at least three reasons. First, occasional downloads of very large files can be bandwidth-intensive. Morgan Park, The era of 100GB games is upon us, and the average PC gamer is underprepared, PC Gamer (May 12, 2023), https://www.pcgamer.com/the-era-of-100gb-games-is-upon-us-and-the-average-pc-gamer-is-underprepared/; RJ Pierce, Why Are Games Getting MASSIVE Install Sizes? Here’s a Tech Explainer, Tech Times (Sept. 2, 2021), https://www.techtimes.com/articles/264914/20210902/why-games-getting-massive-install-sizes-heres-tech-explainer.htm. At 25 Mbps, it would take roughly nine hours to download 100 GB. Second, it is important to account for larger households—as discussed above, as of 2023, approximately 21% of all U.S. households had four or more people. U.S. Bureau of the Census, Historical Households Tables, https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/families/households.html (Nov. 2022) (Table HH-4 Households by Size: 1960 to Present). Households of all sizes must have sufficient bandwidth to satisfy their needs. In addition, as discussed above, the number of connected devices per household continues to grow. Taking these factors into account suggests that fixed broadband download/upload needs could easily exceed 100/20 Mbps. We disagree with TechFreedom’s claims that the Commission is basing the decision to raise the benchmark solely on “entertainment uses of the Internet” and that we have not outlined information concerning other uses that justified raising the benchmark. TechFreedom Comments at 14-15. As an initial matter, section 706 places no limitation on the content of information that Americans may need to be able to receive or transmit by broadband. Indeed, “high-quality video,” a potential use of advanced telecommunications capability described in section 706, would seem to best describe entertainment uses. 47 U.S.C. § 1302(d)(1). Further, we have identified numerous current non-entertainment uses of broadband, such as telework, telehealth, and telelearning, each of require significant bandwidth. We also decline to adopt the suggestion of Andrew Coy and the Digital Harbor Foundation that we create a speed index representing the needs of users by applying an approach similar to that of the consumer price index, measuring the online activities of American households by examining download, upload, and latency factors. Andrew Coy and the Digital Harbor Foundation Comments at 1-2. The Commission currently lacks sufficient data to conduct this type of comprehensive examination and calculation. 36. ISP Deployment and Marketing Trends Demonstrate that a Higher Benchmark is Long Overdue. BDC data show widespread deployment of speeds faster than 25 Mbps, and that deployment of at least 100/20 Mbps is the norm. Deployment trends suggest an overwhelming majority of providers are already offering speeds of at least 100 Mbps download: approximately 93% Americans had access to a terrestrial fixed broadband service with download speeds of at least 100 Mbps in December 2022. Fig. 1, infra. In fact, FCC Form 477 deployment data indicate that since 2018, more than 90% of the population has had access to terrestrial fixed broadband service with download speeds of at least 100 Mbps. This considers access to download speeds of at least 100 Mbps only, and does not consider upload speeds. In contrast, other analyses in this Report consider access to a combined download/upload speed threshold, and therefore are not directly comparable. These percentages include all 50 States and the District of Columbia. Our data regarding 100/20 Mbps, while demonstrating a generally high level of current deployment nevertheless reveal notable digital divides between urban and rural and non-Tribal and Tribal areas. See Section III.A.1.c. TechFreedom, a critic of raising the benchmark to 100/20 Mbps, presents as an argument that “raising the benchmark for what constitutes broadband will instantly widen the digital divide.” TechFreedom Comments at 11. TechFreedom is partially correct – raising the benchmark will correctly reveal a greater digital divide than previously reported. This is not a reason for ignoring the reality that 25/3 Mbps is no longer a relevant standard. 37. Most of the nation’s largest providers focus their marketing efforts on fixed broadband speeds of at least 100 Mbps download, making slower offerings increasingly irrelevant. Commenters agree that marketing trends are relevant in setting the benchmark. See, e.g., INCOMPAS Comments at 4-5; NTCA Reply at 3-4. For example, Charter markets 300 Mbps as their slowest Internet speed. Charter Communications, Spectrum Internet Speeds, https://www.spectrum.com/internet (last visited Feb. 14, 2024) (Charter Communications provides broadband service under the brand Spectrum). Verizon appears to market three tiers of fixed service with discounts for low-income customers, with the slowest tier being 300 Mbps. Verizon, Check if you're eligible to save on Verizon Home Internet, https://www.verizon.com/discounts/verizon-forward/ (last visited Feb. 14, 2024) (see “Which Verizon Home Internet plans qualify for Verizon Forward”). Google Fiber appears to market only 1, 2, 5, and 8 Gbps service. Choose the speed you need — from the 1 Gig we’re known for to the fastest we’ve ever offered, https://fiber.google.com/internet/ (last visited Feb. 14, 2024). 38. Increasing the Upload Speed Benchmark. In addition to raising our download speed benchmark from 25 Mbps to 100 Mbps, we raise the current 3 Mbps upload speed benchmark for fixed services to 20 Mbps. Our rationale for our increase in the download benchmark applies equally, if not more, to increasing the upload speed. No commenter specifically argued against increasing the benchmark upload speed to at least 20 Mbps (as discussed below, some requested a faster benchmark). Rather, commenters that argued against increasing the upload speed did so by simultaneously critique both our proposed download and upload speeds using the same general arguments. See Free State Foundation Comments at 13-19, TechFreedom Comments at 9-16. Broadband funding programs have evolved not only to expect faster download speeds, but faster upload speeds, as well. For example, the BEAD Program requires an upload speed of 20 Mbps and winning bidders in the Bringing Puerto Rico Together and USVI Fund programs are committed to providing minimum upload speeds of 20 and 500 Mbps, respectively. Infrastructure Act, div. F, tit. I, § 60102(h)(4)(A)(i)(I), 135 Stat. at 1199; Bringing Together Puerto Rico Broadband Speed Requirements; USVI Fund Broadband Speed Requirements. Multiple state programs also require upload speeds of at least 20 Mbps. See, e.g., Iowa Program (20 Mbps), Maryland Program (20 Mbps), Michigan Program (100 Mbps), Washington Program (20 Mbps). 39. Consumer subscription patterns and usage requirements indicate that upload speed is increasingly important—the subscription patterns and consumer uses discussed above that support increasing the download speed benchmark, also support an increase in the upload speed benchmark. Further, OpenVault’s data shows that average household monthly upload broadband usage increased over 30% faster than download usage increased between December 2019 and December 2023. See OpenVault 4Q2023 Report at 13; OpenVault 4Q2020 Report at 7. OpenVault reports average monthly download bandwidth consumption was 600.9 GB in December 2022, compared to 325 GB (344 GB - 19 GB) in December 2019 (a roughly 85% increase), while it reports average monthly upload bandwidth consumption was 40.05 GB in December 2023, compared to 19 GB in December 2019 (a roughly 111% increase). Id. Several commenters also noted trends indicating increased upload traffic and speed requirements, especially as they relate to remote applications like telework, telehealth, and online cloud storage. OTI notes the upward trend in upload speeds in their comment by noting most of the 30-40% upward trend increase in traffic is related to uploads. OTI Comments at 6 (citing Doug Dawson, How Will Cable Companies Cope with COVID-19? (June 26, 2020), https://potsandpansbyccg.com/2020/06/26/how-will-cable-companies-cope-with-covid-19). OTI also observes that higher upload speed is especially important with people continuing to use significant upload bandwidth for remote tasks like virtual meetings, doctors’ appointments, and classes. OTI Comments at 6. Commenter Dave Taht at Bufferbloat.net notes that there is more need for upload bandwidth for services like cloud-based storage, cross-device synching, telehealth, security cameras that store video, and emerging technology like virtual reality – all of which demand higher upload speeds than past requirements. Taht/Bufferbloat Comments at 11-12. 40. As noted above, multiple household members simultaneously using today’s applications may often need more bandwidth, necessitating speeds higher than the current 3 Mbps benchmark. A 2021 study conducted by the Consortium for School Networking (CoSN) concluded that 3 Mbps is an inadequate upload speed to support even a single student in a household, let alone multiple students in the same household. Consortium for School Networking, Student Home Connectivity Study, at 8 (2021), https://emma-assets.s3.amazonaws.com/paqab/37cf06d0de533f59eb780f4ec065d766/Home_Connectivity_Study_Report_5.3.21_FINAL.pdf. Instead, in 2021 CoSN recommended a per-student benchmark upload speed of 12 Mbps. Consortium for School Networking, Student Home Connectivity Study, at 8 (2021), https://emma-assets.s3.amazonaws.com/paqab/37cf06d0de533f59eb780f4ec065d766/Home_Connectivity_Study_Report_5.3.21_FINAL.pdf. Commenter ADTRAN points out that remote applications require more than 3 Mbps upload, especially if a household includes two or more people, and particularly as consumers originate additional traffic from applications like social media, gaming, and Internet-of-things-related applications. ADTRAN Comments at 11. Zoom suggests 1.2 Mbps upload for a single 720p one-on-one video call and far more for higher quality video (3.8 Mbps) and video calls with groups of people (2.6-3.8 Mbps). Zoom, Zoom system requirements: Windows, macOS, Linux, https://support.zoom.us/hc/en-us/articles/201362023-System-requirements-for-Windows-macOS-and-Linux (last visited Feb. 14, 2024). Microsoft recommends 1.5 Mbps upload for a single 720p one-on-one video call, 4.0 Mbps for higher quality video, and 2.5-4.0 for video calls with groups of people using Teams, which Microsoft states “is always conservative on bandwidth utilization.” Microsoft, Prepare your organization’s network for Microsoft Teams, https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoftteams/prepare-network (last visited Feb. 14, 2024). 4K live streams can require between 8 Mbps and 50 Mbps upload depending on, among other things, frame rate. Boxcast, Upload Speeds for 4K Live Streaming (Dec. 20, 2022), https://www.boxcast.com/blog/internet-speeds-for-4k-live-streaming; YouTube Help, Choose Live Encoder Settings, Bitrates, and Resolutions, https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2853702?hl=en (YouTube Recommended Live Encoder Settings) (last visited Feb. 14, 2024). Bandwidth recommendations for live streaming tend to be higher than for merely watching video of the same quality to ensure consistent throughput at the necessary speed. See Restream, What is a good upload speed for streaming? (July 1, 2022), https://restream.io/blog/what-is-a-good-upload-speed-for-streaming/. Compare, e.g., YouTube Recommended Live Encoder Settings with YouTube Video Bandwidth Recommendations. Thus it appears that in many instances, simultaneous use of telework, telehealth, remote learning, or personal video calling would significantly outstrip a 3 Mbps upload capability. 41. In the Notice, we sought comment on adopting a symmetrical benchmark which, in this case, would entail a 100 Mbps upload standard. Multiple commenters support adopting such a symmetrical benchmark, which also serves as support for increasing the upload benchmark as a general matter. See, e.g., FBA Comments at 3-4, 14-16 (supporting a 1 Gbps/1Gbps benchmark); Nebraska PSC Reply at 1-2 (referencing previously supporting 100/100 Mbps for high-cost USF programs); Next Century Cities Comments at 3-4 (arguing for a symmetrical benchmark to situate the Commission “as a broadband leader”); NRECA Comments at 4-6, 10 (arguing for a symmetrical benchmark based on NRECA member offerings and certain federal programs). We sought comment on this matter in the Notice. Notice, FCC 23-89 at 11, para. 22. We decline, however, to adopt a symmetrical benchmark at this time. 42. Our decision not to adopt a symmetrical 100/100 Mbps benchmark is heavily influenced by the standards that Congress established for determining inadequately served locations for the BEAD Program. While it is true that the RUS ReConnect Program (which received additional funding in the Infrastructure Act) requires deployment of symmetrical 100 Mbps service and the ARPA program has a preference for deployment of 100 Mbps symmetrical service, ReConnect’s rules require that recipients provide speeds in the latest Federal Register Notice, which currently requires 100 Mbps symmetrical speeds. 7 CFR § 1740.3(a)(2); Rural Utilities Service, Rural eConnectivity Program, 87 Fed. Reg. 47690, 47692 (Aug. 4, 2022). The Department of the Treasury’s rules state that if providing an upload speed of 100 Mbps “is not practicable, because of the excessive cost of the project or geography or topography of the area to be served by the project,” recipients are permitted to deploy service at an upload speed of 20 Mbps, so long as the upload speed is scalable to 100 Mbps. 31 CFR § 35.6(e)(2)(i)(B), ARPA Final Rule. the size of these programs ($3.3 billion for the ReConnect Program, $10 billion for the ARPA program) pale in comparison to the BEAD Program. Congress appropriated funding to the ReConnect program in various appropriations laws, including the Infrastructure Act, the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, and annual appropriations. Lisa S. Benson, Cong. Rsch. Serv., R47017, USDA’s ReConnect Program: Expanding Rural Broadband (2020), https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R47017. ARPA amounts are provided directly from the American Rescue Plan Act. 42 U.S.C. § 804(a). Commenters only identify a “handful” of state programs and no Commission high-cost programs with such a requirement. Next Century Cities Comments at 4 Further, proponents of a symmetrical requirement do not point to consumer usage statistics, deployment statistics, or specific significant widespread ISP offerings justifying a symmetrical standard. We note that OpenVault’s most recent monthly usage data support the conclusion that upload and download demand is far from symmetrical. See OpenVault 4Q2023 Report at 13. Despite our decision to not adopt a symmetrical upload benchmark at this time, we fully support deployment of broadband at faster upload speeds, as evidenced by our high-cost USF programs, as well as the long-term goal that we discuss below. We intend to monitor upload speeds in future inquiries for purposes of considering additional updates to the fixed speed benchmark. 43. Proposed Higher Speed Benchmarks. Some commenters request that the Commission raise the benchmark higher than 100/20 Mbps because changes to speeds offered to consumers and consumers’ reliance on those speeds justifies a larger leap in the benchmark. See INCOMPAS Comments at 2-6; FBA Comments at 2-14. INCOMPAS, for example, argues that fundamental changes to speeds offered in the marketplace as well consumer reliance on these speeds would support raising the benchmark to 1 Gbps and that adopting a 100/20 Mbps baseline is not truly “advanced” because many providers have already surpassed this benchmark. INCOMPAS Comments at 2-6. The Fiber Broadband Association also seeks a higher benchmark, although it does not identify a specific speed alternative. FBA Comments at 2-14. Other commenters argue that raising the benchmark above 100/20 Mbps is not necessary at this time, with some pointing to the incongruity of establishing a benchmark in excess of the BEAD standard of 100/20 Mbps. ADTRAN Comments at 9-12; CTIA Comments at 15-16; WISPA Reply at 2. We find that quadrupling our download benchmark while increasing the upload benchmark by nearly seven times its predecessor represents a significant change worthy of evaluation before considering additional increases, particularly in light of the current early stage of the BEAD Program. 44. Transparency in Establishing and Evaluating Our Benchmark. In the Notice, we sought comment, consistent with a recent recommendation by the Government Accountability Office (GAO), on means by which the Commission could make its current and future consideration of a benchmark for fixed broadband service as consistent and transparent as possible. Notice, FCC 23-89, at 11, para. 24, referencing U.S. Government Accountability Office, FCC Should Improve Its Communication of Advanced Telecommunications Capability Assessments at 19 (2023), https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-23-105655.pdf. No commenters explicitly responded to this request, though commenters suggested a variety of means by which we could establish and evaluate our benchmark. See, e.g., ADTRAN Comments at 10-13; Andrew Coy and the Digital Harbor Foundation Comments at 1-2; Adaptive Spectrum and Signal Alignment, Incorporated (ASSIA) Comments at 5-6; FBA Comments at 5-14; Free State Foundation Comments at 13-19; WTA Comments at 5-7. In this Report, we have endeavored to fully explain our reasoning behind the decision to raise the fixed speed benchmark and, with the exception of subscription statistics, which are based on business-sensitive confidential information, have used publicly available data to inform our analysis of fixed broadband speeds. We have similarly strived to use the same methods in setting our download and upload speeds, often relying on similar evidence. We intend to continue to examine evidence and the record similarly in the future, including the use of new and improved data sources to the extent such data becomes available. 45. Technological Neutrality. While some commenters suggest addressing different technologies with separate standards, See NTCA Comments at 6-9; NTCA Reply at 5 (NTCA Reply); WTA Comments at 9-10. NTCA and WTA comments seem to suggest that technology neutrality somehow disadvantages technologies with a higher bandwidth capacity. We disagree. Technology neutrality, which is mandated by the text of section 706, requires us to look at the needs of consumers to use advanced communications capabilities and make a benchmark determination accordingly. other commenters noted preferences to applying the benchmark in a technology-neutral manner. See CCIA Comments at 2; Free State Foundation Comments at 17; USTelecom Comments at 2-3. Our directive from Congress is to evaluate “whether advanced communications capability is being deployed to all Americans in a reasonable and timely fashion,” and section 706 is clear that advanced telecommunication capability can be delivered using “any technology.” 47 U.S.C. § 1302(b) and (d)(1). This directive requires us to adopt a standard for what consumers actually need for these purposes; it does not allow us to favor a technology or to advance the needs of a particular portion of the telecommunications industry. Additionally, the statutory standard does not invite differing standards for separate technologies. Either a technology is capable of providing advanced telecommunications capability or it is not. And while our examination takes into consideration what speeds are deployed and adopted, our benchmark is appropriately set without regard to specific technologies. As explained below, our analysis of fixed broadband is based on all fixed terrestrial services (fixed broadband services excluding fixed satellite service). Further, we conduct our analysis of fixed broadband both with and without fixed wireless. 46. Small Business Needs. In the Notice, we asked what needs of small businesses should be taken into consideration in our determination of a new speed benchmark, noting that we agree with the GAO that conducting an analysis of small business broadband needs, assuming adequate data are available, could assist the Commission in determining whether the current fixed broadband benchmark is adequate. Notice, FCC 23-89, at 11, para. 25. We also noted GAO’s view is that the current minimum benchmark speed of 25/3 Mbps is likely not fast enough to meet the needs of small businesses, particularly with regard to upload speeds. Notice, FCC 23-89, at 11, para. 25. See also U.S. Government Accountability Office, FCC Should Analyze Small Business Needs at 26 (2021), https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-21-494.pdf. ADTRAN, the only party to comment on this issue, argues that small businesses tend to purchase service that differs from consumer service, such as through performance guarantees (and at a higher price), and that, therefore, including small business would distort our analysis under section 706. ADTRAN Comments at 12. We are unable to evaluate ADTRAN’s assertions because the Commission does not currently have sufficiently comprehensive data on this issue, and we therefore lack a basis for meaningfully considering small business needs in this inquiry. Although the BDC collects information on where mass market broadband service is made available to business, residential, and mixed-use locations, it does not collect service availability information on which business or mixed-use locations house small businesses. See FCC, How to Format Fixed Broadband Availability Location Lists, https://help.bdc.fcc.gov/hc/en-us/articles/5291539645339-How-to-Format-Fixed-Broadband-Availability-Location-Lists (last visited Feb. 14, 2024). We hope to reexamine this issue in the future in the event small business specific data becomes available. Further, the Commission will continue to consider additional ways in which it can obtain more information about small business broadband needs. 47. Long-Term Speed Goal. In addition to raising our fixed speed benchmark speed from 25/3 Mbps to 100/20 Mbps, we find that adopting the Notice’s proposed aspirational goal of deployment of 1 Gbps/500 Mbps is necessary to give stakeholders a collective goal towards which to strive—a better, faster, more robust system of communication for American consumers. Notice, FCC 23-89, at 11-12, para. 26. We find that setting such a long-term goal is necessary so as to avoid sending an inappropriate signal to other policymakers as it appears, for instance, that some states may still be using 25/3 Mbps as their standard for some programs. See, e.g., Georgia Code § 50-40-1(2), 50-40-2(a) (defining “broadband services” for purposes of “state-wide efforts to promote and facilitate deployment of broadband services” as services with a capability to transmit at a minimum speed of 25/3 Mbps); Business Oregon, Rural Broadband Capacity Program, https://www.oregon.gov/biz/aboutus/boards/bac/Pages/Rural_Broadband_Capacity_Pilot_Program.aspx (last visited Jan. 18, 2024) (permitting grants to fund construction of broadband infrastructure capable of delivering service at speed of at least 25/3 Mbps). At least two states tie the speed requirements for at least one of their programs to the Commission’s benchmark (to change as the Commission’s benchmark changes). See Minn. Stat. § 116J.394(b) (citing, in turn, Minn Stat. § 116J.39(b)); State of West Virginia, West Virginia Broadband Infrastructure Loan Insurance Guide at 5 (2018), https://broadband.wv.gov/assets/files/pdfs/inner-pages/loan-insurance/WVEDA-Loan-Insurance-Guide-and-Form-2018.11.9.pdf. This long-term speed goal is aspirational—we do not intend to use it as the measure to determine our finding under section 706. Rather, we intend for it to serve as a guidepost for evaluating our efforts to encourage deployment. In addition, we believe that establishing an aspirational goal will have the effect of encouraging deployment of services more relevant for the future. The Commission has previously stated that it reads section 706(a) as Congress’s direction to accelerate deployment when deployment might not be proceeding in a reasonable and timely fashion. 2015 Report at 1405, para. 49. 48. As explained in the Notice, we based our new long-term goal on a speed adopted for many locations in recently established Commission USF programs. Notice, FCC 23-89, at 11-12, para. 26. See, e.g., Bringing Together Puerto Rico Broadband Speed Requirements; USVI Fund Broadband Speed Requirements; Rural Digital Opportunity Fund Report and Order, 35 FCC Rcd at 702-703, para. 3. Many commenters note that setting a long-term goal is appropriate and support setting that goal at 1 Gbps/500 Mbps or higher. Benton Institute Comments at 2-3; CCIA Comments at 1-2; Letter from Angie Kronenberg, Chief Advocate & General Counsel, INCOMPAS, 3 (filed Aug. 1, 2022) (INCOMPAS August 2022 Ex Parte); Nebraska PSC Reply at 2; Vantage Point Comments at 6; Vantage Point Reply at 6 (suggesting that our proposed long-term goal will soon be met, but based on average download speeds rather than 100% deployment); WTA Comments at 3, 10, 20-21. The Nebraska PSC, for example, accurately explains that “[a]doption of a strategic forward-looking vision will help the Commission set the desired pace for broadband deployment and provide a clear gauge as to whether that deployment is on track,” while encouraging the Commission to consider an even higher goal. 49. While some commenters suggest that a long-term 1 Gbps symmetrical goal is necessary, See ADTRAN Comments at 13-15; FBA Comments at 4; NDIA Reply at 3; NRECA Comments at 4, 6, 10; NTCA Comments at 6. we decline to adopt a symmetrical long-term benchmark at this time. This decision is guided in part by the Commission’s 2022 BDC data, which shows that 1 Gbps/500 Mbps service, the long-term fixed physical deployment goal, is not yet deployed to 50% of households For purposes of this Report, each unit within a populated BDC Broadband Serviceable Location (BSL) is considered to be a household. —deployment of 1 Gbps symmetrical is even further off. For example, the Commission’s estimates of 940/500 Mbps deployment from 2022 demonstrate that between approximately 55% and 61% of households do not have access to this speed, while between approximately 38% and 41% of households have at least one provider offering access to this speed tier. Communications Marketplace Report et al., GN Docket No. 22-203, 37 FCC Rcd 15514, 15563, para. 61, Fig. II.A.33 (2022), (2022 Communications Marketplace Report), https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-22-103A1.pdf. For purposes of this report, we use a download speed of 940 Mbps because that is the maximum advertised download speed reported in BDC data by two of the largest providers of fixed terrestrial broadband service. This is also what we reported in the 2022 Communications Marketplace Report. 2022 Communications Marketplace Report, 37 FCC Rcd at 15533, para. 31 & n.64. We will continue to re-evaluate our long term goal in future reports. To the extent that we find this 1 Gbps/500 Mbps goal to be inadequate in light of future developments, as some parties have suggested it may be, we will raise it. See FBA Comments at 4; Letter from Angie Kronenberg, Chief Advocate & General Counsel, INCOMPAS, 3 (filed Aug. 1, 2022) (INCOMPAS August 2022 Ex Parte); NDIA Reply at 3; Nebraska PSC Reply at 2; NRECA Comments at 4, 6, 10; NTCA Comments at 6; Vantage Point Comments at 6; Vantage Point Reply at 6-7; WTA Comments at 3, 10, 20-21. 50. We disagree with commenters that argue that the Commission should simply continue to review benchmarks yearly and increase the standard speed benchmark when necessary as opposed to setting a long-term goal, See ACAM Coalition Comments at 1, 3-4; Rally Networks Comments at 2. as well as commenters that object to setting a long-term goal because it is difficult to predict what will be needed. See ACA Connects Comments at 7-8; CTIA Comments at 19; Free State Foundation Comments at 14; USTelecom Comments at 2, 4; WISPA Comments at 4-5; WISPA Reply at 3-4. While we understand the reservations of certain commenters citing the difficulty in predicting future needs, we believe it still important to set an aspirational goal against which the industry can strive to achieve. We note that our aspirational goal is merely that – aspirational. It should not distort otherwise rational ISP investment plans, as feared by ACA Connects. Further, because our long-term goal is not being used for our section 706 finding, it need not necessarily be based on a detailed projection of consumer needs; rather, we believe our already-established long-term goals in our high-cost USF programs serve as an adequate basis for our long-term goal. This goal can be changed in the future should the progress of deployment slow down or speed up. As NTCA puts it: “[s]etting a long-term goal does not preclude providers capable of providing only 100/20 Mbps today from securing funds while also considering the capability to meet the demand they will experience from consumers in the future.” NTCA Reply at 4. 51. In addition to proposing a long-term goal, we also sought comment in the Notice on how we should define “long-term,” noting that the length of support for many high-cost programs is 10 years. Notice, FCC 23-89, at 12, para. 26. We recognize that our long-term goal is new, and many ISPs are several years away from successfully completing the 1 Gbps/500 Mbps (or greater) 10-year buildout commitments that they have made. As a result, we conclude that it is best to initially observe market and investment trends before attaching a timeframe to our long-term goal. We intend to continually monitor this issue. b. Data Sources and Methodology 52. As proposed in the Notice, we use the FCC BDC data in our analysis of December 2022 broadband service availability BDC data as of December 31, 2022 includes all filings certified as of December 1, 2023. In the FCC's BDC, data on fixed “availability” of broadband services show locations where a provider currently has a customer or where the provider is capable of performing a “standard broadband installation” (that is, can complete a routine installation within 10 business days after a service request is initiated with no charges or delays attributable to the extension of the provider’s network). These data provide a more highly granular assessment of “service availability” than the Commission’s former Form 477 fixed broadband deployment collection. The BDC does not currently factor in all of the universal service goals that the Commission is analyzing as a part of this inquiry into “availability,” and as a result in this report we use the term “service availability” to refer to “availability” as reported in the Broadband Data Collection. See Broadband Data Collection, Data Specifications for Biannual Submission of Subscription, Availability, and Supporting Data (Feb. 7, 2023), https://us-fcc.app.box.com/v/bdc-availability-spec and 47 CFR § 1.7004. and rely on FCC Form 477 data for December 2018 through December 2021 for historical trend purposes. Historically, service providers used the FCC Form 477 to report on where they had deployed broadband service. See FCC Form 477, Instructions for Filings as of December 31, 2019-June 30, 2022, https://usfcc.app.box.com/v/Form477InstThruJune2022. The first BDC filing window for the collection of data as of June 30, 2022, opened on June 30, 2022 and closed September 1, 2022. See Inaugural Filing Window for Broadband Data Collection Has Opened; Filers May Begin Submitting Broadband Availability Data, WC Docket Nos. 11-10, 19-195, Public Notice, 37 FCC Rcd 7656 (WCB/WTB/OEA 2022). The second BDC filing window for the collection of data as of December 31, 2022, opened on January 3, 2023 and closed March 1, 2023. See Broadband Data Task Force Announces Opening of the Second Broadband Data Collection Filing Window, WC Dockets Nos. 11-10, 19-195, Public Notice, 37 FCC Rcd 15161 (WCB/WTB/OEA 2022). The Commission has for many years relied primarily on the FCC Form 477 deployment data to evaluate the progress of advanced telecommunications capability, See, e.g., 2021 Report, 36 FCC Rcd at 847-48, para. 21; 2018 Report, 33 FCC Rcd at 1677, para. 43; 2016 Report, 31 FCC Rcd at 729, para. 73. as that dataset was the most reliable and comprehensive data to assess broadband service availability. 2021 Report, 36 FCC Rcd at 847-48, para. 21. However, in the years since the Commission’s last Section 706 Report, the Commission has established a new data collection for broadband service availability—the BDC. Establishing the Digital Opportunity Data Collection, WC Dockets Nos. 19-195 and 11-10, Third Report and Order, 36 FCC Rcd 1126 (2021) (BDC Third Report and Order); Establishing the Digital Opportunity Data Collection, WC Dockets Nos. 19-195 and 11-10, Second Report and Order and Third Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 35 FCC Rcd 7460, 7461, para. 1 (2020) (BDC Second Order and Third Further Notice); Establishing the Digital Opportunity Data Collection; Modernizing the FCC Form 477 Data Program, WC Dockets Nos. 19-195 and 11-10, Report and Order and Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 34 FCC Rcd 7505, 7549, para. 112 (2019); Modernizing the FCC Form 477 Data Program, WC Docket No. 11-10, Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 32 FCC Rcd 6329, 6331-32, para. 8 (2017). The Commission now requires facilities-based providers of fixed broadband Internet access services to file location-level service availability data directly with the Commission. See 47 CFR § 1.7004. 53. In March 2020, Congress passed the Broadband Deployment Accuracy and Technological Availability Act (Broadband DATA Act), Broadband Deployment Accuracy and Technological Availability Act, Pub. L. No. 116-130, 134 Stat. 228 (2020) (codified at 47 U.S.C. §§ 641-646) (Broadband DATA Act). which required the Commission, among other things, to collect biannual data relating to the service availability and quality of service of fixed and mobile broadband Internet access service for the Commission to create broadband coverage maps. 47 U.S.C. § 642(a)(1)(A). Pursuant to the Broadband DATA Act, we now collect more precise, location level data on mass market broadband service availability and fixed broadband services through the BDC. In addition to improved precision, the BDC data is subject to input from consumers, state, local, and Tribal governmental entities, and other stakeholders who may submit challenges and crowdsource data to further refine the accuracy of service availability data, as well as the Commission’s verification and audit efforts which collectively help to validate the accuracy of the provider-reported service availability data. Accordingly, in December 2022, the Commission sunset the collection of broadband deployment data through the FCC Form 477. Establishing the Digital Opportunity Data Collection; Modernizing the FCC Form 477 Data Program, WC Docket Nos. 19-195, 11-10, Order, 37 FCC Rcd 14957 (2022) (2022 Form 477 Order) (sunsetting the collection of broadband deployment data through FCC Form 477). The Commission clarified that it will continue to collect broadband and voice subscription data using the FCC Form 477, but filers will submit their data through the FCC BDC system. Id. at 14957, para. 1. The third BDC filing window, for data as of June 30, 2023, closed on September 15, 2023. 54. The BDC offers several advantages over the FCC Form 477 data for the purposes of our section 706 analysis. The BDC is the most granular, detailed collection of broadband service availability data the FCC has ever gathered or released, depicting location-level information on fixed broadband Internet access service availability across the United States as well as standardized coverage maps for 3G, 4G LTE, and 5G-NR mobile wireless services. As part of the BDC, the Commission developed the Broadband Serviceable Location Fabric (Fabric). See Broadband Data Task Force Announces the Availability of the Production Version of the Broadband Serviceable Location Fabric, WC Docket Nos. 19-195, 11-10, Public Notice, 37 FCC Rcd 7537 (2022) (announcing that the Fabric was now available for broadband service providers and governmental entities to access) and Federal Communications Commission Broadband Data Collection Help Center, What is the Location Fabric? (Aug. 2, 2023), https://help.bdc.fcc.gov/hc/en-us/articles/5375384069659-What-is-the-Location-Fabric-. The Fabric is a dataset of all locations in the United States where fixed broadband Internet access service is or can be installed. See 47 U.S.C. § 642(b)(1)(A). Fixed providers must then report whether they make services “available,” as the term is used for BDC purposes, specifying the technology and maximum advertised speed, at each location identified in the Fabric. Terrestrial fixed and satellite providers can do this by either submitting a list of locations (by unique location ID) for which they can make their service “available” or by providing a polygon that can be overlaid onto the Fabric data. See 47 CFR § 1.7004(c)(1); Broadband Data Collection, Data Specifications for Biannual Submission of Subscription, Availability, and Supporting Data at 21 (Feb. 7, 2023), https://us-fcc.app.box.com/v/bdc-availability-spec. Similarly, terrestrial fixed wireless providers may either submit a list of locations or propagation maps and model details that reflect the speeds and latency of its service. Id. This allows the Commission to determine whether terrestrial fixed advanced telecommunications capability is available (as defined for BDC purposes) on a location-by-location basis. Previously, as part of their FCC Form 477 filings, facilities-based fixed broadband providers submitted data, by census block, about where they had deployed fixed broadband service; a census block was submitted if a fixed provider had deployed broadband service to at least one end-user premises in that block. For purposes of the analysis of access to advanced telecommunications capability in this report, for years 2018-2021, a census block is classified as served by fixed broadband if the FCC Form 477 data indicate that service is available in the census block, even if not to every location. Therefore, it is not necessarily the case that every household, housing unit, or person will have coverage from a given service provider in a census block that this analysis indicates is served. 2021 Report, 36 FCC Rcd at 848, para. 22; see also 2022 Communications Marketplace Report, 37 FCC Rcd at 15521, para. 15. Because a provider that reports offering service in a particular census block may not offer service, or service at that speed, to all locations in the census block, the number of providers presented in this report does not necessarily reflect the number of choices available in a particular household and does not purport to measure competition. See, e.g., 2022 Communications Marketplace Report, 37 FCC Rcd at 15521, para. 15 & n.26. As the Commission has previously explained, this previous approach could overstate the coverage experienced by some consumers, especially in large or irregularly-shaped census blocks. See, e.g., 2021 Report, 36 FCC Rcd at 848, para. 22; 2020 Report, 35 FCC Rcd at 8998, para. 26. Because the BDC collects service availability data below the census block level, it represents a significant increase in granularity starting in 2022. 55. Our analysis of deployment for both fixed and mobile services uses census block population data developed by the U.S. Census Bureau and Commission staff estimates. Commission staff developed population estimates for 2018-21 by updated Census Bureau-level population and household-level data. These estimates are based on annual U.S. Census mid-year county- (or county-equivalent) level population and housing unit estimates for the 50 states and the District of Columbia. These data are used in conjunction with U.S. Census Bureau Topological Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing (TIGER) data to indicate new roads, that is, new housing development, to distribute population amongst the census blocks comprising each county (or county-equivalent). FCC, Staff Block Estimates, https://www.fcc.gov/reports-research/data/staff-block-estimates (last visited Jan. 9, 2024) (Staff Block Estimates). Prior to 2022, the Commission had no information about broadband service availability below the census block, and therefore block-level population estimates were applied directly to the existing broadband service availability data to estimate the population with access to advanced telecommunications capability. Beginning in 2022, the BDC offers us sub-block, location-level broadband service availability data. The Fabric dataset, on which the BDC is based, contains the number of units in each Broadband Serviceable Location (BSL) but it does not contain information on the population of each BSL or unit therein. To estimate the population with access to advanced telecommunications capability for December 2022 and beyond, we will use our established block-level population estimation methodology as an input to estimate the population of each BSL. Federal Communications Commission Broadband Data Collection Help Center, About the Fabric: What a Broadband Serviceable Location (BSL) Is and Is Not (July 18, 2023), https://help.bdc.fcc.gov/hc/en-us/articles/16842264428059-About-the-Fabric-What-a-Broadband-Serviceable-Location-BSL-Is-and-Is-Not. Generally, we estimate the population of each unit within a census block by iteratively assigning the estimated population of the block to BSLs in turn based on a fixed probability, where that fixed probability is a decreasing function of the total number of units in the block. In this way, the population of each census block will equal the sum of population counts across all units in the block, but each unit—and therefore each BSL—within a block will generally not have the same population. We then estimate the number of households by counting the number of units within populated BSLs. For example, if a block has a population of 20 persons (based on staff estimates or Census counts, depending on the year of the data) and six units distributed across three BSLs (based on the contemporaneous version of the Fabric), each person is essentially assigned to a unit in turn by rolling a six-sided die. In the end, the population of each BSL will be an integer, and the population of the six units will not necessarily be equal. See Appendix A for a comprehensive explanation of our population distribution methodology. 56. Urban/Rural Classification. For years prior to 2021, the designation of a census block as urban is based on the 2010 Urban Areas delineated by the U.S. Census Bureau, while for 2021 and 2022, urban/rural status is derived from the 2020 Urban Areas. For year-end 2018-2020 FCC Form 477 data that are submitted according to 2010 Census block geographies, we define as “urban” all 2010 Census urban areas and urban clusters that sit within a Metropolitan Statistical Area. See Connect America Fund, WC Docket No. 10-90, Order, 28 FCC Rcd 4242, 4244, para. 10 (WCB/WTB 2013). For year-end 2021 and 2022, we rely on the 2020 Census block geographies. United States Census Bureau, Urban and Rural, https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/geography/guidance/geo-areas/urban-rural.html. Census blocks are completely within or outside of an urban area. A block’s population, housing/BSLs, and territory are classified as urban if the block is within an Urban Area. Otherwise, a block’s population, housing/BSLs, and territory are considered rural. 57. Tribal Lands Classification. The Commission uses federally recognized American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian Areas maintained by the U.S. Census Bureau as the source for Tribal lands classification. For metrics provided prior to 2021, the data vintage is the 2010 Census. For 2021 and 2022, data from the 2020 Census are used. For purposes of the analysis of Tribal lands in this report, we use the definition that was used in the 2022 Commercial Marketplace Report and in the Commission’s Broadband Deployment Reports since 2012. See 2022 Communications Marketplace Report, 37 FCC Rcd at 15538, para. 35 & n.71; Inquiry Concerning Deployment of Advanced Telecommunications Capability to All Americans in a Reasonable and Timely Fashion, GN Docket No. 11-121, Eighth Broadband Progress Report, 27 FCC Rcd 10342, 10414-15 (2012). We acknowledge that the Commission has used other definitions of Tribal lands in other contexts. See, e.g., Transforming the 2.5 GHz Band, WT Docket No. 18-120, Report and Order, 34 FCC Rcd 5446, 5465-66, paras. 51-55 (2019) (2.5 GHz Report and Order); Bridging the Digital Divide for Low-Income Consumers, Fourth Report and Order, Order on Reconsideration, Memorandum Opinion and Order, WC Docket No. 17-287, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, and Notice of Inquiry, 32 FCC Rcd 10475 (2017); Connect America Fund et al., Report and Order, WC Docket No. 10-90, Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, and Order on Reconsideration, 33 FCC Rcd 11893, 11910-11, para. 55 & n.122 (2018); Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Announces Procedures for 2.5 GHz Rural Tribal Priority Window, WT Docket No. 18-20, Public Notice, 35 FCC Rcd 308, 313, para. 19 (WTB 2020). However, for purposes of this Report, we maintain our definition as previously employed. As identified by the U.S. Census Bureau, Tribal lands fall into one of the following American Indian Area/Alaska Native Area/Hawaiian Home Land Class Code categories: (1) legal federally recognized American Indian area consisting of reservation and associated off-reservation trust land; (2) legal federally recognized American Indian area consisting of reservation only; (3) legal federally recognized American Indian area consisting of off-reservation trust land only; (4) joint use areas (legal); (5) statistical American Indian area defined for a federally recognized Tribe that does not have reservation or off-reservation trust land, specifically a Tribal Designated Statistical Area (TDSA) or Oklahoma Tribal Statistical Area (OTSA); (6) joint use areas (statistical); (7) Alaskan Native Village Statistical Areas (ANVSAs); and (8) Hawaiian Home Lands established by the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act of 1921. We exclude state recognized areas from the analysis of Tribal lands. Categories (1), (2), (3), and (4) are grouped together as Federal Reservations and categories (5) and (6) comprise Tribal Statistical Areas within this report. United States Census Bureau, TIGER/Line Shapefiles and TIGER/Line Files Technical Documentation, (Feb., 2021) https://www2.census.gov/geo/pdfs/maps-data/data/tiger/tgrshp2020/TGRSHP2020_TechDoc.pdf. 58. Satellite Services. We find that FCC Form 477 deployment data and FCC BDC service availability data for satellite broadband service may overstate the extent to which satellite broadband service is available. The 2022 FCC BDC service availability data for satellite broadband indicate that satellite service offering 25/3 Mbps speeds is available to nearly all of the population. The December 2022 BDC data indicate that satellite service offering 25/3 Mbps speeds is available to close to 100% of the U.S. population while a speed of 100/20 Mbps is available to approximately 16% of the U.S. population only. However, other FCC Form 477 data indicate that satellite services have a relatively low subscription rate despite their apparent widespread service availability, and satellite capacity limits the number of subscribers that can be served without service degradation. The FCC Form 477 subscription data indicate that between December 2018 and December 2022, consumer subscriptions for satellite services at any speed increased slightly from approximately 1.8 million to approximately 1.9 million. The take rate for satellite services is just under 1.4%. While satellite coverage may enable operators to offer services to wide swaths of the country, overall satellite capacity may limit the number of consumers that can actually subscribe to satellite service at any one time. 2022 Communications Marketplace Report, 37 FCC Rcd at 15704, para. 332 & n.963. Given this, and unless stated otherwise, consistent with past Reports, our analysis in this section is based on all fixed terrestrial services and does not include satellite services. See 2021 Report, 36 FCC Rcd at 851, para. 27; 2020 Report, 35 FCC Rcd at 9000, para. 31; 2019 Report, 34 FCC Rcd at 3870, para. 28; 2018 Report, 33 FCC Rcd at 1678, para. 45; 2016 Report, 31 FCC Rcd at 703, para. 3 (describing the matter as moot because no satellite services met or exceeded the then-applicable 25/3 Mbps fixed broadband benchmark). Service availability data submitted through the BDC continue to improve as filers become more acquainted with the filing requirements and as Commission staff conduct additional verifications of the data. Recently, as part of this effort, the Broadband Data Task Force released an updated data specification which included common data fields for satellite infrastructure data that satellite service providers use to estimate their service and coverage. See Broadband Data Collection, Data Specifications for Provider Infrastructure Data in the Challenge, Verification, and Audit Processes § 2.3 (December 21, 2023), https://us-fcc.app.box.com/v/bdc-infrastructure-spec. The Task Force has notified service providers (including satellite providers) that it will collect these additional data in the context of the Commission’s statutory obligations to verify broadband service availability data. See Establishing the Digital Opportunity Data Collection; Competitive Carriers Association and USTelecom – The Broadband Association Petition for Extension of Waiver Regarding the Requirement for a Certified Professional Engineer to Certify Broadband Data Collection Maps, WC Docket No. 19-195, Order, DA 23-1123 at para. 22 (WTB/WCB/OEA Nov. 30, 2023). 59. Terrestrial Fixed Wireless Services. We find that the FCC Form 477 deployment data and BDC service availability data for terrestrial fixed wireless services indicate that these services are widely available and that subscription to these services has increased over time. However, the overall subscription rate remains relatively low. Based on the FCC Form 477 subscription data, while subscription to fixed wireless services more than tripled between December 2018 and December 2022, from approximately 1.3 million to 4.5 million, the take rate for fixed wireless service in 2022 was approximately 4%. Therefore, for purposes of this Report, we present two sets of deployment and service availability estimates: one including fixed wireless services and one excluding fixed wireless services. As of December 31, 2022, the adoption rate of services meeting a 100/20 Mbps speed threshold was approximately 2% for fixed wireless services, approximately 26% for cable services, and approximately 38% for fiber-based services. As demonstrated in the Figures below, excluding fixed wireless services has the greatest effect in rural areas and Tribal lands. c. Fixed Broadband Data 60. Figure 1 shows service availability of fixed terrestrial broadband at three minimum speed thresholds: 25/3 Mbps, 100/20 Mbps, and 940/500 Mbps. As discussed above, we use a download speed of 940 Mbps because that is the maximum advertised speed reported by two of the largest providers of fixed terrestrial broadband service. See Section III.A.1(a), supra. Appx. B-1 reports on service availability of fixed terrestrial services at our speed benchmark of 100/20 Mbps by state, District of Columbia, and U.S. Territory, while Appx. B-2 reports on service availability of fixed services, including satellite services, at different speed tiers. As noted above, the new fixed speed benchmark for evaluating access to advanced telecommunications capability is 100/20 Mbps and the new long-term goal is 1000/500 Mbps—the 25/3 Mbps threshold, the Commission’s former fixed speed benchmark, is included for comparison purposes. Further, because of the change in census geographies during our data collection period, caution should be exercised when considering the trends in service availability over time for urban and rural areas. In addition, due to the different parameters of the underlying data collections, the results for 2022 should not be directly compared with previous years. For purposes of the December 31, 2022 analysis, we measure service availability of fixed services based on the Fabric. Federal Communications Commission Broadband Data Collection Help Center, What is the Location Fabric? (Aug. 2, 2023), https://help.bdc.fcc.gov/hc/en-us/articles/5375384069659-What-is-the-Location-Fabric-. Unless otherwise explicitly stated, the data we use in our analysis of the fixed marketplace are for the 50 states and the District of Columbia. We separately present estimates for Puerto Rico, American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, and the U.S. Virgin Islands in Appx. B-3. Our analysis of deployment and service availability for both fixed and mobile services uses census block data developed by the U.S. Census Bureau and Commission staff estimates. Commission staff developed population estimates for 2018-21 by updated Census Bureau-level population and household-level data. These estimates are based on annual U.S. Census mid-year county- (or county-equivalent) level population and housing unit estimates for the 50 states and the District of Columbia. These data are used in conjunction with U.S. Census Bureau Topological Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing (TIGER) data to indicate new roads, that is, new housing development, to distribute population amongst the census blocks comprising each county (or county-equivalent). FCC, Staff Block Estimates, https://www.fcc.gov/reports-research/data/staff-block-estimates (last visited Jan. 9, 2024) (Staff Block Estimates). 61. As of 2022, Figure 1 shows that approximately 24 million Americans lack access to fixed broadband at our speed benchmark of 100/20 Mbps. Figure 1 also shows that service availability of advanced telecommunications capability at 100/20 Mbps is highest in urban areas and lowest in rural areas, with service availability in Tribal areas falling somewhere in between. Including fixed wireless, service availability is at approximately 98% in urban areas, approximately 72% in rural areas, and approximately 76% in Tribal areas. Excluding fixed wireless, service availability is at approximately 97% in urban areas, approximately 64% in rural areas, and approximately 70% in Tribal areas. At 940/500 Mbps, an approximation for our long-term goal, the data show service availability of approximately 40% overall, approximately 45% in urban areas, approximately 24% in rural areas, and approximately 28% in Tribal areas. Fig. 1 Service Availability (Millions) of Fixed Terrestrial Services at Different Speed Tiers 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Pop. % Pop. % Pop. % Pop. % Pop. % 25/3 Mbps United States 309.000 94.4% 313.749 95.6% 321.606 97.6% 325.816 98.2% 318.921 95.7% Rural Areas 50.146 77.7% 53.834 82.7% 59.821 90.9% 62.146 92.6% 56.254 83.1% Urban Areas 258.854 98.5% 259.915 98.8% 261.786 99.3% 263.669 99.6% 262.667 98.9% Tribal Areas 2.922 72.3% 3.203 79.1% 3.545 86.8% 3.682 90.9% 3.567 88.2% 25/3 Mbps - Excluding Fixed Wireless United States 301.943 92.3% 304.341 92.7% 309.260 93.9% 315.008 94.9% 305.478 91.7% Rural Areas 44.508 69.0% 46.358 71.2% 49.634 75.4% 53.382 79.5% 45.859 67.7% Urban Areas 257.435 98.0% 257.983 98.0% 259.625 98.5% 261.625 98.8% 259.618 97.8% Tribal Areas 2.685 66.5% 2.847 70.3% 3.047 74.6% 3.250 80.2% 2.981 73.7% 100/20 Mbps United States 289.752 88.6% 294.124 89.6% 301.670 91.6% 312.472 94.1% 309.107 92.7% Rural Areas 37.561 58.2% 40.377 62.0% 44.691 67.9% 51.576 76.9% 48.767 72.0% Urban Areas 252.191 96.0% 253.747 96.4% 256.979 97.5% 260.896 98.5% 260.341 98.0% Tribal Areas 1.999 49.5% 2.221 54.8% 2.487 60.9% 2.998 74.0% 3.087 76.3% 100/20 Mbps - Excluding Fixed Wireless United States 287.781 88.0% 291.342 88.8% 297.851 90.4% 307.791 92.7% 301.531 90.5% Rural Areas 36.322 56.3% 38.747 59.5% 42.097 64.0% 47.943 71.4% 43.104 63.6% Urban Areas 251.458 95.7% 252.596 96.0% 255.754 97.0% 259.847 98.1% 258.427 97.3% Tribal Areas 1.949 48.3% 2.133 52.6% 2.355 57.7% 2.906 71.7% 2.810 69.5% 940/500 Mbps United States 91.352 27.9% 106.014 32.3% 119.083 36.1% 148.069 44.6% 134.617 40.4% Rural Areas 6.830 10.6% 9.038 13.9% 11.960 18.2% 16.084 24.0% 16.204 23.9% Urban Areas 84.522 32.2% 96.976 36.9% 107.123 40.6% 131.985 49.8% 118.413 44.6% Tribal Areas 0.453 11.2% 0.587 14.5% 0.820 20.1% 1.096 27.1% 1.117 27.6% 940/500 Mbps - Excluding Fixed Wireless United States 88.853 27.2% 103.256 31.5% 115.136 34.9% 145.358 43.8% 132.059 39.6% Rural Areas 6.681 10.4% 8.907 13.7% 11.480 17.4% 15.810 23.6% 15.670 23.1% Urban Areas 82.172 31.3% 94.349 35.9% 103.656 39.3% 129.549 48.9% 116.389 43.8% Tribal Areas 0.453 11.2% 0.586 14.5% 0.817 20.0% 1.096 27.0% 1.109 27.4% Pop. Evaluated 327.167 100.0% 328.210 100.0% 329.491 100.0% 331.894 100.0% 333.288 100.0% Source: FCC Form 477 data; FCC BDC data; Staff Block Estimates. 62. Figure 2 shows service availability of advanced telecommunications capability on Tribal lands, by rural and urban areas and by major Tribal lands category. As of December 2022, service availability on rural Tribal lands continues to lag behind service availability on urban Tribal lands: approximately 60% of Americans living on Tribal lands in rural areas have access to broadband at minimum speeds of 100/20 Mbps (including fixed wireless) while approximately 96% of Americans living on Tribal lands in urban areas have such access. The same pattern is observed excluding fixed wireless. Fig. 2 Service Availability (Millions) on Tribal Lands of Fixed Terrestrial Services at 100/20 Mbps 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Area Pop. % Pop. % Pop. % Pop. % Pop. % 100/20 Mbps Including Fixed Wireless Tribal Lands 1.999 49.5% 2.221 54.8% 2.487 60.9% 2.998 74.0% 3.087 76.3% Rural Areas 0.568 27.0% 0.728 34.4% 0.926 43.1% 1.256 56.0% 1.338 60.3% Urban Areas 1.431 74.0% 1.494 77.1% 1.561 80.6% 1.743 96.4% 1.749 95.9% Alaska Native Village Statistical Areas 0.149 56.1% 0.160 60.0% 0.165 61.3% 0.182 67.0% 0.163 60.4% Rural Areas 0.071 41.1% 0.081 47.0% 0.086 49.2% 0.094 53.0% 0.078 44.2% Urban Areas 0.079 83.2% 0.079 83.6% 0.080 83.6% 0.088 93.8% 0.085 90.6% Federal Reservations 0.394 36.3% 0.481 44.1% 0.542 49.3% 0.603 55.4% 0.599 56.7% Rural Areas 0.190 25.2% 0.250 33.0% 0.296 38.7% 0.359 44.3% 0.359 46.1% Urban Areas 0.204 61.3% 0.231 69.3% 0.246 73.7% 0.244 88.2% 0.240 86.6% Hawaiian Home Lands 0.030 88.7% 0.032 92.8% 0.032 93.2% 0.034 98.9% 0.033 94.7% Rural Areas 0.003 46.1% 0.004 63.2% 0.004 65.8% 0.008 95.5% 0.006 78.9% Urban Areas 0.027 98.1% 0.028 99.5% 0.028 99.5% 0.026 100% 0.026 99.6% Tribal Statistical Areas 1.425 53.7% 1.548 58.2% 1.749 65.2% 2.179 82.0% 2.292 85.5% Rural Areas 0.304 25.9% 0.392 33.3% 0.541 45.0% 0.794 63.8% 0.895 71.3% Urban Areas 1.121 75.8% 1.156 78.0% 1.208 81.7% 1.385 98.1% 1.397 97.9% 100/20 Mbps Excluding Fixed Wireless Tribal Lands 1.949 48.3% 2.133 52.6% 2.355 57.7% 2.906 71.7% 2.810 69.5% Rural Areas 0.521 24.8% 0.647 30.6% 0.807 37.6% 1.174 52.3% 1.082 48.8% Urban Areas 1.427 73.8% 1.486 76.7% 1.549 80.0% 1.731 95.8% 1.727 94.7% Alaska Native Village Statistical Areas 0.128 47.9% 0.133 49.6% 0.137 50.9% 0.153 56.4% 0.138 51.0% Rural Areas 0.049 28.7% 0.054 31.3% 0.058 33.3% 0.067 37.6% 0.055 31.0% Urban Areas 0.078 82.7% 0.079 83.1% 0.079 83.1% 0.086 92.3% 0.083 88.4% Federal Reservations 0.380 35.0% 0.432 39.6% 0.470 42.8% 0.556 51.1% 0.516 48.9% Rural Areas 0.178 23.6% 0.208 27.4% 0.234 30.6% 0.321 39.6% 0.291 37.3% Urban Areas 0.202 60.8% 0.224 67.2% 0.236 70.9% 0.234 84.8% 0.226 81.5% Hawaiian Home Lands 0.030 88.7% 0.032 92.8% 0.032 93.2% 0.034 98.9% 0.033 94.7% Rural Areas 0.003 46.1% 0.004 63.2% 0.004 65.8% 0.008 95.5% 0.006 78.9% Urban Areas 0.027 98.1% 0.028 99.5% 0.028 99.5% 0.026 100% 0.026 99.6% Tribal Statistical Areas 1.411 53.2% 1.537 57.8% 1.716 64.0% 2.163 81.4% 2.123 79.2% Rural Areas 0.291 24.8% 0.381 32.3% 0.510 42.5% 0.778 62.5% 0.731 58.2% Urban Areas 1.120 75.7% 1.156 78.0% 1.206 81.5% 1.385 98.1% 1.392 97.6% Pop. Evaluated 4.039 100% 4.052 100% 4.083 100% 4.051 100% 4.043 100% Source: FCC Form 477 data; FCC BDC data; Staff Block Estimates. 63. Number of Fixed Service Providers. We examine the number of fixed broadband provider options available to consumers in the United States using year-end FCC Form 477 deployment data from 2018 to 2021 and year-end FCC BDC service availability data from 2022. Our analysis considers options for fixed terrestrial services meeting three minimum speed thresholds— 25/3 Mbps, 100/20 Mbps, and 940/500 Mbps. 64. INCOMPAS suggests that the Commission should recreate the analysis it did in the 2022 Communications Marketplace Report where the Commission published a chart that showed the percentage of households living in census blocks with multiple provider options, including the subscription take rates of 1% to 5%. INCOMPAS Comments at 7; Letter from Angie Kronenberg, President, INCOMPAS, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, GN Docket 22-270, at 1 (filed Dec. 19, 2023) (INCOMPAS December 2023 Ex Parte). INCOMPAS argues that this type of analysis is helpful to understand the state of available broadband options in the market as viewed by customers. Id. INCOMPAS notes that the Commission can continue to do its analysis based on a census block and county level in order to more easily compare with its prior report, but in addition, it argues that the Commission should also do its analysis based on the individual household now that it has access to more granular information from the BDC data. INCOMPAS Comments at 7-8. INCOMPAS claims that adding subscribership information to the BDC data will lessen concern that the BDC data overstates the competitive options available to customers. Id. at 8; INCOMPAS December 2023 Ex Parte at 1. We provide alternative estimates of the number of provider options available to households along the lines suggested by INCOMPAS in Figure 6, below. 65. As of December 2022, there were 2,179 entities of varying sizes and deployment and service availability footprints that reported providing fixed broadband technology services to residential consumers at speeds exceeding 200 kbps in at least one direction. Figure 3 presents the total number of providers of fixed broadband services, as well as the number of fixed broadband providers in rural and urban areas, from December 2018 through December 2022. The total number of providers has increased by approximately 9% since December 2018. The growth in the number of providers is higher in rural areas than in urban areas: Between December 2018 and December 2022, the number of providers in urban areas and rural areas increased by approximately 1% and approximately 9%, respectively. Fig. 3 Total Number of Providers of Fixed Terrestrial Services over Time (December 2022) Source: FCC Form 477 data; FCC BDC data; Staff Block Estimates; 2010 and 2020 Census. 66. While there are over 2,000 providers of residential services, there is considerable variation in provider size and deployment and service availability footprint. The overwhelming majority of providers cover less than 1% of the U.S. population. In December 2022, only 10 providers covered at least 5% of the U.S. population, based on their reported service availability data; this is an increase from nine providers in December 2019. 67. Figure 4 reports estimates of the percentage of U.S. households living in areas where data indicate that zero, one, two, and three or more providers of fixed terrestrial broadband services are deployed at various speed tiers. The FCC Form 477 year-end data from 2018 to 2020 are based on the 2010 census geographies; whereas the FCC Form 477 year-end 2021 and FCC BDC year-end 2022 data are based on 2020 census geographies. The percentage of households with an estimated number of fixed terrestrial provider options is measured as the number of households covered by the specific number of providers (e.g., zero, one, two, and at least three) divided by the total number of households. Throughout this section, percentages provided may not sum to exactly 100% due to rounding. This Figure uses FCC Form 477 year-end data from 2018-21 and FCC BDC year-end data for 2022. As noted above, we cannot compare the results for 2022 with previous years and therefore cannot compare any changes between 2018-21 and 2022. As of December 2022, there is a significant difference in the percentage of households with at least two provider options for 100/20 Mbps service compared to those with at least two provider options for 940/500 Mbps service. Figure 4 indicates that as of December 2022, approximately 55% of U.S. households had a choice of at least two fixed broadband providers. Using a methodology that defines broadband service availability as including both actual and potential competitive presence. ACA Connects asserts, though the Commission cannot independently verify, that as of mid-2023, 88.4 million U.S. households (that staff estimates to be approximately 68% of households) had at least two actual or potential competitive options for fixed broadband service. Letter from Brian Hurley, Chief Regulatory Counsel, ACA Connects, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, GN Docket No. 22-270 at 1-3 (filed Mar. 7, 2024) (ACA Connects Ex Parte). Approximately 45% of households do not have more than one provider option for 100/20 Mbps service, and over 96% of households do not have more than one provider option for 940/500 Mbps service. This pattern persists when fixed wireless services are excluded. Approximately 40% of households do not have more than one provider for 100/20 Mbps service when fixed wireless services are excluded, and over 96% of households have less than two provider options for 940/500 Mbps service when fixed wireless services are excluded. Fig. 4 Percentage of U.S. Households with Zero, One, Two, or At Least Three Provider Options for Fixed Terrestrial Services at Different Speed Tiers Provider Options 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 25/3 Mbps Zero 5.4% 4.3% 2.3% 1.6% 4.7% One 27.2% 22.5% 10.9% 8.6% 18.8% Two 46.1% 44.8% 33.6% 20.8% 30.5% At Least Three 21.3% 28.4% 53.1% 69.0% 46.0% 25/3 Mbps - Excluding Fixed Wireless Zero 7.4% 6.9% 5.8% 4.6% 8.9% One 32.4% 30.5% 28.6% 27.7% 39.5% Two 51.5% 53.1% 55.0% 55.9% 44.1% At Least Three 8.7% 9.4% 10.6% 11.9% 7.4% 100/20 Mbps Zero 11.3% 10.2% 8.3% 5.5% 7.9% One 39.9% 36.9% 34.6% 30.8% 37.4% Two 38.9% 41.1% 41.9% 43.0% 36.6% At Least Three 9.9% 11.7% 15.2% 20.7% 18.2% 100/20 Mbps - Excluding Fixed Wireless Zero 11.9% 11.0% 9.4% 6.7% 10.2% One 42.0% 40.2% 38.7% 37.3% 49.8% Two 40.0% 42.1% 44.4% 47.1% 34.9% At Least Three 6.1% 6.7% 7.5% 8.8% 5.1% 940/500 Mbps Zero 72.0% 67.6% 63.6% 55.0% 62.0% One 25.6% 29.7% 31.3% 40.9% 34.4% Two 2.2% 2.5% 4.6% 3.6% 3.5% At Least Three 0.2% 0.2% 0.5% 0.4% 0.2% 940/500 Mbps - Excluding Fixed Wireless Zero 72.8% 68.4% 64.8% 55.8% 62.8% One 25.7% 29.7% 31.1% 40.8% 33.7% Two 1.4% 1.7% 3.9% 3.1% 3.4% At Least Three 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.3% 0.1% Source: FCC Form 477 data; FCC BDC data; Staff Block Estimates. 68. We next evaluate the percentage of households that have a choice among multiple fixed terrestrial broadband service providers in rural and urban areas, and on Tribal lands. As shown in Figure 5, there is a significant difference in the percentage of households with at least two provider options in urban areas compared to households in rural areas and on Tribal lands. While approximately 63% of households in urban areas have at least two provider options for 100/20 Mbps service, less than 24% of households living in rural areas and less than 31% of households on Tribal lands have at least two options for this service tier. This pattern persists when fixed wireless services are excluded. Approximately 47% of households in urban areas have at least two provider options for 100/20 Mbps service when fixed wireless services are excluded, while approximately 12% of households living in rural areas and approximately 17% of households on Tribal lands have at least two options for this service tier. Currently, for services meeting a 940/500 Mbps threshold, approximately 4% of households in urban areas have at least two options, compared to approximately 1% of households in rural areas and approximately 2% of households on Tribal lands. This pattern persists when fixed wireless services are excluded. Fig. 5 Percentage of U.S. Households with Zero, One, Two, or At Least Three Provider Options for Fixed Terrestrial Services at Different Speed Tiers in Rural Areas, Urban Areas, and on Tribal Lands Provider Options 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 25/3 Mbps - Rural Areas Zero 22.0% 17.1% 8.9% 6.7% 17.7% One 44.1% 40.4% 23.8% 22.1% 37.4% Two 25.7% 29.5% 32.2% 28.6% 27.0% At Least Three 8.2% 13.0% 35.2% 42.6% 17.8% 25/3 Mbps - Urban Areas Zero 1.2% 1.0% 0.6% 0.3% 1.3% One 22.9% 18.0% 7.7% 5.2% 13.8% Two 51.2% 48.7% 34.0% 18.9% 31.4% At Least Three 24.6% 32.3% 57.7% 75.6% 53.5% 25/3 Mbps - Tribal Lands Zero 25.6% 19.3% 11.8% 7.7% 12.2% One 36.4% 35.4% 24.2% 18.6% 29.1% Two 23.7% 27.9% 26.0% 23.9% 27.5% At Least Three 14.3% 17.4% 37.9% 49.9% 31.3% 25/3 Mbps Excluding Fixed Wireless - Rural Areas Zero 30.2% 27.8% 23.6% 19.0% 32.9% One 46.9% 46.2% 46.0% 47.5% 49.8% Two 20.7% 23.3% 26.7% 29.2% 16.1% At Least Three 2.3% 2.8% 3.6% 4.4% 1.2% 25/3 Mbps Excluding Fixed Wireless- Urban Areas Zero 1.6% 1.6% 1.3% 0.9% 2.6% One 28.7% 26.5% 24.1% 22.7% 36.8% Two 59.3% 60.7% 62.2% 62.7% 51.6% At Least Three 10.3% 11.1% 12.3% 13.7% 9.0% 25/3 Mbps Excluding Fixed Wireless - Tribal Lands Zero 31.4% 27.9% 23.8% 17.7% 26.4% One 44.1% 44.1% 44.3% 40.7% 48.0% Two 22.7% 25.7% 29.0% 36.2% 23.7% At Least Three 1.8% 2.3% 2.9% 5.3% 1.9% 100/20 Mbps - Rural Areas Zero 41.4% 37.5% 31.6% 22.2% 28.9% One 45.1% 46.0% 47.2% 49.0% 47.9% Two 11.8% 14.4% 18.2% 23.5% 18.8% At Least Three 1.7% 2.1% 3.1% 5.4% 4.4% 100/20 Mbps - Urban Areas Zero 3.8% 3.3% 2.4% 1.3% 2.3% One 38.5% 34.6% 31.4% 26.2% 34.7% Two 45.7% 47.9% 48.0% 48.0% 41.3% At Least Three 12.0% 14.2% 18.3% 24.6% 21.8% 100/20 Mbps - Tribal Lands Zero 48.8% 43.7% 38.0% 23.4% 23.7% One 37.6% 37.7% 38.9% 43.0% 45.5% Two 13.1% 17.7% 21.6% 30.0% 24.1% At Least Three 0.5% 0.9% 1.4% 3.5% 6.8% 100/20 Mbps Excluding Fixed Wireless - Rural Areas Zero 43.1% 39.8% 35.3% 27.3% 37.0% One 44.9% 45.6% 47.2% 51.8% 50.7% Two 11.0% 13.4% 15.8% 18.8% 11.7% At Least Three 1.0% 1.3% 1.7% 2.1% 0.6% 100/20 Mbps Excluding Fixed Wireless - Urban Areas Zero 4.0% 3.8% 2.8% 1.6% 3.1% One 41.3% 38.8% 36.5% 33.7% 49.6% Two 47.2% 49.4% 51.7% 54.3% 41.0% At Least Three 7.4% 8.0% 9.0% 10.5% 6.3% 100/20 Mbps Excluding Fixed Wireless - Tribal Lands Zero 50.0% 45.6% 40.7% 25.7% 30.5% One 37.3% 37.4% 38.8% 44.1% 52.4% Two 12.3% 16.4% 19.5% 27.6% 16.2% At Least Three 0.3% 0.7% 1.0% 2.5% 0.9% 940/500 Mbps - Rural Areas Zero 89.4% 86.1% 81.8% 75.7% 76.2% One 10.1% 13.2% 16.9% 22.2% 22.5% Two 0.4% 0.7% 1.3% 1.9% 1.1% At Least Three 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.1% 940/500 Mbps - Urban Areas Zero 67.7% 62.9% 59.0% 49.7% 58.2% One 29.5% 33.8% 34.9% 45.7% 37.5% Two 2.6% 3.0% 5.5% 4.1% 4.1% At Least Three 0.2% 0.2% 0.6% 0.5% 0.2% 940/500 Mbps - Tribal Lands Zero 88.0% 84.7% 79.0% 71.5% 72.6% One 11.3% 14.5% 19.1% 24.9% 25.0% Two 0.7% 0.8% 1.9% 3.3% 2.3% At Least Three 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% 0.1% 940/500 Mbps Excluding Fixed Wireless - Rural Areas Zero 89.6% 86.2% 82.5% 76.1% 77.0% One 10.0% 13.1% 16.3% 22.0% 21.9% Two 0.4% 0.6% 1.2% 1.7% 1.0% At Least Three 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% 940/500 Mbps Excluding Fixed Wireless- Urban Areas Zero 68.6% 63.9% 60.3% 50.7% 59.0% One 29.7% 34.0% 34.9% 45.5% 36.9% Two 1.6% 2.0% 4.7% 3.5% 4.0% At Least Three 0.1% 0.1% 0.2% 0.4% 0.2% 940/500 Mbps Excluding Fixed Wireless - Tribal Lands Zero 88.0% 84.7% 79.0% 71.6% 72.8% One 11.3% 14.5% 19.0% 24.9% 24.9% Two 0.7% 0.8% 1.9% 3.3% 2.3% At Least Three 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% 0.1% Source: FCC Form 477 data; FCC BDC data; Staff Block Estimates. 69. Figure 6 provides alternative estimates of the number of provider options available to households in an attempt to present a more comprehensive assessment. To reduce the effect of the factors that could result in an understatement or overstatement of the proportion of households with a choice of multiple providers, we incorporate information from our confidential subscriber data before assessing the number of providers in each census block. In Figure 6, we present alternative estimates of the number of provider options for 25/3 Mbps, 100/20 Mbps, and 940/500 Mbps based on three scenarios that include all fixed technologies. These estimates include fixed satellite services. The estimates for Scenarios II and III rely on confidential residential connections (subscriber) data. These alternative estimates include satellite service, as well as any of the other fixed technologies, to the extent that the service meets the speed threshold and the scenario criteria. For comparison purposes, Scenario I presents fixed broadband coverage for all reported technologies, and takes the filer’s data as released by the Commission. The two remaining scenarios include the filer’s service availability data only if the filer’s residential connections data meet the minimum penetration rate for the scenario. Scenario II compares each filer’s BDC service availability data to its residential connections data and excludes the filer’s service availability data from the tract if the filer does not attain a 1% penetration rate. We define the penetration rate as the filer’s total number of residential connections in the tract divided by the filer’s number of deployed households meeting the speed threshold in the census tract. Scenario III increases the penetration rate in Scenario II from 1% to 5%. Scenarios II and III analyze penetration rates without regard to subscription speed to account for consumers opting to subscribe to slower speed services than the maximum advertised speed offered by a provider. We reiterate that, in Scenarios II and III, our decision to exclude a filer’s BDC service availability data does not mean that such service is not available in a particular census tract, only that the filer failed to attain the relevant penetration rate for purposes of these alternate estimates. 70. Comparing Scenario I to Scenario II and Scenario III shows the effect of penetration adjustments on the estimates of the number of provider options when a filer failed the penetration rate criteria for the scenario and its deployment data are excluded. For example, comparing Scenario I to Scenario II for 100/20 Mbps suggests that the percentage of households with at least two provider options would fall from approximately 61% to 49%, while comparing the Scenario I to Scenario III suggests that the percentage would fall from approximately 61% to 42%. In other words, a Scenario with a lower penetration rate results in more households having a greater number of provider options and fewer households having a lower number of provider options, relative to a Scenario with a higher penetration rate. Fig. 6 Alternative Estimates for the Percentage of Households with Multiple Provider Options for Fixed Terrestrial Services (December 31, 2022) Provider Options (December 31, 2022) Fixed Terrestrial Services Excluding Satellite Fixed Terrestrial Services Excluding Satellite and Fixed Wireless Scenario I: All Technologies Scenario II: All Technologies; 1% Penetration Rate Scenario III: All Technologies; 5% Penetration Rate 25/3 Mbps Zero 4.7% 8.9% 0.0% 1.9% 5.0% One 18.8% 39.5% 0.0% 20.2% 37.1% Two 30.5% 44.1% 0.3% 37.8% 47.1% At Least Three 46.0% 7.4% 99.7% 40.1% 10.8% 100/20 Mbps Zero 7.9% 10.2% 6.9% 8.2% 9.2% One 37.4% 49.8% 32.4% 43.1% 48.6% Two 36.6% 34.9% 36.4% 36.8% 36.2% At Least Three 18.2% 5.1% 24.3% 12.0% 6.1% 940/500 Mbps Zero 62.0% 62.8% 62.0% 63.4% 64.1% One 34.4% 33.7% 34.4% 33.4% 33.0% Two 3.5% 3.4% 3.5% 3.1% 2.9% At Least Three 0.2% 0.1% 0.2% 0.1% 0.0% Source: FCC BDC, FCC Form 477 data; Staff Block Estimates. Scenario I: Includes all technologies, including satellite services, and uses the filer data as released by the Commission. Scenario II: Compares each filer’s BDC service availability data to its confidential residential connections data, and excludes the filer’s service availability data from any Census tract where the filer does not attain a 1% penetration rate. (Penetration rate= filer’s total residential connections in the tract/filer’s deployed households in the census tract that meet the speed threshold). Scenario III: Increases the test penetration rate to 5%. 2. Mobile Broadband Service a. Speed Benchmark 71. Consistent with past Commission practice, we decline to set a benchmark for determining service availability of advanced telecommunications capability for mobile services (mobile advanced telecommunications capability) in this Report. While the Commission now collects much improved mobile broadband data via the BDC, we continue to recognize that the performance characteristics of mobile service can be highly variable. 2021 Report, 36 FCC Rcd at 843-44, para. 15 (declining to set a benchmark, noting the inherent variability in the performance characteristics of mobile service); 2020 Report, 35 FCC Rcd at 8993, para. 16 (same). Accordingly, we continue to evaluate mobile advanced telecommunications capability service availability without setting a performance benchmark for the purpose of this Report. While we do not set a benchmark for mobile advanced telecommunications capability at this time, we focus our main analysis of mobile broadband service availability on a single threshold speed for 5G-NR of 35/3 Mbps, which is the highest speed that the Commission collects in the BDC for mobile broadband. See 47 CFR § 1.7004(c)(3)(i). Specifically, we first analyze the provider-reported 5G-NR outdoor stationary coverage based on the Commission’s BDC data from December 31, 2022, where service providers claim to provide 5G-NR mobile broadband service at speeds of at least 35/3 Mbps. As we explain below, while we focus our analysis in the main body of the Report on the 5G-NR outdoor stationary coverage at speeds of 35/3 Mbps, we also analyze other deployed provider-reported BDC coverage data for mobile broadband (e.g., 5G-NR 35/3 Mbps in-vehicle, 5G-NR 7/1 Mbps outdoor stationary and in-vehicle; 4G LTE 5/1 Mbps outdoor stationary and in-vehicle) in Appx. B-4. Further, for the years prior to 2022, we base our analysis on FCC Form 477 data. Second, in areas where providers claim to provide 5G-NR outdoor stationary coverage with speeds of at least 35/3 Mbps, we supplement provider-reported data with Ookla speed-test data, that identify areas showing median 5G-NR speed tests of at least 35/3 Mbps. The Ookla speed-test data used in this report are user-initiated; therefore, they include tests taken under conditions that may be described as indoor, outdoor stationary, and in-vehicle mobile. We are not able to identify the conditions under which a given test was taken. This supplemental approach attempts to further our understanding of the mobile broadband speeds that consumers are actually experiencing. In addition to the analysis of 5G-NR coverage at 35/3 Mbps, in Appx. B-5 we also present the following: in areas where providers claim to provide 5G-NR outdoor stationary coverage with speeds of at least 7/1 Mbps, we supplement provider-reported data with Ookla speed-test data which identify areas showing median 5G-NR speed tests of at least 7/1 Mbps; and in areas where providers claim to provide 4G LTE or 5G-NR at 5/1 Mbps or better, we supplement provider-reported data with Ookla speed-test data which identify areas showing median mobile broadband speed tests of at least 10/3 Mbps. By continuing the approach taken by the Commission in previous section 706 reports, we also can more readily assess progress over time. 2021 Report, 36 FCC Rcd at 841-42, para. 12; 2020 Report, 35 FCC Rcd at 8993-94, para. 16; 2019 Report, 34 FCC Rcd at 3863-64, para. 16. 72. We analyze 5G-NR for this Report because it is the most advanced mobile technology that mobile providers are currently deploying. Because this Report focuses on advanced telecommunications capability, it is most appropriate to analyze a threshold beyond the mobile technology and speeds that are minimally adequate to originate and receive voice, data, graphics, and video telecommunications. 47 U.S.C. § 1302(d)(1); 2015 Report, 30 FCC Rcd at 1390-91, paras. 19-23 (providing a legal analysis that these reports require an analysis of telecommunications capability that is “advanced”); see also 2016 Report, 31 FCC Rcd at 705, para. 13. Rather, mobile service throughout the country needs to be sufficiently advanced so as to provide a “high quality” experience for consumers. 2016 Report, 31 FCC Rcd at 723-25; paras. 56-61 (discussing considerations for an appropriate speed for mobile service to be “advanced” telecommunication capability); see also 2015 Report, 30 FCC Rcd at 1390-91, paras. 20-21 (discussing interpretation of “advanced” in section 706). And this assessment must necessarily evolve with the advancement of mobile technology, as section 706 requires the Commission to inquire and assess mobile advanced telecommunications capability annually. 47 U.S.C. § 1302(a). Although we have analyzed 4G LTE in past reports, because 5G-NR is the advanced mobile technology that is currently being deployed and the main focus of the Commission’s efforts to ensure mobile service is universally available to all Americans, See, e.g., Establishing a 5G Fund for Rural America, GN Docket No. 20-32, Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 23-74 (Sept. 22, 2023) (5G Fund FNPRM) (seeking comment on a proposed 5G Fund for Rural America that would advance Commission efforts to ensure the deployment of high-speed, 5G-NR mobile service in areas of the country where, absent subsidies, it will continue to be lacking). we use 5G-NR as the generation of technology for this Report’s analysis. 73. We analyze a 35 Mbps download-speed threshold for mobile advanced telecommunications capability. The statute requires an analysis of whether advanced telecommunications capability is being deployed to all Americans and defines advanced telecommunications capability as able “to originate and receive high-quality voice, data, graphics, and video telecommunications.” 47 U.S.C. § 1302(d)(1). When consumers attempt to access these services, they want them immediately—the longer it takes for a person to access these services, the less of an advanced experience they have. Smartphones—the ubiquitously used device for mobile broadband Several different types of devices depend on mobile advanced telecommunications capability, such as smartwatches, tablets, hotspot devices, Internet of Things, and Internet services for cars. See, e.g., T-Mobile, Plans and Devices, https://www.t-mobile.com/cell-phones?INTNAV=tNav:Devices; Samuel Greengard, 5G and IoT: Making Connections to Change the World, Verizon (Dec. 1, 2022), https://www.verizon.com/about/news/5g-iot-together-changing-our-world; Tesla, Connectivity, https://www.tesla.com/support/connectivity (reselling mobile service as a premium service that allows security camera footage to be sent to the owner, video and music streaming within the car, live traffic visualization, and Internet browsing). While mobile uses are not just confined to a smartphone, smartphones are the ubiquitous use device, and the threshold for analysis must at least be sufficient to allow for high-quality usage of a smartphone. While mobile services need to be sufficiently advanced to support the ever evolving ecosystem of devices used by Americans, advanced telecommunications capability is not advanced if it cannot support advanced uses of smartphones, as over 85% of Americans now own a smartphone. Pew Research, Mobile Fact Sheet (Apr. 7, 2021), https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/fact-sheet/mobile/. —can have hundreds of gigabytes of memory, and a common use for smartphones can include downloading content such as pictures or videos from family and friends’ smartphones or other large data files. A standard 5 MB high-quality photo, for example, would take just over a second to download at 35 Mbps: there are 8 bits to a byte; 5 megabytes (MB) is 40 megabits (mb). A download speed of 35 Mbps would download 5 MB (40 megabits) in just over 1 second. and the slower the download speed, the longer such downloads take. Receiving videos at high-definition resolutions, such as 4K or 1080p—consistent with high-quality data under the statute—can still require one to download a short video that can easily exceed 100 MB in size, and mobile broadband download speeds need to be commensurate with the ability to download such content to the smartphones that consumers have with them everywhere they go. Jack Schofield, How Do I Shrink the Size of My Phone Videos?, The Guardian (Mar. 5, 2020), https://www.theguardian.com/technology/askjack/2020/mar/05/how-do-i-shrink-the-size-of-my-phone-videos (noting the phone cameras are capable of ultra-high definition recordings but analyzing a 63-second video of 165MB). A 35 Mbps download speed allows that 100 MB video to download in less than 23 seconds. The slower the download speed, the further Americans are from experiencing advanced, high-quality service as required by the statute. 47 U.S.C. § 1302(d)(1). Given the available BDC data, 35 Mbps is the most advanced download threshold we can analyze at this time. See, e.g., 47 U.S.C. § 254(b)(2) (“Access to advanced telecommunications and information services should be provided in all regions of the Nation.”), (b)(3) (“Consumers in all regions of the Nation, including low-income consumers and those in rural, insular, and high cost areas, should have access to telecommunications and information services, including interexchange services and advanced telecommunications and information services, that are reasonably comparable to those services provided in urban areas and that are available at rates that are reasonably comparable to rates charged for similar services in urban areas.”). 74. We use an upload speed threshold of 3 Mbps for our analysis. While the downlink brings content to consumers—and more bandwidth can bring that content to them more quickly—the uplink allows for consumers to send data to the Internet and higher upload speeds can allow consumers to send greater amounts of data to the Internet faster. Unlike download speeds, which determine how quickly a consumer receives the requested data, upload speeds need to be sufficiently fast to allow consumers to send data to the cloud. To that end, in considering upload speeds for mobile broadband, the upload threshold needs to be sufficient “to originate . . . high-quality . . . video telecommunications.” 47 U.S.C. § 1302(d)(1). For smartphones to originate and stream video calls of at least 1080p resolution—a common resolution screen for smartphones 1920 x 1080 resolution displays or better are common in smartphones, but due to screen size, most manufacturers of high-end smartphones tend to not make these 4k screens. See, e.g., Sydney Butler, Why Don’t Smartphones Have 4k Screens Yet?, How To Geek (Feb. 22, 2022), https://www.howtogeek.com/779368/why-dont-smartphones-have-4k-screens-yet/. —3 Mbps allows for high-definition video conferencing on-the-go across several software platforms at a frame rate of 24 frames per second 24 frames per second is the standard frame rate for cinema quality video. See Adobe, Frame Rate, https://www.adobe.com/creativecloud/video/discover/frame-rate.html. or higher, depending on the platform. See, e.g., Microsoft, Prepare Your Organization’s Network for Microsoft Teams (Feb. 14, 2023), https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoftteams/prepare-network (“Teams is always conservative on bandwidth utilization and can deliver HD video quality in under 1.5Mbps. The actual bandwidth consumption in each audio/video call or meeting will vary based on several factors, such as video layout, video resolution, and video frames per second. When more bandwidth is available, quality and usage will increase to deliver the best experience.”). Microsoft observes that at least 1.5 Mbps upload speed is recommended and 4 Mbps upload is needed for best performance. See id. See also, e.g., Cisco, Webex, Help Center, What Are the Minimum Bandwidth Requirements for Sending and Receiving Video in Cisco Webex Meetings? (Oct. 31, 2023), https://help.webex.com/en-us/article/WBX22158/What-are-the-Minimum-Bandwidth-Requirements-for-Sending-and-Receiving-Video-inCisco-Webex-Meetings? FreeConference.com, What is Minimum Speed for Video Conferencing, https://www.freeconference.com/blog/the-minimum-speed-required-for-video-conferencing/ (recommending 3 Mbps for high definition video conferencing); Zoom, Zoom System Requirements: iOS, iPadOS, And Android (Oct. 20, 2023), https://support.zoom.us/hc/en-us/articles/201179966 (“For 720p HD video: 2.6 Mbps/1.8 Mbps (up/down); For 1080p HD video: 3.8 Mbps/3.0 Mbps (up/down).”); Vimeo, Video and Audio Compression Guidelines, https://help.vimeo.com/hc/en-us/articles/12426043233169-Video-and-audio-compression-guidelines. As a consequence, 3 Mbps allows for smooth origination of high-quality video telecommunications. The lowest upload speed that the Commission collects—1 Mbps—can lead to video telecommunications that are noticeably grainy and not “high quality” for an advanced experience. See, e.g., Microsoft, Prepare Your Organization’s Network for Microsoft Teams (Feb. 14, 2023), https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoftteams/prepare-network; Cisco, Webex, Help Center, What Are the Minimum Bandwidth Requirements for Sending and Receiving Video in Cisco Webex Meetings? (Oct. 31, 2023), https://help.webex.com/en-us/article/WBX22158/What-are-the-Minimum-Bandwidth-Requirements-for-Sending-and-Receiving-Video-inCisco-Webex-Meetings?; FreeConference.com, What is Minimum Speed for Video Conferencing, https://www.freeconference.com/blog/the-minimum-speed-required-for-video-conferencing/ (recommending 3 Mbps for high definition video conferencing); Zoom, Zoom System Requirements: iOS, iPadOS, And Android (Oct. 20, 2023), https://support.zoom.us/hc/en-us/articles/201179966. 75. For this Report, we focus on the providers’ outdoor stationary coverage data for 5G-NR coverage, rather than in-vehicle 5G-NR coverage data. We recognize that providers are still in the process of deploying 5G-NR, and that this is our first Report analyzing the BDC data. The outdoor stationary coverage data—which typically shows broader coverage than in-vehicle data—will give us a better understanding of deployment of this technology today. We note, however, that as we look forward, we expect 5G-NR networks to continue to advance; as such, in other contexts (for example, in setting conditions for 5G-NR deployment in the 5G Fund), See generally 5G Fund FNPRM. evaluating coverage using in-vehicle coverage maps may be appropriate in the future. Further, to provide a more complete picture of mobile deployment, we also evaluate provider-reported BDC coverage data for 5G-NR in-vehicle at speeds of 35/3 Mbps, 5G-NR outdoor stationary and in-vehicle at speeds of 7/1 Mbps, and 4G LTE outdoor stationary and in-vehicle at speeds of 5/1 Mbps in Appendix B-4. b. Data Sources and Methodology 76. Under FCC Form 477 requirements for broadband deployment data, facilities-based providers of mobile wireless services were required to submit polygons indicating the minimum advertised upstream and downstream data speeds associated with that polygon, where the boundaries of that polygon represented the coverage area within which users should expect to receive those advertised speeds (or, if the provider did not advertise such speeds, the minimum upload and download data speeds that users would expect to receive within the polygon). FCC Form 477, Instructions for Filings as of December 31, 2019-June 30, 2022 at 24-25, https://usfcc.app.box.com/v/Form477InstThruJune2022. The FCC Form 477 instructions did not specify parameters that providers should use in their propagation models used to generate the projected coverage. See id. at 24-25, 31. This allowed for two mobile providers with theoretically the exact same network deployment to file different coverage polygons with the Commission, leading to potential inconsistencies among mobile-provider coverage filings. 77. By contrast, the BDC has standardized certain factors that must be included in the mobile providers’ propagation modeling, including requiring maps that represent specified speeds. Mobile broadband service providers submit separate coverage maps based upon standardized propagation modeling parameters for 3G, 4G LTE, and 5G-NR technologies. See Broadband Data Collection, Data Specifications for Biannual Submission of Subscription, Availability, and Supporting Data (Feb. 7, 2023), https://us-fcc.app.box.com/v/bdc-availability-spec. For example, for 5G-NR coverage, the BDC requires mobile broadband service providers to submit coverage data that indicate where mobile wireless users should expect to receive minimum user speeds of 7/1 Mbps with a cell edge probability of not less than 90% and cell loading of not less than 50%. See, e.g., BDC Second Report and Order and Third Further Notice), 35 FCC Rcd at 7479, para. 44. The maps also “must account for terrain and clutter and use terrain and clutter data with a resolution of 100 meters or better.” 47 CFR § 1.7004(c)(3)(iii). And, the BDC also requires that a mobile provider report the assumptions that it relied on for its coverage modeling so that the Commission can better evaluate the modeled coverage. Compare FCC Form 477, Instructions for Filings as of December 31, 2019-June 30, 2022 at 24-25, 31, https://usfcc.app.box.com/v/Form477InstThruJune2022 with Broadband Data Collection, Data Specifications for Biannual Submission of Subscription, Availability, and Supporting Data at 49-71 (Feb. 7, 2023), https://us-fcc.app.box.com/v/bdc-availability-spec. Importantly, the BDC also provides opportunities for consumers, State, local, and Tribal governmental entities, and other stakeholders to challenge the coverage and broadband service availability information reported to the FCC and depicted in the new maps. The Commission also has adopted verification and audit processes to ensure that the BDC data that a mobile provider submits are accurate, and coverage areas can be substantiated. See Broadband Data Collection, Data Specifications for Provider Infrastructure Data in the Challenge, Verification, and Audit Processes (December 21, 2023), https://us-fcc.app.box.com/v/bdc-infrastructure-spec; FCC, Broadband Data Collection, BDC System User Guide 242-47 (Sept. 20, 2023), https://us-fcc.app.box.com/v/bdc-filer-user-guide. 78. We also supplement BDC data with Ookla’s speed test data. The data collected by the Ookla Speedtest mobile app include test results for download speed, upload speed, and latency, as well as other information, such as the location of the test and operating system of the handset. Ookla, Speedtest®, https://www.speedtest.net/about (last visited Jan. 19, 2024). FCC staff use data from these tests to calculate average upload and download speeds associated with U.S. geographic areas. The Ookla data presented in this Report are based on tests that were executed in the second half of the year for 2020, 2021, and 2022 on the smartphone’s cellular connection. Tests taken on 5G-NR networks were used to evaluate actual median speeds of at least 35/3 Mbps, tests taken on 5G-NR and 4G LTE networks were used to evaluate actual median speeds of at least 10/3 Mbps. FCC staff excluded test data that had missing GPS location data or a reported download or upload speed less than zero. Multiple tests by a single phone in the same locality and in the same day were averaged (using the median). All Ookla speed tests are user-initiated. We rely on the Ookla data to supplement our analysis primarily because they provide us with a large set of observations of actual speeds that customers receive. We note that, in general, crowd-sourced data can offer the advantage of generating a large volume of data at a very low cost, and of measuring actual consumer experience on a network in a wide variety of locations, indoor and outdoor. Crowd-sourced data, however, often are not collected pursuant to statistical sampling techniques, and may require adjustments to construct a representative sample from the raw data. For instance, crowd-sourced mobile data come from a self-selected group of users, and there is often little control for most tests regarding such parameters as when people implement the test, whether the test is performed indoors or outdoors, the geographic location of the tester, and the vintage of the consumer’s device. 2022 Communications Marketplace Report, 37 FCC Rcd at 15705, para. 336 & n.969. As the Commission has done previously, our analysis of the service availability of mobile broadband services with a particular set of median speeds includes actual speed test data in counties with at least 300 test observations. See 2022 Communications Marketplace Report, 37 FCC Rcd at 15705-06, para. 336. This sample size threshold applies to each county for each time frame (2H2020, 2H2021, and 2H2022). If a county does not have at least 300 5G-NR observations during one of these time frames, the county is not included in the actual speed analysis for the period during which the number of observations falls below 300. The 300 observations threshold is a conservative threshold and is based on a general mean and median sample size analysis. We consider a county to have a sufficient sample size if there are at least 300 5G-NR observations in the second half of a given year, after the cleaning and trimming rules have been applied. County geography is assigned using the latitude and longitude coordinates that are collected during each Ookla speed test, via the device’s GPS. This allows us to evaluate actual median upload and download speeds at the county level, in each year of the three-year time period, for counties in which approximately 80% to 92% of the U.S. population live (excluding the U.S. Territories). If an area has mobile broadband coverage with the minimum speeds in question, it is assigned the median upload and download speeds that are calculated for the county in which it is located. The more densely populated counties have a higher likelihood of being included in this analysis because there generally are more observations in those geographical areas. Mobile wireless speeds vary both over time and over small local areas. Therefore, ascribing the median county Ookla speed to an entire county will sometimes overestimate or underestimate realized local speeds. Use of Ookla data alone would overestimate coverage as counties with only partial coverage would be represented as having 100% coverage. c. Mobile Broadband Data 79. Figure 7 reports coverage for 5G-NR with a minimum speed of 35/3 Mbps. The analysis presented in Figure 7 includes the states and the District of Columbia. For analyses including U.S. Territories, see infra Appx. B-1 (reporting service availability of fixed terrestrial services at 100/20 Mbps, mobile 5G-NR with a minimum speed of 35/3 Mbps, and mobile 5G-NR with a median speed of 35/3 Mbps by state, District of Columbia, and U.S. Territory); Appx. B-6 (reporting service availability of fixed terrestrial services at 100/20 Mbps and mobile 5G-NR with a minimum speed of 35/3 Mbps, and fixed terrestrial services at 100/20 Mbps and mobile 5G-NR with a median speed of 35/3 Mbps by state, District of Columbia, and U.S. Territory); Appx. B-7 (reporting the adoption rate of fixed terrestrial services in the United States and U.S. Territories); and Appx. B-8 and Appx. B-9 (reporting service availability of fixed terrestrial services at 100/20 Mbps and mobile services at different speed tiers in the United States, with and without U.S. territories). For analyses involving Tribal Lands, see infra Appx. B-10 (reporting service availability of mobile 5G-NR with a minimum speed of 35/3 Mbps on Tribal Lands). Due to differences in the FCC Form 477 and FCC BDC data, as noted above, caution should be exercised when examining any changes between 2021 and 2022. At year-end 2022, approximately 91% of Americans lived in areas with 5G-NR coverage with minimum speeds of 35/3 Mbps, including approximately 64% of the population in rural areas, approximately 98% of the population in urban areas, and approximately 78% of the population in Tribal areas. Fig. 7 Service Availability (Millions) of Mobile 5G-NR with a Minimum Speed of 35/3 Mbps The BDC requires filers to submit mobile broadband service availability coverage maps showing a minimum 90% cell edge probability of the designated speeds, whereas in years prior to 2022, FCC Form 477 required filers to submit coverage maps indicating the minimum advertised upload and download data speeds associated with the given network technology in the given frequency band. FCC, Broadband Data Collection, Data Specifications for Biannual Submission of Subscription, Availability, and Supporting Data at 50 (2023), https://us-fcc.app.box.com/v/bdc-availability-spec; FCC, FCC Form 477 Local Telephone Competition and Broadband Reporting Instructions for Filings Through June 30, 2019 at 23 (2021), https://us-fcc.app.box.com/v/Form477InstThruJune19. 2020 2021 2022 Pop. % Pop. % Pop. % United States 237.475 72.1% 321.790 97.0% 303.330 91.0% Rural Areas 28.467 43.3% 58.748 87.5% 43.540 64.3% Urban Areas 209.008 79.3% 263.041 99.3% 259.791 97.8% Tribal Areas 2.308 56.5% 3.603 88.9% 3.145 77.8% Pop. Evaluated 329.491 100.0% 331.894 100.0% 333.288 100.0% Source: FCC Form 477 data; FCC BDC data; Staff Block Estimates. 80. Figure 8 reports the percentage of Americans living in the United States with mobile 5G-NR services at median speeds of at least 35/3 Mbps. We present additional service availability data for mobile 5G-NR services at median speeds of at least 35/3 Mbps for each state, the District of Columbia, and U.S. Territory in Appx. B-1 (reporting service availability by state, the District of Columbia, and U.S. Territory). At year-end 2022, approximately 98% of the population living in urban areas had access to 5G-NR services with a median speed of 35/3 Mbps, compared to approximately 71% of the population living in rural areas. Figure 8 does not reflect the service availability of 5G-NR at speeds of 35/3 Mbps across the entire United States; instead it reflects the percentage of the population living in counties with a sufficient number of Ookla speed tests such that we can evaluate the actual speeds of 35/3 Mbps. The percentages in Figure 8 are higher than those in Figure 7 because we are not evaluating the population in counties that have fewer than 300 5G tests. This condition eliminates many rural and otherwise unserved counties. Further, the population within eligible counties is overlaid with coverage data from the FCC Form 477 and the FCC BDC data such that only the population living in areas where providers claim 5G-NR coverage with a minimum expected speed of 35/3 Mbps is counted towards the covered population figure. The analysis in Figure 8 is based on Ookla data, and excludes any county for which there is insufficient Ookla data. Further, the population within eligible counties is overlaid with coverage data from FCC Form 477 and the FCC BDC such that only the population living in areas where providers claim 5G-NR coverage with a minimum expected speed of 35/3 Mbps is counted towards the covered population figure. The combination of a limited number of counties with 5G-NR Ookla data and the use of FCC 477 coverage data in 2021 leads to a very high percentage of the evaluated population in 2021 being classified as served in Figure 8. The subsequent decline in the percentage of the evaluated population with 5G-NR coverage with a median speed of 35/3 Mbps in 2022 is also related to the switch to BDC data and a greater number of counties meeting the minimum Ookla test threshold. Fig. 8 Service Availability (Millions) of Mobile 5G-NR with a Median Speed of 35/3 Mbps (Ookla) We do not report results for Tribal lands in Figure 8 because we have concerns with the reliability of the Ookla data for these areas. Tribal areas not only typically have fewer speed tests, but there are also fewer of these areas relative to urban and rural areas. Thus, service availability estimates for Tribal areas are more sensitive to sample variance. The population figure reported in the bottom row of Figure 8 is the population evaluated for the reported time period, and the percentage is the percentage of the U.S. population evaluated. Figures that include service availability of 5G-NR services with a median speed of 35/3 Mbps show less than 100% of the population evaluated due to the unavailability of Ookla data in certain places as explained. Thus, for example, the 264.520 million population evaluated figure for 2020 in Figure 8 represents approximately 80% of the overall population in the 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia. 2020 2021 2022 Pop. % Pop. % Pop. % United States 209.080 79.0% 288.126 98.4% 286.315 93.9% Rural Areas 15.758 55.9% 36.499 92.0% 33.283 71.0% Urban Areas 193.322 81.8% 251.627 99.4% 253.032 98.0% Pop. Evaluated 264.520 80.3% 292.861 88.2% 304.974 91.5% Source: FCC Form 477 data; FCC BDC data; Ookla Speedtest data; Staff Block Estimates. 81. Number of Mobile Service Providers. As of December 31, 2022, there were three nationwide facilities-based providers of mobile broadband services. In addition, a new nationwide facilities-based provider has since entered the market. As a result, we present information using up to three or more providers since the data we use is as of December 31, 2022.   Besides these nationwide providers, there are many regional providers and smaller local providers offering service in a few geographical areas. Many Mobile Virtual Network Operators (MVNOs) and cable providers also offer mobile broadband services. 82. Figure 9 presents 5G-NR coverage by number of service providers. See CTIA Comments at 8; WIA Comments at 1. Approximately 91% of the population, 61% of road miles, and 25% of square miles were covered by at least one 5G-NR service provider at advertised speeds of 35/3 Mbps. In contrast, approximately 77% of the population, 38% of road miles, and 10% of square miles were covered by at least two 5G-NR service providers. Finally, approximately 48% of the population, 19% of road miles, and 3% of square miles were covered by at least three 5G-NR service providers. Fig. 9 Estimated 5G-NR Coverage with a Minimum Speed of 35/3 Mbps (December 31, 2022) Geography One or More Providers Two or More Providers Three or More Providers Area 24.8% 9.5% 3.2% Population 91.0% 76.8% 48.0% Road Miles 60.5% 37.7% 19.0% Source: FCC BDC and 2020 Census data. 83. Figure 10 reports 5G-NR population coverage in rural and urban areas. At least one 5G-NR service provider covered almost 98% of the urban population and approximately 64% of the rural population. Further, at least two 5G-NR service providers covered approximately 88% of the urban population and approximately 33% of the rural population. Finally, at least three 5G-NR service providers covered approximately 58% of the urban population and 11% of the rural population. Fig. 10 Estimated 5G-NR Coverage with a Minimum Speed of 35/3 Mbps in Rural and Urban Areas (December 31, 2022) Geography One or More Providers Two or More Providers Three or More Providers Population 91.0% 76.8% 48.0% Rural Population 64.3% 32.8% 10.8% Urban Population 97.8% 88.1% 57.5% Source: FCC BDC and 2020 Census data. 84. Figure 11 reports 5G-NR population coverage in Tribal and non-Tribal areas. At least one 5G-NR service provider covered approximately 91% the population in non-Tribal areas and approximately 78% of the population in Tribal areas. Further, at least two 5G-NR service providers covered 77% of the population in non-Tribal areas and approximately 55% of the population in Tribal areas. Finally, at least three 5G-NR service providers covered approximately 48% of the population in non-Tribal areas and approximately 31% of the population in Tribal areas. Fig. 11 Estimated 5G-NR Coverage with a Minimum Speed of 35/3 Mbps in Tribal and Non-Tribal Areas (December 31, 2022) Geography One or More Providers Two or More Providers Three or More Providers Population 91.0% 76.8% 48.0% Non-Tribal Population 91.2% 77.1% 48.2% Tribal Population 77.8% 55.4% 30.5% Source: FCC BDC and 2020 Census data. 3. Fixed and Mobile Broadband Data 85. Figure 12 shows service availability of fixed terrestrial services with speeds of at least 100/20 Mbps and 5G-NR mobile broadband services with a minimum speed of 35/3 Mbps. We present additional service availability data for fixed terrestrial and/or mobile broadband services in the appendices. See infra Appx. B-1 (reporting service availability of fixed terrestrial services at 100/20 Mbps, mobile 5G-NR with a minimum speed of 35/3 Mbps, and mobile 5G-NR with a median speed of 35/3 Mbps by state, District of Columbia, and U.S. Territory); Appx. B-6 (reporting service availability of fixed terrestrial services at 100/20 Mbps and mobile 5G-NR with a minimum speed of 35/3 Mbps, and fixed terrestrial services at 100/20 Mbps and mobile 5G-NR with a median speed of 35/3 Mbps by state, District of Columbia, and U.S. Territory); Appx. B-8 and Appx. B-9 (reporting service availability of fixed terrestrial services at 100/20 Mbps and mobile services at different speed tiers in the United States, with and without U.S. territories); Appx. B-11 (reporting service availability of fixed terrestrial services at 100/20 Mbps and mobile services at different median speed tiers in the United States based on Ookla data); and Appx. B-3 (reporting service availability of fixed terrestrial and mobile services at different speed tiers in the U.S. Territories). At year-end 2022, approximately 45 million Americans lacked access to both services. Service availability of 5G-NR services in rural areas significantly lagged behind the service availability in urban areas. While approximately 96% of Americans living in urban areas had access to fixed terrestrial services at 100/20 Mbps and mobile 5G-NR services at 35/3 Mbps, less than 50% of Americans living in rural areas had access to such services. Fig. 12 Service Availability (Millions) of Fixed Terrestrial Services at 100/20 Mbps and Mobile 5G-NR with a Minimum Speed of 35/3 Mbps 2020 2021 2022 Pop. % Pop. % Pop. % 100/20 Mbps and Mobile 5G-NR 35/3 Mbps United States 224.640 68.2% 305.321 92.0% 288.503 86.6% Rural Areas 20.181 30.7% 46.103 68.7% 33.736 49.8% Urban Areas 204.460 77.5% 259.218 97.9% 254.767 95.9% Tribal Areas 1.685 41.3% 2.842 70.1% 2.664 65.9% 100/20 Mbps and Mobile 5G-NR 35/3 Mbps - Excluding Fixed Wireless United States 222.645 67.6% 301.096 90.7% 282.785 84.8% Rural Areas 18.883 28.7% 42.900 63.9% 29.896 44.1% Urban Areas 203.762 77.3% 258.196 97.5% 252.889 95.2% Tribal Areas 1.618 39.6% 2.767 68.3% 2.481 61.4% Pop. Evaluated 329.491 100.0% 331.894 100.0% 333.288 100.0% Source: FCC Form 477 data; FCC BDC data; Staff Block Estimates. 86. Figure 13 shows service availability of fixed terrestrial services at speeds of at least 100/20 Mbps and 5G-NR mobile broadband services with a median speed of 35/3 Mbps using Ookla mobile data. Including fixed wireless, service availability was approximately 96% in urban areas and 56% in rural areas. Excluding fixed wireless, service availability was approximately 96% in urban areas and 49% in rural areas. Fig. 13 Service Availability (Millions) of Fixed Terrestrial Services at 100/20 Mbps and Mobile 5G-NR with a Median Speed of 35/3 Mbps (Ookla) 2020 2021 2022 Pop. % Pop. % Pop. % 100/20 Mbps and Mobile 5G-NR 35/3 Mbps United States 202.224 76.4% 278.414 95.1% 274.424 90.0% Rural Areas 12.062 42.8% 30.119 75.9% 26.163 55.8% Urban Areas 190.163 80.5% 248.295 98.1% 248.261 96.2% 100/20 Mbps and Mobile 5G-NR 35/3 Mbps - Excluding Fixed Wireless United States 201.036 76.0% 275.401 94.0% 269.607 88.4% Rural Areas 11.398 40.4% 28.054 70.7% 23.124 49.3% Urban Areas 189.638 80.3% 247.347 97.7% 246.483 95.5% Pop. Evaluated 264.520 80.3% 292.861 88.2% 304.974 91.5% Source: FCC Form 477 data; FCC BDC data; Ookla Speedtest data; Staff Block Estimates. 87. Figure 14 shows service availability of fixed terrestrial services for the United States, including U.S. territories, with speeds of at least 100/20 Mbps and 5G-NR broadband with a minimum speed of 35/3 Mbps. We present additional service availability data for 100/20 Mbps fixed terrestrial and/or mobile broadband services, including U.S. territories, in the appendices. See infra Appx. B-8 and Appx. B-9 (reporting service availability of fixed terrestrial services at 100/20 Mbps and mobile services at different speed tiers, with and without U.S. Territories); Appx. B-12 (reporting service availability of fixed terrestrial services at 100/20 Mbps and mobile 5G-NR with a minimum speed of 35/3 Mbps by state and county, including U.S. Territories); and Appx. B-13 (reporting service availability of fixed terrestrial services at 100/20 Mbps and mobile 5G-NR with a minimum speed of 35/3 Mbps by state and county, segmented by urban and rural areas, including U.S. Territories) At year-end 2022, service availability in urban areas was significantly higher than service availability in rural areas, with service availability in Tribal areas falling somewhere in between. Including fixed wireless, service availability was approximately 96% in urban areas, approximately 66% in Tribal areas, and approximately 50% in rural areas. Excluding fixed wireless, service availability was approximately 95% in urban areas, approximately 61% in Tribal areas, and approximately 44% in rural areas. Fig. 14 Service Availability (Millions) of Fixed Terrestrial Services at 100/20 Mbps and Mobile 5G-NR with a Minimum Speed of 35/3 Mbps for the United States, Including U.S. Territories 2020 2021 2022 Pop. % Pop. % Pop. % 100/20 Mbps and Mobile 5G-NR 35/3 Mbps United States 224.645 67.5% 308.660 92.0% 291.746 86.6% Rural Areas 20.181 30.6% 46.362 68.8% 33.916 49.9% Urban Areas 204.464 76.6% 262.298 97.8% 257.830 95.9% Tribal Areas 1.685 41.3% 2.842 70.1% 2.664 65.9% 100/20 Mbps and Mobile 5G-NR 35/3 Mbps - Excluding Fixed Wireless United States 222.650 66.9% 303.997 90.6% 285.699 84.8% Rural Areas 18.883 28.6% 43.039 63.8% 29.995 44.1% Urban Areas 203.766 76.3% 260.958 97.3% 255.704 95.1% Tribal Areas 1.618 39.6% 2.767 68.3% 2.481 61.4% Pop. Evaluated 333.018 100.0% 335.530 100.0% 336.881 100.0% Source: FCC Form 477 data; FCC BDC data; Staff Block Estimates. 88. Figure 15 shows service availability of fixed terrestrial services with speeds of at least 100/20 Mbps and 5G-NR broadband with a minimum speed of 35/3 Mbps on Tribal lands. We present additional service availability data for 100/20 Mbps fixed terrestrial and/or mobile broadband services on tribal lands in the appendices. See infra Appx. B-14 (reporting service availability of fixed terrestrial services at 100/20 Mbps and mobile 5G-NR with a minimum speed of 35/3 Mbps on tribal lands by state); Appx. B-15 (reporting service availability of fixed terrestrial services at 100/20 Mbps and mobile 5G-NR with a minimum speed of 35/3 Mbps (in-vehicle) on tribal lands); Appx. B-16 (reporting service availability of fixed terrestrial services at 100/20 Mbps and mobile 5G-NR with a minimum speed of 7/1 Mbps on tribal lands); Appx. B-17 (reporting service availability of fixed terrestrial services at 100/20 Mbps and mobile 5G-NR with a minimum speed of 7/1 Mbps (in-vehicle) on tribal lands); Appx. B-18 (reporting service availability of fixed terrestrial services at 100/20 Mbps and mobile 4G LTE with a minimum speed of 5/1 Mbps on tribal lands); and Appx. B-19 (reporting service availability of fixed terrestrial services at 100/20 Mbps and mobile 4G LTE with a minimum speed of 5/1 Mbps (in-vehicle) on tribal lands). As of year-end 2022, Tribal lands in urban areas had higher service availability compared to Tribal lands in rural areas. Fig. 15 Service Availability (Millions) on Tribal Lands of Fixed Terrestrial Services at 100/20 Mbps and Mobile 5G-NR with a Minimum Speed of 35/3 Mbps 2020 2021 2022 Area Pop. % Pop. % Pop. % Including Fixed Wireless Tribal Lands 1.685 41.3% 2.842 70.1% 2.664 65.9% Rural Areas 0.477 22.2% 1.123 50.1% 0.956 43.1% Urban Areas 1.208 62.4% 1.719 95.1% 1.708 93.6% Alaska Native Village Statistical Areas 0.095 35.3% 0.133 49.0% 0.098 36.3% Rural Areas 0.036 20.7% 0.062 34.8% 0.033 18.5% Urban Areas 0.059 62.0% 0.071 76.2% 0.065 69.4% Federal Reservations 0.271 24.7% 0.539 49.5% 0.467 44.2% Rural Areas 0.109 14.2% 0.296 36.5% 0.232 29.8% Urban Areas 0.163 48.8% 0.242 87.7% 0.235 84.8% Hawaiian Home Lands 0.010 28.5% 0.030 88.3% 0.031 89.8% Rural Areas 0.001 18.5% 0.006 72.1% 0.005 61.6% Urban Areas 0.009 30.8% 0.024 93.6% 0.026 98.7% Tribal Statistical Areas 1.309 48.8% 2.140 80.5% 2.068 77.1% Rural Areas 0.331 27.6% 0.759 61.0% 0.686 54.6% Urban Areas 0.978 66.1% 1.381 97.8% 1.382 96.9% Excluding Fixed Wireless Tribal Lands 1.618 39.6% 2.767 68.3% 2.481 61.4% Rural Areas 0.416 19.4% 1.059 47.2% 0.793 35.7% Urban Areas 1.202 62.1% 1.708 94.4% 1.688 92.5% Alaska Native Village Statistical Areas 0.091 33.6% 0.116 42.9% 0.087 32.3% Rural Areas 0.032 18.2% 0.047 26.2% 0.023 13.1% Urban Areas 0.059 61.8% 0.070 74.7% 0.064 68.4% Federal Reservations 0.236 21.4% 0.497 45.7% 0.408 38.6% Rural Areas 0.077 10.0% 0.264 32.5% 0.187 24.0% Urban Areas 0.159 47.8% 0.233 84.4% 0.221 79.8% Hawaiian Home Lands 0.010 28.5% 0.030 88.3% 0.031 89.8% Rural Areas 0.001 18.5% 0.006 72.1% 0.005 61.6% Urban Areas 0.009 30.8% 0.024 93.6% 0.026 98.7% Tribal Statistical Areas 1.282 47.8% 2.123 79.9% 1.955 72.9% Rural Areas 0.306 25.5% 0.743 59.7% 0.578 46.0% Urban Areas 0.976 65.9% 1.381 97.7% 1.377 96.5% Pop. Evaluated 4.083 100.0% 4.051 100.0% 4.043 100.0% Source: FCC Form 477 data; FCC BDC data; Staff Block Estimates. B. Affordability 89. If broadband is unaffordable, it is not effectively available, even if it has been physically deployed. See Section II, supra. Far too many households across the country wrestle with how to pay for gas and groceries and also keep up with the broadband bill. We find that to truly close the connectivity gap and ensure that all Americans have access to advanced telecommunications capability, broadband services must be affordable. While income is not the only factor, 2023 data collected by the Pew Research Center indicated that adults with annual household incomes of $30,000-$69,999 per year were more than four times more likely not to subscribe to home broadband service than those with incomes of $100,000 or more per year, and those with incomes less than $30,000 per year were more than eight times more likely not to not to have home broadband service. Pew Research Center, Internet, Broadband Fact Sheet (Jan. 31, 2024), https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/fact-sheet/internet-broadband/. Further, a University of Kansas study conducted between January 2021 and January 2022 found that cost is the top reason that respondents living in cities do not have broadband access at home. Donna Ginther et al., University of Kansas, Broadband in Kansas: The Challenges of Digital Access and Affordability at 24 (2023), https://ipsr.ku.edu/broadband/BroadbandinKansas.pdf (Kansas Study). Furthermore, the COVID-19 pandemic made clear the importance of obtaining affordable broadband. According to an EveryoneOn survey taken during the COVID-19 pandemic, 18% of households making $50,000 or less lost broadband connectivity and 49% were on the brink of doing so due to an inability to pay. EveryoneOn, Affordability and the Digital Divide, at 5 (Dec. 2021), https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5aa8af1fc3c16a54bcbb0415/t/61ad7722de56262d89e76c94/1638758180025 (EveryoneOn 2021). See also Colleen McClain et al., Pew Research Center, 90% of Americans say the internet has been essential or important to them, many made video calls and 40% used technology in new ways. But while tech was a lifeline for some, others faced struggles (Sept. 1, 2021), https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2021/09/01/the-internet-and-the-pandemic/ (survey finding that more than half of lower-income broadband users said they worried a lot or some about being able to pay for high-speed internet). For a description of the methodology used to determine lower income, see Pew Research Center, 53% of Americans Say the Internet Has Been Essential During the COVID-19 Outbreak, (Apr. 30, 2020), at n.1, https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2020/04/30/53-of-americans-say-the-internet-has-been-essential-during-the-covid-19-outbreak/. 90. Determining whether broadband service is affordable, however, warrants thoughtful consideration. First, there is no consensus on how to define affordability. For example, the Cambridge Dictionary defines “affordability” as “the state of being cheap enough for people to be able to buy,” Cambridge Dictionary, Meaning of affordability in English https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/affordability (last visited Jan. 10, 2024). Definitions of the related word “affordable” include “able to be afforded: having a cost that is not too high” and “[t]hat can be afforded (in various senses); (now usually) inexpensive, reasonably priced”. Merriam Webster Dictionary, affordable, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/affordable (last visited Jan. 10, 2024) and Oxford English Dictionary, Oxford English Dictionary, https://www.oed.com/search/dictionary/?scope=Entries&q=affordable (last visited Jan. 10, 2024). while economists have devised other definitions of affordability. Most economists’ definitions of affordability relate prices to income. Economists have defined affordability in a narrow sense as the ability of a household to purchase a specific bundle of necessary goods and service with the available disposable income. They have defined it more broadly as the ability to purchase such a bundle without having to constrain the consumption of other necessities. These concepts are difficult to translate into empirical measures. Indicators to approximate them include prices, the share of income needed to purchase a good or service, and the residual income left after expenses for a necessity. See generally Karen E. Hancock, “Can pay? Won’t pay?” or Economic Principles of “Affordability,” 30 Urban Studies 127 (1993). There have also been efforts to establish affordability thresholds. For example, in 1998, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) introduced an affordability threshold for the cost of water of 2.5% of median household income and uses it to vary policy interventions. Environmental Protection Agency, Announcement of Small System Compliance Technology Lists for Existing National Primary Drinking Water Regulations and Findings Concerning Variance Technologies, 63 Fed. Reg. 42032, at 42046 (Aug. 6, 1998). In housing, 30% of median income is often considered an affordability benchmark. Christoper Herbert, Alexander Hermann & Daniel McCue, Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University, Measuring Housing Affordability: Assessing the 30-Percent of Income Standard at 2-3 (Dec. 2018), https://www.jchs.harvard.edu/sites/default/files/Harvard_JCHS_Herbert_Hermann_McCue_measuring_housing_affordability.pdf. Second, while the concept of broadband adoption is related to the concept of broadband affordability, the two concepts are not the same. For example, a household might have the income to afford broadband service, but choose not to subscribe because it does not have a need for the Internet or streaming video, or because broadband is not available. Alternatively, a household might subscribe to broadband even though it imposes significant financial hardship. Third, affordability is likely to vary not only with a household’s income, but also with the choices and characteristics of the available broadband services (including the number of competing providers, the characteristics of the broadband offerings, and the price of such offerings), and the price of other goods and services the household consumes. In addition, whether a household adopts broadband service depends not only on its affordability but also on the household’s preferences and other household characteristics. 91. In the Notice, we sought comment on whether affordability should be examined and how it could be defined and measured. Notice, at 22-24, paras. 54-57. Several commenters express general support for the Commission’s universal service goals and suggest that an analysis of affordability should be dealt with in the universal service context. See, e.g., INCOMPAS Comments at 10-12; USTelecom Comments at 6-7; NCTA Comments at 11-12; and CTIA Reply Comments at 2-3. Other commenters contend that an analysis of affordability is beyond the legal scope of the Report. See, e.g., ADTRAN Comments at 7-8; CTIA Comments at 21-24; Free State Foundation Comments at 19-22; US Telecom Comments at 5-7; TechFreedom Comments at 4-6; ACA Connects Comments at 6-8 and NCTA Comments at 7-9. Other commenters emphasize the importance of developing a comprehensive understanding of affordability and note the relevance of price and affordability for broadband adoption. See, e.g., Benton Institute Comments at 6-7; OTI Comments at 9-11; Next Century Cities Comments at 6-7; NDIA Reply Comments at 3-4; and NRECA Comments at 9-10. Commenters point out that a thorough assessment of affordability would require a comprehensive evidentiary basis using multiple indicators, such as the share of income needed to pay for broadband, the vulnerability of households to interruptions in subscriptions, and the total cost of broadband. See, e.g., Benton Institute Comments at 7-8. The Benton Institute encourages the Commission to establish a data collection program for affordability. It should be modeled after the Measuring Broadband America program and measure the following dimensions of affordability: prices by income, subscribed speeds by income, devices in household and the associated cost for purchases and maintenance, consistency and continuity of service each year, and discount information such as participation in Lifeline, ACP, and Internet Essentials. See OTI Comments at 9-11; NDIA Reply Comments at 4. Commenters also allude to the need to examine these factors for income groups, geographies, and demographics. See, e.g., Next Century Cities Comments at 2; NRECA Comments at 9-20; WTA Comments at 4. 92. Two recent studies suggest that affordability is a barrier to broadband subscription for low-income households, See, e.g., National Telecommunications and Information Administration, New Analysis Shows Offline Households are Willing to Pay $10-a-Month on Average for Home Internet Service, Though Three in Four Say Any Cost is Too Much (Oct. 6, 2022), https://www.ntia.gov/blog/2022/new-analysis-shows-offline-households-are-willing-pay-10-month-average-home-internet; Benton Institute Comments, Appendix A at 9-21. and cost appears to be a primary obstacle. See, e.g., National Telecommunications and Information Administration, New Analysis Shows Offline Households are Willing to Pay $10-a-Month on Average for Home Internet Service, Though Three in Four Say Any Cost is Too Much (Oct. 6, 2022), https://www.ntia.gov/blog/2022/new-analysis-shows-offline-households-are-willing-pay-10-month-average-home-internet; EveryoneOn 2021, at 5 (survey finding that 40% of households making $50,000 or less report being unable to pay anything for high-speed internet and 22% of them report being able to pay only $25/month for it); Andrew Perrin, Mobile Technology and Home Broadband 2021, Pew Research Center (June 3, 2021), https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2021/06/03/mobile-technology-and-home-broadband-2021/ (finding that 45% of non-adopters “do not subscribe to high-speed internet at home . . . [because] the monthly cost of a subscription is too expensive”); Becky Chao & Claire Park, The Cost of Connectivity 2020 at 10 (2020), https://d1y8sb8igg2f8e.cloudfront.net/documents/The_Cost_of_Connectivity_2020__XatkXnf.pdf; Benton Foundation 2019 at 65-66 (discussing multiple studies); Rafi Goldberg, National Telecommunications and Information Administration, Unplugged: NTIA Survey Finds Some Americans Still Avoid Home Internet Use, https://www.ntia.doc.gov/blog/2019/unplugged-ntia-survey-finds-some-americans-still-avoid-home-internet-use (with respect to families with incomes of less than $25,000/year) (last visited Feb. 14, 2024); John B. Horrigan & Maeve Duggan, Pew Research Center, Home Broadband 2015 at 15-18 (2015), https://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/9/2015/12/Broadband-adoption-full.pdf. Other studies suggest that affordability varies across different demographics and geographies. See, e.g., Kansas Study, discussed, supra. See also EveryoneOn 2021, discussed, supra. These studies suggest that the affordability of broadband depends on various household characteristics, including household income and expenditures, and the choices, product characteristics, and prices of not only broadband service but also the prices of other products and services that a household consumes. This suggests that a comprehensive analysis of affordability will require access to detailed and disaggregated data on broadband characteristics and prices, the prices of other household goods and services, and on various household characteristics – characteristics that are likely to vary with geography. 93. Given the lack of data and information in the record, in this Report, we necessarily limit ourselves to an initial analysis of some of the factors that affect affordability. We do not have sufficient data to draw detailed conclusions as to the general affordability of broadband service or its affordability for particular types of households. Specifically, we examine the level and variability of prices for fixed and mobile broadband service, the share of income used to pay for broadband for different income groups and geographies, and we present information on an example household. To overcome data limitations, we explore several scenarios using an “example household” which is a hypothetical household with characteristics suitable for assessing affordability. For the purposes of our analysis, we assume that this household has an income of 200% of the federal poverty level, as this was one of the qualifying criteria for the Affordable Connectivity Program. To reflect variation in household sizes, we look at households with one to four members. To reflect price and income variation across geographies, we create example households for each census division and Alaska, which accommodates our use of the URS data. For one, two, three, and four member households in the 48 contiguous states and the District of Columbia, the 2023 federal poverty level for annual income is $14,580, $19,720, $24,860, and $30,000, respectively. In Alaska, the 2023 federal poverty level for one, two, three, and four member households is $18,210, $24,640, $31,070, and $37,500, respectively. The federal poverty income levels are then doubled and used to determine the share of income that households of varying size would have to spend on fixed and mobile internet access and for fixed and mobile service combined. 94. Prices for Broadband. Given we find above that full access to advanced telecommunications capabilities requires fixed and mobile service, we examine the costs of stand-alone and combined service. We also discuss the contribution of low-cost plans and of subsidy programs in improving affordability. 95. Figure 16 compares prices for telecommunications and Internet services with the chained Consumer Price Index for all Urban Consumers (chained CPI-U). BLS, Databases, Tables & Calculators by Subject, https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CUUR0000SEED03?output_view=data (last visited Jan. 9, 2024); BLS, Databases, Tables & Calculators by Subject, https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CUUR0000SEED04?output_view=data (last visited Jan. 9, 2024); BLS, Databases, Tables & Calculators by Subject, https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CUUR0000SEEE03?output_view=data (last visited Jan. 9, 2024); and BLS, Databases, Tables & Calculators by Subject, https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/SUUR0000SA0?output_view=data (last visited Jan. 9, 2024). Between December 2009 and 2023, prices for goods and services overall increased by approximately 37%. Prices for Internet services increased at a lower rate, by approximately 11%. However, in real, inflation-adjusted terms, prices for Internet services declined by approximately 19%. Prices for wireless telephone services decreased by approximately 25% (45% in inflation-adjusted prices). On the other hand, prices for landline telephone services increased faster than prices overall, by approximately 51% (10% in inflation-adjusted prices). Fig. 16 Annual Consumer Price Indices for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) Telecommunications 2009-2023 (December 2009=100) Source: BLS, Databases, Tables & Calculators by Subject, https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CUUR0000SEED03?output_view=data (last visited Jan. 9, 2024); BLS, Databases, Tables & Calculators by Subject, https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CUUR0000SEED04?output_view=data (last visited Jan. 9, 2024); BLS, Databases, Tables & Calculators by Subject, https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CUUR0000SEEE03?output_view=data (last visited Jan. 9, 2024); and BLS, Databases, Tables & Calculators by Subject, https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/SUUR0000SA0?output_view=data (last visited Jan. 9, 2024). 96. The Commission currently collects price data in the Urban Rate Survey (URS). FCC, Urban Rate Survey Data & Resources (Dec. 26, 2023), https://www.fcc.gov/economics-analytics/industry-analysis-division/urban-rate-survey-data-resources. The URS collects advertised prices for undiscounted, residential fixed broadband. FCC, 2024 Urban Rate Survey – Fixed Broadband Service (Dec. 26, 2023) https://us-fcc.app.box.com/s/nm4oqvqpeywxlgmtui31hkbwiunjqmxb at 1. While the URS includes prices from across the United States, for many providers and for multiple speed tiers, it is not a comprehensive census of all fixed prices. Id. The URS data only document prices for certain urban areas, Id. and even for the reported geographic areas, URS prices are not necessarily the ones faced by households due to differences in promotional pricing or service availability. We therefore use the URS data only to construct average prices for large areas, in line with its intended use in the Universal Service program to construct national average prices for speed tiers. Id. 97. For purposes of this Report, we use the 2024 URS, documenting prices for fixed broadband in December 2023, to examine fixed broadband prices. In addition, we use the same methodology as in the International Broadband Data Report (IBDR) 47 U.S.C. § 1303(b). The IBDR price collection considers discounts, promotions, and bundles for both fixed and mobile service, but because the IBDR is focused on international comparisons, the U.S. data are not collected at the level of granularity needed for the analysis in this Report. See 2022 Communications Marketplace Report, 37 FCC Rcd at 16415, para. 96, Appx. G. to collect mobile broadband prices for 27 representative service providers (both facilities based and MVNOs). We then use this price information to examine the share of income an example household at 200% of the 2023 federal poverty line—one of the thresholds used to determine whether a household qualifies for the Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP)—would need to spend to obtain fixed, mobile, and both fixed and mobile broadband. The calculation assumes that households subscribe to broadband for the entire household but obtain mobile broadband for each household member, taking advantage of multi-line discounts. 98. Figure 17 shows weighted summary statistics of the monthly fixed broadband Internet prices per household at the national-level and for the nine census divisions, Alaska, and Puerto Rico—census divisions are the smallest geographic unit for which the 2024 URS data are statistically representative. We use the sampling weights of the URS. A description of the URS weights can be found at FCC, 2024 Urban Rate Survey – Fixed Broadband Service (Dec. 26, 2023) at 6, https://us-fcc.box.com/s/nm4oqvqpeywxlgmtui31hkbwiunjqmxb. In the fixed broadband URS, Alaska is separated from the Pacific census division and sampled in its own strata. FCC, 2024 Urban Rate Survey – Fixed Broadband Service (Dec. 26, 2023) at 3-4, https://us-fcc.box.com/s/nm4oqvqpeywxlgmtui31hkbwiunjqmxb. By using census divisions, we lose information on the local variability of fixed broadband prices. However, the number of data points in the URS is too small to make statistically valid inferences for smaller geographic units. We include plans with unlimited capacity across three speed tiers: 25/3 Mbps; 100/20 Mbps; and 940/500 Mbps. Because prices vary depending on local conditions, such as population density and dispersion, difficulty of construction, technology, and the intensity of competition, both the mean and standard deviation of prices vary across census divisions. The high standard deviation points to the variability of prices within each geographic area. This suggests that across geographies, low-cost options are available, but it does not imply that such options are available at every location. See, e.g., Udit Paul, Vinothini Gunasekaran, Jiamo Liu, Tejas N. Narechania, Arpit Gupta, & Elizabeth Belding,. Decoding the Divide: Analyzing Disparities in Broadband Plans Offered by Major US ISPs. arXiv: 2302.14216 (2023), https://arxiv.org/abs/2302.14216. Fig. 17 Monthly Fixed Broadband Internet Prices Per Household, by Census Division and Speed Tier Download / Upload Census Division/AK/PR Mean ($) St.Dev. ($) Min. ($) Median ($) Max. ($) Count 25/3 Mbps New England 83.83 17.25 30.00 87.00 112.00 62 Middle Atlantic 86.24 17.26 15.00 87.00 160.39 298 East North Central 69.63 24.39 14.95 79.99 139.99 354 West North Central 42.94 24.93 14.95 30.00 111.50 340 South Atlantic 78.71 17.39 14.95 79.99 144.94 390 East South Central 67.14 20.46 14.95 79.99 95.00 128 West South Central 81.59 10.50 25.00 80.41 129.99 125 Mountain 66.70 25.58 14.95 55.00 150.00 215 Pacific Except Alaska 77.22 13.26 14.95 79.99 185.00 232 Alaska 131.38 14.02 60.00 129.99 159.00 199 Puerto Rico 77.08 48.01 29.99 49.99 149.00 226 National 75.94 22.95 14.95 79.99 185.00 2569 100/20 Mbps New England 105.38 22.77 39.95 109.99 188.96 173 Middle Atlantic 104.49 24.96 30.00 109.99 186.39 738 East North Central 98.94 28.45 30.00 99.99 185.76 657 West North Central 81.41 25.63 30.00 79.00 148.50 607 South Atlantic 101.78 25.85 15.00 107.00 315.00 780 East South Central 97.50 20.58 41.95 99.99 119.99 168 West South Central 100.35 25.21 15.00 100.51 159.99 340 Mountain 74.43 33.44 30.00 72.75 139.99 162 Pacific Except Alaska 99.03 23.83 30.00 99.99 127.76 297 Alaska 184.99 1.10 179.99 184.99 199.00 125 Puerto Rico 74.71 9.12 30.00 79.99 84.99 292 National 100.18 26.26 15.00 100.99 315.00 4339 940/500 Mbps New England 231.10 92.14 69.95 300.00 350.00 72 Middle Atlantic 206.21 93.09 69.95 180.00 350.00 272 East North Central 203.15 107.49 69.99 255.00 1000.00 240 West North Central 159.40 82.97 49.00 125.00 299.95 273 South Atlantic 199.07 108.10 35.00 255.00 599.99 367 East South Central 167.38 89.89 30.00 119.99 350.00 96 West South Central 176.50 89.28 69.95 140.97 301.52 197 Mountain 220.23 103.74 20.00 299.95 299.95 112 Pacific Except Alaska 208.69 96.62 49.99 255.00 300.00 339 Alaska - - - - - 0 Puerto Rico 88.43 13.39 70.00 84.99 140.00 62 National 197.85 99.46 20.00 240.00 1000.00 2030 Source: FCC, Urban Rate Survey Data and Resources (Dec. 26, 2023), https://www.fcc.gov/economics-analytics/industry-analysis-division/urban-rate-survey-data-resources. The download/upload speed indicates that the advertised speed is between that speed and the higher tier (for example, 25/3 Mbps means advertised download/upload speed is at least 25/3 Mbps but not greater than 100/20 Mbps). 99. As noted above, we collect price information for 27 facilities-based service providers and MVNOs. The sample includes 27 providers with extensive nationwide service either as a facilities based provider or an MVNO: AT&T, T-Mobile, Verizon, Consumer Cellular, Credo, Boost Mobile, Boost Infinite, Cricket, FreeUp, Gen Mobile, Good2Go, Google Fi, H2O Wireless, MetroPCS, Mint, Pure Talk, RedPocket, Simple Mobile, Straight Talk, Tello, Ting, Total by Verizon, US Cellular, US Mobile, Ultra Mobile, Visible, and Wing. Price information comes from manual data collection from providers’ websites, as of December 2023 and January 2024. We use the following formula (that takes into account one-time and on-going fees) to calculate the average monthly rate: See 2022 Communications Marketplace Report, 37 FCC Rcd at Appx. G, para. 102. Only plans that offered at least 30 GB of unthrottled data per month and line were considered, Reports on mobile data usage provide a range of estimates and tend to rely on an average. Ericsson estimates average mobile data use in North America for 2023 at 25.9 GB and expected use in 2024 at 32.4 GB per month. Ericsson, Mobile Data Traffic Outlook (Nov. 2023), https://www.ericsson.com/en/reports-and-papers/mobility-report/dataforecasts/mobile-traffic-forecast (see Figure 10); see also GSMA, The Mobile Economy North America 2023, at 16 (2023) (citing Ericsson’s projections), https://www.gsma.com/mobileeconomy/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/260923-Mobile-Economy-North-America-2023.pdf); CTIA, 2023 Annual Survey Highlights at 3 (2023), https://api.ctia.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/2023-Annual-Survey-Highlights.pdf (“Wireless data traffic is only expected to increase even more, as Ericsson predicts average monthly data use per smartphone to grow to 58 GB by 2028—more than 4x the 14 GB of monthly use per smartphone seen today.”). For the purposes of our analysis for this report, we have adopted a threshold of 30 GB per month, consistent with current advanced uses. 47 U.S.C. § 1302(d)(1); 2015 Report, 30 FCC Rcd at 1390-91, paras. 19-23 (providing a legal analysis that these reports require an analysis of telecommunications capability that is “advanced”); 2016 Report, 31 FCC Rcd at 705, para. 13. We therefore did not include plans that provided lower data limits at a lower price such as Twigby, TracFone, Reach Mobile, Unreal, and Spectrum, nor did we include providers that have no data component in their plans, like Textnow and Go Talk. and we also collected information for both post-paid and pre-paid service options. For comparability reasons, we exclude plans with device discounts, and only include plans that assume consumers bring their own devices. We also exclude provider discounts that may be inaccessible for low-income households. We did not include any discounts for using auto-payments because these may be hard for low-credit scoring or unbanked households to claim. For some prepaid plans, a different rate might be available if one pays in advance for longer period of time. In those cases, we chose the prepaid plan with the shortest term period, in order not to exclude households with liquidity constraints. We also did not include any discounts for online purchase in order not to exclude households without internet service. Finally, we did not include any plans that also required a fixed Internet subscription from the provider. Providers sometimes have multiple plans that meet our requirements for inclusion into the dataset. In those cases, we only include a provider’s lowest priced plan or combination of plans that serve one, two, three, and four lines. Figure 18 summarizes the median, mean, minimum, and maximum prices for the cheapest available one, two-, three-, and four-line plans across the 27 providers sampled. Figure 18 reflects the overall price level and variance across the nation but does not imply that all plans are available in all locations. Cheaper plans with lower data caps are available in many locations for consumers with lower mobile data use. For example, the one-line Verizon Unlimited prepaid plan is $60 per month, while the one-line Verizon 15 GB prepaid plan is $45 per month. Verizon, Verizon Prepaid, https://www.verizon.com/plans/prepaid/ (last visited Feb. 12, 2024). Similarly, the one-line T-Mobile Unlimited prepaid plan is $50 per month, while the one-line T-Mobile 10 GB prepaid plan is $40 per month. T-Mobile, T-Mobile Prepaid, https://prepaid.t-mobile.com/prepaid-plans (last visited Feb. 12, 2024). Fig. 18 Lowest Cost 30 GB Nationwide Mobile Plan Prices (Price per Line)   Mean ($) St. Dev. ($) Min. ($) Median ($) Max. ($) 1 Line ($) 47.28 12.36 20.00 50.00 71.50 2 Lines ($) 43.47 11.66 20.00 40.00 65.00 3 Lines ($) 40.86 11.98 20.00 39.17 65.00 4 Lines ($) 39.29 12.24 20.00 38.02 64.00 Source: Statistics calculated over the lowest cost plan or combination of plans from each provider that provides unthrottled 30 GB 5G-NR service for specified number of lines. No discounts included other than introductory promotional offers. Staff data collection from providers’ websites between Dec. 19, 2023 and Jan. 12, 2024. 100. Income Shares Used to Subscribe to Broadband. Whether a particular price is affordable also depends in part on the disposable income of a household. In 2016, the Commission directed the Wireline Competition Bureau “to measure the extent to which voice and broadband service expenditures exceeded two percent of low-income consumers’ disposable household income as compared to the next highest income group.” It stated that it did not intend to establish a presumption that this threshold distinguished affordable from non-affordable service. See Lifeline and Link Up Reform and Modernization, et al., WC Docket No. 11-42 et al., Third Report and Order, Further Report and Order, and Order on Reconsideration, 31 FCC Rcd 3962, 4112, para. 408 (2016). As a first step, this Report presents data on broadband expenses across income deciles (Figure 19) and on the burden of broadband on an example household with an income corresponding to 200% of the 2023 federal poverty level (Figure 20). Economic analysis suggests that affordability cannot be purely defined using a fixed percentage of income, as incomes vary greatly. See Karen E. Hancock. “Can pay? Won’t pay?” or Economic Principles of “Affordability,” 30 Urban Studies 127 (1993). However, evaluating the share of income spent is broadly informative of the degree of affordability and can be improved upon in future editions of this Report. 101. Figure 19 shows the median cost of fixed broadband as a share of household income, We use income deciles from the American Community Survey 1-Year 2022 Public Use Microdata Sample. United States Census Bureau, Explore Data, https://data.census.gov/mdat/#/ (last visited Jan. 9, 2024). Income has been adjusted into 2023 dollars by the Chained Consumer Price Index For All Urban Consumers, using the inflation rate from December 2022 to December 2023. BLS, BLS Data Viewer, https://beta.bls.gov/dataViewer/view/timeseries/SUUR0000SA0 (last visited Jan. 12, 2024). differentiated for three speed tiers, by Census division. Differences in broadband prices and regional incomes translate into considerable variation even within speed tiers, particularly for the two lowest income deciles. For example, households at the 10th income percentile must spend between approximately 5% of their income in the Mountain Census Division and approximately 11% in Alaska for subscription to median-priced 100/20 Mbps broadband service. Households at the 20th percentile must spend between approximately 3% (Mountain) and approximately 6% (Alaska) for median-priced 100/20 Mbps broadband service. Fig. 19 Median Fixed Broadband Internet Cost as a Share of Household Income, by Census Division, Speed Tier, and Income Percentile Download/ Upload Census Division/AK Income Percentile 10th 20th 50th 90th 25/3 Mbps New England 6.0% 3.1% 1.2% 0.4% Middle Atlantic 6.7% 3.4% 1.3% 0.4% East North Central 6.2% 3.3% 1.4% 0.5% West North Central 2.1% 1.2% 0.5% 0.2% South Atlantic 6.0% 3.2% 1.3% 0.5% East South Central 7.6% 4.0% 1.6% 0.6% West South Central 6.5% 3.5% 1.4% 0.5% Mountain 3.6% 2.0% 0.9% 0.3% Pacific Except Alaska 5.1% 2.7% 1.1% 0.4% Alaska 7.6% 4.1% 1.8% 0.7% 100/20 Mbps New England 7.5% 3.9% 1.5% 0.5% Middle Atlantic 8.5% 4.3% 1.7% 0.6% East North Central 7.8% 4.1% 1.7% 0.6% West North Central 5.6% 3.1% 1.3% 0.5% South Atlantic 8.0% 4.2% 1.8% 0.6% East South Central 9.5% 5.1% 2.0% 0.7% West South Central 8.2% 4.4% 1.8% 0.6% Mountain 4.7% 2.6% 1.1% 0.4% Pacific Except Alaska 6.4% 3.3% 1.3% 0.5% Alaska 10.8% 5.8% 2.6% 1.1% 940/500 Mbps New England 20.5% 10.6% 4.1% 1.5% Middle Atlantic 14.0% 7.0% 2.7% 0.9% East North Central 19.8% 10.4% 4.4% 1.6% West North Central 8.9% 4.8% 2.1% 0.8% South Atlantic 19.0% 10.1% 4.2% 1.5% East South Central 11.4% 6.1% 2.4% 0.9% West South Central 11.5% 6.2% 2.5% 0.9% Mountain 19.5% 10.9% 4.7% 1.8% Pacific Except Alaska 16.3% 8.5% 3.4% 1.2% Alaska - - - - Source: FCC, Urban Rate Survey Data and Resources (Dec. 26, 2023), https://www.fcc.gov/economics-analytics/industry-analysis-division/urban-rate-survey-data-resources; United States Census Bureau, Explore Data, https://data.census.gov/mdat/#/ (last visited Jan. 9, 2024); and BLS, BLS Data Viewer, https://beta.bls.gov/dataViewer/view/timeseries/SUUR0000SA0 (last visited Jan. 12, 2024). We note that there is no 940/500 Mbps plan in Alaska. 102. Figure 20 shows the share of income that example households of varying size would have to spend for fixed, mobile, and both fixed and mobile broadband, assuming that fixed broadband is obtained for the entire household and that all individuals in the household have mobile broadband. The weighted median monthly price of fixed broadband is for service at advertised speeds of at least 25/3 Mbps but not greater than 100/20 Mbps, as shown in Figure 17. The median monthly price of wireless is derived from the data collection conducted by FCC staff in December 2023 and January 2024 as shown in Figure 18. Income shares are calculated by census division—with Alaska separated as in the URS—for households at 200% of the 2023 federal poverty level, based on the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 2023 poverty guidelines. Figure 20 shows wide regional variation in the share of income that households would have to spend on broadband. In addition, the income share varies with the size of the household. For example, one-member households require between approximately 3% and 6% of their income for both fixed and mobile broadband, while four-member households require between approximately 4% and 5% of their income for both fixed and mobile broadband. 103. During the pandemic, Congress acted to help close the broadband affordability gap, establishing the $3.2 billion Emergency Broadband Benefit Program as part of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021, under which eligible low-income households could receive a discount off the cost of broadband service and certain connected devices during an emergency period relating to the COVID-19 pandemic, and participating providers could receive a reimbursement for such discounts. Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021, Pub. L. No. 116-260, div. N, tit. IX, § 904(i), 134 Stat. 1182, 2130, 2135 (2020); Emergency Broadband Benefit Program, WC Docket No. 20-445, Report and Order, 36 FCC Rcd 4612 (2021). The Infrastructure Act Infrastructure Act, div. F, tit. V, § 60502(a), 135 Stat. at 1238; id., div. J, tit. IV, 135 Stat. at 1382 (appropriating $14.2 billion to the Commission for the ACP). then extended the program beyond the emergency period, changed the name to the ACP, and appropriated an additional $14.2 billion for the ACP, which changed the monthly support amount but maintains a monthly discount and the one-time connected device reimbursement. The ACP launched on December 31, 2021, and the Emergency Broadband Benefit Program ceased accepting new enrollments on December 30, 2021. Emergency Broadband Benefit Program, WC Docket Nos. 20-445, 21-450, Order, 36 FCC Rcd 16484 (WCB 2021); Press Release, FCC, FCC Launches Affordable Connectivity Program, (Dec. 31, 2021), https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-378908A1.pdf. The Commission adopted final ACP rules in January 2022. Affordable Connectivity Program, Emergency Broadband Benefit Program, WC Docket Nos. 21-450, 20-445, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 37 FCC Rcd 484 (2022) (ACP Report and Order and Further Notice). However, due to the projected depletion of funding for the ACP in April 2024, the Commission has begun the process of winding down the program, absent further congressional funding to continue this unprecedentedly successful program. See Affordable Connectivity Program, WC Docket No. 21-450, Order, DA 24-23 (WCB Jan. 11, 2024) (setting out requirements and procedures for ending the ACP due to lack of funding) (ACP Wind-Down Order). See also Wireline Competition Bureau Announces the Final Month of the Affordable Connectivity Program, WC Docket No. 21-450, Public Notice, DA 24-195 (WCB Mar. 4, 2024) (ACP Final Month Public Notice). The wind-down process includes an enrollment freeze, which went into effect on February 8, 2024. ACP Wind-Down Order, DA 24-23, at 8, para. 21. See also Wireline Competition Bureau Reminder of February 8, 2024 Enrollment Freeze for the Affordable Connectivity Program, WC Docket No. 21-450, Public Notice, DA 24-103, (Feb. 6, 2024). At the time ACP enrollments stopped, there were over 23 million households benefiting from the ACP. Universal Service Administrative Service Company, ACP Enrollment and Claims Tracker (Feb. 13, 2024), https://www.usac.org/about/affordable-connectivity-program/acp-enrollment-and-claims-tracker/#total-enrolled (Total Households at Enrollment Freeze). In Figure 20, we consider the effect of ACP and Lifeline subsides on the share of income spent on broadband for example households of varying size with an income of 200% of the federal poverty level. The Lifeline program, the Emergency Broadband Benefit (EBB) during the COVID-19 pandemic, and the ACP are discount programs designed to make broadband subscriptions more affordable. The ACP subsidy is up to $30 per household, per month (up to $75 per month for households on qualifying Tribal lands), and the Lifeline subsidy is up to $9.25 per household, per month (up to $34.25 per month for eligible subscribers on Tribal lands). 47 U.S.C. § 1752(a)(7)(A) (establishing benefit amount for ACP); and FCC, Lifeline Support for Affordable Communications (Sept. 19, 2023), https://www.fcc.gov/lifeline-consumers. Taking ACP and Lifeline subsidies into account, a one-member household required between approximately 2% and 5% of their income for both fixed and mobile broadband, while four-member households required between approximately 3% and 4% of their income for both fixed and mobile broadband. Fig. 20 Estimated Expense of Fixed and Mobile Broadband as a Share of Household Income (at 200% Federal Poverty Level), by Census Division and Household Size Division Household Size Median Monthly Price of Fixed Median Monthly Price of Mobile Monthly Household Income at 200% of FPL Income Share Spent on Fixed Income Share Spent on Mobile Income Share Spent on Both Income Share Spent on Both, Minus ACP Income Share Spent on Both, Minus ACP and Lifeline New England 1 $87.00 $50.00 $2,430 3.6% 2.1% 5.6% 4.4% 4.0% 2 $87.00 $80.00 $3,287 2.6% 2.4% 5.1% 4.2% 3.9% 3 $87.00 $117.50 $4,143 2.1% 2.8% 4.9% 4.2% 4.0% 4 $87.00 $152.08 $5,000 1.7% 3.0% 4.8% 4.2% 4.0% Middle Atlantic 1 $87.00 $50.00 $2,430 3.6% 2.1% 5.6% 4.4% 4.0% 2 $87.00 $80.00 $3,287 2.6% 2.4% 5.1% 4.2% 3.9% 3 $87.00 $117.50 $4,143 2.1% 2.8% 4.9% 4.2% 4.0% 4 $87.00 $152.08 $5,000 1.7% 3.0% 4.8% 4.2% 4.0% East North Central 1 $79.99 $50.00 $2,430 3.3% 2.1% 5.3% 4.1% 3.7% 2 $79.99 $80.00 $3,287 2.4% 2.4% 4.9% 4.0% 3.7% 3 $79.99 $117.50 $4,143 1.9% 2.8% 4.8% 4.0% 3.8% 4 $79.99 $152.08 $5,000 1.6% 3.0% 4.6% 4.0% 3.9% West North Central 1 $30.00 $50.00 $2,430 1.2% 2.1% 3.3% 2.1% 1.7% 2 $30.00 $80.00 $3,287 0.9% 2.4% 3.3% 2.4% 2.2% 3 $30.00 $117.50 $4,143 0.7% 2.8% 3.6% 2.8% 2.6% 4 $30.00 $152.08 $5,000 0.6% 3.0% 3.6% 3.0% 2.9% South Atlantic 1 $79.99 $50.00 $2,430 3.3% 2.1% 5.3% 4.1% 3.7% 2 $79.99 $80.00 $3,287 2.4% 2.4% 4.9% 4.0% 3.7% 3 $79.99 $117.50 $4,143 1.9% 2.8% 4.8% 4.0% 3.8% 4 $79.99 $152.08 $5,000 1.6% 3.0% 4.6% 4.0% 3.9% East South Central 1 $79.99 $50.00 $2,430 3.3% 2.1% 5.3% 4.1% 3.7% 2 $79.99 $80.00 $3,287 2.4% 2.4% 4.9% 4.0% 3.7% 3 $79.99 $117.50 $4,143 1.9% 2.8% 4.8% 4.0% 3.8% 4 $79.99 $152.08 $5,000 1.6% 3.0% 4.6% 4.0% 3.9% West South Central 1 $80.41 $50.00 $2,430 3.3% 2.1% 5.4% 4.1% 3.8% 2 $80.41 $80.00 $3,287 2.4% 2.4% 4.9% 4.0% 3.7% 3 $80.41 $117.50 $4,143 1.9% 2.8% 4.8% 4.1% 3.8% 4 $80.41 $152.08 $5,000 1.6% 3.0% 4.6% 4.0% 3.9% Mountain 1 $55.00 $50.00 $2,430 2.3% 2.1% 4.3% 3.1% 2.7% 2 $55.00 $80.00 $3,287 1.7% 2.4% 4.1% 3.2% 2.9% 3 $55.00 $117.50 $4,143 1.3% 2.8% 4.2% 3.4% 3.2% 4 $55.00 $152.08 $5,000 1.1% 3.0% 4.1% 3.5% 3.4% Pacific Except Alaska 1 $79.99 $50.00 $2,430 3.3% 2.1% 5.3% 4.1% 3.7% 2 $79.99 $80.00 $3,287 2.4% 2.4% 4.9% 4.0% 3.7% 3 $79.99 $117.50 $4,143 1.9% 2.8% 4.8% 4.0% 3.8% 4 $79.99 $152.08 $5,000 1.6% 3.0% 4.6% 4.0% 3.9% Alaska 1 $129.99 $50.00 $3,035 4.3% 1.6% 5.9% 4.9% 4.6% 2 $129.99 $80.00 $4,107 3.2% 1.9% 5.1% 4.4% 4.2% 3 $129.99 $117.50 $5,178 2.5% 2.3% 4.8% 4.2% 4.0% 4 $129.99 $152.08 $6,250 2.1% 2.4% 4.5% 4.0% 3.9% Source: The column “Income Share Spent on Both, Minus ACP” is based on $30 of support. The column “Income Share Spent on Both, Minus ACP and Lifeline” is based on $30 ACP support and $9.25 Lifeline support. United States Department of Health and Human Services, Annual Update of the HHS Poverty Guidelines, 88 Fed. Reg. 3424 (January 19, 2023); FCC, Urban Rate Survey Data and Resources (Dec. 26, 2023), https://www.fcc.gov/economics-analytics/industry-analysis-division/urban-rate-survey-data-resources; and FCC staff mobile pricing data collection from Dec. 19, 2023 and Jan. 12, 2024. 104. Given the overall lack of data and information in the record, as noted above, we necessarily limit ourselves to an initial analysis of some of the factors that affect affordability. We do not have sufficient data, however, to draw any conclusions as to the general affordability of broadband service or its affordability for particular types of households. We believe that more comprehensive data are necessary for us to make any definitive conclusions about the number of households for which broadband remains unaffordable. We nevertheless find available affordability data to be instructive and intend to use these data to inform development of Commission policy. We plan to revisit affordability in future section 706 inquiries. C. Adoption 105. In this section, we examine the universal service goal of broadband adoption. As a general matter, we consider our goal of universal adoption to be a universal lack of barriers to adoption other than service availability and service affordability – not 100% adoption. Such barriers most notably include the affordability of devices used to access broadband services (including those used by people with disabilities), the lack of information about programs that make broadband services more affordable, such as the ACP, and digital literacy. 106. Our previous section discussing affordability suggested that broadband remains unaffordable for far too many Americans. Adoption, however, is not the same as affordability. Some households that have the income to afford broadband may choose not to subscribe due to a lack of information, lack of digital literacy, or because they cannot afford to purchase a device to access broadband service. We agree with NCTA that many issues can affect broadband adoption and discuss two of the issues that USTelecom raises (lack of access to devices and lack of digital skills) in our discussion of Adoption. See USTelecom Comments at 7. Further, as stated above, we also acknowledge the third example given by USTelecom (“relevance”) in explaining how our evaluation of adoption is not necessarily premised on a goal of 100% adoption. See id. 107. For purposes of this inquiry, we consider access to devices used to connect to broadband to be an adoption-related matter. Even if broadband service is affordable, consumers may not find it useful to adopt it if the devices used to connect to it are too expensive for potential subscribers. For example, 37% of non-broadband users in a Pew Research Center survey stated that the cost of a computer is a reason that they do not subscribe. Andrew Perrin, Pew Research Center, Mobile Technology and Home Broadband 2021 (June 3, 2021), https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2021/06/03/mobile-technology-and-home-broadband-2021/. The ACP’s up-to-$100 device subsidy, available in certain circumstances, See 47 CFR § 54.1803(b). can certainly play a role in reducing this barrier to adoption, The ACP provides a one-time discount of up to $100 for a laptop, desktop, or tablet per household, provided that the household contributes more than $10 but less than $50 toward the cost of the device. 47 U.S.C. § 1752(b)(5); ACP Report and Order and Further Notice at 65, para. 136. but it is unclear the extent to which it fully and universally solves the problem. Further, programs such as the ACP are only effective if potential subscribers know about them. Congress recognized this issue in 2021 when authorizing the Commission to provide grants to ACP outreach partners, See 47 U.S.C. § 1752(b)(10)(C)(ii)(IV). a program that the Commission continued to implement until the enrollment freeze on February 8, 2024 stopped grant-funded outreach activities consistent with wind-down procedures. See, e.g., Affordable Connectivity Program, WC Docket No. 21-450, Second Report and Order, 37 FCC Rcd 9928 (2022) (ACP Second Report and Order); Affordable Connectivity Program, WC Docket No. 21-450, Third Report and Order, 37 FCC Rcd 9989 (2022) (ACP Third Report and Order). WCB announced in its wind-down order dated January 11, 2024, that grant-funded outreach will cease concurrent with a freeze in ACP enrollments. ACP Wind-Down Order, DA 24-23, at 10-11, para. 27. As we discuss in detail below, during the duration of the ACP, the Commission has conducted its own significant ACP awareness programs, both directly and through partners. See Section IV.D, infra. 108. Lack of digital literacy can also be a barrier to adoption. In addition to USTelecom, Next Century Cities also observes that lack of digital literacy can prevent broadband adoption. Next Century Cities Comments at 7. See also Kevin Schwartzbach, Rockefeller Institute of Government, Addressing Digital Literacy and Other Reasons for Non-Adoption of Broadband (July 8, 2022), https://rockinst.org/blog/addressing-digital-literacy-and-other-reasons-for-non-adoption-of-broadband/; Congressional Research Service, State Broadband Initiatives: Selected State and Local Approaches as Potential Models for Federal Initiatives to Address the Digital Divide, ii (Apr. 6, 2020), https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R46307. The National Digital Inclusion Alliance has stated that digital literacy and cost are the greatest barriers to broadband adoption. Empowering and Connection Communities Through Digital Equity and Internet Adoption: Hearing Before the Subcomm. on Commc’ns and Tech, 116th Cong. 2 (2020) (Written Testimony of Angela Siefer, Executive Director, National Digital Inclusion Alliance), https://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF16/20200129/110416/HHRG-116-IF16-Wstate-SieferA-20200129.pdf. We note that the Digital Equity Act, enacted as part of the Infrastructure Act, provides for State Digital Equity Capacity Grants that are to include State Digital Equity Plans in their applications with measurable objectives for promoting, among other things, digital literacy, See Infrastructure Act, div. F, tit. III, § 60304(c)(1)(B)(iii), 135 Stat. at 1214. a grant program that we will follow with interest. 109. Against this background, we analyze the Commission’s broadband adoption data, recognizing that each of these factors plays a role in why someone with theoretically affordable broadband physically deployed to them might not subscribe. Due to our current lack of data regarding these barriers to adoption, we analyze these data primarily as an indicator of potential barriers to adoption. 110. Our assessment of adoption of fixed terrestrial broadband services in the United States from 2018 to 2021 is based upon FCC Form 477 subscriber/connection data collected at the census tract level, and FCC Form 477 deployment data collected at the census block level. The assessment of adoption of broadband services in 2022 is based upon the same tract-level FCC Form 477 connection data, and FCC BDC service availability data that are collected at a location-by-location level based on the Broadband Serviceable Locations identified in the December 2022 Fabric. For this analysis, we aggregate data up to the geographic level reported in each figure; for example, the United States, Tribal Areas, and Urban and Non-Urban Core Areas located therein. We evaluate the adoption of fixed terrestrial services at speeds of our fixed speed benchmark of 100/20 Mbps, an approximation of our long-term goal using 940/500 Mbps, and the former fixed speed benchmark of 25/3 Mbps, both with and without fixed wireless. See infra Appx. B-1 (presenting service availability for fixed terrestrial services at our speed benchmark of 100/20 Mbps by state, the District of Columbia, and U.S. Territory). 111. For the years 2018 through 2021, the reported adoption rates are the number of residential fixed terrestrial connections divided by the number of households located in the census blocks in which the FCC Form 477 deployment data indicate that fixed terrestrial services are deployed and meet the reported speed threshold. Similarly, for the year 2022, the reported adoption rate is the number of fixed terrestrial connections divided by the number of households in which the BDC service availability data indicate fixed terrestrial services are deployed and meet the reported speed threshold. A census tract is designated as “Urban Core” if it has a land area less than three square miles and a population density of at least 1,000 people per square mile. A census tract is designated as “Non-Urban Core” if it has not been designated as Urban Core. We define a census tract as a Tribal Area if more than 50% of the land area in the census tract is designated as Tribal lands. Because our subscriber data are submitted at the census tract level, some census tracts will contain a mixture of census blocks on Tribal lands and census blocks that are not on Tribal lands. For example, for 2022, the Tribal lands area category in the figures below contain 93% of households and 85% of the land area of census blocks that are designated as Tribal lands, and 7% of households and 15% of the land area of census blocks that are not designated as Tribal lands. Moreover, because connections data are collected at the census tract level, we have no ability to determine whether the residential connections are for households located on census blocks designated as urban, non-urban (rural), or Tribal lands. In addition to the Figures presented here, we present the mobile broadband penetration rate by state in Appendix B-20. To estimate the adoption of mobile broadband we present the penetration rate, or number of mobile wireless devices per capita, by state. We use Numbering Resource Utilization/Forecast (NRUF) data to estimate state-level penetration rates (the number of mobile wireless connections per 100 people). NRUF data track how many phone numbers have been assigned to mobile wireless devices. Note that NRUF-based penetration rates can exceed 100% because NRUF identifies the number of connected devices that have associated telephone numbers, and a single subscriber may have multiple connected devices. As seen in Appendix B-20, the penetration rate exceeds 100% in every state. CTIA estimates that, as of 2022, there were approximately 1.6 wireless connections for every person in the U.S. CTIA, 2023 Annual Survey Highlights at 5 (2023), https://api.ctia.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/2023-Annual-Survey-Highlights.pdf. This indicates that the average subscriber has more than one connected device. 112. Figure 21 reports adoption rates based on year-end data from 2018 to 2022 for the United States, Urban Core and Non-Urban Core Areas, and Tribal Areas. The data shows that as of year-end 2022, approximately 42% of households subscribe to broadband at our fixed speed benchmark of 100/20 Mbps when it is available. Under 20% of households subscribe to broadband at our long-term goal speed approximate of 940/500 Mbps when it is available. Adoption rates for the United States as a whole are higher in Urban areas at speeds of 25/3 Mbps and 100/20 Mbps, while Non-Urban areas have slightly higher adoption rates at speeds of 940/500 Mbps. For Tribal Areas, adoption rates for the 25/3 Mbps speed tier are higher in Urban Areas, while adoption rates for the faster speed tiers are higher in Non-Urban Areas. Fig. 21 Overall Adoption Rate for Fixed Terrestrial Services at Different Speed Tiers   2018  2019  2020  2021  2022  25/3 Mbps  United States  65.1% 69.4% 76.0% 80.0% 78.7% Non-Urban Core Areas  59.9% 64.6% 70.1% 73.1% 75.3% Urban Core Areas  69.2% 73.3% 81.0% 84.9% 80.9% Tribal Areas  44.0% 46.5% 52.3% 59.3% 58.5% Non-Urban Core Areas  38.7% 40.6% 46.3% 52.0% 53.6% Urban Core Areas  56.1% 61.8% 70.0% 77.7% 71.1% 25/3 Mbps - Excluding Fixed Wireless United States  66.3% 71.1% 78.3% 81.3% 79.7% Non-Urban Core Areas  62.4% 67.9% 74.6% 76.4% 79.4% Urban Core Areas  69.3% 73.4% 81.1% 84.5% 79.8% Tribal Areas  47.2% 51.1% 59.0% 63.3% 64.5% Non-Urban Core Areas  42.7% 46.1% 54.2% 57.0% 61.7% Urban Core Areas  56.6% 62.2% 70.5% 77.0% 70.1% 100/20 Mbps United States  15.7% 21.1% 27.6% 32.8% 41.7% Non-Urban Core Areas  13.1% 18.6% 25.4% 29.9% 41.2% Urban Core Areas  17.5% 22.9% 29.3% 34.7% 42.1% Tribal Areas  9.9% 15.8% 23.3% 24.6% 31.8% Non-Urban Core Areas  10.2% 16.3% 24.9% 26.6% 34.5% Urban Core Areas  9.4% 14.8% 19.9% 20.6% 26.3% 100/20 Mbps - Excluding Fixed Wireless United States  15.7% 21.2% 27.9% 33.1% 42.2% Non-Urban Core Areas  13.2% 18.8% 26.0% 30.7% 43.1% Urban Core Areas  17.4% 22.9% 29.3% 34.5% 41.6% Tribal Areas  10.1% 16.4% 24.2% 25.2% 34.7% Non-Urban Core Areas  10.5% 17.2% 26.4% 27.5% 39.2% Urban Core Areas  9.4% 14.8% 19.9% 20.6% 26.4% 940/500 Mbps United States  7.5% 9.4% 16.2% 16.0% 19.9% Non-Urban Core Areas  8.1% 9.7% 16.6% 16.2% 20.3% Urban Core Areas  7.2% 9.3% 16.0% 16.0% 19.6% Tribal Areas  7.7% 7.9% 14.6% 14.9% 20.7% Non-Urban Core Areas  12.0% 11.3% 15.7% 15.9% 22.6% Urban Core Areas  2.7% 2.8% 12.4% 12.9% 15.8% 940/500 Mbps - Excluding Fixed Wireless United States  7.6% 9.6% 16.6% 16.2% 20.2% Non-Urban Core Areas  8.2% 9.8% 17.1% 16.4% 20.8% Urban Core Areas  7.4% 9.5% 16.4% 16.2% 19.8% Tribal Areas  7.7% 7.9% 14.7% 14.8% 20.9% Non-Urban Core Areas  12.0% 11.3% 15.8% 15.8% 22.8% Urban Core Areas  2.7% 2.8% 12.4% 12.9% 15.8% Source: FCC Form 477 data; FCC BDC data; Staff Block Estimates. 113. Figure 22 reports average county-level adoption rates for fixed terrestrial services by quartile ranking for median household income, population density, household poverty rate and the proportion of the population that resides in a rural area. This demographic analysis is based upon county-level adoption rates and the most recently available ACS Data; that is, ACS Five-Year Estimates for 2018-2022 for county-level data for the 50 states and the District of Columbia. Median household income is based on 2022 data and is measured in 2022 Inflation-Adjusted Dollars. The household poverty rate is defined as the number of households living below the federal poverty rate divided by the total number of households ACS includes in the poverty calculation. Population density is defined as the total estimated population residing in the county as of 2022 divided by the square miles of land in the county, where the estimate of land area is based upon the 2020 Census. We designate a 2020 census block as urban or rural based on the designation of the 2020 Census. The rural population rate is defined as the total estimated population residing in the county residing in the “rural” census blocks as categorized for this Report divided by the total estimated population in the county. The data are further disaggregated by speed tier. We note that this analysis is based upon the best data currently available and may not accurately reflect how adoption may be associated with the subscriber’s demographic data. Our connections data are based upon the data submitted by the providers, and we do not know the demographics of the providers’ customers. In general, these data suggest that the average household adoption rate in a county increases with median household income and population density, and decreases with increases in the poverty rate and rural population rate. The adoption of fixed terrestrial broadband varies across demographic groups and households with less income are less likely to subscribe to a fixed broadband service for their home. See Pew Research Center, Internet/Broadband Fact Sheet (Jan. 31, 2024), https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/fact-sheet/internet-broadband/. Incomes tend to be lower in rural areas, and subscription to home broadband services is generally lower in rural areas. Counties with a higher proportion of rural population will tend to have lower population density because fewer people live in these counties than in counties with more urban areas. In Fig. 22, the quartile with the lowest population density will likely correspond to the quartile with the highest rural population rate. Thus, the observation that the average overall adoption rate for fixed terrestrial services increases with population density is akin to the observation that the average overall adoption rate for fixed terrestrial services decreases as the rural population rate increases. We note that these trends are not as clear for the 940/500 Mbps tier. Fig. 22 Average County Overall Adoption Rate for Fixed Terrestrial Services by County Level Demographic Variable (December 31, 2022) 25/3 Mbps 100/20 Mbps 940/500 Mbps Median Household Income First Quartile (Lowest Median Household Income) 51.1% 28.4% 12.2% Second Quartile 59.4% 32.1% 13.7% Third Quartile 62.7% 32.4% 11.2% Fourth Quartile (Highest Median Household Income) 74.5% 41.7% 17.3% Median Household Income - Excluding Fixed Wireless First Quartile (Lowest Median Household Income) 54.5% 30.3% 12.7% Second Quartile 63.3% 34.2% 13.7% Third Quartile 66.9% 35.3% 11.4% Fourth Quartile (Highest Median Household Income) 76.9% 43.5% 17.3% Population Density First Quartile (Lowest Population Density) 53.5% 30.5% 8.8% Second Quartile 51.4% 30.1% 11.4% Third Quartile 63.7% 32.7% 14.4% Fourth Quartile (Highest Population Density) 79.1% 41.4% 18.9% Population Density - Excluding Fixed Wireless First Quartile (Lowest Population Density) 57.1% 33.5% 8.9% Second Quartile 56.0% 33.4% 11.8% Third Quartile 68.2% 34.5% 14.6% Fourth Quartile (Highest Population Density) 80.0% 41.9% 18.8% Household Poverty Rate First Quartile (Lowest Household Poverty Rate) 70.2% 40.1% 15.3% Second Quartile 64.0% 32.6% 12.1% Third Quartile 60.9% 32.7% 15.1% Fourth Quartile (Highest Household Poverty Rate) 52.6% 29.3% 12.0% Household Poverty Rate - Excluding Fixed Wireless First Quartile (Lowest Household Poverty Rate) 73.4% 42.6% 15.4% Second Quartile 67.8% 34.9% 12.0% Third Quartile 64.7% 34.6% 15.6% Fourth Quartile (Highest Household Poverty Rate) 55.7% 31.2% 12.2% Rural Population Rate First Quartile (Lowest Rural Population Rate) 76.6% 40.6% 17.2% Second Quartile 63.0% 32.5% 13.6% Third Quartile 59.1% 29.7% 14.1% Fourth Quartile (Highest Rural Population Rate) 51.9% 31.3% 10.5% Rural Population Rate - Excluding Fixed Wireless First Quartile (Lowest Rural Population Rate) 77.3% 41.3% 17.2% Second Quartile 66.9% 34.5% 13.7% Third Quartile 64.4% 32.1% 14.8% Fourth Quartile (Highest Rural Population Rate) 56.1% 34.4% 10.6% Source: FCC BDC data; Staff Block Estimates; 2020 Census; ACS Five-Year Estimates for 2018-2022. 114. Based on December 2022 BDC data, we also analyze the non-adoption rate of fixed broadband at speeds of 100/20 Mbps or higher across counties in the United States. We measure the adoption gap as the number of households in a county for which 100/20 Mbps or higher broadband is available minus the number of households in a county subscribing to 100/20 Mbps or higher service. Then, we divide the adoption gap by the number of households in a county for which 100/20 Mbps or higher broadband is available. Households that are counted as non-adopters include those subscribed to satellite plans or fixed broadband at lower speeds, as well as those who are not subscribed to fixed broadband at all—this includes households for whom broadband is not affordable but also others who opt not to subscribe, even though they could afford it. There is a great deal of heterogeneity in non-adoption, as seen in Figure 23. For example, counties in North Dakota have quite low non-adoption rates, while counties in Maine and Nevada have very high non-adoption rates. Even more states have a great deal of variation in non-adoption on a county-by-county basis, such as Arkansas and Utah. As explained above, multiple interrelated factors influence the adoption gap. Further work is needed to explore the patterns of non-adoption of fixed broadband. Fig. 23 Non-Adoption Rate of Fixed Terrestrial Services at 100/20 Mbps, By County Source: Staff analysis based on Dec. 2022 FCC BDC data. Fig. 23 depicts the ratio of households in a county that do not subscribe to 100/20 Mbps service even though the service is available at the location. It includes terrestrial fixed service (fixed wireline and wireless) but does not include satellite or mobile broadband. As seen in Fig. 22, above, many households continue to subscribe to slower speed tiers, even when 100/20 Mbps service is available. Several reasons can explain this such as: the needs of a household may be served at lower access speeds, a household may not be aware of the availability of service, or the service may not be affordable. D. Availability 115. Although the Commission’s universal service goals all inform the availability of advanced telecommunications capability, See Section II, supra. the Commission in the Future of USF Report also adopts a goal of availability that is distinct from physical deployment, affordability, adoption, and equitable access. We again note that the universal service goal of availability is distinguished from the concept of “service ability,” which for the purposes of this Report we consider to be central to the evaluation of the physical deployment universal service goal. We posited in the Notice that availability should refer to consumers’ ability to purchase broadband service in areas where service is physically deployed, Notice of Inquiry, FCC 23-89, at 26, para. 62 (citing Future of USF Report, 37 FCC Rcd at 10046-47, para. 12). noting the example that broadband service may be physically deployed to a location, but the wiring of a building does not support the capability for all of its tenants to receive service. Id.. We sought examples and also asked whether this goal should be understood to encompass the quality of broadband service, including for example the frequency of service outages. Id. In addition, we asked in the Notice whether there is quantitative or qualitative data on which the Commission can rely to analyze service availability for this purpose. Id. For the reasons discussed below, we do not establish a standard for our universal service goal of availability at this time, although we discuss potential measures and available data. 116. We find that for purposes of our discussion of the Commission’s universal service goals in this inquiry, all aspects of service quality should be evaluated in the context of availability. We conclude that if a “service” does not have the characteristics reasonably expected of that service when a consumer wants to use it based on measurable statistical standards, that service is not “available.” Actual (as opposed to advertised) speed received, consistency of speed, and data allowances are also important. Certain metrics may be combined. For example, we could measure the minimum speed that a consumer actually receives 99.999% of the time. While we evaluate service quality in the context of availability, we acknowledge that many aspects of service quality could also be viewed in the context of evaluating whether the service has been “deployed.” In other words, if the service “deployed” does not, in fact, have the characteristics reasonably expected of such service (such as sufficiently low latency and sufficiently high consistency of service), that “service” could be said to have not been truly deployed to a location. 117. Service quality is important—it has a real and significant effect on consumers’ ability to use critical web-based applications, including those that facilitate telehealth, telework, and virtual learning. In fact, one commenter suggests that the Commission “balance its near-term efforts on achieving internet resilience and minimizing latency, instead of only increasing ‘speed’ or ‘bandwidth’.” Taht/Bufferbloat Comments at 1. Many commenters support including service quality–particularly latency–as part of our inquiry, See ADTRAN Comments at 15-17; ASSIA Comments at 2-4; Taht/Bufferbloat Comments at 3; WISPA Comments at 5-6; Hawkins Comments at 1. some of which noted that high latency can adversely affect an application’s quality of service. ADTRAN Comments at 15-17; ASSIA Comments at 2-4; Hawkins Comments at 1; Taht/Bufferbloat Comments at 3. Mr. Taht notes that even with increased speed, reducing latency is the only way to improve responsiveness. Taht/Bufferbloat Comments at 3. Mr. Taht also provides two charts demonstrating that low latency is important, but does not specify a standard that the Commission should use when evaluating latency in the context of measuring advanced telecommunications capability. Taht/Bufferbloat Comments at 4-5. Some commenters also argue that measuring actual speeds received, rather than advertised speeds, is more useful in determining the quality of the service provided. ADTRAN Comments at 17; ASSIA Comments at 4. We disagree with USTelecom, which does not support including service quality metrics by arguing that service quality is beyond the scope of section 706, USTelecom Comments at 4; WISPA Reply at 7-8. as well as parties arguing that our efforts would be duplicative of Commission programs and requirements. USTelecom Comments at 4. These parties fail to articulate how service can be considered available when it is of less than reasonably expected quality. Indeed, we note that section 706(d)(1) includes the adjective “high-quality” in its definition of advanced telecommunications capability. 47 U.S.C. § 1302(d)(1). 118. Latency. Latency, which is the measure of the time it takes a packet of data to travel from one point in the network to another, and which is typically measured by round-trip time in milliseconds (ms), is an important and often-measured aspect of service quality. Inquiry Concerning the Deployment of Advanced Telecommunications Capability to All Americans in a Reasonable and Timely Fashion, and Possible Steps to Accelerate Such Deployment Pursuant to Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, as Amended by the Broadband Data Improvement Act, GN Docket No. 15-191, Eleventh Broadband Progress Notice of Inquiry, 30 FCC Rcd 8823, 8835, para. 32 (2015) (Eleventh Notice of Inquiry). As a measurement of advanced telecommunications capability, latency can be critical because it affects a consumer’s ability to use real-time applications, including voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP), video calling, distance learning applications, and online gaming.Id. 8835, para. 32 n.69. High latencies may affect the perceived quality of some interactive services such as phone calls over the Internet, video chat and video conferencing, or online multiplayer games. FCC, Measuring Broadband America Fixed Broadband Report at 1.C (2023), https://www.fcc.gov/reports-research/reports/measuring-broadband-america/measuring-fixed-broadband-twelfth-report:~:text=The%20Twelfth%20Measuring%20Broadband%20America,Broadband%20America%20(MBA)%20 (Twelfth Measuring Broadband America Report). By consistency of speed, we refer to the extent to which the speed received by a consumer fluctuates over a period of time. See Twelfth Measuring Broadband America Report at 2.C. For more than a decade, the Commission has required its broadband supported with USF high-cost funding to have latency sufficiently low for real-time applications, such as VoIP. See, e.g., Connect America Fund et al., Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 26 FCC Rcd 17663, 17698, para. 96 (2011); 47 CFR § 54.805(a); 47 CFR § 54.1507(a). We note that there are many different standards for latency. For a wide-ranging discussion of various potential measures of latency, see generally Taht/Bufferbloat Comments. For example, based on a detailed analysis of International Telecommunications Union design objectives, the Commission has operationalized this standard for performance measurement purposes to mean that 95% or more of all peak period measurements (also referred to as observations) of network round trip latency are at or below 100 milliseconds (ms). See, e.g., Connect America Fund, WC Docket No. 10-90, Order, 33 FCC Rcd 6509, 6510-11, para. 4 (WCB/WTB/OET 2018) (First Performance Measures Order); 47 CFR § 54.805(b)(4)(i); 47 CFR § 54.1507(c)(1). The Department of Commerce requires BEAD funding recipients to meet the same standard, and requires broadband service with a maximum round trip latency of 100 ms at a location (among other requirements) for that location to be served. NTIA BEAD NOFO at 64-65. The NTIA BEAD NOFO also specifies that locations are considered “underserved” if they do not meet download/upload speeds of at least 100/20 and have a latency above 100 milliseconds. Id. at 16. 119. In the Notice, we observed that it may be appropriate to analyze latency metrics from Report to Report, and inquired whether latency metrics should be incorporated into our evaluation of advanced telecommunications capability. Notice, at 12-13,15, paras. 27-28, 35. Certain commenters encourage the Commission to consider performance metrics such as latency. ASSIA Comments at 4, 5; Dave Taht Comments at 3-5; ADTRAN Comments at Introduction, Hawkins Comments at 1-2; ASSIA Comments at 3; ADTRAN Comments at 16,17; Miss. Center for Justice Reply at 4. Some commenters contend that latency should be included in the definition of advanced telecommunications capability, Benton Institute Comments at 2-3; Hawkins Comments at 1. and describe how common use cases such as videoconferencing or gaming are dependent on latency. Dave Taht Comments at 10. Other commenters state that a consideration of service quality factors such as latency would expand the Commission’s Section 706 inquiry beyond its intended purpose. USTelecom Comments at 4, 5; WISPA Reply at 7-8. If we do present information on latency, commenters indicate that the Commission should maintain consistency with its high-cost USF programs by applying a standard of a roundtrip of 100 milliseconds or less during at least 95% of tested measurements; WISPA Comments at 5-6. or that the analysis should be consistent with language in the Infrastructure Act. Id. 120. Fixed broadband providers are required to include a latency flag in their BDC submissions, indicating whether the offered service is low latency, defined as having a round-trip latency of less than or equal to 100 milliseconds. FCC, Broadband Data Collection: Data Specifications for Biannual Submission of Subscription, Availability, and Supporting Data (March 4, 2022), https://www.fcc.gov/sites/default/files/bdc-availability-data-specifications-03042022.pdf. More specifically, for purposes of the BDC, low latency services are defined as having a round-trip latency of less than or equal to 100 milliseconds based on the 95th percentile of measurements. Figure 24 shows the overall service availability of fixed terrestrial services, further broken down into households with access to low latency services and those without access to these services, as of December 2022. As seen in Figure 24, almost all households with access to fixed terrestrial broadband services had access to low latency services. Fig. 24 Service Availability (Millions) of Fixed Terrestrial Services by Speed and Latency (December 2022) 25/3 Mbps 100/20 Mbps 940/500 Mbps Pop. % Pop. % Pop. % Overall 318.921 95.7% 309.107 92.7% 134.617 40.4% Low Latency Service Available 318.786 95.6% 309.019 92.7% 134.447 40.3% Low Latency Service Not Available 0.135 0.0% 0.088 0.0% 0.170 0.1% Excluding Fixed Wireless Overall 305.478 91.7% 301.531 90.5% 132.059 39.6% Low Latency Service Available 305.441 91.6% 301.486 90.5% 131.972 39.6% Low Latency Service Not Available 0.037 0.0% 0.046 0.0% 0.086 0.0% Pop. Evaluated 333.288 100.0% 333.288 100.0% 333.288 100.0% Source: FCC BDC data; Staff Block Estimates. 121. Although we find the data described above instructive, it is not comprehensive. We intend to revisit this issue in future inquiries as we learn more about, and potentially develop access to, additional data. 122. Consistency of Service. Both the Commission, with respect to high-cost USF recipients, and NTIA, with respect to BEAD recipients, also impose standards for consistency of service. See First Performance Measures Order, 33 FCC Rcd at 6529-30, para. 51; BEAD NOFO at 64-65 & n.80. This service quality metric concerns the percentage of performance test measurements, conducted under defined conditions, that demonstrate both download and upload speeds are being provided at a particular percentage of the “required” speed a particular percentage of the time. First Performance Measures Order, 33 FCC Rcd at 6529-30, para. 51. In the case of the Commission’s performance requirements for USF high-cost recipients and NTIA’s performance requirements for BEAD recipients, this threshold is 80% of measurements in each direction reflecting at least 80% of the “required” speed, otherwise known as “80/80.” Id.; BEAD NOFO at 64-65 & n.80. It may be possible to operationalize this consistency measurement by, for instance, not considering service to be “available” pursuant to the distinct availability goal unless it meets this 80/80 standard – which, in the case of 100/20 Mbps would be 80/16 Mbps at least 80% of the time. Measuring Broadband America (MBA) tests broadband service speeds at both 80/80 and 90/90 consistency standards. FCC, Measuring Broadband America Fixed Broadband Report at 2.C (2023), https://www.fcc.gov/reports-research/reports/measuring-broadband-america/measuring-fixed-broadband-twelfth-report (Twelfth Measuring Broadband America Report). We acknowledge, however, that at present, MBA is not a comprehensive source of data and we are not currently aware of a more comprehensive data source. Twelfth Measuring Broadband America Report. The participants for the most recent report were Altice Optimum, CenturyLink, Charter, Cincinnati Bell, Comcast, Cox, Frontier, Mediacom, Verizon (fiber), and Windstream. Id. at 2.A. AT&T no longer participates in the program. Id. We intend to revisit this issue in future inquiries. 123. Other Aspects of Availability. We acknowledge there are additional areas and measurements other than latency and consistency of service that are likely relevant to the universal service goal of availability. These include other metrics such as service outages and access to inside wiring. At present, we do not have comprehensive sources of data, but intend to revisit this issue in future inquires. E. Equitable Access 124. In the Future of USF Report, the Commission stated it could “measure progress” of the universal service goal of equitable access to broadband through its implementation of the Infrastructure Act’s directive to take action to prevent and identify necessary steps to eliminate digital discrimination of access. Future of USF Report, 37 FCC Rcd at 10049-50, para. 20. However, we have only just begun the process of implementing our digital discrimination of access rules, and the standards and metrics for determining compliance with those rules will be highly context specific. In light of these considerations, with regard to equitable access, we limit our discussion of equitable access in this Report solely to presenting, for informational purposes, the demographic analysis required by section 706(c). 47 U.S.C. § 1302(c). 125. As we compile a list of geographical areas that are not served by any provider of advanced telecommunications capability and, to the extent that data from the Census Bureau are available, we determine, for each unserved area, the population, the population density, and the average per capita income. Id. We include a demographic data analysis below, ADTRAN argues that it is unclear the extent to which the Commission can reliably draw conclusions from demographic data as the number of providers could be the result of the local government encouraging (or discouraging) additional entry through policies such as easing (or tightening) the permitting process, rather than reflecting the effect of demographics. ADTRAN, Inc. Comments at 18-19. OTI suggests comparing and contrasting data revealed in the National Broadband Map with other federal data, including maps of high-income and low-income areas, to see whether there are differences in adoption for higher speed services between higher income and lower income areas. OTI also suggests comparing collected data to demographic data, making it public, and asking providers to explain discrepancies in deployment based on this information. OTI Comments at 10. We need not address these concerns because our discussion is based on straightforward data analysis and examination of trends, although we will take these suggestions under advisement in future inquiries. and show the service availability of advanced telecommunications capability on a county-by-county basis with demographic information in Appendix B-12. Our analysis considers options to consumers for fixed terrestrial services meeting the fixed speed benchmark of 100/20 Mbps—and using the Census data and ACS demographic data, For this analysis, we examine population density, the number of households, and median household income. We rely upon the 2018-2022 ACS 5-Year Estimates for median household income (in 2022 inflation-adjusted dollars) reported at the census block group level. See U.S. Census Bureau, 2022 Data Release New and Notable, https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs/news/data-releases/2022/release.html (last visited Jan. 2, 2024). we also analyze the demographics of areas where consumers have access to multiple broadband providers. As noted above, if a provider indicates in the FCC Form 477 data that it provides service in a census block, this does not mean that the provider can provision services to all locations in the census block or that it can provide the speed to all locations in the census block. Accordingly, for the years 2018 to 2021, the number of providers does not necessarily reflect the number of choices available to a particular household and does not purport to measure actual head-to-head competition. This caveat does not apply to the BDC data used for the 2022 analysis. 126. Figure 25 presents a demographic analysis of the average percentage of households with coverage by zero, one, two, and three or more providers at the speed benchmark of 100/20 Mbps, Appx. B-21 and Appx. B-22 show corresponding tables using 25/3 Mbps and 940/500 Mbps. broken out by population density quartile, median household income quartile, and household count quartile. We include only the areas for which we have complete data. We aggregate households within a census block group by provider count category; that is, we group households within a census block group by the number of providers and then sum the households by provider count category. The households within a census block group are aggregated by the number of competing providers offering a particular category of service (zero, one, two, and at least three). The census block group is the smallest geographic area for which income data are available. We use the 2018-2022 ACS 5-Year Estimates for income measures for census block groups. Median household income is based on 2022 data and is measured in 2022 inflation-adjusted dollars. Population density is the total population residing in the census block group as of 2022 divided by the square miles of land in the census block group, with the estimate of land area based on the 2020 Census. Household count is the number of households in the census block group. We observe that the number of provider options increases with the number of housing units in the census block group, population density, and median household income. In general, the census block groups in rural areas will tend to have the lowest population density and the lowest number of households and are likely to have the largest percentage of the households with zero provider options, that is, no service availability of the reported service. Fig. 25 Average Percentage of Households with Zero, One, Two, or at Least Three Provider Options for 100/20 Mbps Fixed Terrestrial Services by Census Block Group (December 31, 2022) Zero One Two At Least Three Population Density First Quartile (Lowest Population Density) 27.7% 47.8% 19.5% 4.9% Second Quartile 3.6% 41.8% 39.6% 15.0% Third Quartile 1.7% 33.5% 43.4% 21.4% Fourth Quartile (Highest Population Density) 1.5% 26.2% 43.3% 29.0% Population Density - Excluding Fixed Wireless First Quartile (Lowest Population Density) 35.2% 51.4% 12.6% 0.8% Second Quartile 4.7% 56.0% 35.6% 3.6% Third Quartile 2.2% 47.7% 43.4% 6.6% Fourth Quartile (Highest Population Density) 2.1% 41.5% 47.6% 8.8% Median Household Income First Quartile (Lowest Median H/hold Income) 10.5% 42.0% 32.9% 14.6% Second Quartile 11.2% 39.8% 33.7% 15.3% Third Quartile 8.2% 37.0% 36.8% 18.0% Fourth Quartile (Highest Median H/hold Income) 3.5% 30.7% 43.2% 22.6% Median Household Income - Excluding Fixed Wireless First Quartile (Lowest Median H/hold Income) 12.6% 55.7% 28.4% 3.3% Second Quartile 14.3% 51.2% 30.5% 4.1% Third Quartile 11.3% 48.1% 35.4% 5.2% Fourth Quartile (Highest Median H/hold Income) 5.0% 42.0% 45.8% 7.2% Household Count First Quartile (Lowest H/hold Count) 9.9% 36.1% 37.0% 17.0% Second Quartile 9.3% 37.2% 36.3% 17.1% Third Quartile 8.7% 38.3% 35.8% 17.1% Fourth Quartile (Highest H/hold Count) 6.4% 37.7% 36.7% 19.1% Household Count - Excluding Fixed Wireless First Quartile (Lowest H/hold Count) 12.6% 46.6% 36.0% 4.8% Second Quartile 11.9% 48.3% 35.1% 4.7% Third Quartile 11.2% 50.4% 33.7% 4.7% Fourth Quartile (Highest H/hold Count) 8.6% 51.4% 34.5% 5.5% Source: FCC BDC data; Staff Block Estimates; 2020 Census; ACS Five-Year Estimates for 2018-2022. 127. In Figure 26, we present demographic data with our service availability analysis. Figure 26 depicts how the average proportion of the population with coverage by fixed terrestrial services by speed tier varies with median household income, population density, and household poverty rate at the census block group level. On average, service availability is highest in census blocks with the highest median household incomes, the highest population densities, and the lowest household poverty rates. Fig. 26 Average Percentage of Population With Fixed Terrestrial Services at Different Speed Tiers by Census Block Group (December 31, 2022) 25/3 Mbps 100/20 Mbps 940/500 Mbps Median Household Income First Quartile (Lowest Median H/hold Income) 93.4% 89.7% 31.9% Second Quartile 93.4% 89.0% 35.5% Third Quartile 95.5% 92.0% 39.8% Fourth Quartile (Highest Median H/hold Income) 98.2% 96.7% 50.1% Population Density First Quartile (Lowest Population Density) 82.9% 72.4% 23.8% Second Quartile 98.3% 96.7% 37.4% Third Quartile 99.2% 98.6% 45.7% Fourth Quartile (Highest Population Density) 99.2% 98.6% 49.4% Household Poverty Rate First Quartile (Lowest H/hold Poverty Rate) 96.1% 93.5% 44.6% Second Quartile 95.4% 91.9% 40.1% Third Quartile 93.9% 90.0% 37.2% Fourth Quartile (Highest H/hold Poverty Rate) 94.2% 90.9% 34.4% Median Household Income - Excluding Fixed Wireless First Quartile (Lowest Median H/hold Income) 89.1% 87.6% 30.6% Second Quartile 87.7% 86.0% 34.7% Third Quartile 90.2% 88.9% 39.2% Fourth Quartile (Highest Median H/hold Income) 95.9% 95.2% 49.7% Population Density - Excluding Fixed Wireless First Quartile (Lowest Population Density) 68.8% 64.9% 23.0% Second Quartile 96.5% 95.6% 36.6% Third Quartile 98.4% 98.1% 44.9% Fourth Quartile (Highest Population Density) 98.2% 98.0% 48.7% Household Poverty Rate - Excluding Fixed Wireless First Quartile (Lowest H/hold Poverty Rate) 92.3% 91.3% 44.0% Second Quartile 90.5% 89.1% 39.4% Third Quartile 88.9% 87.3% 36.5% Fourth Quartile (Highest H/hold Poverty Rate) 90.2% 88.8% 33.3% Source: FCC BDC data; Staff Block Estimates; 2020 Census; ACS Five-Year Estimates for 2018-2022. 128. Figure 27 presents a demographic analysis of the percentage of the population served by fixed terrestrial services with speeds of at least 100/20 Mbps and 5G-NR broadband with a minimum speed of 35/3 Mbps; broken out by population density quartile, median household income quartile, and household count quartile. Appx. B-23 and Appx. B-24 show corresponding tables using fixed terrestrial services with speeds of at least 100/20 Mbps and mobile speeds at a minimum of 5G-NR 7/1 Mbps and 4G LTE 5/1 Mbps, respectively. Appx. B-25, Appx. B-26, and Appx. B-27 show corresponding tables using in-vehicle mobile speeds at a minimum of 5G-NR 35/3 Mbps and 7/1 Mbps as well as 4G LTE 5/1 Mbps. We observe that, on average, the percentage of population served increases as population density and median income increases. On average, as the poverty rate increases, fixed terrestrial service adoption declines, but mobile 5G-NR adoption decreases from first quartile to the third quartile before increasing in the highest quartile. Fig. 27 Average Percentage of Population with Fixed Terrestrial Services at 100/20 Mbps and Mobile 5G-NR with a Minimum Speed of 35/3 Mbps by Census Block Group (December 31, 2022) Fixed Terrestrial 100/20 Mbps Mobile 5G-NR 35/3 Mbps Both Fixed and Mobile 5G-NR 35/3 Mbps Median Household Income First Quartile (Lowest Median Household Income) 89.7% 88.6% 82.9% Second Quartile 89.0% 85.4% 79.7% Third Quartile 92.0% 89.1% 84.4% Fourth Quartile (Highest Median Household Income) 96.7% 94.5% 92.1% Population Density First Quartile (Lowest Population Density) 72.4% 64.6% 50.8% Second Quartile 96.7% 95.2% 92.2% Third Quartile 98.6% 98.8% 97.4% Fourth Quartile (Highest Population Density) 98.6% 99.7% 98.3% Household Poverty Rate First Quartile (Lowest Household Poverty Rate) 93.5% 92.2% 87.8% Second Quartile 92.0% 88.4% 84.0% Third Quartile 90.0% 87.1% 81.8% Fourth Quartile (Highest Household Poverty Rate) 90.8% 90.4% 85.1% Median Household Income - Excluding Fixed Wireless First Quartile (Lowest Median Household Income) 87.6% 88.6% 81.3% Second Quartile 86.0% 85.4% 77.7% Third Quartile 88.9% 89.1% 82.2% Fourth Quartile (Highest Median Household Income) 95.2% 94.5% 90.8% Population Density - Excluding Fixed Wireless First Quartile (Lowest Population Density) 64.9% 64.6% 45.9% Second Quartile 95.6% 95.2% 91.2% Third Quartile 98.1% 98.8% 96.9% Fourth Quartile (Highest Population Density) 98.0% 99.7% 97.7% Household Poverty Rate - Excluding Fixed Wireless First Quartile (Lowest Household Poverty Rate) 91.3% 92.2% 86.1% Second Quartile 89.2% 88.4% 82.1% Third Quartile 87.4% 87.1% 79.9% Fourth Quartile (Highest Household Poverty Rate) 88.8% 90.4% 83.5% Source: FCC BDC data; Staff Block Estimates; 2020 Census; ACS Five-Year Estimates for 2018-2022. 129. Figure 28 shows the demographic characteristics of areas that are served and unserved for fixed terrestrial services with speeds of at least 100/20 Mbps and 5G-NR broadband with a minimum speed of 35/3 Mbps. To present demographic data and compare the demographic data between areas where services are and are not deployed, we aggregate the service availability data up to the census block group level, the lowest aggregation level for which demographic information is available. This unavoidable aggregation leads to areas with differing characteristics being grouped together. In the case of differing levels of deployment, we designate a census block group as without deployment if more than 5% of the population in the census block group is without services, regardless of the level of deployment in any particular census block in the group. We use the most recently available Census Bureau’s ACS Five-Year Estimates 2018-2022 for income and poverty measures. Per capita income and median household income are based on 2022 data and are measured in 2022 inflation-adjusted dollars. Appx. B-28 and Appx. B-29 show corresponding tables using fixed terrestrial services with speeds of at least 100/20 Mbps and mobile speeds at a minimum of 5G-NR 7/1 Mbps and 4G LTE 5/1 Mbps. Appx. B-30, Appx. B-31, and Appx. B-32 show corresponding tables using in-vehicle mobile speeds at a minimum of 5G-NR 35/3 Mbps and 7/1 Mbps as well as 4G LTE 5/1 Mbps. On average, served areas have higher population densities, per capita incomes, and median household incomes. Fig. 28 Comparison of Demographic Data Between Areas With and Without Fixed Terrestrial Services at 100/20 Mbps and Mobile 5G-NR with a Minimum Speed of 35/3 Mbps (December 31, 2022) Appx. B-33 shows the demographic characteristics of areas that are served and unserved for fixed terrestrial services with speeds of at least 100/20 Mbps and 5G-NR broadband with a median speed of 35/3 Mbps based on Ookla Speedtest data. It shows the same results: on average, served areas have higher population densities, per capita incomes, and median household incomes. Appx. B-34 and Appx. B-35 also show corresponding tables using fixed terrestrial services with speeds of at least 100/20 Mbps and mobile broadband with a median speed of 7/1 Mbps and 10/3 Mbps based on Ookla Speedtest data. Population Population Density Per Capita Income Median Household Income Household Poverty Rate United States - Including Fixed Wireless Served 1,434.6*** 8,654.5*** $42,618.35*** $87,884.47*** 13.2%*** Unserved 1,325.9 1,649.7 $38,888.83 $78,041.37 12.9% Rural Areas - Including Fixed Wireless Served 1,284.5*** 666.6*** $36,404.44 $77,294.00*** 12.2% Unserved 1,235.7 142.9 $36,068.45 $73,387.11 12.3% Urban Areas - Including Fixed Wireless Served 1,439.5** 8,915.1*** $42,820.18 $88,232.20*** 13.2%*** Unserved 1,451.9 3,753.9 $42,881.83 $84,777.72 13.7% Tribal Areas - Including Fixed Wireless Served 1,278.8*** 2,525.0*** $33,414.49*** $66,259.87*** 16.1%*** Unserved 1,207.6 309.8 $30,023.03 $60,101.33 18.1% Tribal Rural Areas - Including Fixed Wireless Served 1,148.8 485.5*** $28,628.78 $58,997.52 17.2% Unserved 1,185.1 123.5 $29,458.85 $59,602.46 18.2% Tribal Urban Areas - Including Fixed Wireless Served 1,303.7 2,915.9*** $34,323.78 $67,607.25 15.9% Unserved 1,315.2 1,203.5 $32,726.49 $62,499.12 17.8% United States - Excluding Fixed Wireless Served 1,434.6*** 8,654.5*** $42,618.35*** $87,884.47*** 13.2%*** Unserved 1,325.9 1,649.7 $38,888.83 $78,041.37 12.9% Rural Areas - Excluding Fixed Wireless Served 1,284.5*** 666.6*** $36,404.44 $77,294.00*** 12.2% Unserved 1,235.7 142.9 $36,068.45 $73,387.11 12.3% Urban Areas - Excluding Fixed Wireless Served 1,439.5** 8,915.1*** $42,820.18 $88,232.20*** 13.2%*** Unserved 1,451.9 3,753.9 $42,881.83 $84,777.72 13.7% Tribal Areas - Excluding Fixed Wireless Served 1,278.8*** 2,525.0*** $33,414.49*** $66,259.87*** 16.1%*** Unserved 1,207.6 309.8 $30,023.03 $60,101.33 18.1% Tribal Rural Areas - Excluding Fixed Wireless Served 1,148.8 485.5*** $28,628.78 $58,997.52 17.2% Unserved 1,185.1 123.5 $29,458.85 $59,602.46 18.2% Tribal Urban Areas - Excluding Fixed Wireless Served 1,303.7 2,915.9*** $34,323.78 $67,607.25 15.9% Unserved 1,315.2 1,203.5 $32,726.49 $62,499.12 17.8% Source: FCC BDC data; Staff Block Estimates; 2020 Census; ACS Five-Year Estimates for 2018-2022. Note: We test for a statistical difference in the reported means between areas with and without deployment of these services. The level of statistical significance is indicated by the number of stars. The absence of a star indicates no statistical difference between the reported figures. * signifies statistical significance at a 90% level of confidence, ** signifies statistical significance at a 95% level of confidence, and *** signifies statistical significance at a 99% level of confidence. F. School and Classroom Access 130. As part of its inquiry under section 706, the Commission is also required to assess the deployment and service availability of advanced telecommunications capability to “elementary and secondary schools and classrooms.” 47 U.S.C. § 1302(b). During the course of the global COVID-19 pandemic, access to broadband became even more critical in ensuring that American schoolchildren do not fall behind. Especially during the first year of the pandemic, many students were forced to stay at home, which further exposed the gaps in connectivity as some students lacking access to fixed broadband service were prevented from keeping pace with students who have access to such service. See Monica Chin, America’s Internet Wasn’t Prepared For Online School: Distance learning shows how badly rural America needs broadband, The Verge (Oct. 7, 2020), https://www.theverge.com/21504476/online-school-covid-pandemic-rural-low-income-internet-broadband; What COVID-19 Underscores About How Broadband Connectivity Affects Educational Attainment: Johannes Bauer of the Quello Center for Media & Information Policy discusses what leaders can do to prepare for long-term remote learning, The Pew Charitable Trusts (Dec. 7, 2020), https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/articles/2020/12/08/what-covid-19-underscores-about-how-broadband-connectivity-affects-educational-attainment. Accordingly, teachers and administrators were forced to take extraordinary measures—including purchasing cellular data for students with phones or tablets, and setting up hotspots and outdoor work areas on school grounds so students could download lesson materials and upload homework assignments—to ensure that students were able to participate in remote instruction. See Alice Opalka et al., Rural school districts can be creative in solving the internet connectivity gap--but they need support, Brookings (Aug. 10, 2020), https://www.brookings.edu/blog/brown-center-chalkboard/2020/08/10/rural-school-districts-can-be-creative-in-solving-the-internet-connectivity-gap-but-they-need-support/ (noting that, in order to help students participate in remote instruction, some rural school districts have been forced to map locations in the community that offer free Internet access, purchase cellular data for students who have phones or tablets, connect families with companies that offer free or low-cost Internet, and set up hotspots and outdoor work areas on school grounds so students can download materials and upload assignments). Even though in-person schooling has resumed, many students still lack connections at home, making it difficult to complete homework. See, e.g., FCC, Homework Gap and Connectivity Divide, https://www.fcc.gov/about-fcc/fcc-initiatives/homework-gap-and-connectivity-divide (last visited Feb. 14, 2024). It is imperative that schools have the speed and bandwidth required to adequately educate America’s children both in schools and at home. 131. We conclude that it is time for the Commission to update the benchmarks set in 2015 that have been used to measure deployment to schools. Since 2015, the Commission has used the following benchmarks for deployment to schools: (1) a short-term speed benchmark of 100 Mbps per 1,000 students and staff, and (2) a long-term speed benchmark of 1 Gbps per 1,000 students and staff. See 2015 Report, 30 FCC Rcd at 1410, para. 62. The short-term goal was met within a few years of its adoption, as evidenced by the 2019 State of the States Report, finding 99% of school districts had met the 100 Mbps goal. See EducationSuperHighway, 2019 State of the States Report, at 7-8 (2019), https://s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/esh-sots-pdfs/2019%20State%20of%20the%20States.pdf (2019 State of the States Report). EducationSuperHighway reports the Commission’s short-term goal in terms of 100 kbps per user, rather than 100 Mbps per 1,000 users, and reports the long-term goal in terms of 1 Mbps per user, rather than 1 Gbps per 1,000 users. See id. at 7, 13; Modernizing the E-rate Program for Schools and Libraries, WC Docket No. 13-184, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 29 FCC Rcd 8870, 8885, para. 34 (2014) (2014 First E-rate Order). In fact, the successor report to the State of the States Report, the Connect K-12 Report, does not even present data on the 100 Mbps per 1,000 students and staff goal. With respect to the relationship between the State of the States and Connect K-12 Reports, see Connected Nation, Report on School Connectivity for Funding Year 2021 at 13 (2022) (Connect K-12 Funding Year 2021 Report), https://www.fundsforlearning.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/Connect_K12_Connectivity_Report_2021.pdf; 2021 Report, 36 FCC Rcd at 853-54, para. 31). With respect to the lack of reporting on the previous short-term goal, see, e.g. generally Connect K-12 Funding Year 2021 Report; Connected Nation, 2023 Report on School Connectivity at 14 (2023) (2023 Connect K-12 Report), https://connectk12.org/static/media/Connect_K12_Connectivity_Report_2023_FINAL.dfc96770.pdf. 132. We adopt our previous long-term goal of 1 Gbps per 1,000 students and staff as our new short-term speed benchmark. See Notice, FCC 23-89, at 21, para. 50. We believe that using an already well-understood benchmark for our short-term goal is administratively efficient and note that, as discussed below, the nation is already well on its way to meeting this new short-term goal. No party opposed increasing this benchmark and the only party suggesting an alternative, the Mississippi Center for Justice, suggests that this bandwidth to student/staff ratio be stated with respect to every 500 rather than 1,000 students/staff (which would be 500 Mbps per 500 students/staff) to better reflect the size of rural schools. Miss. Center for Justice Reply at 4. NTCA supported increasing the short-term goal as proposed in the Notice of Inquiry. NTCA Comments at 11. While we are sensitive to this concern, we believe that stating the bandwidth to student/staff ratio with respect to 1,000 students/staff allows for and easier comparison to past data as well as uniformity with past reporting. 133. According to the 2023 Connect K-12 Report, the most recent comprehensive data available, 74% of school districts currently meet our new short-term goal. 2023 Connect K-12 Report at 3. This is over a 57% increase since 2020. Id. Further, more than 80% of school districts in 15 states met this goal in 2023, compared to 9 states in 2020. Id. 134. We recognize that increasing our short-term goal in this manner invites the possibility of establishing a new long-term goal. The Mississippi Center for Justice proposed that rather than adopt a speed goal, we establish a goal of fiber-based service to every school. Miss. Center for Justice Reply at 4-6. We find this to be a worthy suggestion, but note that our traditional source of data about schools connectivity, Connected Nation, currently does not publish statistics in this regard. See generally 2023 Connect K-12 Report. We note that the BDC currently does not collect information about broadband service available to schools. Similarly, Connected Nation does not publish statistics regarding connection speeds greater than 1 Gbps per 1000 students/staff. In light of this lack of data, at present, we do not establish a new long-term goal. We intend to work with potential sources of data to determine what can be realistically measured and to determine whether a new long-term goal can be established for our next report. 135. We agree with the Mississippi Center for Justice that ensuring students’ access to broadband at home is an important goal. Miss. Center for Justice Reply at 6. We acknowledged the importance of such connectivity and students’ ability to access the Internet outside of school in the Notice, Notice, FCC 23-89, at 20, para. 49. a matter that the Commission more recently discussed at greater length in the Homework Gap Notice. Addressing the Homework Gap through the E-Rate Program, WC Docket No. 21-31, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 23-91 (Nov. 8, 2023). In recent years, the demand for connectivity beyond school and library buildings became a crisis when the COVID-19 pandemic disrupted operations and caused schools and libraries across the country to temporarily close their doors. Colleen McClain et al., Parents, their children and school during the pandemic (Sept. 1, 2021), https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2021/09/01/parents-their-children-and-school-during-the-pandemic/ (finding that 93% of families with children in grades K-12 reported shifting to online learning during the pandemic). Millions of students caught in the “Homework Gap”—that is, students unable to fully participate in educational opportunities because they lack broadband connectivity in their homes—suddenly found themselves unable to participate in education at all. See Common Sense Media, Closing the K-12 Digital Divide in the Age of Distance Learning (2020), https://www.commonsensemedia.org/sites/default/files/featured-content/files/common_sense_media_report_final_7_1_3pm_web.pdf (Common Sense 2020 Report) (highlighting that before the pandemic, there were approximately 16 million students nationwide that lived in homes without a broadband connection). Library patrons who relied on their local libraries for remote learning opportunities and Internet access suddenly experienced a loss of these critical services when most, if not all, library buildings closed their doors by the summer of 2020. See, e.g., Lisa Guernsey, Sabia Prescott, & Claire Park, Public Libraries and the Pandemic (Feb. 25, 2021), https://www.newamerica.org/education-policy/reports/public-libraries-and-the-pandemic/ (describing how the closure of public library buildings by the summer of 2020 hastened the transition to virtual library services for most public libraries); Gretchen Corsillo, COVID-19: The Impact On Public Libraries (Mar. 30, 2020), https://publiclibrariesonline.org/2020/03/covid-19-its-impact-on-public-libraries/ (explaining that “[b]ecause libraries play such a vital role in keeping their patrons educated, connected, and entertained, librarians nationwide have been working around the clock to find ways to keep services going despite being closed to the public”); Frank Catalano, How Library Closures Hurt Adult Learners as Kids Doubled Down on Digital Reading (Mar. 8, 2021), https://www.edsurge.com/news/2021-03-08-how-library-closures-hurt-adult-learners-as-kids-doubled-down-on-digital-reading (reporting that “15 percent of U.S. adults lost their main source of internet access as libraries started to shut down in March 2020”). However, even before the COVID-19 pandemic, the Homework Gap affected somewhere between 8.5 to 16 million K-12 students, leaving 15% of U.S. households with children ages six to seventeen lacking a high-speed Internet connection at home and approximately one in four households without high-speed Internet access. See Catherine McNally, Nearly 1 in 4 Households Don’t Have Internet—and a Quarter Millions Still Use Dial-up (Aug. 17, 2021), https://www.reviews.org/internet-service/how-many-us-households-are-without-internet-connection/; Amanda Litvinov, Coronavirus Brings ‘Homework Gap’ to the Forefront (May 4, 2020), https://www.nea.org/advocating-for-change/new-from-nea/coronavirus-brings-homework-gap-forefront (providing data from research conducted in 2017 and 2018); Pew Research Center, Nearly One-In-Five Teens Can’t Always Finish Homework Because of the Digital Divide at 2 (2018), https://internet.psych.wisc.edu/wp-content/uploads/532-Master/532-UnitPages/Unit-11/Anderson_Pew_2018.pdf (providing an analysis based on 2015 U.S. Census Bureau data); Common Sense 2020 Report. To address this longstanding critical need, Congress created the Emergency Connectivity Fund (ECF), which allowed the Commission to create the nation’s first ever federal program designed to address the Homework Gap by providing funding for connected devices, Wi-Fi hotspot devices, broadband connections, and other eligible equipment and services for students, school staff, and library patrons in need for use at locations that included locations outside of their school or library. See American Rescue Plan Act, 2021, Pub. L. No. 117-2, tit. VII, § 7402(a), (c), 135 Stat. 4, 109 (2021), available at https://www.congress.gov/117/plaws/publ2/PLAW-117publ2.pdf. We are currently considering our proposal to modify the E-Rate program to better meet the needs of off-premises students, school staff, and library patrons. IV. COMMISSION ACTIONS ALREADY TAKEN TO PROMOTE UNIVERSAL SERVICE GOALS FOR ADVANCED TELECOMMUNICATIONS CAPABILITY A. Measuring Broadband Deployment and Policy Development and Coordination 136. Broadband Data Collection and National Broadband Map. The Commission has continued to make extensive progress in implementing the requirements of the Broadband DATA Act by establishing the iterative data collection and challenge processes envisioned by the Broadband DATA Act through the Broadband Data Collection. In January 2021, the Commission released the BDC Third Report and Order, which specified which fixed and mobile broadband Internet access service providers are required to report broadband service availability data and expanded the reporting and certification requirements for certain fixed and mobile broadband filers in order to ensure that Commission staff have the necessary tools to assess the quality and accuracy of the Commission’s broadband coverage maps. BDC Third Report and Order. The Commission also adopted in the BDC Third Report and Order standards for verifying mobile data and collecting verified broadband data from state, local, and Tribal entities and certain third parties and adopted processes for submitting challenges to fixed and mobile service availability data along with processes for providers to respond to such challenges. Id. at 1127, para. 2. Further, the Commission also established a process for stakeholders to submit challenges to the location data in the Fabric. 137. Since the BDC Third Report and Order, the Commission has continued to develop and refine the BDC and provide guidance regarding the collection requirements, including through the release of a number of items that furthered the Commission’s ongoing effort to improve broadband service availability data. In February 2021, the Broadband Data Task Force (Task Force) was formed to coordinate the Commission’s broadband mapping and data collection efforts across the agency expert teams including staff from several of the Bureaus and Offices. Each of these teams contributes an essential part of the effort to ensure the Commission, state and local governments, Tribal entities, and consumers have access to granular nationwide information on the service availability and quality of broadband services. Commission staff have held numerous briefing sessions with interested stakeholders from federal and state legislators, state, local, and Tribal governments, other federal and state agencies, consumers, and industry to seek input and address concerns and interests, and to keep all stakeholders informed of the Commission’s plans and progress. Moreover, to support stakeholder participation in the BDC, the Commission launched an online help center (help.bdc.fcc.gov) and other new resources including video tutorials, knowledge base articles, and an option to request additional technical assistance. The FCC continues to regularly update the online help center with additional resources, including information for challengers, consumers, and other stakeholders. The BDC Help Center offers both Tier 1 and Tier 2 support to entities seeking to file availability data or challenges including GIS support. Over 8,000 technical assistance requests from internet providers and challengers have been processed to date. In addition, we maintain an on-demand library of video tutorials at https://www.fcc.gov/BroadbandData/resources. 138. In March 2022, the Task Force, together with the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (WTB), the Office of Economics and Analytics (OEA), and Office of Engineering and Technology (OET), released an Order adopting technical requirements to implement the BDC mobile challenge, verification, and crowdsourcing processes. Establishing the Digital Opportunity Data Collection, WC Docket No. 19-195, Order, 37 FCC Rcd 3007, 3008, para. 1 (WTB/OEA/OEA 2022). The Mobile Technical Requirements Order adopted processes and methodologies for collecting mobile challenge data and determining when a mobile service availability challenge is “cognizable,” as well as processes for mobile providers to respond to challenges. Id. at 3008, para. 2. The Mobile Technical Requirements Order also adopted processes for determining when the Commission staff would initiate a verification inquiry for a service provider’s reported data and requirements for governmental entities and other third parties submitting verified mobile broadband service availability data. Id. 139. In September 2022, the Task Force, together with WTB, OET, and OEA, released a Public Notice establishing procedures for mobile wireless broadband service providers, governmental entities, and other third parties that use their own hardware and software to submit on-the-ground speed test data as part of the mobile challenge and verification processes as part of the BDC. Broadband Data Task Force Establishes Process for Entities to Use Their Own Software and Hardware to Collect On-The-Ground Mobile Speed Test Data as Part of the Broadband Data Collection, WC Docket No. 19-195, Public Notice, 37 FCC Rcd 10628 (WTB/OEA/OET 2022). This Public Notice followed-on from an earlier Public Notice in which the Task Force and OET announced procedures for third-party mobile speed test applications to seek approval for use in the BDC mobile challenge and verification processes. See Broadband Data Task Force and Office of Engineering and Technology Announce Procedures for Third-Party Mobile Speed test Applications Seeking Approval for Use in the FCC’s Broadband Data Collection, WC Docket No. 19-195; ET Docket No. 22-152, Public Notice, 37 FCC Rcd 5004 (2022). The Commission has also contracted for the development of additional functionality for the FCC Speed Test application to be used for the mobile challenge and crowdsource processes to enable broad public participation in the BDC. See e.g., Press Release, FCC, FCC Encourages Public to Use its Speed Test App to Measure their Broadband Speeds (Apr. 12, 2021). The Task Force has released extensive additional guidance for mobile and terrestrial fixed wireless providers to enable them to efficiently collect and submit their service availability data into the BDC. See e.g., Broadband Data Collection, Data Specifications for Provider Infrastructure Data in the Challenge, Verification, and Audit Processes, November 30, 2023, https://us-fcc.app.box.com/v/bdc-infrastructure-spec (last visited Jan. 9, 2024) (BDC Infrastructure Data Specifications). The BDC Infrastructure Data Specifications also contain clarifications of the supporting data specifications for mobile service providers that were previously published. The Task Force has provided similar guidance to other stakeholders. As one example, the Task Force issued a detailed Public Notice explaining how state, local, and Tribal governmental entities primarily responsible for mapping or tracking broadband Internet access service coverage in their jurisdictions can submit verified broadband availability data as part of the BDC. See Broadband Data Task Force Issues Guidance to State, Local, and Tribal Governmental Entities for Filing Verified Broadband Availability Data as Part of the Broadband Data Collection, WC Docket Nos. 19-195 & 11-10, Public Notice, 37 FCC Rcd 5080 (2022). 140. The Commission released a pre-production draft of the FCC National Broadband Map in November 2022, showing broadband service availability based on provider reported data as-of June 30, 2022, and opened the fixed and mobile service availability challenge processes, as well as the Fabric location challenge process. Broadband Data Task Force Releases Pre-Production Draft of the National Broadband Map; Announces the Start of the Broadband Availability Challenge Processes, WC Docket Nos. 11-10, 19-195, Public Notice, 37 FCC Rcd 13348 (WCB/WTB/OEA 2022). The launch of the pre-production draft of the National Broadband Map marked the start of the broadband availability challenge processes, as well as the ability for consumers to submit individual challenges to the location data in the Fabric. Id. The process for entities to submit bulk challenges to the Fabric began earlier, on September 12, 2022. Broadband Data Task Force, Wireline Competition Bureau, and Office of Economics and Analytics Announce Start of Fabric Bulk Challenge Process, WC Docket Nos. 19-195, 11-10, Public Notice, 37 FCC Rcd 10140 (BDTF/WCB/OEA 2022). Shortly after the first iteration of the map was released, the Commission sunset the collection of broadband deployment data through the FCC Form 477. 2022 Form 477 Order. The Commission clarified that it will continue to collect broadband and voice subscription data using the FCC Form 477, but filers will submit their data through the BDC system. Id. 37 FCC at 14957, para. 1. In May 2023, the Commission released the second iteration of the FCC National Broadband Map based on data as-of December 31, 2022. See Chairwoman Rosenworcel Note, National Broadband Map: It Keeps Getting Better, https://www.fcc.gov/national-broadband-map-it-keeps-getting-better (May 30, 2023). In November 2023, the third iteration of the Commission’s National Broadband Map was publicly released. See Chairwoman Rosenworcel Note, National Broadband Map 3.0: Thankful for Continued Improvements, https://www.fcc.gov/news-events/notes/2023/11/17/national-broadband-map-30-thankful-continued-improvements (Nov. 17, 2023). 141. Interagency Information Sharing and Coordination. In early 2021, the Commission, NTIA and USDA/RUS began regular meetings to facilitate coordination as they implemented the existing broadband funding programs, as well as new funding programs established by Congress in the Consolidated Appropriation Act, 2021. See, e.g., Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021, Pub. L. No. 116-260, div. N, tit. IX, § 905(c) (establishing the Tribal Broadband Connectivity Program) and § 905(d) (establishing the Broadband Infrastructure Program), 134 Stat. 1182, 2138, 2139 (2020)). The Commission and the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Rural Utilities Service (RUS) began coordinating on broadband funding as early as 2014, when the agencies entered into a Memorandum of Understanding that governs sharing information on their respective funding programs. Pursuant to the 2014 Memorandum of Understanding, the Commission and RUS have maintained an ongoing dialogue at the staff- and leadership levels to avoid duplication and coordinate their broadband funding efforts. The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 included the Broadband Interagency Coordination Act of 2020, which required the Commission, USDA, and NTIA to enter into an interagency agreement to coordinate for the distribution of funds for broadband deployment and to share information about existing or planned projects receiving funding in their respective programs. Id., 134 Stat. at 3214, div. FF, tit. IX, § 904. In June 2021, the Commission entered into the required agreement with USDA and NTIA to share information about, and coordinate the distribution of, federal broadband deployment funds (Interagency Agreement). Interagency Agreement Between the Federal Communications Commission, U.S. Department of Agriculture, and the National Telecommunications and Information Administration of the U.S. Department of Congress (June 25, 2021), https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-ntia-usda-sign-interagency-pact-broadband-funding-deployment. Specifically, under the agreement, the agencies will consult with one another and share information about the distribution of new funds from the Commission’s high-cost programs that support broadband buildout in rural areas, the RUS grant and loan programs, and programs administered or coordinated by NTIA. Recognizing the importance of a comprehensive approach to federal broadband funding, in May 2022, the Commission, USDA, and NTIA entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with the U.S. Department of Treasury (Treasury) to share information about, and collaborate regarding, the collections and reporting of certain data and metrics relating to broadband deployment, including deployment funded by Treasury-administered programs. Memorandum of Understanding Regarding Information Sharing, dated as of May 9, 2022, between the Federal Communications Commission, U.S. Department of Agriculture, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration of the U.S. Department of Commerce, and the U.S. Department of the Treasury (May 11, 2022), https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-383278A1.pdf. This Memorandum of Understanding provides that the agencies will consult with one another and share information on data collected from programs administered by the Commission and the USDA’s Rural Utilities Service, programs administered or coordinated by NTIA, and Treasury’s Coronavirus Capital Projects Fund and the Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds. 142. In February 2023, after soliciting and reviewing public comment, the Commission sent a report to Congress assessing the effectiveness of the Interagency Agreement, as required by the Consolidated Appropriations Act. Wireline Competition Bureau, Report on the Effectiveness of the Broadband Interagency Coordination Agreement Pursuant to § 1308 of the Broadband Interagency Coordination Act (2023), https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-391167A1.pdf (FCC BICA Report); Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021, div. FF, tit. IX, § 904(b)(4), 134 Stat. at 3214. The report concluded that the Interagency Agreement has been effective in facilitating the exchange of information and prevention of, or limiting, overlap and duplication among the signatory agencies’ broadband deployment funding. FCC BICA Report at 4-7. The report also acknowledged that while certain challenges remain, such as statutorily prescribed differences in programs, the Interagency Agreement has enabled the agencies to avoid, limit, or unwind duplication to a significant degree. Id. at 7. Where it has not been possible to do so, the data sharing and dialogues fostered by the Interagency Agreement have given the agencies the resources to make informed funding decisions, and the agencies continue to develop and refine a common process that respects each agency’s resources, statutory obligations, and leadership preferences. Id. 143. On May 15, 2023, the Commission released the Broadband Funding Map, pursuant to section 60105 of the Infrastructure Act, Infrastructure Act, div. F, tit. I, § 60105 (requiring the Commission “to establish an online mapping tool to provide a locations overview of the overall geographic footprint of each broadband infrastructure deployment project funded by the Federal Government.”). containing data received from the USDA, NTIA, and the Department of Treasury, as well as the Commission’s own data. The Broadband Funding Map can be found at https://fundingmap.fcc.gov/home.  Funding data that are submitted to the Commission by other federal agencies in the future will be added to the map as part of regular updates the Commission will make to the map in accordance with the Infrastructure Act. 144. The Broadband Funding Map allows users to identify, search, and filter federal funding programs by the Internet Service Provider receiving funding, the duration timeline, the number of locations included in the project, and the download and upload speeds. In addition to depicting where broadband funding exists, the Broadband Funding Map contains broadband service availability data from the National Broadband Map. As the Commission releases more recent service availability data on the National Broadband Map, the Broadband Funding Map is also updated. 145. The Commission has also engaged in interagency coordination relating to spectrum. In November 2022, the Commission and the Departments of the Interior and Commerce entered into a Memorandum of Understanding to advance electromagnetic spectrum access opportunities and the deployment of broadband and other wireless services on Tribal lands. Memorandum of Understanding to Advance Electromagnetic Spectrum Access Opportunities and the Deployment of Broadband and Other Wireless Services on Tribal Lands, Among the U.S. Department of the Interior and the Federal Communications Commission and the U.S. Department of Commerce, National Telecommunications and Information Administration (effective November 23, 2022), https://www.bia.gov/sites/default/files/dup/inline-files/mou_esb46-009818_doi-fcc-ntia_electromagnetic_spectrum_on_tribal_lands_2022-11-23_final_fcc_ntia_doi_signed_508.pdf. 146. Future of the USF Report. As directed by Congress in Section 60104(c) of the Infrastructure Act, the Commission released a report on August 15, 2022 evaluating the implications of federal investments in broadband in the Infrastructure Act and other recent legislation on how the Commission should achieve its universal service goals for broadband. Future of the USF Report. In the Future of the USF Report, the Commission established the goals of universal deployment, affordability, adoption, availability, and equitable access to broadband throughout the United States. Id., 37 FCC Rcd at 10046-48, paras. 11-16. The Commission also made recommendations for further actions by the Commission and Congress to improve the ability of the Commission to achieve its universal service goals Id. at 10042-94, paras. 27-111. Specifically in regard to its goal of affordability, the Commission made recommendations for further actions by the Commission and Congress related to the Lifeline program and the Affordable Connectivity Program. Id. at 10069-80, paras. 55-74. and addressed arguments concerning the lawfulness of the USF. Id. at 10094-98, paras. 112-19. 147. Precision Agriculture Connectivity Task Force. The Task Force for Reviewing the Connectivity and Technology Needs of Precision Agriculture in the United States (Precision Agriculture Connectivity Task Force) continued its work since January 2021 by providing advice and recommendations for the FCC on how to assess and advance deployment of broadband Internet access service on unserved agriculture land to promote precision agriculture for both cropping and husbandry. See FCC Announces the Establishment of the Task Force for Reviewing Connectivity and Technology Needs of Precision Agriculture in the United States and Seeks Nominations for Membership, Public Notice, 34 FCC Rcd 5057 (WCB 2019) (announcing the 2019-20 charter); FCC Announces the Membership and First Meeting of the Re-chartered Task Force for Reviewing the Connectivity and Technology Needs of Precision Agriculture in the United States, GN Docket No. 19-329, Public Notice, 36 FCC Rcd 16828 (WCB Dec. 9, 2021) https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-21-1532A1.pdf (2021-22 Precision Agriculture Connectivity Task Force Re-Charter Public Notice); FCC Announces the Membership and First Meeting of the Re-Chartered Task Force for Reviewing the Connectivity and Technology Needs of Precision Agriculture in the United States, GN Docket No. 19-329, Public Notice, DA 24-53 (WCB Jan. 17, 2024) (2023-25 Precision Agriculture Connectivity Task Force Re-Charter Public Notice); see also Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-334, 132 Stat. 4490, § 12511(b)(2) (2018 Farm Bill) (establishing the Task Force and setting forth its duties and obligations). The Precision Agriculture Connectivity Task Force will perform duties and submit reports consistent with section 12511 of the 2018 Farm Bill and in consultation with the Department of Agriculture in successive terms until the Task Force ends on January 1, 2025. Id. § 12511(b)(3), (6). The Precision Agriculture Connectivity Task Force met six times in 2021. See FCC Announces Next Meeting of the Task Force for Reviewing the Connectivity and Technology Needs of Precision Agriculture in the United States on March 21, 2021, GN Docket No. 19-329, Public Notice, 36 FCC Rcd 4165 (WCB 2021); FCC Announces Next Meeting of the Task Force for Reviewing the Connectivity and Technology Needs of Precision Agriculture in the United States on July 8, 2021, GN Docket No. 19-329, Public Notice, 36 FCC Rcd 9440 (WCB 2021); FCC Announces Next Meeting of the Task Force for Reviewing the Connectivity and Technology Needs of Precision Agriculture in the United States on August 19, 2021, GN Docket No. 19-329, Public Notice, 36 FCC Rcd 11399 (WCB 2021); FCC Announces Next Meeting of the Task Force for Reviewing the Connectivity and Technology Needs of Precision Agriculture in the United States on September 14, 2021, GN Docket No. 19-329, Public Notice, 36 FCC Rcd 12777 (WCB 2021); FCC Announces Next Meeting of the Task Force for Reviewing the Connectivity and Technology Needs of Precision Agriculture in the United States on October 14, 2021, GN Docket No. 19-329, Public Notice, 36 FCC Rcd 13875 (WCB 2021); FCC Announces Next Meeting of the Task Force for Reviewing the Connectivity and Technology Needs of Precision Agriculture in the United States on November 10, 2021, GN Docket No. 19-329, Public Notice, 36 FCC Rcd 12777 (WCB Oct. 20, 2021), https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-21-1314A1.pdf. In November 2021, the Precision Agriculture Connectivity Task Force submitted a report to the Commission including recommendations that the Commission and USDA: (1) improve federal broadband maps and consistently validate user experiences through crowd sourcing, on-the-ground testing, and independent data verification; (2) increase incentives and subsidies through federal broadband programs to increase adoption of precision agriculture and build out a robust infrastructure that will support precision agriculture networks and operations; (3) enhance high-speed standards to meet technology needs in agriculture; (4) improve collaboration between federal agencies and remove regulatory impediments; and (5) increase digital access to education and training for individuals engaged in farming. Task Force for Reviewing the Connectivity and Technology Needs of Precision Agriculture in the United States, Report adopted as of November 10, 2021 at 4 (2021), https://www.fcc.gov/sites/default/files/precision-ag-report-11102021.pdf. 148. In December 2021, the Commission re-chartered the Precision Agriculture Connectivity Task Force for a second two-year term. Task Force for Reviewing the Connectivity and Technology Needs of Precision Agriculture in the United States Charter (filed Dec. 2, 2021), https://www.fcc.gov/sites/default/files/precision-ag-task-force-charter-12022021.pdf; see also 2021-22 Precision Agriculture Connectivity Task Force Re-Charter Public Notice. The Precision Agriculture Connectivity Task Force met five times in 2022 2021-22 Precision Agriculture Connectivity Task Force Re-Charter Public Notice (setting Jan. 13, 2022 as the date of the second term’s first meeting); FCC Announces Next Meeting of the Task Force for Reviewing the Connectivity and Technology Needs of Precision Agriculture in the United States on March 21, 2022, GN Docket No. 19-329, Public Notice, 37 FCC Rcd 2828 (WCB Mar. 3, 2022); FCC Announces Next Meeting of the Task Force for Reviewing the Connectivity and Technology Needs of Precision Agriculture in the United States on July 21, 2022, GN Docket No. 19-329, Public Notice, 37 FCC Rcd 7526 (WCB June 23, 2022); FCC Announces Next Meeting of the Task Force for Reviewing the Connectivity and Technology Needs of Precision Agriculture in the United States on October 5, 2022, GN Docket No. 19-329, Public Notice, 37 FCC Rcd 10663 (WCB Sept. 16, 2022); FCC Announces Next Meeting of the Task Force for Reviewing the Connectivity and Technology Needs of Precision Agriculture in the United States on December 2, 2022, GN Docket No. 19-329, Public Notice, 37 FCC Rcd 13152 (WCB Nov. 8, 2022). and adopted interim reports submitted by each of its four working groups in December 2022. See FCC, Precision Ag Connectivity Task Force Meeting – December 2022, https://www.fcc.gov/news-events/events/2022/12/precision-ag-connectivity-task-force-meeting-december-2022 (last visited Jan. 14, 2024). As in the first two terms, four working groups are assisting the Task Force in carrying out its work: (1) Mapping and Analyzing Connectivity on Agricultural Lands; (2) Examining Current and Future Connectivity Demand for Precision Agriculture; (3) Encouraging Adoption of Precision Agriculture and Availability of High-Quality Jobs on Connected Farms; and (4) Accelerating Broadband Deployment on Unserved Agricultural Lands. In 2023, the Precision Agriculture Connectivity Task Force met three times FCC Announces Next Meeting of the Task Force for Reviewing the Connectivity and Technology Needs of Precision Agriculture in the United States on March 28, 2023, GN Docket No. 19-329, Public Notice, 38 FCC Rcd 1626 (WCB Mar. 7, 2023); FCC Announces Next Meeting of the Task Force for Reviewing the Connectivity and Technology Needs of Precision Agriculture in the United States on July 11, 2023, GN Docket No. 19-329, Public Notice, DA 23-516 (WCB June 15, 2023); FCC Announces Next Meeting of the Task Force for Reviewing the Connectivity and Technology Needs of Precision Agriculture in the United States on November 6, 2023, GN Docket No. 19-329, Public Notice, DA 23-923 (WCB Oct. 3, 2023),. and adopted a final report at its November 6, 2023 meeting. Task Force for Reviewing the Connectivity and Technology Needs of Precision Agriculture in the United States, Report adopted as of November 6, 2023 (2023), https://www.fcc.gov/sites/default/files/2024-Report-PrecisionAg-Task-Force-without-Signatures.pdf. The report made various recommendations in the following four categories: (1) mapping and analyzing connectivity on agricultural lands, where Precision Agriculture Connectivity Task Force recommendations include improving the National Broadband Map by improving the usability for precision agriculture; Id. at 3-4, 12-17. (2) examining current and future connectivity demand, where Precision Agriculture Connectivity Task Force recommendations include prioritizing deployment of broadband infrastructure to agricultural lands, raising the current standard for upload and download speeds, making sufficient spectrum available, and addressing certain technology limitations; Id. at 4-6, 18-31. (3) accelerating broadband deployment on unserved agricultural lands, where Precision Agriculture Connectivity Task Force recommendations include harmonizing the definition and standards of broadband used by all federal agencies for funding decisions, We note that Commission does not have a definition of broadband, but rather various benchmarks and standards used for various purposes, such as those discussed in this Report. prioritizing grant applications that include wide-area coverage to agricultural acreage, incentivizing connectivity to rural agricultural land headquarters, dedicating low-cost terrestrial spectrum for precision agriculture, and providing funding for build-out and operation of last-acre networks; Id. at 7-8, 32-41. and (4) encouraging adoption and availability of high-quality jobs, where Precision Agriculture Connectivity Task Force recommendations include considering precision agriculture connectivity as a critical component of our Nation’s food and homeland security, pivoting USDA’s ReConnect program to prioritizing on-farm connectivity, and making FCC, NTIA, and USDA reporting metrics and survey requirements consistent to identify broadband development and precision agriculture adoption. Id. at 8-11, 42-55. On November 29, 2023, the Commission re-chartered the Precision Agriculture Connectivity Task Force for its third term that will end January 1, 2025, consistent with section 12511(b)(6) of the 2018 Farm Bill. Task Force for Reviewing the Connectivity and Technology Needs of Precision Agriculture in the United States Charter (filed Nov. 29, 2023), https://www.fcc.gov/sites/default/files/precision-ag-task-force-charter-11292023.pdf. The Precision Agriculture Connectivity Task Force held its first meeting of the new term on January 31, 2024 2023-25 Precision Agriculture Connectivity Task Force Re-Charter Public Notice, DA 24-53, at 1. and is expected to adopt its final report for the third and concluding term by January 1, 2025. 149. Native Nations Communications Task Force. The Native Nations Communications Task Force continued its work in 2022 and 2023. In February of 2022, eight new Tribal members were appointed to the Native Nations Communications Task Force. Chairwoman Rosenworcel Announces New Appointments to the Native Nations Communications Task Force, Public Notice, 37 FCC Rcd 1069 (2022). In June of the same year, the Native Nations Communications Task Force posted a Handbook in Infrastructure Deployment on Tribal Lands that was adopted by the Tribal members of the Task Force. Native Nations Communication Task Force, Handbook on Infrastructure Deployment on Tribal Lands 1 (2022), https://www.fcc.gov/sites/default/files/nnctf_infrastructure_handbook_adopted_05.16.22.pdf. This Handbook is intended to bring awareness of the various steps involved in broadband deployment, including developing networks, forming partnerships, establishing sound regulatory policies and practices, and creating sustainable business models. Id. The Handbook also provides guidance related to assessing current and future needs and designing systems to meet those needs either through a third party or by directly by a Tribe. Id. Most recently, the Commission sought nominations and recommitment letters for membership on a renewed Native Nations Communications Task Force for 2024. FCC Extends Current Native Nations Communications Task Force and Seeks Nominations for Tribal Government Representatives to Serve on Renewed Task Force Beginning in 2024, Public Notice, DA 23-982 (Oct. 16, 2023); FCC Extends Deadline to December 29, 2023, to Submit Nominations and Recommitment Letters for Membership on the Native Nations Communications Task Force, Public Notice, DA 23-1124 (Nov. 30, 2023). 150. Connect2HealthFCC Task Force. The Connect2HealthFCC Task Force, Recognizing that technology innovations in clinical practice and care delivery are poised to fundamentally change the face of health care, in 2014 the Commission created the Connect2HealthFCC Task Force—a senior-level, multi-disciplinary internal team, housed in the Office of General Counsel—to help the agency move the needle on broadband and advanced health care technologies. See FCC, Connect2HealthFCC, https://www.fcc.gov/about-fcc/fcc-initiatives/connect2healthfcc (last accessed Feb. 27, 2024). On behalf of the agency, the Task Force charts the broadband future of health and care through its various projects and initiatives and advises and provides recommendations to the Commission on matters concerning broadband and health. charged with exploring the intersection of and relationship between broadband, advanced technology, and health, continued its work in 2023, reflecting the Commission’s commitment to leveraging broadband connectivity to improve health and healthcare for all Americans. The Task Force updated the Mapping Broadband Health in America platform—a data visualization tool that intersects broadband and health data and allows users to generate customizable maps to assess areas where the lack of broadband access and Internet adoption could impact health and health outcomes or exacerbate the broadband health gap. Specifically, in response to the Data Mapping to Save Moms’ Lives Act, Data Mapping to Save Moms’ Lives Act, Pub. L. No. 117-247, 136 Stat. 2347 (2022). In adopting the Act, Congress determined that “[b]roadband mapping could lead to better maternal health outcomes,” S. Rep. No. 117-65, at 2 (2022), and identified the Commission’s Mapping Broadband Health in America platform as the tool to chart which areas of the country are most in need of critical broadband-enabled health resources. the Commission, in consultation with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, See Letter from Jessica Rosenworcel, Chairwoman, FCC, to Dr. Rochelle P. Walensky, Director, CDC (Apr. 11, 2023), https://www.fcc.gov/document/chairwoman-letter-cdc-director-maternal-health-collaboration. released a maternal health module in June 2023 that allows policymakers, state, local, and tribal governments, advocacy organizations, and service providers to identify and prioritize the communities with lower connectivity resources and higher maternal health need. See Press Release, FCC, FCC Explores Role of Broadband Connectivity in Maternal Health Outcomes (June 20, 2023), https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-explores-broadband-connectivity-role-maternal-health-outcomes. Planned future work—including the integration of additional broadband and health data—will allow users to visualize patterns, possible disparities, and areas where broadband deployment and Internet adoption could create the greatest impact in health. In October 2023, the Commission initiated a proceeding on future refinements and improvements to the mapping platform and sought to understand the current landscape and barriers to widespread use of broadband-enabled health solutions and services. Broadband Connectivity and Maternal Health—Implementation of the Data Mapping to Save Moms’ Lives Act, GN Docket No. 23-309, Notice of Inquiry, FCC 23-85 (Oct. 20, 2023). Commenters generally agreed that access to affordable high-speed broadband remains one of the primary barriers to universal adoption of broadband-enabled health solutions, and one commenter emphasized that broadband speeds of 25/3 Mbps are insufficient for connected health technologies. See Next Century Cities Comments, GN Docket No. 23-309, at 7-8 (rec. Nov. 20, 2023). Most recently, in November 2023, the Commission, in partnership with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, convened policymakers, grassroots organizations, telecommunications and public health experts, researchers, and clinicians to explore how advancing digital equity—including increased access to reliable, high-speed broadband and broadband-enabled health technologies—improves maternal health equity. Federal Communications Commission and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Announce Agenda for Maternal Health and Broadband Roundtable on November 17, 2023, GN Docket No. 23-309, Public Notice, DA 23-1083 (OGC Nov. 15, 2023). The Roundtable engaged a wide cross-section of thought leaders, advocacy groups, entrepreneurs, and policymakers to explore the intersection of broadband connectivity and maternal health, the role of broadband as a social determinant of health, and the implications of that framework for improving maternal health outcomes and informing broadband and health policies. A full recording of the Roundtable is available at https://www.fcc.gov/news-events/events/2023/11/maternal-health-roundtable. B. Removing Barriers to and Encouraging Broadband Investment 151. Multiple Tenant Environments. Millions of people work and live in multiple tenant environments (MTEs), with a third of Americans residing in apartments, condominiums, or other multiunit buildings. A disproportionate number of residents in these MTEs are lower-income and associated with marginalized communities. Id. To ensure competitive choice of communications services for those living and working in MTEs, and to address practices that undermine longstanding rules promoting competition in MTEs, on February 15, 2022, the Commission took three specific actions. Improving Competitive Broadband Access to Multiple Tenant Environments, GN Docket 17-142, Report and Order and Declaratory Ruling, 37 FCC Rcd 2448 (2022). First, the Commission adopted new rules prohibiting providers from entering into certain types of revenue sharing agreements that are used to evade the Commission’s existing rules. Id. at 2456-61, paras. 16-26. Second, the Commission adopted new rules requiring providers to disclose the existence of exclusive marketing arrangements in simple, easy-to-understand language. Id. at 2464-69, paras. 33-42. Third, the Commission clarified that existing Commission rules regarding cable inside wiring prohibit so-called “sale-and-leaseback” arrangements, which effectively deny access to alternative providers. Id. at 2471-76, paras. 47-60. In taking these actions, the Commission sought to promote tenant choice and competition in the provision of communications services to the benefit of those who live and work in MTEs. Id. at 2450, para. 2. 152. Pole Attachments. On December 15, 2023, the Commission released a Fourth Report and Order, Declaratory Ruling, and Third Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to further the Commission’s efforts to reform its pole attachment rules and policies to promote faster and more cost effective broadband deployment. Accelerating Wireline Broadband Deployment by Removing Barriers to Infrastructure Investment, WC Docket No. 17-84, Fourth Report and Order, Declaratory Ruling, And Third Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 23-109, 4-5, para. 7 (Dec. 15, 2023) (2023 Wireline Infrastructure Order). These reforms will speed the pole attachment dispute resolution process by establishing a new intra-agency rapid response team – the Rapid Broadband Assessment Team (RBAT) – to provide coordinated review and assessment of pole attachment disputes and recommend effective dispute resolution procedures, adopting specific criteria for the RBAT to use when considering whether a complaint (or portion thereof) should be included on the Commission’s Accelerated Docket. The new rules will also increase transparency for new broadband buildouts by amending the Commission’s pole attachment make-ready rules to require utilities to provide to potential attachers, upon request, the information contained in the utilities’ most recent cyclical pole inspection reports, or any intervening, periodic reports created before the next cyclical inspection, for the poles covered by a submitted attachment application. Id. at 5-12, paras. 8-22. In the Declaratory Ruling, the Commission clarified that for purposes of the Commission’s pole replacement policies, a “red tagged” pole is one that the utility has identified as needing replacement for any reason other than the pole’s lack of capacity to accommodate a new attachment, provided additional examples for when a pole replacement is not “necessitated solely” as a result of a third party’s attachment or modification request when a pole already requires replacement at the time that the new attacher’s request is made, clarified attachers’ right to access documentation regarding utility easements, and clarified that the first 3,000 poles in an attachment application are subject to the pre-existing processing timeline in the Commission’s rules. Id. at 24-30, paras. 39-47; 47 CFR § 1.1411(g)(3). In the Further Notice, the Commission seeks comment on whether the Commission should take further action to facilitate the processing of pole attachment applications that are submitted in large numbers, whether the Commission should modify its self-help rules to enable prospective attachers to access poles more quickly, and the effect of contractor availability when attachers seek to use their own contractors when conducting self-help or one-touch make-ready for surveys and make-ready work. 2023 Wireline Infrastructure Order, FCC 23-109, 31-33, paras. 49, 51-54. 153. Open Radio Access Networks. In March 2021, the Commission adopted a Notice of Inquiry which sought comment on the potential of open and virtualized Radio Access Networks (Open RANs) in securing America’s wireless networks and communications supply chain, and in driving 5G innovation. Promoting the Deployment of 5G Open Radio Access Networks, GN Docket No. 21-63, Notice of Inquiry, 36 FCC Rcd 5947 (2021). The Commission sought comment on the current status of Open RAN development, the role of established manufacturers and of new entrants in setting standards for this new network architecture, challenges or other considerations related to the testing, deployment, and integration of Open RAN systems, the costs and benefits associated with Open RAN development and deployment, and what steps, if any, the Commission should take to accelerate the development and deployment of Open RAN. Id.; see also Press Release, FCC, FCC Seeks Comment on Open Radio Access Networks (March 17, 2021), https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-seeks-comment-open-radio-access-networks; see also 5G Fund FNPRM, FCC 23-74 at 28-30, paras. 53-54 (seeking comment on whether and how the 5G Fund proceeding should promote the continued deployment of Open RAN technologies). C. Improving Access to Spectrum 154. Terrestrial Wireless Service. The Commission has continued its efforts to expand access to spectrum to support 5G and other advanced wireless services. Spectrum is an important component of all wireless services, and making additional spectrum available ensures that wireless providers are able to deploy 5G networks expeditiously. The Commission has pursued a comprehensive strategy to make additional high-band, mid-band, and low-band spectrum available through initial licensing and also through other innovative means, including secondary market transactions. However, until Congress reauthorizes the Commission’s spectrum auction authority, which expired for the first time in agency history in March 2023, the Commission is unable to make new spectrum available through its auction process. 155. Recognizing that mid-band spectrum is particularly well suited for 5G deployment because of its favorable characteristics, the Commission has continued to work towards making more mid-band spectrum available. In 2015, the Commission established the Citizens Broadband Radio Service, making 150 megahertz of mid-band spectrum available for shared commercial use in the 3550-3700 MHz band (3.5 GHz band). See Amendment of the Commission’s Rules with Regard to Commercial Operations in the 3550-3650 MHz Band, GN Docket No. 12-354, Report and Order and Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 30 FCC Rcd 3959, 3961-62, paras. 1-4 (2015) (3.5 GHz Order/Second FNPRM); see also Amendment of the Commission’s Rules with Regard to Commercial Operations in the 3550-3650 MHz Band, GN Docket No. 12-354, Order on Reconsideration and Second Report and Order, 31 FCC Rcd 5011 (2016); Promoting Investment in the 3550-2700 MHz Band, GN Docket No. 17-258, Report and Order, 33 FCC Rcd 10598 (2018). The Citizens Broadband Radio Service includes two tiers of commercial service: Priority Access and General Authorized Access (GAA). See 3.5 GHz Order/Second FNPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 3962, para. 4. Access and operations within the band are managed by automated frequency coordinators known as Spectrum Access Systems. 47 CFR § 96.63; 3.5 GHz Order/Second FNPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 3985-87, paras. 80-86. The GAA tier is licensed-by-rule to permit open, flexible access to the band for the widest possible group of potential users. 47 CFR §§ 96.33, 96.35; 3.5 GHz Order/Second FNPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 3962, para. 4. GAA users must not cause harmful interference to, and must accept harmful interference from, higher tier users. 47 CFR §§ 96.33, 96.35; 3.5 GHz Order/Second FNPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 3962, para. 4. Starting in March 2021, the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau began granting Priority Access Licenses (PALs) in the 3.5 GHz band in the wake of the successful Auction 105, which concluded in August 2020. Auction 105 was the first 5G mid-band spectrum auction. It raised a total of $4.5 billion dollars and made available the greatest number of spectrum licenses ever in a single FCC auction. See Press Release, FCC, FCC Concludes First 5G Mid-Band Spectrum Auction, Aug. 25, 2020. To date, WTB has granted more than 20,500 PALs to nearly 230 entities. See Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Grants Auction 105 Priority Access Licenses, Auction No. 105, Public Notice, 36 FCC Rcd 4926 (WTB 2021); Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Grants Additional Auction 105 Priority Access Licenses, Auction No. 105, Public Notice, 36 FCC Rcd 7633 (WTB 2021); Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Grants Additional Auction 105 Priority Access Licenses, Auction No. 105, Public Notice, 36 FCC Rcd 10886 (WTB 2021); Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Grants Additional Auction 105 Priority Access Licenses, Auction No. 105, Public Notice, 36 FCC Rcd 16811 (WTB 2021); Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Grants Additional Auction 105 Priority Access Licenses, Auction No. 105, Public Notice, 37 FCC Rcd 8709 (WTB 2022); Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Grants Additional Auction 105 Priority Access Licenses, Auction No. 105, Public Notice, 37 FCC Rcd 11387 (WTB 2022). 156. Auction 107, the record-breaking auction for new flexible-use overlay licenses in the 3.7-3.98 GHz band, was completed in February 2021, with net winning bids exceeding $81.1 billion, and 21 bidders winning all of the available 5,684 licenses. Auction of Flexible-use Service Licenses in the 3.7-3.98 GHz Band Closes; Winning Bidders Announced for Auction 107, AU Docket No. 20-25, Public Notice, 36 FCC Rcd 4318, 4318, para. 1 (OEA/WTB 2021); FCC, Press Release, First Phase of Record-Breaking 5G Spectrum Auction Concludes (Jan. 15, 2021), https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-369265A1.pdf. Through the repacking of existing satellite operations into the upper 200 megahertz of the C-band, the Commission made a significant amount of spectrum available for flexible terrestrial use throughout the contiguous United States in a manner that ensures continuous and uninterrupted delivery of the incumbent services offered in the band. Expanding Flexible Use of the 3.7 to 4.2 GHz Band, GN Docket No. 18-122, Report and Order and Order of Proposed Modification, 35 FCC Rcd 2343, 2345, para. 4 (2020). WTB granted 3.7 GHz licenses in July 2021 and April 2022. Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Grants Auction 107 Licenses, Auction No. 107, Public Notice, DA 21-839 (WTB July 23, 2021); Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Grants Additional Auction 107 Licenses, Auction No. 107, Public Notice, 37 FCC Rcd 4505 (WTB 2022). 157. In March 2021, the Commission adopted an order that advanced the Commission’s goals of making more mid-band spectrum available for 5G. Facilitating Shared Use in the 3100-3550 MHz Band, WT Docket No. 19-348, Second Report and Order, Order on Reconsideration, and Order of Proposed Modification, 36 FCC Rcd 5987 (2021). The order continued the implementation of the Beat China by Harnessing Important, National Airwaves for 5G Act of 2020, Pub. L. 116-260, Division FF, Title IX, Sec. 905, which required the Commission to commence an auction to grant new initial licenses subject to flexible use in the 3450-3550 MHz (3.45 GHz) band by the close of 2021. The order adopted a framework that will enable full-power commercial use of the 3.45 GHz band and require that future licensees deploy their networks quickly. Facilitating Shared Use in the 3100-3550 MHz Band, WT Docket No. 19-348, Second Report and Order, Order on Reconsideration, and Order of Proposed Modification, 36 FCC Rcd 5988, 5988, para. 1 (2021) (3.45 GHz Second Report and Order). In January 2022, bidding in Auction 110 concluded. Auction of Flexible-Use Service Licenses in the 3.45-3.55 GHz Band Closes; Winning Bidders Announced for Auction 110, AU Docket No. 21-62, Public Notice, 37 FCC Rcd 308 (OEA/WTB 2022) (Auction 110 Closing Public Notice). The net proceeds of Auction 110 exceeded $22.4 billion, with 23 bidders winning a total of 4,041 licenses. Auction 110 Closing Public Notice, 37 FCC Rcd 308, 308, para. 1. WTB has now granted all 3.45 GHz licenses. Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Grants Auction 110 Licenses, Auction No. 110, Public Notice, 37 FCC Rcd 551 (WTB 2022). Collectively, the 3.45 GHz band and the neighboring 3.5 GHz and 3.7 GHz bands will offer 530 megahertz of contiguous mid-band spectrum for 5G services. 3.45 GHz Second Report and Order, 36 FCC Rcd at 5988, para. 1 158. WTB and the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau (PSHSB) released a Public Notice in August 2021 providing guidance regarding the adoption of new rules for the 5.850-5.925 GHz (5.9 GHz) band. Wireless Telecommunications Bureau and Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau Provide Guidance for Waiver Process to Permit Intelligent Transportation System Licensees to Use C-V2X Technology in the 5.895-5.925 GHz Band, ET Docket No. 19-138, Public Notice, 36 FCC Rcd 12406 (WTB/PSHSB 2021) (5.9 GHz Waiver Public Notice). In particular, WTB and PSHSB provided guidance to intelligent transportation system (ITS) licensees seeking waivers of the Commission’s rules to operate roadside units with cellular vehicle to everything (C-V2X)-based technology in the upper 30 megahertz (5.895-5.925) portion of the 5.9 GHz band, prior to adoption of final rules providing for such use, as well as guidance for waivers associated with equipment certifications and on-board units. Id., 36 FCC Rcd at 12406-08. In April 2023, PSHSB, OET, and WTB granted a joint request filed by a group of automakers, state departments of transportation, and equipment manufacturers requesting waiver of the Commission’s rules applicable to ITS operations to allow deployment of C-V2X technology in the upper 30 megahertz portion of the 5.9 GHz band. Request for Waiver of 5.9 GHz Band Rules to Permit Initial Deployment of Cellular Vehicle-to-Everything Technology, Order, ET Docket No. 19-138, DA 23-343 (PSHSB/OET/WTB Apr. 24, 2023). The Bureaus conditioned the waiver grant on certain technical and operational parameters, and further modified those conditions by a waiver modification order in July 2023. See Request to Modify April 24, 2023 Waiver Order of 5.9 GHz Band Rules to Permit Initial Deployment of Cellular Vehicle-to-Everything Technology, Order, ET Docket No. 19-138, DA 23-586 (PSHSB/OET/WTB Jul. 5, 2023). In August and October 2023, PSHSB, OET, and WTB issued additional waiver orders granting similar requests from public and private stakeholders seeking to deploy C-V2X technology in the band. Requests for Waiver of 5.9 GHz Band Rules to Permit Initial Deployment of Cellular Vehicle-to-Everything Technology, Letter Order, ET Docket No. 19-138 (Aug. 16, 2023); Requests for Waiver of 5.9 GHz Band Rules to Permit Initial Deployment of Cellular Vehicle-to-Everything Technology, Letter Order, ET Docket No. 19-138, DA 23-1048 (PSHSB/OET/WTB Oct. 31, 2023). 159. Auction 108, the auction of flexible-use overlay licenses in the 2.5 GHz band, was completed in August 2022, with 63 bidders winning 7,872 licenses, and gross bids totaling $427,789,670. Auction of Flexible-Use Licenses in the 2.5 GHz Band Closes; Winning Bidders Announced for Auction 108, AU Docket No. 20-429, Public Notice, 37 FCC Rcd 10117, 10117, para. 1 (2022); see also Transforming the 2.5 GHz Band, WT Docket No. 18-120, Report and Order, 34 FCC Rcd 5446, 5450, 5463-69, paras. 13, 46-65 (2019) (modified by Erratum, 34 FCC Rcd 10386 (WTB 2019)) (2.5 GHz Report and Order) (establishing a pre-auction priority window for Tribal Nations to apply to obtain the unassigned spectrum on rural Tribal lands to address the needs of their communities). This auction offered county-sized licenses for the remaining spectrum in this band, making more valuable mid-band spectrum available for advanced wireless services, including 5G, particularly in rural areas. 2.5 GHz Report and Order, 34 FCC Rcd at 5450, para. 13. As of March 8, 2024, WTB granted all of the 2.5 GHz band licenses from Auction 108, in addition to 336 licenses granted thus far to Tribal Nations and Tribal entities in connection with the 2.5 GHz Rural Tribal Priority Window which preceded Auction 108. Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Grants Auction 108 Licenses, Auction No. 108, Public Notice, 37 FCC Rcd 14020 (WTB 2022); Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Grants Auction 108 Licenses, Auction No. 108, Public Notice, 38 FCC Rcd 41 (WTB 2023); Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Grants Auction 108 Licenses, Auction No. 108, Public Notice, 38 FCC Rcd 1327 (WTB 2023); Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Grants Auction 108 Licenses, Auction No. 108, Public Notice, DA 24-89 (WTB Feb. 1, 2024); Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Grants Auction 108 Licenses, Auction No. 108, Public Notice, DA 24-183 (WTB Feb. 29, 2024). See FCC, Rural Tribal Window Updates, https://www.fcc.gov/25-ghz-rural-tribal-application-details. 160. In 2002, the Commission allocated 50 megahertz of spectrum in the 4940-4990 MHz band (4.9 GHz band) for fixed and mobile services, except aeronautical mobile service, and designated this band for use in support of public safety. See The 4.9 GHz Band Transferred from Federal Government Use, WT Docket No. 00-32, Second Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 17 FCC Rcd 3955 (2002). The Commission has reexamined the rules governing the 4.9 GHz band several times in the intervening years, and in January 2023, adopted a Seventh Report and Order and Ninth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking whereby it established a new framework for the 4.9 GHz band, under which a nationwide Band manager would be responsible both for overseeing public safety operations in the band and for authorizing secondary non-public safety operations. Amendment of Part 90 of the Commission’s Rules, WP Docket No. 07-100, Seventh Report and Order and Ninth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 38 FCC Rcd 704 (2023) (Seventh Report and Order and Ninth FNPRM). The Commission in the Ninth FNPRM sought comment on a number of implementation issues related to the Band Manager framework. See, e.g., id., 38 FCC Rcd at 733, paras. 71-72. 161. In March 2023, the Commission adopted a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to facilitate the integration of satellite and terrestrial networks by proposing a new regulatory framework for Supplemental Coverage from Space (SCS). Single Network Future: Supplemental Coverage from Space; Space Innovation, GN Docket No. 23-65 et al., Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 38 FCC Rcd 2790 (2023). The Commission proposed a novel framework that would allow satellite operators collaborating with terrestrial service providers to obtain Commission authorization to operate space stations on currently licensed, flexible-use spectrum allocated to terrestrial services. If the Commission were to act on this proposal, SCS would enable expanded coverage for the terrestrial licensee’s subscribers, especially in remote, unserved, and underserved areas, and would support the availability of emergency communications. See Public Release, Single Network Future: Supplemental Coverage from Space; Space Innovation; GN Docket No. 23-65, IB Docket No. 22-271, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 24-XX (rel. Feb. 22, 2024). 162. In May 2023, the Commission released a combined item which took a holistic approach to expanding use of over 1 gigahertz of prime mid-band spectrum in the 12 GHz band, from 12.2 to 13.25 GHz, by ensuring stable spectrum access for current and next-generation satellite broadband operations while also empowering advance terrestrial wireless services such as 6G. Expanding Flexible Use of the 12.2-12.7 GHz Band, WT Docket No. 20-443 et al., Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Order, FCC 23-36 (May 19, 2023) (12 GHz Order); Press Release, FCC, FCC Moves Forward on 12 GHz Proceeding (May 18, 2023), https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-393504A1.pdf. The Commission is thus on a path to expand the beneficial use of up to 1,050 megahertz of mid-band spectrum by a diverse set of terrestrial and satellite communications systems. 12 GHz Order at 2, para. 1. The Commission took steps to ensure current and future satellite services are preserved and protected in the 12.2-12.7 GHz band (12.2 GHz band) while continuing to develop a pipeline of mid-band spectrum for mobile broadband or other expanded uses essential for connecting everyone, everywhere in the 12.7-13.25 GHz band (12.7 GHz band). Id. 163. In October 2023, the Commission adopted rules to support new Wi-Fi applications and services using spectrum in the 6 GHz band. Unlicensed Use of the 6 GHz Band, ET Docket No. 18-295, et al., Second Report and Order, Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, and Memorandum Opinion and Order on Remand, FCC 23-86 (Nov. 1, 2023); Press Release, FCC, FCC Permits Very Low Power Device Operations in 6 GHz Band (Oct. 19, 2023) (6 GHz Press Release). See also Unlicensed Use of the 6 GHz Band; Expanding Flexible Use in Mid-Band Spectrum Between 3.7 and 23 GHz, ET Docket No. 18-295, GN Docket No. 17-183, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 35 FCC Rcd 3852, 3853, para. 1 (2020) (In April 2020, the Commission opened up the entire 6 GHz band (5.925-7.125 GHz) for unlicensed indoor lower power access points. The Commission determined these access points to be ideal for connecting devices, in homes and businesses, such as smartphones, tablet devices, laptops, and Internet-of-Things devices, to the Internet.).  The new rules authorize very low power operations in the U-NII-5 and U-NII-7 portions of the 6 GHz band totaling 850 megahertz of spectrum. Operations at power levels significantly lower than other unlicensed 6 GHz devices can occur anywhere, indoors or outdoors, without requiring a frequency coordination system. 6 GHz Press Release at 1. The mix of capacity and wide channels offers the unique potential for augmented and virtual reality applications. 164. The Commission has made efforts to enable innovative commercial uses of the 71-76 GHz, 81-86 GHz, 92-24 GHz, and 94.1-95 GHz bands (collectively, the 70/80/90 GHz bands), including provision of wireless backhaul for 5G and delivery of broadband connectivity to ships and aircraft. In June 2020, the Commission began a proceeding to consider potential changes to the rules governing the 70/80/90 GHz bands. Modernizing and Expanding Access to the 70/80/90 GHz Bands, et al., WT Docket No. 20-133, et al., Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Order, 35 FCC Rcd 6039 (2020). In October 2021 and October 2023, WTB released Public Notices seeking additional comment on the potential new uses of the 70/80/90 GHz bands. Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Seeks to Supplement the Record on 70/80/90 GHz Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, WT Docket No. 20-133, Public Notice, 36 FCC Rcd 14375 (WTB 2021); Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Seeks to Refresh the Record in 70/80/90 GHz Bands Proceeding, WT Docket No. 20-133, Public Notice, DA 23-988 (WTB Oct. 18, 2023). In January 2024, the Commission adopted a Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking authorizing certain point-to-point links to endpoints in motion in the 70 GHz and 80 GHz bands for aeronautical and maritime use; providing for smaller, lower-cost antennas to facilitate backhaul service in those bands; and adopting changes to the link registration process. The item also sought comment on the potential inclusion of ship-to-aerostat operations as part of maritime operations, and adding Fixed Satellite Service earth stations in the light-licensing regime for the 70 GHz and 80 GHz bands. Modernizing and Expanding Access to the 70/80/90 GHz Bands, WT Docket No. 20-133, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, DA 24-16 (WTB Jan. 26, 2024). 165. The Commission also furthered the efficient use of available spectrum. In July 2022, the Commission adopted a Report and Order establishing the Enhanced Competition Incentive Program (ECIP) to provide incentives for wireless licensees to make underutilized spectrum available to small carriers, Tribal Nations, and entities serving rural areas. Partitioning, Disaggregation, and Leasing of Spectrum, WT Docket No. 19-38, Report and Order and Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 37 FCC Rcd 8825 (2022) (ECIP Report and Order); see also Press Release, FCC, FCC Establishes Enhanced Competition Incentive Program for Wireless Radio Services: Expanding Opportunities for Small Carriers, Tribal Nations, and Rural Wireless Entities (July 14, 2022) (ECIP Press Release). The ECIP Report and Order was intended to build upon the goals expressed by Congress in the Making Opportunities for Broadband Investment and Limiting Excessive and Needless Obstacles to Wireless Act (MOBILE NOW Act) by considering steps to “increase the diversity of spectrum access” and the “availability of advanced telecommunications services in rural areas” and to facilitate transactions that will benefit the public interest. ECIP Report and Order, 37 FCC Rcd at 8826, para. 1; Consolidated Appropriations Act, Pub. L. No. 115-141, Division P (RAY BAUM’S Act of 2018), Title VI (MOBILE NOW Act), § 601 et seq. (2018) (codified at 47 U.S.C. §§ 1501-1512). Under ECIP, any covered geographic licensee may offer spectrum to an unaffiliated eligible entity through partition and/or disaggregation, and any covered geographic licensee eligible to lease in an included service may offer spectrum to an unaffiliated eligible entity through a long-term leasing arrangement. ECIP Report and Order, 37 FCC Rcd at 8830-31, para. 18; ECIP Press Release at 1. ECIP encourages licensees to partition, disaggregate, or lease spectrum to better align available spectrum resources with entities seeking to provide services to underserved communities. ECIP Report and Order, 37 FCC Rcd at 8826, para. 2. ECIP Press Release at 1. Independent of the ECIP, the Report and Order reduces regulatory burdens by allowing reaggregation of geographic licenses. ECIP Report and Order, 37 FCC Rcd at 8826, para. 3. The Second Further Notice sought comment on whether to expand ECIP eligibility to allow non-common carriers serving non-rural areas to be eligible to participate in the program, and whether to adopt alternative construction requirements for wireless radio licensees generally, including a safe harbor. Id. at 8826, para. 3. In February 2024, the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau launched ECIP by beginning to accept assignment and lease applications to participate in the program. WTB Launches Enhanced Competition Incentive Program Beginning February 15, 2024, WT Docket No. 19-38, Public Notice, DA 24-141 (WTB Feb. 15, 2024); see also Press Release, FCC, FCC Launches Enhanced Competition Incentive Program for Wireless Radio Services: Expands Spectrum Opportunities for Small Carriers, Tribal Nations, and Rural Wireless Entities (Feb. 15, 2024). 166. In August 2023, the Commission released a Notice of Inquiry exploring potential avenues to advance understanding of non-Federal spectrum usage through new data sources, technologies, and methods. Advancing Understanding of Non-Federal Spectrum Usage, WT Docket No. 23-232, Notice of Inquiry, FCC 23-63 (Aug. 4, 2023) (Spectrum Usage NOI). Leveraging today’s tools to understand tomorrow’s commercial spectrum usage can help identify new opportunities to facilitate more efficient spectrum use, including new spectrum sharing techniques and approaches to enable co-existence among users and services. The Spectrum Usage NOI undertook a technical inquiry on how to obtain more sophisticated knowledge of non-Federal spectrum usage, and how the Commission could take advantage of modern capabilities for doing so in a cost-effective, accurate, scalable, and actionable manner. 167. The Commission continues to work to ensure that its policies and rules facilitate access to spectrum. In September 2023, WTB and OEA released a Public Notice that sought comment on the petition for rulemaking filed by AT&T in 2021 seeking Commission action on such matters as the proposed establishment of a mid-band spectrum screen and other changes to its mobile spectrum holdings policies and rules. Wireless Telecommunications Bureau and Office of Economics and Analytics Seek Comment on AT&T Petition for Rulemaking and Mobile Spectrum Holdings Policies, WT Docket No. 23-319, Public Notice, DA 23-891 (WTB/OEA Sept. 22, 2023); AT&T Petition for a Rulemaking to Establish a Mid-Band Spectrum Screen (filed Sept. 1, 2021). 168. The Commission has also continued to take steps to foster growth of the white space ecosystem promoting innovative and efficient uses of spectrum. In January 2022, the Commission adopted two orders that resolved pending issues associated with white space devices and the white spaces databases. Amendment of Part 15 of the Commission’s Rules for Unlicensed Operations in the Television Bands, Repurposed 600 MHz Band, 600 MHz Guard Bands and Duplex Gap, and Channel 37, et al., ET Docket No. 14- 165, et al., Second Order of Reconsideration, Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, and Order, 37 FCC Rcd 1384, 1385, para. 1 (2022) (White Space Devices Order); see also Unlicensed White Space Device Operations in the Television Bands, ET Docket No. 20-36, Report and Order, 35 FCC Rcd 12603 (2020) (revising rules to facilitate the development of new and innovative narrowband Internet of Things devices in TV white spaces and expand the ability of unlicensed white space devices to deliver wireless broadband services in rural areas and areas where fewer broadcast stations are on the air). These Commission actions will provide white space device users, manufacturers, and database administrators with additional certainty and enable unlicensed white space devices to operate efficiently and protect other spectrum users. White Space Devices Order, 37 FCC Rcd at 1385, para. 1. 169. Satellite Service. Since 2021, the Commission has taken numerous actions to implement a Space Innovation agenda. Specifically, the agency has established a new Space Bureau, increased the number of staff working on satellite and earth station applications, created new opportunities for competition in the delivery of satellite broadband services, and modernized spectrum policy to better meet the needs of the next generation Space Age. As the agency promotes Space Innovation, it also has taken action to advance space safety and responsibility, including the adoption of new rules for deorbiting satellites to mitigate orbital debris risks. These actions foster a regulatory environment that enables the deployment of high-speed, high-bandwidth broadband services to hard-to-reach remote areas of the country. 170. On August 3, 2022, the Commission adopted new rules permitting use of the 17.3-17.7 GHz band for geostationary satellite (GSO) fixed satellite service (FSS) downlinks on a co-primary basis with incumbent services and use of the 17.7-17.8 GHz band for GSO FSS downlinks on a unprotected basis with respect to fixed service operations, thereby creating a contiguous band for fixed-satellite downlink operations, and enabling greater flexibility and efficiency. Amendment of Parts 2 and 25 of the Commission’s Rules to Enable GSO Fixed-Satellite Service (Space-to-Earth) Operations in the 17.3-17.8 GHz Band, to Modernize Certain Rules Applicable to 17/24 GHz BSS Space Stations, and to Establish Off-Axis Uplink Power Limits for Extended Ka-Band FSS Operations; Amendment of Parts 2 and 25 of the Commission’s Rules to Enable NGSO Fixed-Satellite Service (Space-to-Earth) Operations in the 17.3-17.8 GHz Band, IB Docket Nos. 20-330 and 22-273, Report and Order and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 22-63 (Aug. 3, 2022). The Commission also defined an extended Ka-band, thus streamlining the licensing of FSS earth stations in a harmonized regulatory framework for similar FSS transmissions in the conventional and extended Ka-bands. Id. at 2, para. 2. In addition, the Commission sought comment on whether to allow operations of non-geostationary orbit (NGSO) systems in the FSS (space-to-Earth) in the 17.3-17.8 GHz band and the appropriate technical rules and standards. Id. at 2, para. 3. 171. On August 5, 2022, in an effort to promote United States leadership in the emerging space economy, the Commission voted to open a proceeding on the economic potential and policy questions related to servicing, assembly, and manufacturing (ISAM) taking place beyond the earth’s atmosphere. Space Innovation; Facilitating Capabilities for In-space Servicing, Assembly, and Manufacturing, Notice of Inquiry, 37 FCC Rcd 10022 (2022). ISAM refers to a set of capabilities used on-orbit, on the surface of space objects and celestial bodies, and in transit. The “servicing” aspect of ISAM includes activities such as the in-space inspection, life extension, repair, refueling, or alteration of a spacecraft after its initial launch. The term “servicing” is also used to describe transport of a spacecraft from one orbit to another, as well as debris collection and removal. “Assembly” refers to the construction of a space system using pre-manufactured components, and “manufacturing” is the transformation of raw or recycled materials into components, products, or infrastructure in space. The Commission examined the opportunities and challenges of space missions like satellite refueling, inspecting and repairing in-orbit spacecraft, capturing and removing debris, and transforming materials through manufacturing while in space. Id. 172. On September 30, 2022, the Commission shortened the 25-year benchmark for post-mission disposal of NGSO space stations to five years for space stations in low Earth orbit. Space Innovation: Mitigation of Orbital Debris in the New Space Age, Second Report and Order, 37 FCC Rcd 11818 (2022). Growth in space activity has heightened concerns about the risks of orbital debris, and post-mission disposal of spacecraft is a necessary part in the mitigation of orbital debris, with orbital lifetime a crucial element affecting collision risk. Previously, on April 24, 2020, the Commission comprehensively updated the Commission’s rules regarding orbital debris mitigation. Orbital Debris in the New Space Age, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 35 FCC Rcd 4156 (2020). The updated regulations were designed to ensure that the Commission’s actions concerning radio communications, including licensing U.S. spacecraft and granting access to the U.S. market for non-U.S. spacecraft, mitigate the growth of orbital debris, while at the same time not creating undue regulatory obstacles to new satellite ventures. Id. at 4157, para. 2. Post-mission disposal and orbital lifetime are crucial factors in the mitigation of orbital debris, as they not only affect the collision risk of a space station or system, but also affect spacecraft that are unable to complete post-mission disposal, particularly when left at higher altitudes where they may persist indefinitely, will contribute to the growing congestion in the space environment over the long-term, and increase risks to space operations. Id. 173. On December 22, 2022, the Commission issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that sought comment broadly on changes to the Commission’s rules, policies, or practices to facilitate the acceptance for filing of space and earth station applications under Part 25. Expediting Initial Processing of Satellite and Earth Station Applications, Space Innovation, IB Docket Nos. 22-411 & 22-271, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 37 FCC Rcd 15167, 15167, para. 1 (2022). In particular, the Commission proposed to remove a procedural rule that formally prevents consideration of waiver requests for operations not in conformance with the International Table of Frequency Allocations. See 47 CFR § 2.106(a), (b). The Commission also sought comment on whether the limits on applications for NGSO systems and unbuilt NGSO systems should be amended, and whether the Commission should provide greater transparency or certainty with respect to its expected application processing timelines. On September 21, 2023, the Commission issued a Report and Order (discussed below) adopting many of these proposals. See Expediting Initial Processing of Satellite and Earth Station Applications; Space Innovation, IB Docket Nos. 22-411, 22-271, Report and Order and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 23-73 (Sept. 22, 2023). 174. On April 11, 2023, the Commission created a new Space Bureau. See Establishment of the Space Bureau and the Office of International Affairs and Reorganization of the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau and the Office of the Managing Director, MD Docket No. 23-12, Order, FCC 23-1, para. 4 (Jan. 9, 2023); FCC Space Bureau & Office of International Affairs to Launch Next Week, Press Release (Apr. 7, 2023). In making this structural change to create a Bureau specifically focused on satellite and space policy, the Commission seeks to keep pace with the needs of space innovation, including the deployment of broadband to hard-to-reach remote locations. The Space Bureau’s mission is to promote a competitive and innovative global communications marketplace by leading policy and licensing matters related to satellite and space-based communications and activities. Among its responsibilities, the Space Bureau leads complex policy analysis and rulemakings; authorizes satellite and earth station systems used for space-based services; streamlines regulatory processes to provide maximum flexibility for operators to meet customer needs; and fosters the efficient use of scarce spectrum and orbital resources. The Space Bureau also serves as the Commission’s focal point for coordination with other U.S. government agencies on matters of space policy and governance, and collaborate with the Office of International Affairs for consultations with other countries, international and multilateral organizations, and foreign government officials that involve satellite and space policy matters. 175. On April 20, 2023, the Commission granted in part SpaceX’s Petition for Rulemaking seeking to update the spectrum sharing rules among how NGSO FSS licensees, focusing on spectrum sharing among systems approved in different processing rounds. Revising Spectrum Sharing Rules for Non-Geostationary Orbit, Fixed-Satellite Service Systems, IB Docket No. 21-456, Report and Order and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 23-29 (Apr. 21, 2023).   The new rules set forth important reforms that will govern how NGSO FSS systems will function in a shared spectrum environment. Id. at 4-19, paras. 9-37. These new rules provide clarity regarding spectrum sharing between systems licensed in different processing rounds, granting primary spectrum access to systems approved earlier, while enabling new entrants to participate in an established, cooperative spectrum sharing structure. Id. This action continues the Commission’s recent efforts to update and refine its rules governing NGSO FSS systems. Revising Spectrum Sharing Rules for Non-Geostationary Orbit, Fixed-Satellite Service Systems, IB Docket Nos. 21-456 and 22-271, Order and Further Notice Of Proposed Rulemaking, 36 FCC Rcd 17871 (2021); see also Update to Parts 2 and 25 Concerning Non-Geostationary, Fixed-Satellite Service Systems and Related Matters, IB Docket No. 16-408, Report and Order, 32 FCC Rcd 7809 (2017), pets. for recon. pending. Constellations of NGSO FSS satellites traveling in low- and medium-Earth orbit may provide broadband services to industry, enterprise, and residential customers with lower latency and wider coverage than has previously been available via satellite. See generally, e.g., 2022 Communications Marketplace Report, 37 FCC Rcd at 15517, para. 6 (approximately 98% of all satellite launches in 2021 were deployed into low-Earth orbit to provide internet connectivity). The number of applications filed in recent years for NGSO FSS system authorizations, and the number of satellites launched, are unprecedented. See generally, Mitigation of Orbital Debris in the New Space Age, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 35 FCC Rcd 35 FCC Rcd 4156, 4158, para. 3 (2020); see also, e.g., 2022 Communications Marketplace Report, 37 FCC Rcd at 15517, para. 6 (noting SpaceX (Starlink) had launched more than 3,350 of its satellites); Letter from Blake Wiles, Market Access Manager, North America, OneWeb, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, IBFS File No. SAT-MPL-20200526-00062 (filed Jan. 20, 2023) (noting OneWeb had launched 544 of its satellites). These updates will provide certainty for operators and facilitate innovation in system design, which will ultimately benefit broadband users. 176. On September 21, 2023, as part of a Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the Commission adopted new rules that take concrete steps to expedite the initial processing of applications for authority to operate space and earth stations under part 25 of the Commission’s rules. Expediting Initial Processing of Satellite and Earth Station Applications; Space Innovation, IB Docket Nos. 22-411, 22-271, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 23-73 (Sept. 22, 2023). In the Report and Order, the Commission established timeframes for placing space and earth station applications on notice for public comment, permits applicants to apply for authority to operate in frequencies in bands where there is not already an international allocation for the satellite services to be provided, provides flexibility for NGSO licensees to have more than one unbuilt system without facing potential dismissal of their applications, and streamlines processing of earth station requests to add space stations as points of communication. Id. at 7-39, paras. 16-87. The Commission also announced the Space Bureau’s new Transparency Initiative, which is providing information and guidance, in a variety of forms, to potential applicants in order to prepare them to successfully obtain authorizations for space and earth stations—that is, satellites and the ground-based transmitters communicating with them. Id. at 5-7, paras. 10-14. This initiative will reduce administrative burdens on both applicants and Commission staff and further expedite the processing of applications. Id. 177. The Commission in the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking proposed to eliminate the procedural burden of printing and maintaining a paper copy of a license, and change the default status of space and earth station proceedings to permit-but-disclose. Id. at 49-50, paras. 112-13. The Commission also asked whether a process can be implemented for operators of non-U.S. licensed space stations that is similar to current special temporary authority (STA) application process. Id. at 42-43, para. 95. In addition, the Commission also sought comment in the Further Notice on other updates to our processes for STA applications, whether to consider a “Permitted List” type of process for NGSO operators, and whether to expand the window for operators to file renewal applications for existing licenses. Id. at 45, para. 101. Further, the Commission sought additional comment on establishing timeframes or shot clocks for action on the merits of applications. Id. at 43-44, paras. 98-99. Finally, the Commission sought comment on updating processes to avoid potentially duplicative coordination procedures, and whether the Commission can expand the new auto-granted process for adding satellite points of communication to earth station licenses. Id. at 47, paras. 107-108. 178. On January 25, 2024, the Commission adopted an Order on Reconsideration which provides greater clarity and guidance to the space industry actors regarding on compliance with the Commission’s orbital debris mitigation rules. Mitigation of Orbital Debris in the New Space Age, IB Docket No. 18-313, Order on Reconsideration, FCC 24-6 (Jan. 26, 2024).   One of the biggest threats to new spaced-based innovation and services is the presence of orbital debris that can collide with the satellites on which we rely for critical service. The clarifications provided by the Commission related to satellite maneuverability disclosure requirements regarding satellite maneuverability, and the use of “free-flying” deployment devices. Additionally, the Commission provided additional guidance for satellite operators on methods for conducting a re-contact risk analysis. The Commission also clarified the applicability of the 0.99 disposal reliability goal for large satellite systems. The Commission further specified requirements for assessing and limiting the release of persistent liquids in space, and how the Commission’s orbital debris rules apply to non-U.S.-licensed space stations. 179. On February 16, 2024, the Commission proposed a framework for licensing ISAM activities under its part 25 rules. Space Innovation; Facilitating Capabilities for In-space Servicing, Assembly, and Manufacturing, IB Docket Nos. 22-271, 22-272, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 24-21 (Feb. 16, 2024). ISAM activities are an area of rapidly accelerating innovation and economic activity. Space capabilities are expanding, opening economic and scientific opportunities, and providing new tools for the sustainable use of space, including by large satellite broadband constellations. Effective and efficient use of radiofrequency communications will enable these new capabilities. As the ISAM industry continues to develop, the Commission envisions taking additional steps as needed to foster innovation and growth in this field. D. Supporting Affordability, Adoption, and Reasonable Access 180. Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP) and Emergency Broadband Benefit (EBB) Program. At Congress’s direction, the Commission established programs designed to offer discounted broadband service and connected devices to help low-income households get connected and stay connected to work, school, healthcare, family, and social services. The ACP, which was launched two years ago, delivers discounted Internet service to approximately 23 million low-income households, benefiting both rural and urban households. See Universal Service Administrative Service Company, ACP Enrollment and Claims Tracker (Feb. 13, 2024), https://www.usac.org/about/affordable-connectivity-program/acp-enrollment-and-claims-tracker/#total-enrolled (Total Households at Enrollment Freeze); More Than 20 Million Households Enroll in Nation’s Largest Broadband Affordability Program, Fact Sheet (Aug. 14, 2023), https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-396000A1.pdf. However, due to the projected depletion of funding for the ACP anticipated in April 2024, the Commission has begun the process of winding down the program, absent further congressional funding to continue this program. See generally ACP Wind-Down Order. 181. At the end of 2020 and during the COVID-19 pandemic, Congress charged the Commission with building a new initiative, the EBB Program, to provide discounted Internet service and connected devices to low-income households. Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021, Pub. L. No. 116-260, div. N, tit. IX, § 904(i), 134 Stat. 1182, 2135 (2020); Emergency Broadband Benefit Program, WC Docket No. 20-445, Report and Order, 36 FCC Rcd 4612, 4613, para. 1 (2021) (EBB Program Report and Order); see also Pew Pandemic Research Report at 5-6. The Commission adopted the rules and policies creating and governing the EBB Program on February 25, 2021. EBB Program Report and Order. On May 12, 2021, the Commission launched the EBB Program, Wireline Competition Bureau Announces Emergency Broadband Benefit Program Launch Date, WC Docket. No. 20-445, Public Notice, 36 FCC Rcd 7614 (WCB 2021) (EBB Launch Date Public Notice). The Commission established the EBB Program rules in the EBB Program Report and Order. with a $3.2 billion appropriation through the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021. Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021, Pub. L. No. 116-260, div. N, tit. IX, § 904(i)(2), 134 Stat. 1182, 2135 (2020), https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/133/text (Consolidated Appropriations Act). 182. Through the EBB Program, participating broadband providers offered eligible households a monthly discount of up to $50 off the standard rate of broadband service, or up to $75 on Tribal lands. EBB Program Report and Order, 36 FCC Rcd at 4614, para. 4. Participating providers could also offer an eligible household a connected device (a laptop, desktop computer, or tablet) at a discounted price and receive a reimbursement of up to $100, provided that the eligible household was charged a co-payment of more than $10 but less than $50 toward the purchase of the device. Id. at 4614, para. 5. 183. Just six months after the launch of the EBB Program, Congress created the ACP as part of its investment in broadband affordability, deployment, and access in the November 2021 Infrastructure Act. Infrastructure Act, div. F, tit. V, § 60502, 135 Stat. at 1238; Affordable Connectivity Program; Emergency Broadband Benefit Program, WC Docket Nos. 21-450, 20-445, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 37 FCC Rcd 484, 486, para. 2 (2022) (ACP Report and Order and Further Notice). In establishing the ACP, Congress made several changes to the EBB Program to transform it from an emergency program designed to respond to a public health crisis to a longer-term broadband affordability program, and appropriated to the Commission an additional $14.2 billion for the ACP. ACP Report and Order and Further Notice at 485-86, para. 1. Under the ACP, eligible households can receive a discount of up to $30 per month off the price of broadband service, with an enhanced benefit of up to a $75 monthly discount available for eligible consumers on qualifying Tribal lands. Like the EBB Program, the ACP provides a one-time discount of up to $100 for a laptop, desktop, or tablet per household, provided that the household contributes more than $10 but less than $50 toward the cost of the device. 47 U.S.C. § 1752(b)(5); ACP Report and Order and Further Notice at 548, para. 136. As with the EBB Program, a household qualifies for the ACP if a member of the household (1) qualifies for Lifeline (household income is at or below 135% of the federal poverty guidelines or a household member participated in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, Medicaid, Supplemental Security Income, Federal Public Housing Assistance, Veterans Pension/Survivors Benefit, or certain Tribal assistance programs); (2) had applied for and been approved to receive benefits under the free and reduced price lunch program or the school breakfast program; (3) had received a Federal Pell Grant in the current award year; or (4) meets the eligibility criteria for a participating provider’s existing low-income program, subject to approval by the Commission. ACP Report and Order and Further Notice at 26, para. 49. The Infrastructure Act further expanded eligibility to those households with a member that receives assistance through the Special Supplemental Nutritional Program for Woman, Infants, and Children (WIC) and those households with an income below 200% of the Federal Poverty Guidelines. Id. 184. Since launching the ACP, the Commission has undertaken a number of initiatives to promote awareness and increase enrollment in the program among eligible households. In addition to the actions to promote and increase enrollment in the ACP, as a response to catastrophic weather events, the Commission temporarily waived certain deadlines and rules for ACP participants in affected areas to ensure that they did not lose access to vital services when they needed them the most. See, e.g., Affordable Connectivity Program et al., WC Docket No. 21-450 et al., Order, DA 23-805 (WCB Sept. 1, 2023); Schools and Libraries Universal Service Support Mechanism, CC Docket No. 02-6 et al., Order, 37 FCC Rcd 11310 (WCB 2022). Recognizing the importance of effective outreach to eligible households from trusted messengers to historically underserved communities, Congress authorized the Commission to provide grants to outreach partners. See 47 U.S.C. § 1752(b)(10)(C)(ii)(IV). Pursuant to that authority, the Commission established the Affordable Connectivity Outreach Grant Program, composed of four complementary sub-programs: the National Competitive Outreach Grant Program (NCOP), the Tribal Competitive Outreach Program (TCOP), the Your Home, Your Internet Outreach Grants (YHYI Outreach Grants), and the ACP Navigator Pilot Program Outreach Grants (NPP Outreach Grants). The YHYI Outreach Grants and the NPP Outreach Grants support the work of the Your Home, Your Internet Pilot Program and the ACP Navigator Pilot Program, respectively, which are one-year pilot programs designed to increase awareness of and facilitate enrollment in the Affordable Connectivity Program and to provide assistance with ACP applications. On August 5, 2022, the Commission adopted rules establishing the Affordable Connectivity Outreach Grant Program and the Your Home, Your Internet Pilot Program, both of which are designed to increase awareness of the ACP, specifically among recipients of federal housing assistance. ACP Second Report and Order; ACP Third Report and Order. 185. As directed by Congress in section 60502(c) of the Infrastructure Act, Infrastructure Act, div. F, tit. V, § 60502(c), 135 Stat. at 1243. the Commission adopted the ACP Fourth Report and Order on November 15, 2022 establishing rules for the ACP Transparency Data Collection, which requires all participating providers to annually submit data on the price and subscription rates of Internet service offerings received by households enrolled in the ACP. Affordable Connectivity Program, WC Docket No. 21-450, Fourth Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 37 FCC Rcd 13773 (2022) (ACP Fourth Report and Order). Participating providers were required to submit data for the collection by November 30, 2023, based on a reference or snapshot date of August 1, 2023. Wireline Competition Bureau Announced Completion of OMB Review and Key Dates for Affordable Connectivity Program Transparency Data Collection, WC Docket No. 21-450, Public Notice, DA 23-683 (WCB Aug. 11, 2023); Affordable Connectivity Program Transparency Data Collection Deadline Extended to November 30, 2023, WC Docket No. 21-450, Public Notice, DA 23-1066 (WCB Nov. 9, 2023). In 2024, the Commission will evaluate the submissions and make certain information publicly available, as set forth in the ACP Fourth Report and Order. ACP Fourth Report and Order, 37 FCC Rcd at 13805-16, paras. 67-92. 186. On March 10, 2023, the Commission announced target funding allocations for NCOP and TCOP. Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau Announces ACP Outreach Grant Program Target Funding, WC Docket No. 21-450, Public Notice, DA 23-194 (CGB Mar. 10, 2023). The Commission selected 197 applicants representing 50 states and territories to pursue a broad range of outreach projects for a combined targeted funding allocation of $66 million. Press Release, FCC, FCC Announces $66 Million in Outreach Grants to Fund Projects to Expand Participation in Affordable Connectivity Program (Mar. 10, 2023), https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-391570A1.pdf. On March 15, 2023, the Commission announced target funding allocations for the Your Home, Your Internet Outreach Grants and the ACP Navigator Outreach Grants, selecting 31 pilot participants for a combined target funding allocation totaling approximately $7.4 million. Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau and Wireline Competition Bureau Announce ACP Pilot Program Grants Target Funding, WC Docket No. 21-450, Public Notice, 38 FCC Rcd 1938 (CGB/WCB 2023). On March 13, 2023, the Commission adopted a Report and Order securing additional funding of up to $10 million for the National Competitive Outreach Grant Program and the Tribal Competitive Outreach Grant Program. Affordable Connectivity Program, WC Docket No. 21-450, Fifth Report and Order, 38 FCC Rcd 2546 (2023) (ACP Fifth Report and Order). This funding comes from a combination of: (a) previously allocated unspent funding and (2) funding that had not yet been allocated to specific outreach efforts. Id. at 2546, para. 1. On August 17, 2023, and September 6, 2023, the Commission announced it had selected 17 applicants for this second round of grant funding, with target funding allocations totaling over $5.5 million. Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau Announces Second Round of ACP Outreach Grant Program Awards, WC Docket No. 21-450, Public Notice, DA 23-7171 (Aug. 17, 2023); Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau Announces Second Round of ACP Tribal Outreach Grant Program Awards, WC Docket No. 21-450, Public Notice, DA 23-815 (Sept. 6, 2023). 187. On August 4, 2023, the Commission released a Report and Order establishing a mechanism by which a participating provider in the ACP can apply to offer an enhanced monthly discount of up to $75 for broadband services to ACP-enrolled households in a high-cost area, upon the provider’s showing of a particularized economic hardship. Affordable Connectivity Program, WC Docket No. 21-450, Sixth Report and Order, FCC 23-62 (Aug. 4, 2023). The Commission’s Wireline Competition Bureau (WCB) provided additional information on the application process for this high-cost area benefit on November 1, 2023. Wireline Competition Bureau Announces Affordable Connectivity Program High-Cost Area Benefit Application Submission Timing and Processes, WC Docket No. 21-450, Public Notice, DA 23-1034 (WCB Nov. 1, 2023). On January 11, 2024, due to the depletion in funding and enrollment freeze, the Bureau announced that USAC would no longer begin accepting provider applications to offer the high-cost area benefit. The Wireline Competition Bureau will re-evaluate the status of the ACP high-cost area benefit provider applications if the ACP receives additional funding. ACP Wind-Down Order, DA 24-23, at 13, para 33. 188. The Commission also used multiple media outlets to promote the ACP. The Infrastructure Act expressly authorized the Commission to use ACP funds to conduct outreach to encourage households to enroll in the ACP by engaging in paid media campaigns. ACP Fifth Report and Order, 38 FCC Rcd at 1940, para. 6 (citing 47 U.S.C. § 1752(b)(10)(C)(ii)(I)-(IV)). Accordingly, the Commission set aside funding for its own ACP outreach efforts. Id. at 1941, n.30. Paid media consultants targeted certain locations with large low-income populations, certain demographics, and specific cities and counties (including both rural and urban areas) throughout the United States to increase awareness of the ACP through print and radio campaigns. The campaign included print media, earned media (radio and satellite radio tours), mobile display banners, paid search tactics, local newspaper, out-of-home placements (at grocery stores, gas stations, pharmacies, etc.), mailers, and digital video ads. Paid media outreach was conducted in English and Spanish, with application support made available in over 10 languages. This campaign launched in Spring 2023 and continued throughout that year. 189. The Commission also deployed multiple enhancements throughout 2023 to simplify the application and enrollment process for eligible households. USAC, ACP National Verifier Enhancements, https://www.usac.org/wp-content/uploads/about/documents/acp/bulletins/ACP-National-Verifier-Enhancements.pdf (Feb. 14, 2024). See generally USAC, ACP Bulletins (https://www.usac.org/about/affordable-connectivity-program/affordable-connectivity-program-learn/acp-bulletins) (last visited Jan. 29, 2024). This work responded in part to a January 2023 GAO report regarding the ACP, which included nine recommendations, including: (1) establishing quantifiable and measurable program performance goals; (2) improving program outreach by addressing outreach translation issues and developing an educational plan consistent with leading practices; and (3) taking steps to improve program integrity efforts. The Commission was able to address all of the GAO recommendations and submitted documents to GAO to close-out all nine recommendations by the end of 2023. FCC Could Improve Performance Goals and Measures, Consumer Outreach, and Fraud Risk Management (2023), https://www.gao.gov/assets/d23105399.pdf. As of December 31, 2023, the FCC had submitted proposals to close-out all nine recommendations to GAO. As of the publication of this document, the GAO has officially closed out six recommendations and is actively working with the FCC to close out the final three recommendations. Affordable Broadband: FCC Could Improve Performance Goals and Measures, Consumer Outreach, and Fraud Risk Management, https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-23-105399, (last visited Feb. 19, 2024) (The status of the recommendations is updated periodically at the bottom of this page.). In addition to the actions described above, as a response to catastrophic weather events, the Commission temporarily waived certain deadlines and rules for ACP participants in affected areas to ensure that they did not lose access to vital services when they needed them the most. See, e.g., Affordable Connectivity Program et al., WC Docket No. 21-450 et al., Order, DA 23-805 (WCB Sept. 1, 2023); Schools and Libraries Universal Service Support Mechanism, CC Docket No. 02-6 et al., Order, 37 FCC Rcd 11310 (WCB 2022). 190. As described above, the Commission began taking steps to wind down the ACP, which included the need to stop accepting new enrollments and announcing that the final month of the program will be April 2024. See ACP Wind-Down Order, DA 24-23, at 8, para. 21; see generally ACP Final Month Public Notice. At the time the Commission stopped accepting new enrollments in the ACP, there were over 23 million households enrolled in the program. Universal Service Administrative Service Company, ACP Enrollment and Claims Tracker (Feb. 13, 2024), https://www.usac.org/about/affordable-connectivity-program/acp-enrollment-and-claims-tracker/#total-enrolled (Total Households at Enrollment Freeze). The Commission is dedicated to providing ACP households an orderly transition out of the program and to keeping as many ACP households as possible connected to broadband service after the end of the program. ACP Wind-Down Order, DA 24-23, at 8, para. 20. 191. Lifeline. In addition to emergency support regulatory flexibility that the Commission has provided for the Lifeline program and the affordability aspects of our implementation of the Safe Connections Act discussed below, we have taken actions to ensure the Lifeline program remains responsive to low-income consumers’ needs. For instance, on July 7, 2023, WCB adopted an order continuing the pause of the scheduled increase in the mobile broadband data capacity minimum service standard. Lifeline and Link Up Reform and Modernization, WC Docket No. 11-42, Order, DA 23-589 (WCB July 7, 2023). These actions ensure that mobile data Lifeline subscribers have access to plans that are sufficiently robust without being forced to pay for expensive and excessive capacity. Id. at 4-5, paras. 12, 15. Collectively, these actions reflect the Commission’s commitment to ensuring that low-income consumers receive necessary support from the Lifeline program and that the support offered is adequate for changing consumer needs. In addition, the Commission took action in response to catastrophic weather events to temporarily waive certain deadlines and rules for Lifeline participants in affected areas to ensure access to vital services. See, e.g., Affordable Connectivity Program et al., WC Docket No. 21-450 et al., Order, DA 23-805 (WCB Sept. 1, 2023); Schools and Libraries Universal Service Support Mechanism, CC Docket No. 02-6 et al., Order, 37 FCC Rcd 11310 (WCB 2022); Schools and Libraries Universal Support Mechanism, CC Docket No. 02-6 et al., Order, 36 FCC Rcd 13405 (WCB 2021). Furthermore, the Commission continued its response to the COVID pandemic, extending previous waivers of certain Lifeline program rules, notably recertification and reverification rules, to minimize de-enrollment during this period of high reliance on remote connectivity. See Lifeline and Link Up Reform and Modernization, WC Docket No. 11-42, Order, 36 FCC Rcd 4448 (WCB 2021); Lifeline and Link Up Reform and Modernization, WC Docket No. 11-42, Order, 36 FCC Rcd 10079 (WCB 2021); Lifeline and Link Up Reform and Modernization, WC Docket No. 11-42, Order, 36 FCC Rcd 13855 (WCB 2021); Lifeline and Link Up Reform and Modernization, WC Docket No. 11-42, Order, 36 FCC Rcd 18225 (WCB 2021); Lifeline and Link Up Reform and Modernization, WC Docket No. 11-42, Order, 37 FCC Rcd 4086 (WCB 2022); Lifeline and Link Up Reform and Modernization, WC Docket No. 11-42, Order, 37 FCC Rcd 7615 (WCB 2022); Lifeline and Link Up Reform and Modernization, WC Docket No. 11-42, Order, 37 FCC Rcd 11223 (WCB 2022); ); Lifeline and Link Up Reform and Modernization, WC Docket No. 11-42, Order, 38 FCC Rcd 1001 (WCB 2023). 192. Supporting Survivors of Domestic Violence. In July 2022, the Commission opened an inquiry to evaluate how the FCC’s low-income programs might help survivors of domestic violence and other harmful abuse get access to connectivity services. Lifeline and Link Up Reform and Modernization et al., WC Docket No. 11-42, Notice of Inquiry, 37 FCC Rcd 8964 (2022). Following passage of the Safe Connections Act of 2022, the Commission adopted a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking relating to the legislation and, later, in November 2023, the Safe Connections Report and Order. Supporting Survivors of Domestic and Sexual Violence et al., WC Docket Nos. 22-238 et al., Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 38 FCC Rcd 1768 (2023); Supporting Survivors of Domestic and Sexual Violence et al., WC Docket Nos. 22-238 et al., Report and Order, FCC 23-96 (Nov. 16, 2023) (Safe Connections Act Report and Order). The rules adopted in the Safe Connections Report and Order, among other things, implement the requirement that mobile service providers separate the line of a survivor of domestic violence (and other related crimes and abuse), and any individuals in the care of the survivor, from a mobile service contract shared with an abuser within two business days after receiving a request from the survivor. Safe Connections Act of 2022, Pub. L. No. 117-223, 116 Stat. 2280, § 4 (adding section 345 to the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. § 345). The rules largely track the statutory language, with key additions and clarifications to address privacy, account security, fraud detection, and operational or technical infeasibility. Safe Connections Act Report and Order, FCC 23-96, at 4-59, paras. 6-104. Among other things, the Commission established requirements regarding the information that survivors must submit to request a line separation and the options providers must offer to survivors making a line separation request. Id. at 13-20, paras. 26-36. The Commission also adopted requirements regarding communications with consumers and survivors and restrictions on various practices in connection with line separation requests. Id. at 20-24, paras. 37-44. In addition, the Commission required covered providers to train employees who may interact with survivors on how to assist them or direct them to other employees who have received such training. Id. at 45-46, para. 79. The Commission also delineated the financial responsibilities for monthly service costs and mobile device following a line separation, and established a compliance date of July 14, 2024, six months after the effective date of the Report and Order. Id. at 50-53, paras. 89-95 and 102-104. Further, the Commission designated the Lifeline program to support emergency communications service for survivors that have pursued the line separation process and are suffering a financial hardship. Id. at 56-59, paras. 150-66. The Commission directed USAC to develop processes to allow survivors experiencing financial hardship to apply for and enroll in the Lifeline program, and to transition survivors from emergency communications support at the end of the six-month emergency support period mandated by the Safe Connections Act. Id. at 85-88, paras. 167-73. In addition to these provisions, the Commission also considered matters relating to protecting the privacy of calls and text messages to domestic violence hotlines. In the Safe Connections Report and Order, the Commission required covered providers and wireline, fixed wireless, and fixed satellite providers of voice service to: (1) omit from consumer-facing logs of calls and text messages any records of calls or text messages to covered hotlines in the central database established by the Commission; and (2) maintain internal records of calls and text messages excluded from consumer-facing logs of calls and text messages. Id. at 59-76, paras. 105-49. Providers were generally given 12 months to comply with these requirements, except that small service providers were given 18 months. Id. at 70-74, paras. 137-44. 193. SIM Swap Fraud. In a Report and Order released November 16, 2023, the Commission adopted rules aimed at foreclosing the opportunistic ways in which bad actors take over customers’ cell phone accounts. Protecting Consumers from SIM Swap and Port-Out Fraud, WC Docket No. 21-341, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 23-95 (Nov. 16, 2023). Specifically, the Commission revised its Customer Proprietary Network Information (CPNI) and Local Number Portability (LNP) rules to require wireless providers to adopt secure methods of authenticating a customer before redirecting a customer’s phone number to a new device or provider. Id. at 2, para. 2. These rule revisions also require wireless providers to immediately notify customers whenever a SIM change or port-out request is made on customers’ accounts, and take additional steps to protect customers from SIM swap and port-out fraud. Id. In the accompanying Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the Commission sought comment on whether to harmonize the existing requirements governing customer access to CPNI with the newly-adopted SIM change authentication and protection measures. The Commission also sought comment on what steps the Commission can take to harmonize government efforts to address SIM swap and port-out fraud. Id. at 55-59, paras. 98-108. 194. Broadband Consumer Labels. Consumer access to clear, easy-to-understand, and accurate information is central to a well-functioning marketplace that encourages competition, innovation, low prices, and high-quality services. Such access empowers consumers to choose services that best meet their needs and budgets and helps to ensure that consumers are not surprised by charges or service quality that falls short of their expectations. In November 2022, as directed by the Infrastructure Act, Infrastructure Act, Pub. L. No. 117-58, § 60504(a), 135 Stat. at 1244. the Commission adopted a Report and Order that requires ISPs to display certain information at the point of sale. Empowering Broadband Consumers Through Transparency, CG Docket No. 22-2, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 37 FCC Rcd 13686 (2022). Specifically, ISPs must display at the point of sale a label that discloses certain information about broadband prices, introductory rates, data allowances, and broadband speeds, and to include links to information about their network management practices, privacy policies, and the Commission’s ACP. Id. at 13689-706, paras. 12-63. Due to the depletion of funding the Commission will no longer require ISPs to display information about the ACP. ACP Final Month Public Notice, 24-195, at 5. The Commission also adopted requirements for label format and display location to ensure that consumers can easily compare a provider’s services and services among different providers. Id. at 13706-18, paras. 64-99. Modeled on labels the Commission approved for voluntary display several years ago, the Commission concluded that the label contains the key information consumers need to make smart choices without overwhelming them with information or unnecessarily burdening providers. See id. at 13689-706, paras. 12-63. In an accompanying Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the Commission sought comment on further steps it could take to ensure that consumers have the information they need to make informed broadband service purchasing decisions such as more comprehensive pricing information, bundled plans, label accessibility, performance characteristics, service reliability, cybersecurity, network management and privacy issues, the availability of labels in multiple languages, and whether the labels should be interactive or otherwise formatted differently so the information contained in them is clearer and conveyed more effectively. Id. at 13728-33, paras. 131-52. 195. Preventing Digital Discrimination. One of the Commission’s foremost goals is to ensure that every person in the United States has equal access to high-quality, affordable broadband Internet access service. Implementing the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act: Prevention and Elimination of Digital Discrimination, GN Docket No. 22-69, Notice of Inquiry, 37 FCC Rcd 4198, para. 1 (2022) (Digital Discrimination NOI). Among many steps towards achieving that goal, in February 2022 Chairwoman Rosenworcel established the cross-agency Task Force to Prevent Digital Discrimination. FCC, Press Release, Chairwoman Rosenworcel Announces Cross-Agency Task Force to Prevent Digital Discrimination (Feb. 8, 2022), https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-380060A1.pdf. On March 17, 2022, the Commission commenced a proceeding “to ensure that all people of the United States benefit from equal access to broadband internet access service,” with the intention of preventing and identifying steps the Commission should take to eliminate “digital discrimination of access based on income level, race, ethnicity, color, religion, or national origin,” pursuant to Congress’s directive in section 60506 of the Infrastructure Act. Digital Discrimination NOI, 37 FCC Rcd at 4198-99, para. 2 (quoting the Infrastructure Act, Pub. L. No. 117-58, § 60506(b)(1), 135 Stat. 429, 1246 (2021)). Section 60506 of the Infrastructure Act is codified at 47 U.S.C. § 1754, Digital Discrimination. Following a Notice of Inquiry and a later Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the Commission adopted a Report and Order in November 2023 establishing a framework to facilitate equal access to broadband Internet access service as directed by Congress Digital Discrimination NOI; Implementing the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act: Prevention and Elimination of Digital Discrimination, GN Docket No. 22-69, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 37 FCC Rcd 15274 (2022) (Preventing Digital Discrimination NPRM); Preventing Digital Discrimination Report and Order. In the Report and Order, the Commission adopted a definition of “digital discrimination of access,” as that term is used in section 60506 of the Infrastructure Act, that encompasses both intentionally discriminatory conduct as well as conduct that produces discriminatory effects; adopted and identified the contours of a specific carve out from that definition for policies and practices that are justified by genuine issues of technical and economic feasibility; adopted rules that prohibit digital discrimination of access as so defined; amended the Commission’s enforcement rules so they specifically encompass investigations regarding digital discrimination of access; revised the Commission’s informal consumer complaint process to, among other changes, provide a designated pathway for accepting complaints of digital discrimination of access; and adopted model policies and best practices for states, local and Tribal governments to support their efforts in preventing digital discrimination of access. Preventing Digital Discrimination Report and Order, FCC 23-100, at 15-89, paras. 27-178. In an accompanying Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the Commission proposed that each ISP be required to submit annually a publicly available supplement to the BDC that describes, on a state-by-state or territory-by-territory basis, all major deployment, upgrade, and maintenance projects completed or substantially completed in the preceding calendar year; and proposed that each provider be required to establish and maintain a mandatory internal compliance program to ensure that the provider regularly assesses whether and how its policies and practices advance or impede equal access to broadband Internet service in its service areas. Id. at 89-99, paras. 179-214. The Commission sought comment on these proposed measures as well as the merits of establishing an Office of Civil Rights within the Commission and the responsibilities that such an office might be assigned. Id. at 99, para. 215. 196. Open Internet. On October 20, 2023, the Commission adopted a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking proposing to reestablish the Commission's authority over broadband Internet access service by classifying it as a telecommunications service under Title II of the Communications Act and providing the Commission with the authority necessary to safeguard the open Internet, advance national security, and protect public safety. 2023 Open Internet NPRM. In that Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the Commission tentatively concluded that reclassifying BIAS as a telecommunications service will help support the Commission’s goals to facilitate broadband deployment, including by granting section 224 pole attachment rights to broadband-only providers. Id. at 3, 13-15, paras. 4, 21-24. In 2015, the Commission noted that access to pole and conduit directly enables new entrants to deploy broadband facilities. Protecting and Promoting the Open Internet, Report and Order on Remand, Declaratory Ruling, and Order, 30 FCC Rcd 5601, 5617, para. 56 (2015). The NPRM also proposes to reestablish conduct rules for Internet service providers that would provide a national approach for safeguarding Internet openness, which ensures that consumers can obtain and use the content, applications and devices they want. 2023 Open Internet NPRM, FCC 23-83, 3, 13-15, paras. 4, 21-24. The Commission’s proposals to safeguard and secure the open Internet build on several other actions the Commission has taken since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic to ensure that the public has access to broadband. See, e.g., Affordable Connectivity Program Emergency; Broadband Benefit Program, WC Docket Nos. 21-450 and 20-445, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 37 FCC Rcd 484 (2022) (taking steps to ensure broadband connections were affordable through the Emergency Broadband Benefit Program and successor Affordable Connectivity Program, as directed by Congress); Establishing Emergency Connectivity Fund to Close the Homework Gap, Report and Order, 36 FCC Rcd 8696 (2021) (extending the benefits of broadband connections available to schools and libraries to students and patrons who needed connections at home through the Emergency Connectivity Fund); Promoting Telehealth for Low-Income Consumers; COVID-19 Telehealth Program, WC Docket Nos. 18-213 and 20-89, Report and Order, 35 FCC Rcd 3366 (2020) (COVID-19 Telehealth Program Order) (establishing the COVID-19 Telehealth Program to help health care providers provide connected care services to patients at their homes or mobile locations in response to the pandemic); Improving Competitive Broadband Access to Multiple Tenant Environments, WC Docket No. 17-142, Report and Order and Declaratory Ruling, 37 FCC Rcd 2448 (2022) (taking steps to ensure that consumers in multi-tenant environments can obtain broadband service offerings from competing providers); Preventing Digital Discrimination NPRM (exploring how to address digital discrimination to ensure every person has equal access to critical broadband connections). E. Providing High Cost Universal Service Support 197. Rural Digital Opportunity Fund. The Rural Digital Opportunity Fund (RDOF) auction, a program aimed at expanding broadband in unserved rural areas, concluded on November 25, 2020. Rural Digital Opportunity Fund Phase I Auction (Auction 904) Closes, AU Docket No. 20-34, WC Docket Nos. 19-126 and 10-90, Public Notice, 35 FCC Rcd 13888, para. 1 (OEA/WCB 2020) (Auction 904 Closing Public Notice). The Commission started authorizing funding for winning bidders with approved long-form applications on September 15, 2021, and more than $6.062 billion in RDOF auction support was authorized to be distributed for more than 3,458,000 estimated locations nationwide. RDOF is a 10-year support program, with support distributed in 120 monthly disbursements. Rural Digital Opportunity Fund Support Authorized for 466 Winning Bids, AU Docket No. 20-34, WC Docket Nos. 19-126 and 10-90, Public Notice, 36 FCC Rcd 13574 (OEA/WCB 2021); FCC, Auction 904: Rural Digital Opportunity Fund, https://www.fcc.gov/auction/904/round-results (Results Tab, “Authorized Auction 904 Long-Form Applicants (updated 1/13/2023)”) (last visited Jan. 3, 2024). Authorized RDOF auction winners have committed to providing 1 Gbps/500 Mbps service to roughly 98% of locations being funded. See id., Performance Tier and Latency tab. 198. Connect America Fund Phase II Auction. In 2018, the Connect America Fund Phase II auction awarded $1.488 billion over 10 years to 103 winning bidders to serve more than 713,000 rural homes and businesses. Connect America Fund Phase II Auction Scheduled for July 24, 2018 Notice and Filing Requirements and Other Procedures for Auction 903, AU Docket No. 17-182, WC Docket No. 10-90, Public Notice, 33 FCC Rcd 1428 (2018); 220 Applicants Qualified to Bid in the Connect America Fund Phase II Auction (Auction 903); Bidding to Begin on July 24, 2018, AU Docket No. 17-182, WC Docket No. 10-90, Public Notice, 33 FCC Rcd 6171 (2018) (announcing the qualified bidders for the auction and confirming timing); Connect America Fund Phase II Auction (Auction 903) Closes; Winning Bidders Announced, AU Docket No. 17-182, WC Docket No. 10-90, Public Notice, 33 FCC Rcd 8257 (2018). The Commission began authorizing Phase II Auction funding in May 2019, Press Release, FCC, FCC Authorizes First Wave of Funding for Rural Broadband from Connect America Fund Auction (May 14, 2019), https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-357434A1.pdf. authorizing a total of 17 waves of support which concluded on November 17, 2022. Connect America Fund Phase II Auction Support Authorized for 1 Winning Bid, AU Docket No. 17-182, WC Docket No. 10-90, Public Notice (WCB Nov. 17, 2022); FCC, Connect America Fund Phase II Auction (Auction 903), https://www.fcc.gov/auction/903 (Data Tab, Authorized Auction 903 Long-Form Applicants (updated 4/4/2023)) (last visited Feb. 14, 2024). The Commission authorized a total of nearly $1.5 billion in Phase II auction funding, which is expanding connectivity to over 708,000 homes and small businesses nationwide. Id. 199. Bringing Puerto Rico Together and Connect USVI Funds. In June 2021, the Commission authorized funding for the winning proposals from the Stage 2 of the Bringing Puerto Rico Together Fund and Connect USVI Fund competitive proposal processes⸺$127.1 million and $84.5 million, respectively. Wireline Competition Bureau Authorizes Stage 2 Support for Puerto Rico Telephone Company and Liberty Communications of Puerto Rico, WC Docket Nos. 18-143 and 10-90, Public Notice, 36 FCC Rcd 9914 (WCB, 2021) (Bringing Puerto Rico Together Winning Applicant Announcement); Connect USVI Fund Stage 2 Support Authorized for Broadband VI, WC Docket Nos. 18-143 and 10-90, Public Notice, 36 FCC Rcd 9405 (WCB 2021) (USVI Fund Winning Applicant Announcement). This funding will provide support over a 10-year period for deployment of fixed voice and broadband services. Bringing Puerto Rico Together Stage 2 funding will support fixed deployment of service at a minimum speed of 100/20 Mbps, with service obligations at many funded locations of at least 1 Gbps/500 Mbps. See Bringing Puerto Rico Together Winning Applicant Announcement, 36 FCC Rcd at 9914, para. 1 (identifying Puerto Rico Telephone Co., Inc. (PRTC) and Liberty Communications of Puerto Rico (Liberty) as the winning applicants); PRTC Uniendo a Puerto Rico Fund Stage 2 Fixed Support Application Form, WC Docket Nos. 18-143 and 10-90, Initial Overview at 1 (filed June 22, 2021) (PRTC Network Description); Liberty Uniendo a Puerto Rico Fund Stage 2 Fixed Support Application Form, WC Docket Nos. 18-143 and 10-90, Initial Overview at 4 (filed June 22, 2021) (Liberty Network Description). We refer to the Bringing Puerto Rico Together Winning Applicant Announcement, PRTC Network Description, and Liberty Network Description together as the Bringing Puerto Rico Together Broadband Speed Requirements. In the U.S. Virgin Islands, the Connect USVI Stage 2 support will result in fixed deployment of 1 Gbps/500 Mbps service to all funded locations. See USVI Fund Winning Applicant Announcement, 36 FCC Rcd at 9405, para. 1 (identifying Broadband VI as the winning applicant); Broadband VI Uniendo a Puerto Rico Fund Connect USVI Fund Stage 2 Fixed Support Application Form, WC Dockets Nos. 18-143 and WC 10-90, Initial Overview at 1 (filed June 11, 2021) (together with the USVI Fund Winning Applicant Announcement, the USVI Fund Broadband Speed Requirements). In June 2020, the Commission similarly authorized a total of $258.8 million in funding to wireless carriers participating in Stage 2 of the Bringing Puerto Rico Together Fund and the Connect USVI Fund to facilitate the restoration, hardening, and expansion of mobile networks capable of providing 4G LTE and 5G-NR services over a three-year term. Wireline Competition Bureau Authorizes Stage 2 Mobile Support for Certain Providers Participating in the Uniendo a Puerto Rico Fund and the Connect USVI Fund, WC Docket Nos. 18-143 and 10-90, Public Notice, 35 FCC Rcd 6321, 6324, Attach. A (WCB 2020) (authorizing support for AT&T Mobility, PRTC, and T-Mobile in Puerto Rico, and AT&T Mobility in the U.S. Virgin Islands); Wireline Competition Bureau Authorizes Stage 2 Mobile Support for T-Mobile in Puerto Rico, WC Docket Nos. 18-143 and 10-90, Public Notice, 35 FCC Rcd 10303, 10305, Attach. A (WCB 2020) (authorizing additional mobile support in September 2020 for T-Mobile based on its acquisition of PR Wireless, LLC); Wireline Competition Bureau Authorizes Stage 2 Mobile Support for Viya in the U.S. Virgin Islands, WC Docket Nos. 18-143 and 10-90, Public Notice, 35 FCC Rcd 11555, 11557, Attach. A (WCB 2020) (authorizing support to Virgin Islands Telephone Corp. d/b/a Viya). Carriers must restore network coverage in the territories to at least pre-hurricane levels by the conclusion of the support period, providing outdoor transmission rates of at least 10 Mbps download and 1 Mbps upload speeds for 4G LTE and 35/3 Mbps for 5G-NR service. 47 CFR §§ 54.1509(c), 54.1514(b)(1). On October 28, 2022, in light of damage caused by hurricanes in the fall of 2022, the Commission released a Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking proposing to extend by 24 months (until December 2025) the phase-down of frozen support for incumbent fixed providers in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands for the areas in which they were not awarded long-term support for broadband services, as well as the end of mobile support in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. The Uniendo a Puerto Rico Fund and the Connect USVI Fund; Connect America Fund, WC Docket Nos. 18-143 and 10-90, Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 37 FCC Rcd 13411 (2022). In July 2022, in consultation with WTB, WCB adopted a Declaratory Ruling clarifying that mobile high-cost Stage 2 funds may be used for deploying indoor distributed antenna systems (DAS) to public or publicly accessible facilities that aid disaster response where the market would not otherwise support DAS deployment. Uniendo a Puerto Rico Fund and the Connect USVI Fund; Connect America Fund, WC Docket Nos. 18-143 and 10-90, Declaratory Ruling, 37 FCC Rcd 7779, 7781 & n. 12 (WCB 2022); see also Petition of T-Mobile USA, Inc. for Declaratory Ruling, WC Docket No. 18-143, at 1, 7 (filed Apr. 7, 2022) (seeking to have the Commission declare that Stage 2 funds could be used for DAS, which would provide mobile services solely within buildings). 200. In April 2023, the Commission continued its efforts to bolster mobile and fixed voice and broadband services throughout Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. The Commission adopted an Order that provides transitional support for up to 24 months so that mobile carriers may continue to harden their networks while a long-term support mechanism is being considered for the territories, The Uniendo a Puerto Rico Fund and the Connect USVI Fund et al., WC Docket No. 18-143 et al., Report and Order and Order on Review, FCC 23-32, at 6-11, paras. 15-32 (Apr. 2023) (PR-USVI Transitional Support Order) (providing 50% of a carrier’s Stage 2 monthly support amount during the first 12 months and 25% of the Stage 2 monthly support amount for months 13-24). which may include transitioning the Territories to the Commission’s 5G Fund. Establishing a 5G Fund for Rural America, GN Docket No. 20-32, Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 23-74, at 17-20, paras. 24-32 (Sept. 22, 2023). The Commission also extended the duration of phase-down frozen support until December 31, 2025, to allow incumbent fixed providers to continue hardening their networks and ensure continuous service as new, storm-hardened networks are deployed from Stage 2 of the Bringing Puerto Rico Together and the Connect USVI Funds. PR-USVI Transitional Support Order, FCC 23-32, at 13-18, paras. 37-50. 201. Rural Broadband Accountability Plan. The Rural Broadband Accountability Plan (RBAP) is an effort to monitor and ensure compliance for universal service high-cost programs, including the Rural Digital Opportunity Fund and Connect America Fund Phase II Auction. FCC, Rural Broadband Accountability Plan, https://www.fcc.gov/rbap (last visited Feb. 14, 2024). RBAP makes several changes and enhancements to existing audit and verification procedures, including significantly increasing the number of audits and verifications initiating verifications earlier in the deployment process, and conducting on-site engineering audits. FCC, FACT SHEET: Rural Broadband Accountability Plan, https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-379729A1.pdf (last visited Feb. 14, 2024). The largest dollar recipients will be subject to an on-site audit in at least one state, and higher-risk recipients will be subject to additional audits and verifications. Id. Results of verifications, audits, and speed and latency performance testing are publicly available. Id. The Commission established the RBAP as part of an ongoing effort to increase accountability and to build upon existing audit and verification processes performed by USAC. Id. 202. Administrative Improvements to High-Cost Programs. In October 2023, the Commission made certain administrative modifications to, and clarifications of, Commission rules to improve the administration of the high-cost program, including the reduction in duplicative filing requirements and the elimination of unnecessary optional filings, the modification of certain reporting deadlines, grace periods and associated support reductions to align the requirements more closely with the high-cost program, and the expansion of certain reporting requirements as necessary to improve Commission oversight. Connect America Fund – Alaska Plan et al., WC Docket No. 16-271 et al., Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Report and Order, FCC 23-87, at 62-85, paras. 131-185 (Oct. 19, 2023). These changes do not alter providers’ existing obligations. As a response to catastrophic weather events, the Commission temporarily waived certain deadlines and rules for service provider high-cost USF program recipients, as well as service provider contributors, in affected areas. See, e.g., Affordable Connectivity Program et al., WC Docket No. 21-450 et al., Order, DA 23-805 (WCB Sept. 1, 2023); Schools and Libraries Universal Service Support Mechanism, CC Docket No. 02-6 et al., Order, 37 FCC Rcd 11310 (WCB 2022); Schools and Libraries Universal Support Mechanism, CC Docket No. 02-6 et al., Order, 36 FCC Rcd 13405 (WCB 2021). 203. Enhanced Alternative Connect America Cost Model Support. In July 2023, the Commission adopted the Enhanced Alternative Connect America Cost Model (A-CAM) program as a voluntary path for supporting the widespread deployment of 100/20 Mbps broadband service throughout the rural areas served by carriers currently receiving A-CAM support and in areas served by legacy rate-of-return support recipients. Connect America Fund, et al., WC Docket No. 10-90 et al., Report and Order, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, and Notice of Inquiry, FCC 23-60, at paras. 37-114 (July 24, 2023) (Enhanced A-CAM Order). In adopting this program, the Commission furthered the Commission’s long-standing goals by promoting the universal availability of voice and broadband networks, while also taking measures to minimize the burden on the nation’s ratepayers. Id. The Commission also adopted requirements for the Enhanced A-CAM program to complement existing federal, state, and local funding programs, so that broadband funding can be used efficiently to maximize the deployment of high-quality broadband service across the United States. Id. On August 30, 2023, WCB announced carrier-specific offers of Enhanced A-CAM support based on a revised version of the A-CAM to existing A-CAM carriers and carriers that are still receiving legacy support to fund the deployment of voice and broadband-capable networks in their service territories. Wireline Competition Bureau Announces Enhanced Alternative Connect America Cost Model Support Amounts Offered to Rate-Of-Return Carriers to Expand Rural Broadband, WC Docket No. 10-90, Public Notice, DA 23-779 (WCB Aug. 30, 2023). On October 30, 2023, WCB announced that 368 rate-of-return companies had elected such offers, representing commitments to deploy at least 100/20 Mbps service to over 700,000 unserved locations and maintain or improve existing 100/20 Mbps service to approximately 2 million locations. Wireline Competition Bureau Authorizes 368 Companies in 44 States to Receive Enhanced Alternative Connect America Cost Model Support to Expand Rural Broadband, WC Docket No. 10-90, Public Notice, DA 23-1025 (WCB Oct. 30, 2023). 204. Legacy Rate-of-Return High-Cost Funding. In a July 2023 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the Commission sought comment on how to address the immediate needs of legacy rate-of return support mechanisms, while balancing the Commission’s objectives of maintaining its commitment to supporting broadband at evolving levels of service and also avoiding unnecessary duplication of support in light of other available funding programs. Enhanced A-CAM Order, FCC 23-60, at paras. 115-53. The Commission released an order in December 2023 deferring the commencement of the next five-year deployment obligation term for legacy rate-of-return carriers receiving CAF Broadband Loop Support (BLS) in 2024 until January 1, 2025, while the Commission considers general program reforms in the ongoing Notice of Proposed Rulemaking proceeding. Connect America Fund: A National Broadband Plan for our Future High-Cost Universal Service Support, Second Report and Order, WC Docket No. 10-90, FCC 23-118 (Dec. 27, 2023). Legacy carriers will remain subject to the Commission’s rules, requiring the offering of broadband service at actual speeds of at least 25/3 Mbps to the previously determined number of unserved locations under the current five-year term that ends on December 31, 2023. Id. at 3-4, para. 8. Additionally, on May 23, 2023, the Commission temporarily waived the application of the budget control mechanism for rate-of-return carriers that receive high-cost universal service support from legacy mechanisms. Connect America Fund, WC Docket No. 10-90, Order, FCC 23-40, at 1, para. 1 (May 23, 2023). Instead, the Commission adopted a budget constraint of 0%, that is, a full waiver of the budget constraint, for the July 2023 to June 2024 tariff year. Id. Absent a waiver, the projected budget control factor would exceed 18%, resulting in a substantial reduction in support for most legacy rate-of-return carries at a time when they continue to face cash flow issues and increased expenses as they emerge from the pandemic. Id. at 3, para. 8. 205. In July 2023, the Commission released a Notice of Inquiry seeking to build a record to help it explore methods for new USF high-cost support mechanism(s)to promote affordable and available broadband services in the years to come for fully deployed networks. Enhanced A-CAM Order, FCC 23-60, at paras. 154-83. 206. Alaska Plan. The Commission has also continued its work to ensure that fixed and mobile providers meet their commitments to serve remote Alaska in exchange for receiving high-cost support under the Alaska Plan. Due to the unique challenges of providing communications services in remote Alaska, the Commission adopted the Alaska Plan Report and Order in 2016, as a ten-year plan to ensure eligible remote areas were able to receive advanced communications services. Connect America Fund et al., WC Docket No. 16-271, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 31 FCC Rcd 10139, 10140, para. 1 (2016) (Alaska Plan Report and Order and Further Notice). This order required fixed and mobile service provider participants to submit performance plans committing to cover a specific number of Alaskans by specified last-mile technology subject to the middle-mile technology available. Alaska Plan Report and Order and Further Notice, 31 FCC Rcd at 10166, 10172-73, paras. 85, 102. The Alaska Plan Report and Order also required each service provider participant to certify that it met the obligations contained in its performance plan by the end of year five (ending December 31, 2021) and the end of year ten (ending December 31, 2026). Id. at 10166-67, 10173, paras. 85, 103; see also 47 CFR § 54.321; Connect America Fund—Alaska Plan, WC Docket No. 16-271, Order and Request for Comment, 37 FCC Rcd 5882, 5884, 6, paras. 4, 9 (WTB 2022). 207. Alaska Connect Fund. On October 19, 2023, the Commission adopted a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Report and Order addressing continued high-cost Universal Service support for Alaska. Connect America Fund—Alaska Plan et al., WC Docket Nos. 16-271, 23-328 et al., Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Report and Order, FCC 23-87 (Oct. 19, 2023). Through the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the Commission sought comment on how to determine the most effective and efficient future use of universal service funding for fixed and mobile service in Alaska, including the development, scope, and implementation of an Alaska Connect Fund (the next phase of the Alaska Plan) All references to the next phase or version of the Alaska Plan in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Report and Order are references to Alaska Connect Fund or ACF. Connect America Fund—Alaska Plan et al., WC Docket Nos. 16-271, 23-328 et al., Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Report and Order, FCC 23-87, at 2, para. 1 n.1 (Oct. 19, 2023). to provide future support to fixed and mobile carriers in the provision of voice and broadband services in high-cost areas of Alaska. Connect America Fund—Alaska Plan et al., WC Docket Nos. 16-271, 23-328 et al., Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Report and Order, FCC 23-87, at 31-60, paras. 63-127 (Oct. 19, 2023). This includes seeking comment on what changes the Commission should make to the performance plan requirements in light of the BDC specifications and reporting requirements superseding the previous FCC Form 477 reporting requirements nationwide as well as other federal programs supporting broadband deployment. Id. at 52, para. 109 (Oct. 19, 2023). 208. 5G Fund for Rural America. With new mobile coverage data acquired through the BDC and reflected in the National Broadband Map, the Commission continues to work towards the implementation of the 5G Fund for Rural America to ensure the deployment of high-speed, 5G mobile services in parts of the country where, without subsidies, it would continue to be lacking. See generally Establishing a 5G Fund for Rural America, GN Docket No. 20-32, Report and Order, 35 FCC Rcd 12174 (2020), modified by Errata released Nov. 10, 2020, Nov. 27, 2020, and Jan. 11, 2021 (5G Fund Report and Order). In September 2023, the Commission released a narrowly tailored Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to seek comment on a limited set of issues critical to the success of the 5G Fund. 5G Fund FNPRM, FCC 23-74 at 1-2, para. 1. 209. Other Federal Programs. As discussed in a variety of contexts in this Report, the Commission’s efforts to provide high-cost USF support for broadband deployment are part of, and conducted in concert (and coordination) with, a variety of other federal programs that provide financial support for broadband deployment. The largest of these programs is NTIA’s BEAD Program, for which Congress allocated $42.45 billion in the Infrastructure Act to states for grants “to bridge the digital divide.” Infrastructure Act, div. F, tit. I, § 60102(b)(1), 135 Stat. at 1184. On June 26, 2023, the BEAD Program allocations for all 50 states and the U.S. Territories were announced. National Telecommunications and Information Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Biden-Harris Administration Announces State Allocations for $42.45 Billion High-Speed Internet Grant Program as Part of Investing in America Agenda (June 26, 2023), https://www.ntia.gov/press-release/2023/biden-harris-administration-announces-state-allocations-4245-billion-high-speed. NTIA approved the first state proposal to access BEAD funds near the end of last year. National Telecommunications and Information Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Biden-Harris Administration Approves Louisiana’s “Internet for All” Initial Proposal (Dec. 15, 2023), https://www.ntia.gov/press-release/2023/biden-harris-administration-approves-louisiana-s-internet-all-initial-proposal. Once deployment goals are met, any remaining funding can be used on high-speed Internet adoption, training, and workforce development efforts, among other eligible uses. Id. NTIA also administers the $1 billion Enabling Middle Mile Broadband Infrastructure Program, also created by the Infrastructure Act, which funds middle mile infrastructure used to connect local, regional, and national networks, as well as anchor institutions such as schools, libraries, medical and healthcare providers, and various institutions of higher education. See Infrastructure Act, div. F, tit. I, § 60401. For award routes and project information, see National Telecommunications and Information Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Funding Recipients, https://broadbandusa.ntia.doc.gov/funding-programs/enabling-middle-mile-broadband-infrastructure-program/funding-recipients (last visited Feb. 14, 2024). Further, NTIA administers the Tribal Broadband Connectivity Program, a program used for broadband deployment on tribal lands, as well as for telehealth, distance learning, broadband affordability, and digital inclusion recently funded through $1 billion and $2 billion appropriations in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021, and Infrastructure Act, respectively. See National Telecommunications and Information Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Tribal Broadband Connectivity Program, https://broadbandusa.ntia.doc.gov/funding-programs/tribal-broadband-connectivity (last visited Feb. 14, 2024); Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021, Pub. L. No. 116-260, div. N, tit. IX, § 905, 134 Stat. 1182, 2130, 2136; Infrastructure Act, div. F, tit. II, § 60201, 135 Stat. at 1208-09. 210. In addition to programs administered by NTIA, the U.S. Department of Treasury administers billion broadband infrastructure funding program, See ARPA, tit. IX, § 9901(c)(1)(D) (codified at 42 U.S.C. § 802(c)(1)(D)), 135 Stat. at 226; 42 U.S.C. § 804(e) (funding level). which requires recipients to invest in projects designed to provide service to households and businesses with an identified need for additional broadband investment, including increasing access to high-speed broadband, increasing the affordability of broadband services, and improving the reliability of broadband service. See Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds, Final Rule, 87 Fed. Reg. 4338, 4443 (Jan. 22, 2022), available at https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2022-01-27/pdf/2022-00292.pdf. In addition to its historic grant and loan programs, See USDA, Rural Development, Telecom Programs, https://www.rd.usda.gov/programs-services/telecommunications-programs (last visited Feb. 14, 2024). the RUS administers the ReConnect Program, reauthorized by the Infrastructure Act, Infrastructure Act, div. J, tit. I, 135 Stat. at 1351. which provides loans, grants, and loan-grant combinations to bring high-speed internet to rural areas that lack sufficient access to broadband. ReConnect Program funds can be used to fund the costs of construction, improvement, or acquisition of facilities and equipment needed to provide broadband service. USDA, Rural Development, ReConnect Loan and Grant Program, https://www.usda.gov/reconnect (last visited Feb. 14, 2024). F. Facilitating Access For Schools, Libraries, and Health Care 211. E-Rate. For over two decades, schools and libraries have relied on the Commission’s E-Rate program to secure affordable telecommunications and broadband services to provide connectivity for schools and libraries. See e.g., Promoting Fair and Open Competitive Bidding in the E-Rate Program, WC Docket No. 21-455, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 36 FCC Rcd 17892, at 17892, para. 1 (2021). In addition, the Commission took action in response to catastrophic weather events to temporarily waive certain deadlines and rules for E-Rate participants in affected areas. See, e.g., Affordable Connectivity Program et al., WC Docket No. 21-450 et al., Order, DA 23-805 (WCB Sept. 1, 2023); Schools and Libraries Universal Service Support Mechanism, CC Docket No. 02-6 et al., Order, 37 FCC Rcd 11310 (WCB 2022); Schools and Libraries Universal Support Mechanism, CC Docket No. 02-6 et al., Order, 36 FCC Rcd 13405 (WCB 2021). Furthermore, the Commission continued its response to the COVID pandemic by continuing the waiver of the E-Rate gift rule and allow service providers to offer, and E-Rate Program participants to solicit and accept, improved broadband connections or equipment for remote learning during the pandemic. Rural Health Care Universal Service Support Mechanism; Schools and Libraries Universal Service Support Mechanism, WC Docket No. 02-60, Order, 36 FCC Rcd 14349 (WCB 2021). At the same time, the Commission has been mindful of the need to protect limited E-Rate funds by requiring them to be used for eligible services and equipment provided to eligible entities, for eligible purposes, and in accordance with program rules. See, e.g., Promoting Fair and Open Competitive Bidding in the E-Rate Program, WC Docket No. 21-455, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 36 FCC Rcd 17892, 17892-93, para. 2. On December 16, 2021, the Commission proposed changes to the E-Rate program targeted at several goals: streamlining program requirements for applicants and service providers, strengthening program integrity, preventing improper payments, and decreasing the risk of fraud, waste, and abuse. Id. at 17893, para. 3. Specifically, the Commission sought comment on a proposal to implement a central document repository through which service providers would be required to submit bids to the E-Rate program administrator, USAC, instead of directly to applicants. Id. at 17897905, paras. 11-36. 212. For far too long, Tribal libraries have been unable to participate fully in the E-Rate program. Schools and Libraries Universal Service Support Mechanism, CC Docket No. 02-6, Report and Order, 37 FCC Rcd 1458, 1458, para. 1 (2022). This situation has exacerbated enduring inequities, as Tribal libraries often serve as a critical source of Internet access in underserved areas across the nation. Id. at 1458, para. 1. In 2018, Congress acted to address this gap through passage of the Museum and Library Services Act of 2018, which amended the Library Services and Construction Act to explicitly include Tribal libraries in the definition of libraries. Id. at 1459-60, para. 5. Consistent with this legislation, on January 28, 2022, the Commission modified the definition of “library” in its E-Rate program rules to include Tribal libraries and clarify Tribal libraries are eligible to participate in the E-Rate program. Id. at 1460-63, paras. 7-13. The Commission also waived the E-Rate FCC Form 471 application filing deadline for new Tribal libraries applying for E-Rate support in funding year 2022 recognizing that special circumstances warranted additional flexibility for these applicants to complete their competitive bid processes and submit their applications. See Request for Waiver by Alaska Federation of Natives, CC Docket No. 02-6, Order, 37 FCC Rcd 289, 291-92, para. 8 (WCB 2022), (directing USAC to treat as timely filed all applications with a new Tribal library as a recipient of service that are filed within 65 days of the application filing window deadline, or by May 26, 2022). In furtherance of the E-Rate program and other broadband affordability initiatives, on June 24, 2022, the Commission also executed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Institute of Museum and Library Services to jointly promote public awareness and facilitate the availability of federal funding opportunities for broadband. FCC, Press Release, FCC and Institute of Museum and Library Services Sign Agreement to Promote Broadband Access (June 24, 2022), https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-384621A1.pdf. The partnership is focused on efforts to promote the availability of affordable broadband programs, in recognition of the significant role that libraries and other community anchor institutions play in promoting digital access and inclusion. Id.; Infrastructure Act, § 60104(c). The Commission’s and Institute of Museum and Library Services’s coordination will also focus on communities where broadband access has been especially challenging such as rural and Tribal areas. FCC, Press Release, FCC and Institute of Museum and Library Services Sign Agreement to Promote Broadband Access (June 24, 2022), https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-384621A1.pdf; Infrastructure Act, § 60104(c). 213. In July 2023, the Commission adopted a Report and Order providing Tribal libraries enhanced access to E-Rate funding, improved and simplified program rules. Schools and Libraries Universal Service Support Mechanism et al., CC Docket No. 02-6 et al., Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 23-56 (July 21, 2023). Among other things, the Commission updated its E-Rate program rules to allow Tribal college and university libraries that also serve as public libraries in their communities to apply for and receive E-Rate support; created an exemption to the competitive bidding requirements for all libraries seeking E-Rate support for category two services that total a pre-discount price of $3,600 or less per library per funding year; and increased the maximum category two discount rate to 90% and the category two funding floor to $55,000 for Tribal libraries. Id. at 6-16, paras. 11-30. The Commission also amended the E-Rate program rules to add a Tribal community representative to the USAC Board of Directors and directed USAC to provide increased outreach and training to Tribal applicants. Id. at 16-20, paras. 31-39. In an accompanying Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the Commission sought comment on ways to further simplify the E-Rate program for all applicants. Id. at 20-39, paras. 40-81. 214. In the fall of 2023, the Commission took two actions regarding the use of E-Rate funding to support Wi-Fi technologies on school buses and Wi-Fi hotspots so that schools and libraries can check them out to students and library patrons in need. Chairwoman Rosenworcel included these two actions as part of her “Learn Without Limits” initiative announced on June 26, 2023. FCC, Press Release, Chairwoman Rosenworcel Announces ‘Learn without Limits’ Initiative (June 26, 2023), https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-394625A1.docx. On October 19, 2023, the Commission clarified that the use of Wi-Fi, or other similar access point technologies, on school buses is an educational purpose, and the provision of such service, including the equipment needed to provide such service, is eligible for E-Rate funding, consistent with the Commission’s past determinations regarding other eligible off-campus uses of E-Rate-supported services. Modernizing the E-Rate Program for Schools and Libraries, WC Docket No. 13-184, Declaratory Ruling, FCC 23-84 (Oct. 25, 2023). The Commission directed WCB to seek comment on the specific services and equipment that would be eligible as part of the Funding Year 2024 Eligible Services List proceeding. See id. at 1, 8-9, paras. 2, 13. On October 25, 2023, WCB issued a supplemental Public Notice seeking additional comment for example, on the following questions: (1) what equipment is needed to provide Wi-Fi on school buses and whether the equipment should be eligible as a Category One or Category two service; (2) how to ensure the use of Wi-Fi equipment and services on school buses is consistent with E-Rate program rules and limitations; (3) how to ensure support is only provided for educational purposes consistent with E-Rate rules; and (4) what are the estimated costs for providing Wi-Fi on school buses. Wireline Competition Bureau Seeks Additional Comment on Adding Wi-Fi on School Buses to Proposed Eligible Services List for the E-Rate Program, WC Docket 13-184, Public Notice, DA 23-1101 (WCB Oct. 25, 2023). On December 15, 2023, WCB issued an order approving the Funding Year 2024 Eligible Services List and making the services and equipment necessary to provide Wi-Fi on school buses eligible for E-Rate support. Modernizing the E-Rate Program for Schools and Libraries, WC Docket 13-184, Order, DA 23-1171 (WCB Dec. 15, 2023). 215. On November 1, 2023, the Commission also adopted a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking initiating a proceeding to address the ongoing remote learning needs of today’s students, school staff, and library patrons through the E-Rate program and to ensure the millions who have benefitted from ECF program support do not fall back onto the wrong side of the digital divide once the program ends. Addressing the Homework Gap through the E-Rate Program, WC Docket No. 21-31, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 23-91 (Nov. 8, 2023). Specifically, the Commission proposed to permit eligible schools and libraries to receive E-Rate support for Wi-Fi hotspots and wireless Internet services that can be used off-premises, proposing to find that the off-premises use of Wi-Fi hotspots and Internet services by students, school staff, and library patrons for remote learning and the provision of virtual library services constitutes an educational purpose as defined by the Commission and enhances access to advanced telecommunications and information services for schools and libraries. See id. at 12, 24-27, paras. 18, 45-50. The Commission also sought comment on how to adapt the E-Rate program to reflect the virtual nature of today’s modern educational environment. See id. at 27-28, paras. 51-52. Additionally, the Commission sought comment on the applicability of the Children‘s Internet Protection Act (CIPA) requirements to the off-premises use of E-Rate-supported hotspots and services. See id. at 28-31, paras. 53-58. 216. Emergency Connectivity Fund (ECF). Pursuant to the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, the Commission established the ECF program on May 10, 2021 to distribute up to $7.171 billion to eligible schools and libraries for the purchases of Wi-Fi hotspot devices, modems, routers, devices that combine a modem and router, connected devices and broadband connections for use by students, school staff, and library patrons at locations that include locations other than the schools and libraries. Establishing Emergency Connectivity Fund to Close the Homework Gap, WC Docket No. 21-93, Report and Order, 36 FCC Rcd 8696, 8697-98, paras. 1, 3-4 (2021). The ECF program reimburses 100% of the reasonable costs associated with the eligible broadband Internet services and equipment, and sets a maximum support cap of $400 for connected devices (laptop and tablet computers) and a $250 support cap for Wi-Fi hotspots provided to an individual student, school staff, or library patron. Id. at 8730-31, 8734, paras. 69, 71, 78. This program allows students, school staff, and library patrons who do not have an Internet connecting device or service at home to be connected and gain educational resources online. USAC and the Commission have opened and closed three application filing windows, with the requests received totaling more than $9.2 billion. See FCC, Press Release, FCC Announces Over $5 Billion in Funding Requests Received in the Emergency Connectivity Fund Program (Aug. 25, 2021), https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-announces-over-5-billion-emergency-connectivity-fund-requests; FCC, Press Release, FCC Announces Nearly $1.3 Billion in Funding Requests Received in Emergency Connectivity Fund Program Second Application Filing Window (Oct. 25, 2021), https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-376868A1.pdf; FCC, Press Release, FCC Announces Over $2.8 Billion in Funding Requests for Final Window in Ongoing Work to Close the Homework Gap (May 25, 2022), https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-383685A1.pdf. In addition, as a response to catastrophic weather events, the Commission temporarily waived certain deadlines and rules for ECF participants in affected areas. See, e.g., Affordable Connectivity Program et al., WC Docket No. 21-450 et al., Order, DA 23-805 (WCB Sept. 1, 2023); Schools and Libraries Universal Service Support Mechanism, CC Docket No. 02-6 et al., Order, 37 FCC Rcd 11310 (WCB 2022); Schools and Libraries Universal Support Mechanism, CC Docket No. 02-6 et al., Order, 36 FCC Rcd 13405 (WCB 2021). As of December 14, 2023, total funding committed is nearly $7.1 billion, and applications are continuing to be reviewed. FCC, Press Release, FCC Announces Over $450,000 in Emergency Connectivity Funding for Schools (Dec. 14, 2023), https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-399143A1.pdf. On May 12, 2023, consistent with the intended emergency nature of the program and expiration of the public health emergency on May 11, 2023, WCB and the Office of the Managing Director announced the ECF program will sunset on June 30, 2024. Wireline Competition Bureau and Office of the Managing Director Provide Guidance on Emergency Connectivity Fund Program Upon Termination of the Emergency Period, WC Docket 21-93, Public Notice, DA 23-406 (WCB May 12, 2023). 217. Rural Health Care Program. On February 22, 2022, the Commission proposed and sought comment on several revisions to the Commission’s Rural Health Care (RHC) Program rules designed to ensure that rural healthcare providers receive funding necessary for broadband and telecommunications services to provide vital healthcare services, while limiting costly inefficiencies and the potential for waste, fraud, and abuse. Promoting Telehealth in Rural America, WC Docket No. 17-310, Order on Reconsideration, Second Report and Order, Order, and Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 37 FCC Rcd 2527 (2023). The RHC Program provides vital support to assist rural health care providers with the costs of broadband and other communications services. Id. at 2527, para. 1. The Commission took this action in an effort to improve the accuracy and fairness of RHC Program support and increase the efficiency of program administration. Id. at 2528, para. 1. In addition, WCB waived the mechanism for funding that was planned to go into effect out of concerns that the mechanism provided insufficient support. Promoting Telehealth in Rural America, WC Docket No. 17-310, Order, 36 FCC Rcd 791 (WCB 2021) (waiver for funding years 2021 and 2022 for Alaska participants); Promoting Telehealth in Rural America Order, 36 FCC Rcd 7051; Promoting Telehealth in Rural America, WC Docket No. 17-310, Order, 36 FCC Rcd 7061 (WCB 2021) (nationwide waiver for funding years 2021 and 2022); Promoting Telehealth in Rural America, WC Docket No. 17-310, Order, 37 FCC Rcd 4891 (WCB 2022) (waiver for funding year 2023 for Alaska participants); Promoting Telehealth in Rural America, WC Docket No. 17-310, Order, 37 FCC Rcd 6457 (WCB 2022) (nationwide waiver for funding year 2023). In addition, the Commission continued its practice of extending filing windows for the RHC in response to the COVID pandemic. Rural Health Care Support Mechanism, WC Docket No. 02-60, Order, 36 FCC Rcd 1604 (WCB 2021); Promoting Telehealth in Rural America, WC Docket No. 17-310, Order, 36 FCC Rcd 7051 (WCB 2021); Rural Health Care Support Mechanism, WC Docket No. 02-60, Order, 37 FCC Rcd 2834 (WCB 2022); Rural Health Care Support Mechanism, WC Docket No. 02-60, Order, 38 FCC Rcd 1644 (WCB 2023). 218. On January 27, 2023, the Commission released an Order on Reconsideration, Second Report and Order, Order, and Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that makes it easier for health care providers to receive support, reduce delays in funding commitments, and improve the overall efficiency of the RHC program. Promoting Telehealth in Rural America, WC Docket No. 17-310, Order on Reconsideration, Second Report and Order, Order, and Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 38 FCC Rcd 827 (2023). The Commission eliminated the mechanism for funding that may have resulted in insufficient support and streamlined the invoicing process. Id. at 831-37, 850-52, paras. 9-25. 55-59. It also proposed or sought comment on, among other things, simplifying the urban rate rule, permitting conditional eligibility for health care providers, and moving back the Service Provider Identification Number (SPIN) change deadline. Id. at 862-64, 866-68, paras. 87-91, 97-103. 219. On December 14, 2023, the Commission released a Report and Order that improves the RHC Program administration and facilitates participation in the program by allowing health care providers that expected to become eligible to complete the processes required to request funding, aligning program deadlines, simplifying rules for calculating urban rates, streamlining administrative processes, and freeing up unused funding for other purposes. Promoting Telehealth in Rural America, WC Docket No. 17-310, Third Report and Order, FCC 23-110, at 2-3, 6, 8-10, 12-15, paras. 2-3, 7, 13, 17-21, 28-36 (Dec. 14, 2023). Specifically, the Commission revised the RHC Program rules to permit conditional eligibility for health care providers and eliminated the seldom-used “standard urban distance” component of the urban rate calculation rules. Id. at 3, para. 7. The Commission also made two changes relating to the RHC Program administrative deadlines by aligning the SPIN change deadline with the existing invoice deadline and permitting healthcare providers to request a change to evergreen contract dates, as well as amended rules to shift to the use of the same form when determining RHC Telecommunications and Healthcare Connect Fund Program eligibility. Id. Finally, the Commission established a deadline by which invoices must be submitted for undisbursed funding commitments from before 2020. Id. In addition to the actions described above, as a response to catastrophic weather events, the Commission temporarily waived certain deadlines and rules for RHC participants in affected areas. See, e.g., Affordable Connectivity Program et al., WC Docket No. 21-450 et al., Order, DA 23-805 (WCB Sept. 1, 2023); Schools and Libraries Universal Service Support Mechanism, CC Docket No. 02-6 et al., Order, 37 FCC Rcd 11310 (WCB 2022); Schools and Libraries Universal Support Mechanism, CC Docket No. 02-6 et al., Order, 36 FCC Rcd 13405 (WCB 2021). 220. COVID-19 Telehealth Program. The Commission established the COVID-19 Telehealth Program in 2020 pursuant to the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act, which was signed into law on March 27, 2020. COVID-19 Telehealth Program, Promoting Telehealth for Low-Income Consumers, WC Docket Nos. 20-89, 18-213, Report and Order, 35 FCC Rcd 3366 (2020). The COVID-19 Telehealth Program distributed funding appropriated by Congress to help health care providers furnish telehealth services to patients at their homes or mobile locations in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Wireline Competition Bureau Announces Covid-19 Telehealth Program Application Portal Will Open Monday, WC Docket No. 20-89, Public Notice, 35 FCC Rcd 3076 (WCB 2020). Between April 16, 2020 and July 8, 2020, the Commission approved 539 funding applications in 47 states plus the District of Columbia and Guam for a total of $200 million in funding. Communications Marketplace Report, GN Docket No. 20-60, Report, 36 FCC Rcd 2945, 3166, para. 426 (2020). In December 2020, Congress appropriated another $249.95 million for a second round of funding to be distributed by the Commission. COVID-19 Telehealth Program, Promoting Telehealth for Low Income Consumers, WC Docket Nos. 20-89, 18-213, Report and Order and Order on Reconsideration, 36 FCC Rcd 7141, 7142-43, paras. 2-3 (2021) (COVID-19 Telehealth Round Two Order). On March 29, 2021, the Commission adopted a new order to establish a second round of the COVID-19 Telehealth Program to fund telehealth and connected care services as required by Congress in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021. COVID-19 Telehealth Round Two Order, 36 FCC Rcd at 7141-42, para. 1. During this second round of the program, the Commission approved applications by 446 health care providers and awarded more than $256 million in funding. See FCC, COVID-19 Telehealth Program (Invoices & Reimbursements), Final List of COVID-19 Telehealth Program Round 2 Awardees (June 30, 2022), https://www.fcc.gov/covid-19-telehealth-program-invoices-reimbursements. Over the course of the two funding rounds, the COVID-19 Telehealth Program approved 985 awards to health care providers in each state, territory, and the District of Columbia. Id. On April 12, 2023, WCB and the Office of the Managing Director released a Public Notice announcing that the pandemic emergency period for the COVID-19 Telehealth Program ended on April 10, 2023 due to the enactment of House Joint Resolution 7, which ended the COVID-19 national emergency. Wireline Competition Bureau and Office of the Managing Director Announce Update on Wind Down of COVID-19 Telehealth Program, WC Docket No. 20-89, Public Notice, DA 23-316 (WCB Apr. 12, 2023) (Wind Down of COVID-19 Telehealth Program). Pursuant to the CARES Act, eligible telehealth expenses must have been paid for and received on or between March 13, 2020, through April 10, 2023, the end of the emergency period. The deadline for submission of all invoices and requests for reimbursement was October 31, 2023. Wireline Competition Bureau Extends Deadlines for the COVID-19 Telehealth Program Round 2, WC Docket No. 20-89, Public Notice, 37 FCC Rcd 8820, 8820, para. 1 (WCB 2022). 221. Connected Care Pilot Program. The Connected Care Pilot Program was established to provide up to $100 million in USF over three years support to help eligible health care providers defray the costs of providing connected care services to their patients and study how the USF can help support the continuing trend toward connected care services, with an emphasis on providing connected care services to low-income and veteran patients. Federal Communications Commission Announces Final Set of Projects Selected for the Connected Care Program, WC Docket No. 18-213, Public Notice, 37 FCC Rcd 4358, 4358, para. 1 (WCB 2022) (Final Set of Projects for Connected Care Program Public Notice). On June 21, 2021, the Commission released an Order providing further guidance on the administration of the Pilot Program, including guidance on eligible services, competitive bidding, invoicing, and data reporting for selected participants. Promoting Telehealth for Low Income Consumers, WC Docket No. 18-213, Second Report and Order, 36 FCC Rcd 10642, 10643, para. 1 (2021). From January 2021 to March 2022, the Commission selected 107 projects to receive funding through the program. FCC, Press Release, FCC Announces Final Group of Approved Projects for Connected Care Pilot Program (Mar. 16, 2022), https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-announces-final-group-connected-care-pilot-program-projects. The projects selected by the Commission represent a broad array of geographic areas and a diversity of provider types, involve patients in underserved communities, and will address a range of health conditions. Final Set of Projects for Connected Care Program Public Notice at 1, para. 2. Connected Care Pilot Program projects are ongoing. V. SECTION 706 DETERMINATION 222. We find that advanced telecommunications capability is not being deployed to all Americans in a reasonable and timely fashion. As discussed in detail above, although deployment of advanced telecommunications capability continues to increase overall, these advancements are not occurring quickly enough to bring such capability to all Americans. Broadband has not been deployed to far too many Americans, particularly when evaluated under our long-overdue new benchmark of 100/20 Mbps. Overall, over 24 million Americans lack access to fixed advanced telecommunications capability. See Fig. 1, supra.  We reject claims that we are unreasonably understating data because we are relying on December 2022 data.  See ACA Ex Parte at 1-2; NCTA Ex Parte at 2. As an initial matter, we note that since the Commission began collecting its own deployment data, it has always based its section 706 evaluation on data of a vintage of similar age to that which we use in this inquiry. See, e.g., 2021 Report, 36 FCC Rcd at 858, para. 38 (December 2019 data); 2018 Report, 33 FCC Rcd at 1681, para. 50 (December 2016 data); 2016 Report, 31 FCC Rcd at 737, para. 88 (December 2014 data). Further, we evaluate December 2022 data because, among other things, the verification process for the more recent data, from June 2023 and December 2023, has not been completed. We also reject NCTA’s suggestion that our inquiry should account for locations that currently lack access to 100/20 Mbps service, but are scheduled to have such service made available through various ISP federal funding commitments. See NCTA Ex Parte at 2. Consistent with all of the Commission’s previous Reports issued pursuant to section 706, we evaluate broadband deployment for the current period, not a future moment in time. To the extent federal funding commitments lead to additional buildout in currently unserved areas, future Commission inquiries will account for such buildout. Finally, we are not persuaded by NCTA’s argument that satellite service should not be excluded from our deployment evaluation due to satellite service’s importance in serving extremely high-cost areas. See NCTA Ex Parte at 2. We note that even if we were to currently include fixed satellite service, over 21 million Americans would still lack access to fixed advanced telecommunications capability. See Appendix B-2. The Commission will have the opportunity to further examine the role of satellite service in our section 706 evaluation in future inquiries. With regard to ACA Connects’s argument that we should include fixed wireless broadband service in our measurements, ACA Connects Ex Parte at 3, we note that this statistic, as well as all others referenced in our section 706 determination, include fixed wireless broadband service. Rural areas are the farthest from universal deployment, accounting for nearly 80% of that total, or almost 19 million Americans lacking access. See Fig. 1, supra. And approximately 700,000 people living on Tribal lands do not have fixed advanced telecommunications capability physically deployed to their homes. See id. In our view, these facts alone justify a negative finding under section 706. We conclude above that access to fixed broadband is necessary, but not sufficient, condition for someone to have access to advanced telecommunications capability under section 706. See Section III.A. Thus, we need not analyze mobile broadband data to come to this conclusion. 223. We are particularly concerned that those living in rural areas are almost four times more likely than average Americans not to have access to advanced telecommunications capability and those living on Tribal lands are almost three times more likely than average Americans not to have access to advanced telecommunications capability. See Fig. 1, supra. While these gaps have been contracting, See id. they are still significant and we find that they are not rapid enough for the deployment to be considered reasonable and timely. People living in rural America and on Tribal lands are particularly in need of broadband to obtain access to the economic, educational, and health care resources that people in urban areas are largely able to take for granted. 224. We note that the statistics we discuss above do not take into account the fact that in our current digital age, people need access both to fixed and mobile broadband service to have access to advanced telecommunications capability. Taking any measure of mobile broadband service used in this Report, a larger number of Americans can be said not to have access to advanced telecommunications capability. If we were to use Mobile 5G-NR with a minimum speed of 35/3 Mbps as the mobile standard, approximately 45 million Americans lack access to both fixed and mobile broadband and, therefore, advanced telecommunications capability. Fig. 12, supra. 225. These data solely concern physical deployment and do not touch on our other universal service goals. Although we have not yet established benchmarks or standards for these other goals and do not yet have comprehensive data, there are statistics indicating there is additional work to be done. The limited pricing data available to the Commission indicates that a fixed broadband connection at 100/20 Mbps costs, on average, approximately $100 in the United States. Fig. 17, supra. Such a price is $70 in excess of the $30 monthly subsidy currently available through the Affordable Connectivity Program. Indeed, for Americans in the lower 10th percentile of income, to purchase a 100/20 Mbps fixed connection currently means having to spend between approximately 5 to 11% of their monthly household income on broadband service, depending on the area of the country where they are located. Fig. 19, supra. While these data points are not definitive evidence, they strongly suggest that affordability for fixed advanced telecommunications capability remains a challenge for too many people. NCTA argues that our affordability analysis should account for support programs and other discounts. See NCTA Ex Parte at 2-3. As discussed in Section III.B above, our analysis of affordability of fixed broadband is necessarily limited to the available data, which does not currently include information regarding discounts, offered either through support programs or otherwise. See supra Section III.B. In any event, our ultimate determination under section 706 in this Report is not based on affordability data; as we make clear, the limited discussion of affordability here is meant to illustrate that broadband affordability remains a challenge for many Americans, a point that NCTA does not appear to dispute. In addition, the rate of ACP enrollment, which continued up until the enrollment freeze on February 8, 2024, indicates that there is still unmet demand by eligible consumers for affordable broadband service. The ACP exceeded its enrollment targets with an average month-over-month increase in the participation rate of 3.9% for the life of the ACP to-date and 3.4% for each month in 2023. Letter to from Mark Stephens, Managing Director, FCC to Sharon R. Diskin, Acting Inspector General, FCC at 4 (Dec. 21, 2023), Appendix B to Report on the Performance Audit of the Affordable Connectivity Program for the Federal Communications Commission, Audit Report, 23-AUD-01-04, OIG, https://www.fcc.gov/sites/default/files/23-aud-01-04_acp_01222024.pdf (Jan. 22, 2024). 226. As the pandemic made painfully clear, broadband is essential infrastructure for modern life. This is why our nation made its largest ever federal investment in high-speed broadband Infrastructure Act, div. F, §§ 60101-604, 135 Stat. at 1182-251. —in order to close the digital divide once and for all. Absent evidence of sufficiently rapid progress toward true universal broadband service for all Americans, we cannot conclude that “advanced telecommunications capability is being deployed to all Americans in a reasonable and timely fashion.” 47 U.S.C. § 1302(b). Based on this determination, section 706 requires us to “take immediate action to accelerate deployment of such capability by removing barriers to infrastructure investment and by promoting competition in the telecommunications market” as required by our section 706 mandate. Id. We intend to do just that. We will consider, among other things, the suggestions for “removing barriers to infrastructure investment and by promoting competition in the telecommunications market” from commenters in the record developed in this proceeding. See, e.g., Free State Foundation Comments at 23; INCOMPAS Comments at 10-16; Space Exploration Holdings, LLC (SpaceX) Comments at 4-7; WIA Comments at 5-7; WIA Reply Comments at 8-9; WTA Comments at 7-11, 17-18; NCTA Ex Parte at 3. VI. ORDERING CLAUSE 227. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 1302, this Report IS ADOPTED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Marlene H. Dortch Secretary 2 Federal Communications Commission FCC 24-27 APPENDIX A Population Allocation Methodology 1. Prior to 2022, the Commission had no information about fixed broadband service availability below the level of the census block, and therefore FCC staff block-level population estimates were used to estimate the population with access to advanced telecommunications capability. Beginning in 2022, the BDC produced sub-block, location-level data. The Fabric dataset, on which the BDC is based, contains the number of units in each Broadband Serviceable Location (BSL), but it does not contain information on the population of each BSL or unit(s) therein. A broadband serviceable location (BSL) is “a business or residential location in the United States at which mass-market fixed broadband Internet access service is, or can be, installed.” Residential BSLs include all residential structures, including structures that are (or contain) housing units or group quarters (as those terms are defined by the United States Census Bureau). The Fabric is a dataset of structures, not addresses. Most BSLs have an address associated with them as one of their attributes. Further, in order for a new structure to be added to the Fabric, it generally must have an address. But an address by itself does not equate to a BSL, and not all buildings or parcels with an address are BSLs. For example, an unimproved parcel or lot may have an address, but unless a habitable structure exists on that a parcel and is associated with an address, it will not be considered a BSL. Moreover, a single structure could have several addresses associated with it, but it would be reflected in the Fabric as one single BSL. FCC, About the Fabric: What a Broadband Serviceable Location (BSL) Is and Is Not, https://help.bdc.fcc.gov/hc/en-us/articles/16842264428059-About-the-Fabric-What-a-Broadband-Serviceable-Location-BSL-Is-and-Is-Not (last visited Feb. 14, 2024). To estimate the population with access to advanced telecommunications capability for December 2022 and beyond, we use our established block-level population estimation methodology as an input to estimate the population of each BSL (i.e., we rely on block-level estimates of population, based on Census Bureau estimates of county-level values in years outside of the decennial census, as part of the calculation). Generally, we estimate the population of each BSL by iteratively assigning the estimated population of blocks to BSLs in turn based on a fixed probability, where that fixed probability is a decreasing function of the total number of BSL units in the block. The allocation process is applied in two ways. 2. Populated blocks with BSLs. Where a census block has both a positive population estimate and a positive number of BSLs, each person is assigned to a BSL unit with probability 1/(# of units in block). For example, if a block has a population of 20 persons (based on staff estimates or Census counts, depending on the year of the data) and six units contained within three BSLs (based on the contemporaneous version of the Fabric), each person is essentially assigned to a unit in turn by rolling a six-sided die (because there are six units). An equivalent way to think about the process is that the population of the block is assigned to BSLs randomly using the unit count of the BSL to weight the probability the BSL is populated. If, in our example, BSL1 contains one unit, BSL2 contains two units, and BSL3 contains three units, then the chance a person is assigned to each BSL is 1/6, 1/3 and 1/2, respectively. If a BSL contains more than one unit, the units within a BSL are not distinct. Thus, while the process effectively assigns people to units, particular unit assignments are not tracked. When all persons in the block have been assigned, the population of each BSL will be an integer (between 0 and 20, inclusive, in this example), and the populations of the three BSLs will not necessarily be equal (the populations will definitely not be equal in this example). Each BSL with a person assigned to any unit within it is considered a “populated BSL” for purposes of this analysis. In this way, the population of each census block will equal the sum of the population of all of the populated BSLs in the block, but each BSL within a block will generally not have the same population. We then estimate the number of households by counting the number of units within populated BSLs. 3. Populated blocks with no BSLs. A small fraction of populated blocks contain no BSLs. Version 2 of the Fabric—released in December of 2022—contained 277,910 populated blocks with no BSLs, which, since our estimates are that there were 6,103,370 populated blocks, is 4.6%. While it is counterintuitive that populated blocks might contain no BSLs, it occurs here for a number of reasons not the least of which is that we are joining datasets with different origins and purposes. Both datasets have imperfections. The Fabric is a relatively new dataset which is constantly improving through a robust challenge process (See https://help.bdc.fcc.gov/hc/en-us/articles/8554187214107-Fabric-Challenge-Process (last visited Feb. 20, 2024). The block population counts are, for the intercensal years, staff estimates, and even decennial Census block population counts are not exact in every case (See e.g., https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/21/us/census-data-privacy-concerns.html (last visited Feb. 20, 2024)). In these cases, the population of the BSL-free blocks will be randomly assigned to BSLs in the next-highest geography in the census hierarchy, the census block group, using a two-tiered approach that favors vacant BSLs within unpopulated blocks in the parent block group. For blocks in the parent block group with BSLs but no population, each person is assigned to a BSL with probability: In blocks with population and units in the parent block group, each person is assigned to a unit with probability: When the parent block group also has no BSLs, we examine all the BSLs within the grandparent tract. This continues up the census geographic hierarchy until a level is reached that contains BSLs. Of the 241,571 total populated block groups, there are 465 with no BSLs. Of the 84,989 total populated census tracts, there are 101 with no BSLs. Of the 3,232 total populated counties, one contains no BSLs (Northern Islands Municipality, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands). As above, we then estimate the number of households in the geographic area by counting the number of units within populated BSLs. 4. An example of how population is allocated is shown in the following graphic. The entire area represents a single Census tract, with block groups distinguished by color, and blocks outlined in black. The upper left block has a population of 20 but does not contain any BSLs, and this block is located within a block group that has no BSLs. This opens up all BSLs within the tract to be eligible to be assigned these 20 persons with a preference given to the two blocks in the tract that have BSLs and no population. The upper right block also has population that needs to be allocated to BSLs in other blocks. Since its parent block group does have BSLs, only those BSLs within the block group are eligible to be assigned these five persons. All probabilities are provided using the formulas described above. APPENDIX B Supplemental Figures APPX. B-1: Service Availability (Millions) of Fixed Terrestrial Services at 100/20 Mbps; Mobile 5G-NR with a Minimum Speed of 35/3 Mbps; and Mobile 5G-NR with a Median Ookla Speed of 35/3 Mbps by State, District of Columbia, and U.S. Territory (December 31, 2022) APPX. B-2: Service Availability (Millions) of Fixed Services (includes Satellite) at Different Speed Tiers in the United States APPX. B-3: Service Availability (Millions) of Fixed Terrestrial Broadband and Mobile 5G-NR with a Minimum Speed of 35/3 Mbps in U.S. Territories APPX. B-4: Service Availability (Millions) of Mobile Services at Different Speed Tiers APPX. B-5: Service Availability (Millions) of Mobile Services at Different Median Ookla Speed Tiers APPX. B-6: Service Availability (Millions) of Fixed Terrestrial 100/20 Mbps and Mobile 5G-NR with a Minimum Speed of 35/3 Mbps; and Fixed Terrestrial 100/20 Mbps and Mobile 5G-NR with a Median Ookla Speed of 35/3 Mbps by State, District of Columbia, and U.S. Territory (December 31, 2022) APPX. B-7: Adoption Rate for Fixed Terrestrial Services in the United States and U.S. Territories (December 31, 2022) APPX. B-8: Service Availability (Millions) of Fixed 100/20 Mbps and Mobile Services at Different Speed Tiers Including U.S. Territories APPX. B-9: Service Availability (Millions) of Fixed 100/20 Mbps and Mobile Services at Different Speed Tiers APPX. B-10: Service Availability (Millions) on Tribal Lands of Mobile 5G-NR with a Minimum Speed of 35/3 Mbps APPX. B-11: Service Availability (Millions) of Fixed 100/20 Mbps and Mobile Services at Different Median Ookla Speed Tiers APPX. B-12: Service Availability (Millions) of Fixed Terrestrial Services at 100/20 Mbps and Mobile 5G-NR with a Minimum Speed of 35/3 Mbps By State and County, including U.S. Territories (December 31, 2022) APPX. B-13: Service Availability (Millions) of Fixed Terrestrial Services at 100/20 Mbps and Mobile 5G-NR with a Minimum Speed of 35/3 Mbps By State and County Segmented by Urban and Rural Areas, Including U.S. Territories (December 31, 2022) APPX. B-14: Service Availability (Millions) of Fixed Terrestrial 100/20 Mbps and Mobile 5G-NR with a Minimum Speed of 35/3 Mbps on Tribal Lands by State (December 31, 2022) APPX. B-15: Service Availability (Millions) on Tribal Lands of Fixed Terrestrial 100/20 Mbps and Mobile 5G-NR with a Minimum Speed of 35/3 Mbps (In-Vehicle Mobile Services) (December 31, 2022) APPX. B-16: Service Availability (Millions) on Tribal Lands of Fixed Terrestrial 100/20 Mbps and Mobile 5G-NR with a Minimum Speed of 7/1 Mbps (Outdoor Stationary Services) (December 31, 2022) APPX. B-17: Service Availability (Millions) on Tribal Lands of Fixed Terrestrial 100/20 Mbps and Mobile 5G-NR with a Minimum Speed of 7/1 Mbps (In-Vehicle Mobile Services) (December 31, 2022) APPX. B-18: Service Availability (Millions) on Tribal Lands of Fixed Terrestrial 100/20 Mbps and Mobile 4G LTE with a Minimum Speed of 5/1 Mbps (Outdoor Stationary Services) (December 31, 2022) APPX. B-19: Service Availability (Millions) on Tribal Lands of Fixed Terrestrial 100/20 Mbps and Mobile 4G LTE with a Minimum Speed of 5/1 Mbps (In-Vehicle Mobile Services) (December 31, 2022) APPX. B-20: Mobile Broadband Penetration Rate by State and U.S. Territory APPX. B-21: Average Percentage of Households with Zero, One, Two, or at Least Three Provider Options for 25/3 Mbps Fixed Terrestrial Services by Census Block (December 31, 2022) APPX. B-22: Average Percentage of Households with Zero, One, Two, or at Least Three Provider Options for 940/500 Mbps Fixed Terrestrial Services by Census Block Group (December 31, 2022) APPX. B-23: Average Percentage of Population with Fixed Terrestrial Services at 100/20 Mbps and Mobile 5G-NR with a Minimum Speed of 7/1 Mbps (Outdoor Stationary Services) by Census Block Group (December 31, 2022) APPX. B-24: Average Percentage of Population with Fixed Terrestrial Services at 100/20 Mbps and Mobile 4G LTE with a Minimum Speed of 5/1 Mbps (Outdoor Stationary Services) by Census Block Group (December 31, 2022) APPX. B-25: Average Percentage of Population with Fixed Terrestrial Services at 100/20 Mbps and Mobile 5G-NR with a Minimum Speed of 35/3 Mbps (In-Vehicle Mobile Services) by Census Block Group (December 31, 2022) APPX. B-26: Average Percentage of Population with Fixed Terrestrial Services at 100/20 Mbps and Mobile 5G-NR with a Minimum Speed of 7/1 Mbps (In-Vehicle Mobile Services) by Census Block Group (December 31, 2022) APPX. B-27: Average Percentage of Population with Fixed Terrestrial Services at 100/20 Mbps and Mobile 4G LTE with a Minimum Speed of 5/1 Mbps (In-Vehicle Mobile Services) by Census Block Group (December 31, 2022) APPX. B-28: Comparison of Demographic Data Between Areas With and Without Fixed Terrestrial Services at 100/20 Mbps and Mobile 5G-NR with a Minimum Speed of 7/1 Mbps (Outdoor Stationary Services) (December 31, 2022) APPX. B-29: Comparison of Demographic Data Between Areas With and Without Fixed Terrestrial Services at 100/20 Mbps and Mobile LTE with a Minimum Speed of 5/1 Mbps (Outdoor Stationary Services) (December 31, 2022) APPX. B-30: Comparison of Demographic Data Between Areas With and Without Fixed Terrestrial Services at 100/20 Mbps and Mobile 5G-NR with a Minimum Speed of 35/3 Mbps (In-Vehicle Mobile Services) (December 31, 2022) APPX. B-31: Comparison of Demographic Data Between Areas With and Without Fixed Terrestrial Services at 100/20 Mbps and Mobile 5G-NR with a Minimum Speed of 7/1 Mbps (In-Vehicle Mobile Services) (December 31, 2022) APPX. B-32: Comparison of Demographic Data Between Areas With and Without Fixed Terrestrial Services at 100/20 Mbps and Mobile LTE with a Minimum Speed of 5/1 Mbps (In-Vehicle Mobile Services) (December 31, 2022) APPX. B-33: Comparison of Demographic Data Between Areas With and Without Fixed Terrestrial Services at 100/20 Mbps and Mobile 5G-NR with a Median Ookla Speed of 35/3 Mbps (December 31, 2022) APPX. B-34: Comparison of Demographic Data Between Areas With and Without Fixed Terrestrial Services at 100/20 Mbps and Mobile 5G-NR with a Median Ookla Speed of 7/1 Mbps (December 31, 2022) APPX. B-35: Comparison of Demographic Data Between Areas With and Without Fixed Terrestrial Services at 100/20 Mbps and Mobile Broadband with a Median Ookla Speed of 10/3 Mbps (December 31, 2022) APPX. B-1 Service Availability (Millions) of Fixed Terrestrial Services at 100/20 Mbps; Mobile 5G-NR with a Minimum Advertised Speed of 35/3 Mbps; and Mobile 5G-NR with a Median Ookla Speed of 35/3 Mbps by State, District of Columbia, and U.S. Territory (December 31, 2022) Fixed 100/20 Mbps Including Fixed Wireless Fixed 100/20 Mbps Excluding Fixed Wireless Mobile 5G-NR Minimum 35/3 Mbps Mobile 5G-NR Median 35/3 Mbps Pop. Evaluated Pop. % Pop. % Pop. % Pop. Evaluated Pop. % United States 336.881 312.509 92.8% 304.527 90.4% 306.658 91.0% 304.974 286.314 93.8% Rural Areas 68.031 48.980 72.0% 43.215 63.5% 43.765 64.3% 46.883 33.282 70.9% Urban Areas 268.850 263.529 98.0% 261.312 97.2% 262.893 97.8% 258.090 253.031 98.0% Alabama 5.074 4.202 82.8% 4.170 82.2% 4.316 85.1% 4.241 3.874 91.3% Rural Areas 2.155 1.399 64.9% 1.375 63.8% 1.461 67.8% 1.477 1.146 77.6% Urban Areas 2.919 2.803 96.0% 2.795 95.7% 2.855 97.8% 2.763 2.727 98.7% Alaska 0.734 0.577 78.7% 0.527 71.9% 0.464 63.2% 0.588 0.350 59.6% Rural Areas 0.267 0.124 46.5% 0.089 33.2% 0.085 31.7% 0.156 0.058 37.7% Urban Areas 0.466 0.453 97.1% 0.438 94.0% 0.379 81.3% 0.431 0.291 67.5% American Samoa 0.045 0.010 22.1% 0.010 22.1% 0.000 0.0% * * * Rural Areas 0.011 0.001 5.9% 0.001 5.9% 0.000 0.0% * * * Urban Areas 0.034 0.009 27.3% 0.009 27.3% 0.000 0.0% * * * Arizona 7.359 6.841 93.0% 6.543 88.9% 7.103 96.5% 7.311 7.050 96.4% Rural Areas 0.793 0.437 55.1% 0.267 33.7% 0.573 72.3% 0.763 0.537 70.3% Urban Areas 6.566 6.404 97.5% 6.276 95.6% 6.530 99.4% 6.547 6.513 99.4% Arkansas 3.046 2.470 81.1% 2.431 79.8% 2.491 81.8% 2.202 2.008 91.1% Rural Areas 1.359 0.850 62.5% 0.817 60.1% 0.842 61.9% 0.735 0.556 75.6% Urban Areas 1.686 1.620 96.1% 1.614 95.7% 1.650 97.8% 1.466 1.451 99.0% California 39.029 37.571 96.3% 36.691 94.0% 38.236 98.0% 38.924 38.158 98.0% Rural Areas 2.295 1.513 65.9% 0.950 41.4% 1.823 79.4% 2.214 1.768 79.8% Urban Areas 36.735 36.058 98.2% 35.741 97.3% 36.413 99.1% 36.710 36.389 99.1% Colorado 5.840 5.501 94.2% 5.299 90.7% 5.463 93.5% 5.475 5.252 95.9% Rural Areas 0.825 0.521 63.1% 0.361 43.8% 0.518 62.9% 0.572 0.404 70.6% Urban Areas 5.015 4.981 99.3% 4.938 98.4% 4.945 98.6% 4.902 4.848 98.8% Connecticut 3.626 3.558 98.1% 3.552 97.9% 3.236 89.2% 3.626 3.236 89.2% Rural Areas 0.507 0.488 96.3% 0.487 96.1% 0.322 63.6% 0.507 0.322 63.5% Urban Areas 3.119 3.070 98.4% 3.065 98.3% 2.914 93.4% 3.119 2.913 93.4% Delaware 1.018 0.981 96.3% 0.979 96.1% 0.964 94.7% 1.018 0.963 94.6% Rural Areas 0.181 0.150 82.8% 0.148 81.8% 0.144 79.7% 0.181 0.144 79.6% Urban Areas 0.837 0.831 99.3% 0.831 99.2% 0.820 97.9% 0.837 0.819 97.8% District of Columbia 0.672 0.670 99.7% 0.670 99.7% 0.672 100.0% 0.671 0.671 99.9% Urban Areas 0.672 0.670 99.7% 0.670 99.7% 0.672 100.0% 0.671 0.671 99.9% Florida 22.245 21.008 94.4% 20.891 93.9% 21.212 95.4% 21.992 21.049 95.7% Rural Areas 1.910 1.143 59.8% 1.073 56.2% 1.365 71.5% 1.687 1.229 72.8% Urban Areas 20.335 19.865 97.7% 19.817 97.5% 19.847 97.6% 20.304 19.819 97.6% Georgia 10.913 9.945 91.1% 9.873 90.5% 9.534 87.4% 9.169 8.525 92.9% Rural Areas 2.880 2.048 71.1% 1.990 69.1% 1.760 61.1% 1.541 1.084 70.3% Urban Areas 8.033 7.897 98.3% 7.883 98.1% 7.774 96.8% 7.627 7.440 97.5% Guam 0.169 0.145 85.9% 0.065 38.3% 0.076 45.1% * * * Rural Areas 0.020 0.006 30.9% 0.001 5.6% 0.001 7.1% * * * Urban Areas 0.149 0.139 93.4% 0.064 42.7% 0.075 50.2% * * * Hawaii 1.440 1.373 95.3% 1.366 94.8% 1.347 93.5% 1.440 1.346 93.5% Rural Areas 0.210 0.178 84.6% 0.178 84.4% 0.148 70.5% 0.210 0.148 70.5% Urban Areas 1.230 1.195 97.2% 1.188 96.6% 1.199 97.5% 1.229 1.198 97.4% Idaho 1.939 1.716 88.5% 1.557 80.3% 1.691 87.2% 1.521 1.397 91.8% Rural Areas 0.604 0.383 63.4% 0.228 37.7% 0.396 65.5% 0.311 0.213 68.4% Urban Areas 1.335 1.333 99.8% 1.329 99.6% 1.295 97.0% 1.209 1.184 97.9% Illinois 12.582 11.996 95.3% 11.787 93.7% 11.897 94.6% 11.566 11.274 97.4% Rural Areas 1.669 1.155 69.2% 0.969 58.0% 1.088 65.2% 0.968 0.738 76.2% Urban Areas 10.913 10.840 99.3% 10.819 99.1% 10.809 99.0% 10.597 10.535 99.4% Indiana 6.833 6.180 90.4% 5.994 87.7% 6.060 88.7% 5.737 5.353 93.3% Rural Areas 1.984 1.385 69.8% 1.214 61.2% 1.292 65.1% 1.211 0.887 73.2% Urban Areas 4.849 4.795 98.9% 4.780 98.6% 4.768 98.3% 4.526 4.465 98.6% Iowa 3.201 3.015 94.2% 2.848 89.0% 2.624 82.0% 2.119 1.948 91.9% Rural Areas 1.183 1.008 85.3% 0.845 71.5% 0.688 58.2% 0.414 0.281 67.7% Urban Areas 2.018 2.007 99.5% 2.003 99.2% 1.936 95.9% 1.704 1.667 97.8% Kansas 2.937 2.697 91.8% 2.564 87.3% 2.600 88.5% 2.041 1.967 96.3% Rural Areas 0.826 0.620 75.1% 0.494 59.8% 0.543 65.8% 0.271 0.217 79.9% Urban Areas 2.112 2.076 98.3% 2.071 98.1% 2.057 97.4% 1.770 1.750 98.8% Kentucky 4.512 3.846 85.2% 3.819 84.6% 3.397 75.3% 2.991 2.721 90.9% Rural Areas 1.873 1.273 68.0% 1.258 67.2% 0.871 46.5% 0.627 0.414 66.0% Urban Areas 2.639 2.573 97.5% 2.561 97.0% 2.525 95.7% 2.364 2.306 97.5% Louisiana 4.590 3.827 83.4% 3.780 82.3% 4.008 87.3% 3.936 3.598 91.4% Rural Areas 1.315 0.685 52.1% 0.664 50.5% 0.836 63.6% 0.842 0.587 69.7% Urban Areas 3.275 3.142 95.9% 3.116 95.1% 3.172 96.9% 3.094 3.011 97.3% Maine 1.385 1.222 88.2% 1.209 87.2% 0.896 64.7% 1.229 0.832 67.6% Rural Areas 0.849 0.698 82.2% 0.693 81.6% 0.412 48.5% 0.700 0.353 50.4% Urban Areas 0.536 0.524 97.7% 0.516 96.2% 0.484 90.3% 0.528 0.478 90.5% Maryland 6.165 6.008 97.5% 5.984 97.1% 5.812 94.3% 6.054 5.725 94.5% Rural Areas 0.911 0.782 85.8% 0.771 84.7% 0.695 76.3% 0.836 0.643 76.9% Urban Areas 5.254 5.226 99.5% 5.213 99.2% 5.116 97.4% 5.218 5.081 97.3% Massachusetts 6.982 6.892 98.7% 6.881 98.5% 6.431 92.1% 6.967 6.422 92.1% Rural Areas 0.627 0.602 96.1% 0.602 96.0% 0.392 62.6% 0.624 0.391 62.7% Urban Areas 6.355 6.290 99.0% 6.279 98.8% 6.039 95.0% 6.343 6.031 95.0% Michigan 10.034 9.110 90.8% 8.820 87.9% 8.862 88.3% 9.215 8.452 91.7% Rural Areas 2.712 1.914 70.6% 1.670 61.6% 1.733 63.9% 2.051 1.450 70.7% Urban Areas 7.323 7.195 98.3% 7.151 97.7% 7.129 97.4% 7.164 7.001 97.7% Minnesota 5.717 5.389 94.3% 5.171 90.4% 5.080 88.8% 4.777 4.496 94.1% Rural Areas 1.633 1.334 81.7% 1.125 68.9% 1.075 65.8% 0.996 0.748 75.0% Urban Areas 4.084 4.054 99.3% 4.046 99.1% 4.005 98.1% 3.780 3.748 99.1% Mississippi 2.940 2.321 78.9% 2.308 78.5% 2.066 70.3% 1.530 1.299 84.9% Rural Areas 1.587 1.000 63.0% 0.990 62.4% 0.787 49.6% 0.493 0.301 61.0% Urban Areas 1.354 1.321 97.6% 1.319 97.4% 1.279 94.5% 1.037 0.998 96.2% Missouri 6.178 5.500 89.0% 5.027 81.4% 5.475 88.6% 5.234 4.869 93.0% Rural Areas 1.918 1.315 68.6% 0.890 46.4% 1.267 66.1% 1.164 0.843 72.4% Urban Areas 4.260 4.185 98.2% 4.137 97.1% 4.208 98.8% 4.070 4.025 98.9% Montana 1.123 0.844 75.2% 0.791 70.5% 0.921 82.0% 0.733 0.652 88.9% Rural Areas 0.527 0.279 52.9% 0.230 43.6% 0.353 67.0% 0.238 0.180 75.4% Urban Areas 0.596 0.565 94.9% 0.561 94.2% 0.568 95.3% 0.494 0.472 95.5% N. Mariana Isl. 0.051 0.016 31.9% 0.000 0.0% 0.000 0.2% * * * Rural Areas 0.013 0.004 31.0% 0.000 0.0% 0.000 0.2% * * * Urban Areas 0.038 0.012 32.2% 0.000 0.0% 0.000 0.3% * * * Nebraska 1.968 1.858 94.4% 1.746 88.7% 1.439 73.1% 1.169 1.149 98.2% Rural Areas 0.532 0.426 80.1% 0.317 59.5% 0.176 33.1% 0.065 0.050 77.8% Urban Areas 1.436 1.432 99.7% 1.429 99.5% 1.263 87.9% 1.104 1.098 99.5% Nevada 3.178 3.106 97.7% 3.010 94.7% 3.128 98.4% 3.097 2.958 95.4% Rural Areas 0.189 0.141 74.4% 0.086 45.5% 0.147 78.0% 0.141 0.102 71.9% Urban Areas 2.989 2.965 99.2% 2.924 97.8% 2.981 99.7% 2.955 2.856 96.6% New Hampshire 1.395 1.327 95.1% 1.324 94.9% 0.927 66.5% 1.319 0.889 67.3% Rural Areas 0.589 0.529 89.7% 0.526 89.2% 0.258 43.8% 0.533 0.237 44.5% Urban Areas 0.806 0.798 99.1% 0.798 99.0% 0.669 83.0% 0.785 0.651 82.8% New Jersey 9.262 8.936 96.5% 8.883 95.9% 8.976 96.9% 9.261 8.975 96.9% Rural Areas 0.594 0.540 90.9% 0.537 90.5% 0.431 72.5% 0.593 0.430 72.5% Urban Areas 8.668 8.396 96.9% 8.346 96.3% 8.545 98.6% 8.667 8.545 98.5% New Mexico 2.113 1.765 83.5% 1.703 80.6% 1.880 89.0% 1.914 1.522 79.4% Rural Areas 0.532 0.238 44.8% 0.200 37.6% 0.351 66.0% 0.436 0.234 53.7% Urban Areas 1.581 1.527 96.6% 1.503 95.0% 1.529 96.7% 1.478 1.287 87.0% New York 19.677 18.910 96.1% 18.693 95.0% 18.456 93.8% 19.281 18.259 94.7% Rural Areas 2.563 2.261 88.2% 2.250 87.8% 1.598 62.3% 2.248 1.471 65.4% Urban Areas 17.114 16.649 97.3% 16.444 96.1% 16.859 98.5% 17.033 16.788 98.5% North Carolina 10.699 9.529 89.1% 9.445 88.3% 9.222 86.2% 9.498 8.499 89.4% Rural Areas 3.589 2.653 73.9% 2.614 72.8% 2.359 65.7% 2.632 1.857 70.5% Urban Areas 7.110 6.876 96.7% 6.830 96.1% 6.863 96.5% 6.866 6.641 96.7% North Dakota 0.779 0.765 98.2% 0.754 96.8% 0.617 79.2% 0.364 0.330 90.5% Rural Areas 0.302 0.290 95.9% 0.280 92.5% 0.169 55.8% 0.056 0.029 52.2% Urban Areas 0.477 0.475 99.6% 0.474 99.5% 0.448 94.0% 0.307 0.300 97.6% Ohio 11.756 10.819 92.0% 10.585 90.0% 10.792 91.8% 11.131 10.416 93.5% Rural Areas 2.812 2.058 73.2% 1.875 66.7% 1.971 70.1% 2.374 1.760 74.1% Urban Areas 8.944 8.761 97.9% 8.710 97.4% 8.821 98.6% 8.756 8.656 98.8% Oklahoma 4.020 3.574 88.9% 3.350 83.3% 3.611 89.8% 3.574 3.281 91.7% Rural Areas 1.432 1.028 71.8% 0.823 57.5% 1.037 72.4% 1.078 0.809 75.0% Urban Areas 2.588 2.546 98.4% 2.527 97.6% 2.574 99.5% 2.496 2.472 99.0% Oregon 4.240 3.889 91.7% 3.819 90.1% 3.836 90.5% 4.021 3.686 91.6% Rural Areas 0.843 0.527 62.6% 0.469 55.7% 0.523 62.0% 0.730 0.466 63.9% Urban Areas 3.397 3.362 99.0% 3.350 98.6% 3.314 97.5% 3.291 3.219 97.8% Pennsylvania 12.972 12.338 95.1% 12.262 94.5% 11.913 91.8% 12.517 11.639 92.9% Rural Areas 3.085 2.511 81.4% 2.449 79.4% 2.199 71.3% 2.739 2.025 73.9% Urban Areas 9.887 9.827 99.4% 9.813 99.3% 9.714 98.3% 9.778 9.614 98.3% Puerto Rico 3.222 3.125 97.0% 2.817 87.4% 3.156 98.0% * * * Rural Areas 0.255 0.197 77.1% 0.103 40.5% 0.221 86.4% * * * Urban Areas 2.966 2.929 98.7% 2.713 91.5% 2.936 99.0% * * * Rhode Island 1.094 1.088 99.5% 1.088 99.5% 1.002 91.6% 1.093 1.001 91.5% Rural Areas 0.101 0.098 96.7% 0.098 96.6% 0.067 66.7% 0.100 0.067 66.6% Urban Areas 0.993 0.991 99.8% 0.991 99.8% 0.935 94.1% 0.992 0.934 94.1% South Carolina 5.283 4.775 90.4% 4.737 89.7% 4.611 87.3% 4.708 4.290 91.1% Rural Areas 1.694 1.289 76.1% 1.269 74.9% 1.130 66.7% 1.244 0.918 73.7% Urban Areas 3.589 3.486 97.1% 3.468 96.6% 3.481 97.0% 3.463 3.371 97.3% South Dakota 0.910 0.842 92.6% 0.827 90.8% 0.771 84.7% 0.389 0.374 96.2% Rural Areas 0.393 0.328 83.4% 0.313 79.7% 0.267 68.0% 0.070 0.057 81.2% Urban Areas 0.517 0.515 99.5% 0.514 99.3% 0.503 97.4% 0.318 0.317 99.5% Tennessee 7.051 6.499 92.2% 6.475 91.8% 5.967 84.6% 5.695 5.211 91.5% Rural Areas 2.407 1.911 79.4% 1.897 78.8% 1.446 60.1% 1.364 0.958 70.3% Urban Areas 4.644 4.588 98.8% 4.579 98.6% 4.521 97.3% 4.331 4.252 98.1% Texas 30.030 27.861 92.8% 26.203 87.3% 28.561 95.1% 28.610 27.595 96.4% Rural Areas 5.029 3.646 72.5% 2.431 48.3% 3.745 74.5% 4.026 3.152 78.2% Urban Areas 25.001 24.214 96.9% 23.772 95.1% 24.816 99.3% 24.583 24.443 99.4% U.S. Virgin Isl. 0.105 0.105 99.4% 0.104 98.7% 0.095 89.9% * * * Rural Areas 0.006 0.006 96.1% 0.006 90.0% 0.003 54.8% * * * Urban Areas 0.099 0.099 99.6% 0.098 99.3% 0.091 92.1% * * * Utah 3.381 3.284 97.1% 3.179 94.0% 3.329 98.5% 3.237 3.213 99.2% Rural Areas 0.362 0.295 81.5% 0.227 62.7% 0.318 87.7% 0.254 0.232 91.5% Urban Areas 3.018 2.989 99.0% 2.952 97.8% 3.011 99.8% 2.982 2.981 99.9% Vermont 0.647 0.532 82.3% 0.530 81.9% 0.343 53.0% 0.169 0.115 68.2% Rural Areas 0.419 0.308 73.5% 0.305 72.9% 0.162 38.7% 0.044 0.017 38.3% Urban Areas 0.228 0.225 98.4% 0.225 98.4% 0.181 79.3% 0.124 0.098 79.0% Virginia 8.684 8.019 92.3% 7.767 89.4% 7.471 86.0% 7.338 6.622 90.2% Rural Areas 2.158 1.590 73.7% 1.364 63.2% 1.156 53.6% 1.238 0.729 58.8% Urban Areas 6.526 6.429 98.5% 6.403 98.1% 6.315 96.8% 6.099 5.893 96.6% Washington 7.786 7.123 91.5% 7.011 90.0% 7.142 91.7% 7.683 7.070 92.0% Rural Areas 1.331 0.758 56.9% 0.668 50.2% 0.888 66.8% 1.253 0.841 67.1% Urban Areas 6.455 6.365 98.6% 6.343 98.3% 6.254 96.9% 6.429 6.228 96.8% West Virginia 1.775 1.252 70.5% 1.238 69.8% 1.179 66.4% 1.261 0.956 75.7% Rural Areas 0.980 0.516 52.7% 0.505 51.6% 0.443 45.3% 0.556 0.296 53.2% Urban Areas 0.795 0.736 92.5% 0.733 92.2% 0.736 92.5% 0.704 0.659 93.6% Wisconsin 5.893 5.249 89.1% 4.941 83.9% 4.891 83.0% 5.026 4.507 89.6% Rural Areas 1.966 1.383 70.3% 1.134 57.7% 1.115 56.7% 1.229 0.837 68.1% Urban Areas 3.927 3.866 98.5% 3.807 97.0% 3.777 96.2% 3.797 3.670 96.6% Wyoming 0.581 0.510 87.7% 0.430 73.9% 0.409 70.3% 0.288 0.244 84.7% Rural Areas 0.226 0.159 70.4% 0.091 40.2% 0.115 50.9% 0.067 0.043 64.3% Urban Areas 0.356 0.351 98.6% 0.339 95.3% 0.294 82.6% 0.221 0.201 90.9% Source: FCC BDC data; Ookla Speedtest data; Staff Block Estimates. Note: U.S. territories do not have a sufficient number of samples, thus, we do not provide Ookla analysis in these areas. In addition, all Ookla analyses in this Report reflect the percentage of the population living in counties with a sufficient number of Ookla speed tests such that we can evaluate the actual speeds of 35/3 Mbps. Further, the population within eligible counties is overlaid with coverage data from the FCC Form 477 and the FCC BDC data such that only the population living in areas where providers claim 5G-NR coverage with a minimum expected speed of 35/3 Mbps is counted towards the covered population figure. Note: Unless it is specified that we have used in-vehicle BDC data, outdoor stationary BDC data are used in the analysis in this report. APPX. B-2 Service Availability (Millions) of Fixed Services (includes Satellite) at Different Speed Tiers in the United States 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Pop. % Pop. % Pop. % Pop. % Pop. % 25/3 Mbps United States 327.087 100.0% 328.131 100.0% 329.415 100.0% 331.894 100.0% 333.287 100.0% Rural Areas 64.434 99.9% 65.015 99.9% 65.743 99.9% 67.111 100.0% 67.725 100.0% Urban Areas 262.653 100.0% 263.116 100.0% 263.672 100.0% 264.783 100.0% 265.562 100.0% Tribal Areas 3.980 98.5% 3.994 98.6% 4.025 98.6% 4.051 100.0% 4.043 100.0% 100/20 Mbps United States 289.752 88.6% 294.124 89.6% 301.756 91.6% 312.934 94.3% 311.961 93.6% Rural Areas 37.561 58.2% 40.377 62.0% 44.771 68.0% 52.012 77.5% 50.738 74.9% Urban Areas 252.191 96.0% 253.747 96.4% 256.985 97.5% 260.923 98.5% 261.222 98.4% Tribal Areas 1.999 49.5% 2.221 54.8% 2.490 61.0% 3.063 75.6% 3.413 84.4% 940/500 Mbps United States 91.352 27.9% 106.014 32.3% 119.083 36.1% 148.069 44.6% 134.617 40.4% Rural Areas 6.830 10.6% 9.038 13.9% 11.960 18.2% 16.084 24.0% 16.204 23.9% Urban Areas 84.522 32.2% 96.976 36.9% 107.123 40.6% 131.985 49.8% 118.413 44.6% Tribal Areas 0.453 11.2% 0.587 14.5% 0.820 20.1% 1.096 27.1% 1.117 27.6% Pop. Evaluated 327.167 100.0% 328.210 100.0% 329.491 100.0% 331.894 100.0% 333.288 100.0% Source: FCC Form 477 data; FCC BDC data; Staff Block Estimates. APPX. B-3 Service Availability (Millions) of Fixed Terrestrial Broadband and Mobile 5G-NR with a Minimum Speed of 35/3 Mbps in U.S. Territories 2020 2021 2022 Pop. % Pop. % Pop. % Mobile 5G-NR - 35/3 Mbps U.S. Territories 0.011 0.3% 3.359 92.4% 3.328 92.6% Rural Areas 0.000 0.0% 0.261 82.2% 0.226 73.7% Urban Areas 0.011 0.3% 3.098 93.4% 3.102 94.4% Fixed 25/3 Mbps (Including Fixed Wireless) U.S. Territories 3.471 98.4% 3.629 99.8% 3.565 99.2% Rural Areas 0.227 96.4% 0.312 98.2% 0.286 93.5% Urban Areas 3.243 98.6% 3.317 100.0% 3.279 99.8% Fixed 25/3 Mbps (Including Fixed Wireless) and Mobile 5G-NR - 35/3 Mbps U.S. Territories 0.010 0.3% 3.359 92.4% 3.309 92.1% Rural Areas 0.000 0.0% 0.261 82.2% 0.214 70.0% Urban Areas 0.010 0.3% 3.098 93.4% 3.095 94.1% Fixed 25/3 Mbps (Excluding Fixed Wireless) U.S. Territories 3.093 87.7% 3.248 89.3% 3.205 89.2% Rural Areas 0.159 67.5% 0.200 62.8% 0.157 51.4% Urban Areas 2.933 89.1% 3.049 91.9% 3.048 92.7% Fixed 25/3 Mbps (Excluding  Fixed Wireless) and Mobile 5G-NR - 35/3 Mbps U.S. Territories 0.010 0.3% 2.993 82.3% 2.976 82.8% Rural Areas 0.000 0.0% 0.156 49.1% 0.105 34.4% Urban Areas 0.010 0.3% 2.836 85.5% 2.871 87.3% Fixed 100/20 Mbps (Including Fixed Wireless) U.S. Territories 3.255 92.3% 3.589 98.7% 3.402 94.7% Rural Areas 0.185 78.4% 0.298 93.6% 0.214 69.9% Urban Areas 3.070 93.3% 3.291 99.2% 3.188 97.0% Fixed 100/20 Mbps (Including Fixed Wireless) and Mobile 5G-NR - 35/3 Mbps U.S. Territories 0.005 0.1% 3.339 91.8% 3.243 90.3% Rural Areas 0.000 0.0% 0.259 81.3% 0.180 58.9% Urban Areas 0.005 0.1% 3.080 92.8% 3.063 93.2% Fixed 100/20 Mbps (Excluding  Fixed Wireless) U.S. Territories 2.735 77.5% 3.005 82.6% 2.996 83.4% Rural Areas 0.074 31.3% 0.164 51.5% 0.111 36.3% Urban Areas 2.661 80.9% 2.841 85.6% 2.885 87.8% Fixed 100/20 Mbps (Excluding  Fixed Wireless) and Mobile 5G-NR - 35/3 Mbps U.S. Territories 0.005 0.1% 2.901 79.8% 2.914 81.1% Rural Areas 0.000 0.0% 0.139 43.7% 0.099 32.3% Urban Areas 0.005 0.1% 2.762 83.2% 2.815 85.6% Fixed 940/500 Mbps (Including Fixed Wireless) U.S. Territories 0.494 14.0% 1.582 43.5% 1.530 42.6% Rural Areas 0.011 4.7% 0.069 21.7% 0.055 17.9% Urban Areas 0.483 14.7% 1.512 45.6% 1.475 44.9% Fixed 940/500 Mbps (Including Fixed Wireless) and Mobile 5G-NR - 35/3 Mbps U.S. Territories 0.005 0.1% 1.577 43.4% 1.514 42.1% Rural Areas 0.000 0.0% 0.067 21.1% 0.051 16.8% Urban Areas 0.005 0.1% 1.510 45.5% 1.462 44.5% Fixed 940/500 Mbps (Excluding  Fixed Wireless) U.S. Territories 0.494 14.0% 1.582 43.5% 1.529 42.5% Rural Areas 0.011 4.7% 0.069 21.7% 0.055 17.9% Urban Areas 0.483 14.7% 1.512 45.6% 1.474 44.8% Fixed 940/500 Mbps (Excluding  Fixed Wireless) and Mobile 5G-NR - 35/3 Mbps U.S. Territories 0.005 0.1% 1.577 43.4% 1.513 42.1% Rural Areas 0.000 0.0% 0.067 21.1% 0.051 16.7% Urban Areas 0.005 0.1% 1.510 45.5% 1.461 44.5% Pop. Evaluated 3.527 100.0% 3.636 100.0% 3.593 100.0% Source: FCC Form 477 data; FCC BDC data; Staff Block Estimates. APPX. B-4 Service Availability (Millions) of Mobile Services at Different Speed Tiers 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Pop. % Pop. % Pop. % Pop. % Pop. % 5G-NR - 35/3 Mbps (Outdoor Stationary Service) United States 237.475 72.1% 321.790 97.0% 303.330 91.0% Rural Areas 28.467 43.3% 58.748 87.5% 43.540 64.3% Urban Areas 209.008 79.3% 263.041 99.3% 259.791 97.8% Tribal Areas 2.308 56.5% 3.603 88.9% 3.145 77.8% 5G-NR - 35/3 Mbps (In-Vehicle Mobile Service) United States 242.722 72.8% Rural Areas 25.855 38.2% Urban Areas 216.867 81.7% Tribal Areas 2.559 63.3% 5G-NR - 7/1 Mbps (Outdoor Stationary Service) United States 307.561 93.3% 324.174 97.7% 323.537 97.1% Rural Areas 52.012 79.0% 60.155 89.6% 58.901 87.0% Urban Areas 255.549 96.9% 264.019 99.7% 264.637 99.7% Tribal Areas 3.358 82.3% 3.648 90.0% 3.642 90.1% 5G-NR - 7/1 Mbps (In-Vehicle Mobile Service) United States 304.527 91.4% Rural Areas 46.279 68.3% Urban Areas 258.248 97.2% Tribal Areas 3.326 82.3% 4G LTE – 5/1 Mbps (Outdoor Stationary Service) United States 326.727 99.9% 327.817 99.9% 329.181 99.9% 330.664 99.6% 331.673 99.5% Rural Areas 64.097 99.4% 64.722 99.4% 65.513 99.5% 65.904 98.2% 66.408 98.1% Urban Areas 262.630 100.0% 263.095 100.0% 263.668 100.0% 264.760 100.0% 265.265 99.9% Tribal Areas 3.937 97.5% 3.959 97.7% 4.009 98.2% 3.952 97.5% 3.978 98.4% 4G LTE – 5/1 Mbps (In-Vehicle Mobile Service) United States 323.767 97.1% Rural Areas 59.434 87.8% Urban Areas 264.333 99.5% Tribal Areas 3.833 94.8% Pop. Evaluated 327.167 100.0% 328.210 100.0% 329.491 100.0% 331.894 100.0% 333.288 100.0% Source: FCC Form 477 data; FCC BDC data; Staff Block Estimates. Note: For the purposes of this report, we assume that all mobile broadband deployment data collected through Form 477 was modeled using an outdoor stationary environment. The Commission did not collect in-vehicle mobile data prior to 2022. APPX. B-5 Service Availability (Millions) of Mobile Services at Different Median Ookla Speed Tiers 2020 2021 2022 Pop. % Pop. % Pop. % 5G-NR with a Median Speed of 7/1 Mbps United States 256.139 96.8% 290.599 99.2% 300.636 98.6% Rural Areas 24.729 87.7% 37.676 95.0% 43.125 92.0% Urban Areas 231.410 97.9% 252.923 99.9% 257.512 99.8% Pop. Evaluated 264.520 80.3% 292.861 88.2% 304.974 91.5% Mobile Broadband with a Median Speed of 10/3 Mbps United States 310.203 95.9% 311.625 95.7% 315.570 96.5% Rural Areas 51.541 84.4% 50.935 82.4% 53.328 85.6% Urban Areas 258.662 98.6% 260.690 98.8% 262.242 99.1% Pop. Evaluated 323.358 98.1% 325.755 98.2% 327.008 98.1% Source: FCC Form 477 data; FCC BDC data; Ookla Speedtest data; Staff Block Estimates. APPX. B-6 Service Availability (Millions) of Fixed Terrestrial 100/20 Mbps and Mobile 5G-NR with a Minimum Advertised Speed of 35/3 Mbps; and Fixed Terrestrial 100/20 Mbps and Mobile 5G-NR with a Median Ookla Speed of 35/3 Mbps by State, District of Columbia, and U.S. Territory (December 31, 2022) Fixed 100/20 Mbps and Mobile 5G-NR Minimum 35/3 Mbps Fixed 100/20 Mbps and Mobile 5G-NR Median 35/3 Mbps Pop. Evaluated Pop. % Pop. Evaluated Pop. % Including Fixed Wireless United States 336.881 291.746 86.6% 304.974 274.424 90.0% Rural Areas 68.031 33.916 49.9% 46.884 26.163 55.8% Urban Areas 268.850 257.830 95.9% 258.090 248.261 96.2% Alabama 5.074 3.804 75.0% 4.241 3.472 81.9% Rural Areas 2.155 1.060 49.2% 1.478 0.845 57.2% Urban Areas 2.919 2.743 94.0% 2.764 2.627 95.1% Alaska 0.734 0.433 59.0% 0.588 0.328 55.8% Rural Areas 0.267 0.060 22.5% 0.156 0.041 26.3% Urban Areas 0.466 0.373 79.9% 0.432 0.287 66.4% American Samoa 0.045 0.000 0.0% * * * Rural Areas 0.011 0.000 0.0% * * * Urban Areas 0.034 0.000 0.0% * * * Arizona 7.359 6.755 91.8% 7.311 6.730 92.1% Rural Areas 0.793 0.380 48.0% 0.763 0.364 47.7% Urban Areas 6.566 6.375 97.1% 6.548 6.366 97.2% Arkansas 3.046 2.156 70.8% 2.202 1.784 81.0% Rural Areas 1.359 0.571 42.0% 0.736 0.386 52.5% Urban Areas 1.686 1.585 94.0% 1.466 1.398 95.3% California 39.029 37.023 94.9% 38.924 36.967 95.0% Rural Areas 2.295 1.273 55.5% 2.214 1.240 56.0% Urban Areas 36.735 35.750 97.3% 36.710 35.728 97.3% Colorado 5.840 5.284 90.5% 5.476 5.106 93.3% Rural Areas 0.825 0.373 45.3% 0.573 0.290 50.6% Urban Areas 5.015 4.911 97.9% 4.903 4.817 98.2% Connecticut 3.626 3.180 87.7% 3.626 3.180 87.7% Rural Areas 0.507 0.312 61.5% 0.507 0.312 61.5% Urban Areas 3.119 2.868 92.0% 3.119 2.868 92.0% Delaware 1.018 0.936 91.9% 1.018 0.936 91.9% Rural Areas 0.181 0.122 67.4% 0.181 0.122 67.4% Urban Areas 0.837 0.814 97.2% 0.837 0.814 97.2% District of Columbia 0.672 0.670 99.7% 0.672 0.670 99.7% Urban Areas 0.672 0.670 99.7% 0.672 0.670 99.7% Florida 22.245 20.284 91.2% 21.993 20.192 91.8% Rural Areas 1.910 0.894 46.8% 1.688 0.828 49.1% Urban Areas 20.335 19.390 95.4% 20.305 19.364 95.4% Georgia 10.913 9.013 82.6% 9.170 8.208 89.5% Rural Areas 2.880 1.365 47.4% 1.542 0.884 57.3% Urban Areas 8.033 7.648 95.2% 7.628 7.324 96.0% Guam 0.169 0.072 42.4% * * * Rural Areas 0.020 0.001 5.4% * * * Urban Areas 0.149 0.071 47.4% * * * Hawaii 1.440 1.295 89.9% 1.440 1.295 89.9% Rural Areas 0.210 0.130 62.0% 0.210 0.130 62.0% Urban Areas 1.230 1.164 94.7% 1.230 1.164 94.7% Idaho 1.939 1.584 81.7% 1.521 1.344 88.4% Rural Areas 0.604 0.291 48.2% 0.312 0.161 51.7% Urban Areas 1.335 1.293 96.9% 1.210 1.183 97.8% Illinois 12.582 11.550 91.8% 11.566 11.020 95.3% Rural Areas 1.669 0.813 48.7% 0.969 0.551 56.9% Urban Areas 10.913 10.737 98.4% 10.597 10.469 98.8% Indiana 6.833 5.689 83.3% 5.738 5.110 89.1% Rural Areas 1.984 0.975 49.1% 1.211 0.695 57.4% Urban Areas 4.849 4.714 97.2% 4.526 4.415 97.5% Iowa 3.201 2.526 78.9% 2.119 1.891 89.2% Rural Areas 1.183 0.601 50.8% 0.415 0.234 56.4% Urban Areas 2.018 1.925 95.4% 1.704 1.657 97.2% Kansas 2.937 2.460 83.8% 2.042 1.890 92.6% Rural Areas 0.826 0.435 52.7% 0.271 0.168 61.7% Urban Areas 2.112 2.025 95.9% 1.770 1.722 97.3% Kentucky 4.512 3.103 68.8% 2.991 2.566 85.8% Rural Areas 1.873 0.638 34.1% 0.627 0.311 49.6% Urban Areas 2.639 2.465 93.4% 2.364 2.255 95.4% Louisiana 4.590 3.568 77.7% 3.937 3.338 84.8% Rural Areas 1.315 0.515 39.2% 0.842 0.411 48.7% Urban Areas 3.275 3.053 93.2% 3.094 2.928 94.6% Maine 1.385 0.834 60.2% 1.230 0.782 63.6% Rural Areas 0.849 0.360 42.4% 0.701 0.314 44.8% Urban Areas 0.536 0.473 88.3% 0.529 0.468 88.5% Maryland 6.165 5.702 92.5% 6.055 5.628 92.9% Rural Areas 0.911 0.612 67.2% 0.836 0.573 68.5% Urban Areas 5.254 5.090 96.9% 5.218 5.055 96.9% Massachusetts 6.982 6.357 91.0% 6.968 6.348 91.1% Rural Areas 0.627 0.379 60.5% 0.625 0.379 60.6% Urban Areas 6.355 5.977 94.1% 6.343 5.970 94.1% Michigan 10.034 8.315 82.9% 9.215 7.990 86.7% Rural Areas 2.712 1.306 48.2% 2.051 1.101 53.7% Urban Areas 7.323 7.010 95.7% 7.164 6.889 96.2% Minnesota 5.717 4.883 85.4% 4.777 4.325 90.5% Rural Areas 1.633 0.907 55.6% 0.997 0.605 60.7% Urban Areas 4.084 3.976 97.4% 3.781 3.720 98.4% Mississippi 2.940 1.806 61.4% 1.531 1.223 79.9% Rural Areas 1.587 0.552 34.8% 0.494 0.234 47.3% Urban Areas 1.354 1.254 92.6% 1.037 0.989 95.4% Missouri 6.178 5.064 82.0% 5.235 4.564 87.2% Rural Areas 1.918 0.928 48.4% 1.164 0.608 52.2% Urban Areas 4.260 4.136 97.1% 4.070 3.957 97.2% Montana 1.123 0.746 66.4% 0.734 0.561 76.5% Rural Areas 0.527 0.207 39.3% 0.239 0.110 45.9% Urban Areas 0.596 0.539 90.4% 0.495 0.452 91.3% N. Mariana Isl. 0.051 0.000 0.2% * * * Rural Areas 0.013 0.000 0.2% * * * Urban Areas 0.038 0.000 0.2% * * * Nebraska 1.968 1.408 71.5% 1.170 1.141 97.6% Rural Areas 0.532 0.148 27.8% 0.065 0.044 67.2% Urban Areas 1.436 1.260 87.7% 1.104 1.097 99.4% Nevada 3.178 3.076 96.8% 3.098 2.933 94.7% Rural Areas 0.189 0.119 63.1% 0.142 0.090 63.8% Urban Areas 2.989 2.957 98.9% 2.956 2.842 96.1% New Hampshire 1.395 0.903 64.7% 1.320 0.868 65.8% Rural Areas 0.589 0.240 40.7% 0.534 0.223 41.8% Urban Areas 0.806 0.663 82.3% 0.786 0.645 82.1% New Jersey 9.262 8.676 93.7% 9.262 8.676 93.7% Rural Areas 0.594 0.400 67.4% 0.594 0.400 67.4% Urban Areas 8.668 8.276 95.5% 8.668 8.276 95.5% New Mexico 2.113 1.662 78.6% 1.915 1.398 73.0% Rural Areas 0.532 0.181 34.1% 0.436 0.130 29.9% Urban Areas 1.581 1.481 93.6% 1.478 1.268 85.8% New York 19.677 17.853 90.7% 19.281 17.679 91.7% Rural Areas 2.563 1.446 56.4% 2.248 1.336 59.4% Urban Areas 17.114 16.407 95.9% 17.033 16.343 95.9% North Carolina 10.699 8.516 79.6% 9.498 7.948 83.7% Rural Areas 3.589 1.879 52.4% 2.632 1.520 57.7% Urban Areas 7.110 6.637 93.3% 6.866 6.428 93.6% North Dakota 0.779 0.610 78.3% 0.364 0.329 90.2% Rural Areas 0.302 0.164 54.1% 0.057 0.029 51.5% Urban Areas 0.477 0.447 93.7% 0.308 0.300 97.4% Ohio 11.756 10.190 86.7% 11.131 9.887 88.8% Rural Areas 2.812 1.549 55.1% 2.375 1.406 59.2% Urban Areas 8.944 8.641 96.6% 8.757 8.481 96.9% Oklahoma 4.020 3.327 82.8% 3.575 3.044 85.1% Rural Areas 1.432 0.794 55.4% 1.078 0.613 56.8% Urban Areas 2.588 2.533 97.9% 2.497 2.431 97.4% Oregon 4.240 3.643 85.9% 4.022 3.518 87.5% Rural Areas 0.843 0.363 43.1% 0.730 0.331 45.3% Urban Areas 3.397 3.280 96.5% 3.292 3.187 96.8% Pennsylvania 12.972 11.557 89.1% 12.517 11.317 90.4% Rural Areas 3.085 1.900 61.6% 2.739 1.759 64.2% Urban Areas 9.887 9.657 97.7% 9.778 9.558 97.7% Puerto Rico 3.222 3.077 95.5% * * * Rural Areas 0.255 0.176 68.8% * * * Urban Areas 2.966 2.901 97.8% * * * Rhode Island 1.094 0.998 91.2% 1.094 0.998 91.2% Rural Areas 0.101 0.065 64.7% 0.101 0.065 64.7% Urban Areas 0.993 0.932 93.9% 0.993 0.932 93.9% South Carolina 5.283 4.282 81.1% 4.708 4.017 85.3% Rural Areas 1.694 0.901 53.2% 1.245 0.737 59.2% Urban Areas 3.589 3.382 94.2% 3.463 3.280 94.7% South Dakota 0.910 0.735 80.7% 0.389 0.363 93.3% Rural Areas 0.393 0.233 59.4% 0.071 0.048 67.9% Urban Areas 0.517 0.501 96.9% 0.319 0.315 99.0% Tennessee 7.051 5.695 80.8% 5.695 5.020 88.1% Rural Areas 2.407 1.228 51.0% 1.364 0.813 59.6% Urban Areas 4.644 4.467 96.2% 4.331 4.207 97.1% Texas 30.030 26.950 89.7% 28.611 26.140 91.4% Rural Areas 5.029 2.908 57.8% 4.027 2.458 61.0% Urban Areas 25.001 24.042 96.2% 24.584 23.682 96.3% U.S. Virgin Isl. 0.105 0.094 89.5% * * * Rural Areas 0.006 0.003 52.4% * * * Urban Areas 0.099 0.091 91.8% * * * Utah 3.381 3.254 96.2% 3.237 3.152 97.4% Rural Areas 0.362 0.272 75.1% 0.254 0.200 78.9% Urban Areas 3.018 2.982 98.8% 2.983 2.952 99.0% Vermont 0.647 0.311 48.0% 0.169 0.112 65.9% Rural Areas 0.419 0.133 31.8% 0.045 0.015 34.1% Urban Areas 0.228 0.178 77.8% 0.124 0.096 77.4% Virginia 8.684 7.131 82.1% 7.338 6.380 86.9% Rural Areas 2.158 0.909 42.1% 1.238 0.575 46.4% Urban Areas 6.526 6.221 95.3% 6.100 5.806 95.2% Washington 7.786 6.732 86.5% 7.683 6.686 87.0% Rural Areas 1.331 0.559 42.0% 1.254 0.537 42.8% Urban Areas 6.455 6.173 95.6% 6.429 6.149 95.6% West Virginia 1.775 0.973 54.8% 1.262 0.812 64.4% Rural Areas 0.980 0.288 29.4% 0.557 0.197 35.3% Urban Areas 0.795 0.685 86.1% 0.705 0.616 87.3% Wisconsin 5.893 4.618 78.4% 5.026 4.316 85.9% Rural Areas 1.966 0.898 45.7% 1.229 0.699 56.9% Urban Areas 3.927 3.719 94.7% 3.797 3.617 95.2% Wyoming 0.581 0.385 66.2% 0.289 0.239 82.8% Rural Areas 0.226 0.095 41.9% 0.067 0.040 59.4% Urban Areas 0.356 0.290 81.6% 0.221 0.199 89.9% Excluding Fixed Wireless United States 336.881 285.699 84.8% 304.974 269.607 88.4% Rural Areas 68.031 29.995 44.1% 46.884 23.124 49.3% Urban Areas 268.850 255.704 95.1% 258.090 246.483 95.5% Alabama 5.074 3.775 74.4% 4.241 3.454 81.4% Rural Areas 2.155 1.039 48.2% 1.478 0.835 56.5% Urban Areas 2.919 2.736 93.7% 2.764 2.620 94.8% Alaska 0.734 0.407 55.4% 0.588 0.314 53.5% Rural Areas 0.267 0.045 16.7% 0.156 0.030 19.5% Urban Areas 0.466 0.362 77.6% 0.432 0.284 65.7% American Samoa 0.045 0.000 0.0% * * * Rural Areas 0.011 0.000 0.0% * * * Urban Areas 0.034 0.000 0.0% * * * Arizona 7.359 6.473 88.0% 7.311 6.450 88.2% Rural Areas 0.793 0.226 28.5% 0.763 0.211 27.7% Urban Areas 6.566 6.247 95.1% 6.548 6.239 95.3% Arkansas 3.046 2.123 69.7% 2.202 1.763 80.1% Rural Areas 1.359 0.544 40.0% 0.736 0.371 50.4% Urban Areas 1.686 1.579 93.7% 1.466 1.392 95.0% California 39.029 36.240 92.9% 38.924 36.203 93.0% Rural Areas 2.295 0.801 34.9% 2.214 0.785 35.5% Urban Areas 36.735 35.440 96.5% 36.710 35.417 96.5% Colorado 5.840 5.137 88.0% 5.476 4.974 90.8% Rural Areas 0.825 0.267 32.4% 0.573 0.197 34.3% Urban Areas 5.015 4.870 97.1% 4.903 4.777 97.4% Connecticut 3.626 3.173 87.5% 3.626 3.173 87.5% Rural Areas 0.507 0.311 61.3% 0.507 0.311 61.3% Urban Areas 3.119 2.863 91.8% 3.119 2.863 91.8% Delaware 1.018 0.934 91.7% 1.018 0.934 91.7% Rural Areas 0.181 0.120 66.4% 0.181 0.120 66.4% Urban Areas 0.837 0.813 97.1% 0.837 0.813 97.1% District of Columbia 0.672 0.670 99.7% 0.672 0.670 99.7% Urban Areas 0.672 0.670 99.7% 0.672 0.670 99.7% Florida 22.245 20.183 90.7% 21.993 20.096 91.4% Rural Areas 1.910 0.840 44.0% 1.688 0.779 46.1% Urban Areas 20.335 19.343 95.1% 20.305 19.317 95.1% Georgia 10.913 8.951 82.0% 9.170 8.168 89.1% Rural Areas 2.880 1.317 45.7% 1.542 0.858 55.7% Urban Areas 8.033 7.633 95.0% 7.628 7.310 95.8% Guam 0.169 0.033 19.8% * * * Rural Areas 0.020 0.000 0.8% * * * Urban Areas 0.149 0.033 22.3% * * * Hawaii 1.440 1.288 89.4% 1.440 1.288 89.4% Rural Areas 0.210 0.130 61.8% 0.210 0.130 61.8% Urban Areas 1.230 1.158 94.1% 1.230 1.158 94.1% Idaho 1.939 1.468 75.7% 1.521 1.277 84.0% Rural Areas 0.604 0.178 29.4% 0.312 0.097 31.0% Urban Areas 1.335 1.290 96.6% 1.210 1.181 97.6% Illinois 12.582 11.420 90.8% 11.566 10.924 94.5% Rural Areas 1.669 0.704 42.2% 0.969 0.474 48.9% Urban Areas 10.913 10.716 98.2% 10.597 10.450 98.6% Indiana 6.833 5.563 81.4% 5.738 4.991 87.0% Rural Areas 1.984 0.863 43.5% 1.211 0.590 48.7% Urban Areas 4.849 4.700 96.9% 4.526 4.401 97.2% Iowa 3.201 2.450 76.5% 2.119 1.860 87.8% Rural Areas 1.183 0.529 44.7% 0.415 0.206 49.6% Urban Areas 2.018 1.921 95.2% 1.704 1.654 97.1% Kansas 2.937 2.364 80.5% 2.042 1.835 89.9% Rural Areas 0.826 0.345 41.8% 0.271 0.117 43.2% Urban Areas 2.112 2.019 95.6% 1.770 1.717 97.0% Kentucky 4.512 3.081 68.3% 2.991 2.552 85.3% Rural Areas 1.873 0.627 33.5% 0.627 0.304 48.5% Urban Areas 2.639 2.454 93.0% 2.364 2.248 95.1% Louisiana 4.590 3.524 76.8% 3.937 3.306 84.0% Rural Areas 1.315 0.497 37.8% 0.842 0.400 47.4% Urban Areas 3.275 3.027 92.4% 3.094 2.906 93.9% Maine 1.385 0.823 59.4% 1.230 0.771 62.7% Rural Areas 0.849 0.357 42.0% 0.701 0.311 44.4% Urban Areas 0.536 0.466 86.8% 0.529 0.460 87.0% Maryland 6.165 5.679 92.1% 6.055 5.605 92.6% Rural Areas 0.911 0.602 66.1% 0.836 0.564 67.4% Urban Areas 5.254 5.077 96.6% 5.218 5.042 96.6% Massachusetts 6.982 6.345 90.9% 6.968 6.337 90.9% Rural Areas 0.627 0.379 60.4% 0.625 0.378 60.5% Urban Areas 6.355 5.966 93.9% 6.343 5.959 93.9% Michigan 10.034 8.125 81.0% 9.215 7.821 84.9% Rural Areas 2.712 1.158 42.7% 2.051 0.973 47.4% Urban Areas 7.323 6.967 95.1% 7.164 6.848 95.6% Minnesota 5.717 4.753 83.1% 4.777 4.240 88.7% Rural Areas 1.633 0.785 48.1% 0.997 0.527 52.8% Urban Areas 4.084 3.968 97.2% 3.781 3.713 98.2% Mississippi 2.940 1.794 61.0% 1.531 1.218 79.5% Rural Areas 1.587 0.542 34.2% 0.494 0.231 46.7% Urban Areas 1.354 1.251 92.5% 1.037 0.987 95.2% Missouri 6.178 4.765 77.1% 5.235 4.351 83.1% Rural Areas 1.918 0.677 35.3% 1.164 0.437 37.5% Urban Areas 4.260 4.088 96.0% 4.070 3.914 96.2% Montana 1.123 0.704 62.7% 0.734 0.526 71.8% Rural Areas 0.527 0.169 32.1% 0.239 0.079 33.0% Urban Areas 0.596 0.535 89.7% 0.495 0.448 90.5% N. Mariana Isl. 0.051 0.000 0.0% * * * Rural Areas 0.013 0.000 0.0% * * * Urban Areas 0.038 0.000 0.0% * * * Nebraska 1.968 1.376 69.9% 1.170 1.126 96.3% Rural Areas 0.532 0.119 22.3% 0.065 0.031 47.3% Urban Areas 1.436 1.257 87.5% 1.104 1.095 99.2% Nevada 3.178 2.992 94.2% 3.098 2.886 93.2% Rural Areas 0.189 0.076 40.0% 0.142 0.062 44.0% Urban Areas 2.989 2.916 97.6% 2.956 2.823 95.5% New Hampshire 1.395 0.900 64.5% 1.320 0.866 65.6% Rural Areas 0.589 0.238 40.4% 0.534 0.221 41.5% Urban Areas 0.806 0.662 82.2% 0.786 0.645 82.0% New Jersey 9.262 8.624 93.1% 9.262 8.624 93.1% Rural Areas 0.594 0.397 66.9% 0.594 0.397 66.9% Urban Areas 8.668 8.226 94.9% 8.668 8.226 94.9% New Mexico 2.113 1.610 76.2% 1.915 1.351 70.6% Rural Areas 0.532 0.153 28.8% 0.436 0.107 24.5% Urban Areas 1.581 1.457 92.1% 1.478 1.244 84.2% New York 19.677 17.638 89.6% 19.281 17.465 90.6% Rural Areas 2.563 1.436 56.0% 2.248 1.327 59.0% Urban Areas 17.114 16.202 94.7% 17.033 16.138 94.7% North Carolina 10.699 8.435 78.8% 9.498 7.876 82.9% Rural Areas 3.589 1.843 51.4% 2.632 1.492 56.7% Urban Areas 7.110 6.592 92.7% 6.866 6.384 93.0% North Dakota 0.779 0.602 77.3% 0.364 0.323 88.7% Rural Areas 0.302 0.157 51.8% 0.057 0.024 42.8% Urban Areas 0.477 0.446 93.5% 0.308 0.299 97.1% Ohio 11.756 10.052 85.5% 11.131 9.772 87.8% Rural Areas 2.812 1.461 52.0% 2.375 1.338 56.3% Urban Areas 8.944 8.591 96.0% 8.757 8.434 96.3% Oklahoma 4.020 3.173 78.9% 3.575 2.944 82.3% Rural Areas 1.432 0.659 46.0% 1.078 0.527 48.9% Urban Areas 2.588 2.514 97.1% 2.497 2.417 96.8% Oregon 4.240 3.590 84.7% 4.022 3.467 86.2% Rural Areas 0.843 0.322 38.3% 0.730 0.292 39.9% Urban Areas 3.397 3.268 96.2% 3.292 3.175 96.5% Pennsylvania 12.972 11.500 88.7% 12.517 11.272 90.0% Rural Areas 3.085 1.857 60.2% 2.739 1.725 63.0% Urban Areas 9.887 9.643 97.5% 9.778 9.546 97.6% Puerto Rico 3.222 2.786 86.5% * * * Rural Areas 0.255 0.096 37.5% * * * Urban Areas 2.966 2.691 90.7% * * * Rhode Island 1.094 0.998 91.2% 1.094 0.998 91.2% Rural Areas 0.101 0.065 64.7% 0.101 0.065 64.7% Urban Areas 0.993 0.932 93.9% 0.993 0.932 93.9% South Carolina 5.283 4.245 80.3% 4.708 3.984 84.6% Rural Areas 1.694 0.880 52.0% 1.245 0.721 57.9% Urban Areas 3.589 3.364 93.7% 3.463 3.264 94.2% South Dakota 0.910 0.724 79.5% 0.389 0.362 92.9% Rural Areas 0.393 0.223 56.9% 0.071 0.047 66.1% Urban Areas 0.517 0.500 96.7% 0.319 0.315 98.9% Tennessee 7.051 5.672 80.4% 5.695 5.001 87.8% Rural Areas 2.407 1.215 50.5% 1.364 0.803 58.9% Urban Areas 4.644 4.458 96.0% 4.331 4.198 96.9% Texas 30.030 25.639 85.4% 28.611 24.975 87.3% Rural Areas 5.029 2.033 40.4% 4.027 1.707 42.4% Urban Areas 25.001 23.606 94.4% 24.584 23.268 94.6% U.S. Virgin Isl. 0.105 0.094 88.9% * * * Rural Areas 0.006 0.003 48.0% * * * Urban Areas 0.099 0.091 91.5% * * * Utah 3.381 3.153 93.3% 3.237 3.065 94.7% Rural Areas 0.362 0.208 57.4% 0.254 0.150 59.0% Urban Areas 3.018 2.945 97.6% 2.983 2.915 97.7% Vermont 0.647 0.309 47.7% 0.169 0.111 65.8% Rural Areas 0.419 0.131 31.4% 0.045 0.015 33.7% Urban Areas 0.228 0.178 77.8% 0.124 0.096 77.4% Virginia 8.684 7.014 80.8% 7.338 6.305 85.9% Rural Areas 2.158 0.817 37.9% 1.238 0.521 42.1% Urban Areas 6.526 6.197 95.0% 6.100 5.784 94.8% Washington 7.786 6.634 85.2% 7.683 6.593 85.8% Rural Areas 1.331 0.482 36.2% 1.254 0.466 37.2% Urban Areas 6.455 6.152 95.3% 6.429 6.127 95.3% West Virginia 1.775 0.964 54.3% 1.262 0.807 63.9% Rural Areas 0.980 0.282 28.8% 0.557 0.193 34.7% Urban Areas 0.795 0.682 85.8% 0.705 0.613 87.0% Wisconsin 5.893 4.388 74.5% 5.026 4.115 81.9% Rural Areas 1.966 0.726 36.9% 1.229 0.555 45.2% Urban Areas 3.927 3.662 93.3% 3.797 3.560 93.7% Wyoming 0.581 0.343 59.0% 0.289 0.215 74.6% Rural Areas 0.226 0.062 27.3% 0.067 0.022 33.4% Urban Areas 0.356 0.281 79.1% 0.221 0.193 87.1% Source: FCC BDC data; Ookla Speedtest data; Staff Block Estimates. Note: U.S. territories do not have a sufficient number of samples, thus, we do not provide Ookla analysis in these areas. APPX. B-7 Adoption Rate for Fixed Terrestrial Services in the United States and U.S. Territories (December 31, 2022) Including Fixed Wireless Excluding Fixed Wireless 25/3 Mbps 100/20 Mbps 940/500 Mbps 25/3 Mbps 100/20 Mbps 940/500 Mbps United States 78.2% 41.3% 19.6% 79.3% 41.8% 19.9% Alabama 71.5% 37.8% 22.0% 71.1% 37.7% 22.0% Alaska 65.0% * 8.0% 70.2% * * American Samoa * 0.0% NA * 0.0% NA Arizona 79.6% 27.2% 9.9% 78.8% 26.3% 20.2% Arkansas 63.2% 36.0% 15.5% 63.6% 36.1% 15.5% California 82.7% 36.7% 16.6% 83.2% 36.5% 16.2% Colorado 83.4% 34.6% 18.4% 85.0% 35.0% 18.1% Connecticut 78.5% 47.0% 7.2% 77.8% 46.9% 7.2% Delaware 73.6% 47.7% * 74.3% 47.7% * District of Columbia 77.7% 51.3% * 74.1% 49.4% * Florida 85.9% 43.6% 18.0% 85.5% 43.3% 17.9% Georgia 79.7% 46.5% 27.0% 79.4% 46.7% 27.0% Guam * * 0.0% * * 0.0% Hawaii * * * * * * Idaho 61.6% 43.8% 11.0% 65.3% 47.9% 11.9% Illinois 72.8% 37.2% 12.5% 71.7% 36.2% 11.3% Indiana 72.9% 39.8% 16.7% 75.1% 39.9% 16.7% Iowa 66.1% 48.0% 10.7% 67.0% 50.7% 10.7% Kansas 70.6% 38.6% 26.7% 73.6% 40.4% 26.7% Kentucky 74.6% 40.3% 13.1% 75.7% 40.4% 13.1% Louisiana 68.8% 31.7% 20.2% 69.8% 31.9% 20.2% Maine 74.6% 19.5% 1.3% 78.4% 19.7% 1.3% Maryland 87.3% 60.2% * 87.0% 60.2% * Massachusetts 85.2% 49.7% 26.6% 84.0% 49.2% 26.7% Michigan 76.1% 31.2% 11.2% 77.9% 31.5% 11.2% Minnesota 76.5% 32.1% 8.3% 76.1% 32.3% 8.3% Mississippi 62.3% 44.5% 27.8% 62.4% 44.8% 27.8% Missouri 68.1% 40.4% 18.9% 74.0% 43.8% 23.2% Montana 69.0% 21.2% 10.6% 76.7% 22.5% 10.8% N. Mariana Isl. * 0.0% NA * NA NA Nebraska 75.1% 34.6% 8.8% 77.8% 36.3% 8.8% Nevada 80.5% 27.0% 15.8% 78.6% 26.1% 17.2% New Hampshire 82.4% 48.3% 1.8% 82.7% 48.4% 1.8% New Jersey 82.4% 62.2% * 82.6% 62.4% * New Mexico 66.1% 22.3% 19.1% 68.7% 22.9% 19.1% New York 79.8% 49.3% 20.2% 80.3% 49.6% 20.2% North Carolina 84.9% 42.6% 24.3% 86.1% 42.8% 24.3% North Dakota 73.4% 67.8% 5.1% 73.3% 68.1% 5.1% Ohio 77.1% 34.3% 11.0% 78.0% 34.4% 11.0% Oklahoma 63.6% 33.8% 22.4% 66.9% 35.9% 22.4% Oregon 81.7% 31.8% 10.5% 82.4% 31.9% 10.5% Pennsylvania 81.1% 51.3% 21.2% 80.3% 51.3% 21.2% Puerto Rico 38.2% 11.8% 1.3% 41.0% 12.8% 1.3% Rhode Island 82.7% 43.9% * 81.8% 43.8% * South Carolina 80.4% 44.1% 15.8% 79.9% 44.1% 15.8% South Dakota 76.1% 60.4% 8.1% 76.8% 61.3% 8.3% Tennessee 79.3% 46.0% 23.9% 78.5% 45.7% 23.9% Texas 78.0% 46.7% 25.4% 82.5% 49.8% 26.5% U.S. Virgin Isl. * * NA * * NA Utah 81.2% 40.3% 23.1% 78.8% 40.0% 23.2% Vermont 79.3% 43.1% 13.6% 84.6% 43.3% 13.6% Virginia 80.5% 47.6% 35.9% 82.5% 48.9% 35.9% Washington 85.7% 33.3% 12.8% 86.3% 33.2% 12.5% West Virginia 66.5% 42.5% 11.2% 69.8% 43.0% 11.2% Wisconsin 72.0% 25.8% 8.3% 77.0% 27.3% 8.3% Wyoming 72.8% 21.3% 7.7% 74.5% 23.4% 9.6% Source: FCC BDC data; Staff Block Estimates. NA: Service is not available in this area; * Data not included to maintain confidentiality. APPX. B-8 Service Availability (Millions) of Fixed 100/20 Mbps and Mobile Services at Different Speed Tiers Including U.S. Territories 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Pop. % Pop. % Pop. % Pop. % Pop. % Fixed 100/20 Mbps (Including Fixed Wireless) and Mobile 5G-NR - 35/3 Mbps (In-Vehicle Mobile Service) United States 236.149 70.0% Rural Areas 20.594 30.2% Urban Areas 215.555 80.1% Tribal Areas 2.242 55.4% Fixed 100/20 Mbps (Excluding Fixed Wireless) and Mobile 5G-NR - 35/3 Mbps (In-Vehicle Mobile Service) United States 231.605 68.7% Rural Areas 17.958 26.3% Urban Areas 213.647 79.4% Tribal Areas 2.113 52.2% Fixed 100/20 Mbps (Incl. Fixed Wireless) and Mobile 5G-NR - 7/1 Mbps (Outdoor Stationary Service) United States 288.749 86.7% 310.723 92.6% 306.525 90.9% Rural Areas 36.504 55.2% 47.466 70.3% 43.970 64.6% Urban Areas 252.245 94.4% 263.256 98.1% 262.555 97.6% Tribal Areas 2.227 54.5% 2.864 70.7% 2.948 72.9% Fixed 100/20 Mbps (Excl. Fixed Wireless) and Mobile 5G-NR - 7/1 Mbps (Outdoor Stationary Service) United States 285.009 85.5% 305.974 91.1% 299.085 88.7% Rural Areas 34.306 51.9% 44.071 65.3% 38.701 56.8% Urban Areas 250.703 93.9% 261.903 97.6% 260.384 96.8% Tribal Areas 2.128 52.1% 2.789 68.8% 2.697 66.7% Fixed 100/20 Mbps (Including Fixed Wireless) and Mobile 5G-NR - 7/1 Mbps (In-Vehicle Mobile Service) United States 291.541 86.5% Rural Areas 35.314 51.9% Urban Areas 256.227 95.3% Tribal Areas 2.762 68.3% Fixed 100/20 Mbps (Excluding Fixed Wireless) and Mobile 5G-NR - 7/1 Mbps (In-Vehicle Mobile Service) United States 284.906 84.5% Rural Areas 30.800 45.2% Urban Areas 254.106 94.5% Tribal Areas 2.542 62.8% Fixed 100/20 Mbps (Including Fixed Wireless) and Mobile 4G LTE (Outdoor Stationary Service) United States 291.811 88.2% 297.069 89.5% 304.753 91.5% 315.365 93.9% 311.636 92.5% Rural Areas 37.515 57.9% 40.407 61.8% 44.780 67.8% 51.240 75.9% 48.398 71.1% Urban Areas 254.295 95.6% 256.662 96.3% 259.973 97.3% 264.125 98.5% 263.237 97.9% Tribal Areas 1.995 49.4% 2.218 54.7% 2.484 60.8% 2.988 73.7% 3.076 76.0% Fixed 100/20 Mbps (Excluding Fixed Wireless) and Mobile 4G LTE (Outdoor Stationary Service) United States 287.884 87.0% 294.107 88.6% 300.434 90.2% 310.161 92.4% 303.696 90.1% Rural Areas 36.228 55.9% 38.752 59.3% 42.088 63.7% 47.533 70.4% 42.673 62.7% Urban Areas 251.657 94.6% 255.354 95.8% 258.347 96.7% 262.628 97.9% 261.022 97.0% Tribal Areas 1.946 48.1% 2.130 52.5% 2.353 57.6% 2.896 71.4% 2.800 69.2% Fixed 100/20 Mbps (Including Fixed Wireless) and Mobile 4G LTE (In-Vehicle Mobile Service) United States 306.639 91.0% Rural Areas 44.317 65.1% Urban Areas 262.321 97.5% Tribal Areas 3.005 74.3% Fixed 100/20 Mbps (Excluding Fixed Wireless) and Mobile 4G LTE (In-Vehicle Mobile Service) United States 299.058 88.7% Rural Areas 38.948 57.2% Urban Areas 260.111 96.7% Tribal Areas 2.741 67.8% Pop. Evaluated 330.740 100.0% 331.777 100.0% 333.018 100.0% 335.530 100.0% 336.881 100.0% Source: FCC Form 477 data; FCC BDC data; Staff Block Estimates. Note: For the purposes of this report, we assume that all mobile broadband deployment data collected through Form 477 was modeled using an outdoor stationary environment. The Commission did not collect in-vehicle mobile data prior to 2022. APPX. B-9 Service Availability (Millions) of Fixed 100/20 Mbps and Mobile Services at Different Speed Tiers 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Pop. % Pop. % Pop. % Pop. % Pop. % Fixed 100/20 Mbps (Including Fixed Wireless) and Mobile 5G-NR - 35/3 Mbps (In-Vehicle Mobile Service) United States 233.126 69.9% Rural Areas 20.448 30.1% Urban Areas 212.677 80.0% Tribal Areas 2.242 55.4% Fixed 100/20 Mbps (Excluding Fixed Wireless) and Mobile 5G-NR - 35/3 Mbps (In-Vehicle Mobile Service) United States 228.868 68.6% Rural Areas 17.876 26.3% Urban Areas 210.992 79.4% Tribal Areas 2.113 52.2% Fixed 100/20 Mbps (Incl. Fixed Wireless) and Mobile 5G-NR - 7/1 Mbps (Outdoor Stationary Service) United States 285.644 86.6% 307.384 92.6% 303.242 90.9% Rural Areas 36.353 55.2% 47.208 70.3% 43.783 64.6% Urban Areas 249.291 94.5% 260.176 98.2% 259.459 97.7% Tribal Areas 2.227 54.5% 2.864 70.7% 2.948 72.9% Fixed 100/20 Mbps (Excl. Fixed Wireless) and Mobile 5G-NR - 7/1 Mbps (Outdoor Stationary Service) United States 282.393 85.7% 303.073 91.3% 296.148 88.8% Rural Areas 34.249 52.0% 43.932 65.4% 38.599 56.9% Urban Areas 248.144 94.1% 259.141 97.8% 257.549 96.9% Tribal Areas 2.128 52.1% 2.789 68.8% 2.697 66.7% Fixed 100/20 Mbps (Including Fixed Wireless) and Mobile 5G-NR - 7/1 Mbps (In-Vehicle Mobile Service) United States 288.431 86.5% Rural Areas 35.160 51.9% Urban Areas 253.271 95.3% Tribal Areas 2.762 68.3% Fixed 100/20 Mbps (Excluding Fixed Wireless) and Mobile 5G-NR - 7/1 Mbps  (In-Vehicle Mobile Service) United States 282.098 84.6% Rural Areas 30.713 45.3% Urban Areas 251.385 94.6% Tribal Areas 2.542 62.8% Fixed 100/20 Mbps (Including Fixed Wireless) and Mobile 4G LTE (Outdoor Stationary Service) United States 289.620 88.5% 294.013 89.5% 301.583 91.5% 311.839 93.9% 308.240 92.4% Rural Areas 37.451 58.0% 40.287 61.9% 44.614 67.7% 50.965 75.9% 48.186 71.1% Urban Areas 252.169 96.0% 253.726 96.4% 256.970 97.4% 260.874 98.5% 260.054 97.9% Tribal Areas 1.995 49.4% 2.218 54.7% 2.484 60.8% 2.988 73.7% 3.076 76.0% Fixed 100/20 Mbps (Excluding Fixed Wireless) and Mobile 4G LTE (Outdoor Stationary Service) United States 287.658 87.9% 291.237 88.7% 297.771 90.3% 307.209 92.5% 300.705 90.2% Rural Areas 36.221 56.1% 38.663 59.4% 42.026 63.8% 47.384 70.6% 42.563 62.8% Urban Areas 251.437 95.7% 252.574 95.9% 255.744 96.9% 259.825 98.1% 258.142 97.2% Tribal Areas 1.946 48.1% 2.130 52.5% 2.353 57.6% 2.896 71.4% 2.800 69.2% Fixed 100/20 Mbps (Including Fixed Wireless) and Mobile 4G LTE (In-Vehicle Mobile Service) United States 303.263 90.9% Rural Areas 44.114 65.1% Urban Areas 259.149 97.5% Tribal Areas 3.005 74.3% Fixed 100/20 Mbps (Excluding Fixed Wireless) and Mobile 4G LTE (In-Vehicle Mobile Service) United States 296.080 88.8% Rural Areas 38.840 57.3% Urban Areas 257.239 96.8% Tribal Areas 2.741 67.8% Pop. Evaluated 327.167 100.0% 328.210 100.0% 329.491 100.0% 331.894 100.0% 333.288 100.0% Source: FCC Form 477 data; FCC BDC data; Staff Block Estimates. Note: For the purposes of this report, we assume that all mobile broadband deployment data collected through Form 477 was modeled using an outdoor stationary environment. The Commission did not collect in-vehicle mobile data prior to 2022. APPX. B-10 Service Availability (Millions) on Tribal Lands of Mobile 5G-NR with a Minimum Speed of 35/3 Mbps 2020 2021 2022 Area Pop. % Pop. % Pop. % Tribal Lands 2.308 56.5% 3.603 88.9% 3.145 77.8% Rural Areas 0.928 43.2% 1.832 81.7% 1.371 61.8% Urban Areas 1.380 71.3% 1.771 97.9% 1.774 97.3% Alaska Native Village Statistical Areas 0.110 40.9% 0.147 54.0% 0.118 43.6% Rural Areas 0.050 29.0% 0.075 42.1% 0.050 28.2% Urban Areas 0.060 62.7% 0.072 76.8% 0.068 72.4% Federal Reservations 0.407 37.1% 0.850 78.1% 0.689 65.1% Rural Areas 0.219 28.6% 0.583 71.8% 0.419 53.8% Urban Areas 0.188 56.5% 0.267 96.6% 0.269 97.2% Hawaiian Home Lands 0.010 29.3% 0.031 89.0% 0.032 94.0% Rural Areas 0.001 22.0% 0.006 74.8% 0.006 78.0% Urban Areas 0.009 30.9% 0.024 93.6% 0.026 99.1% Tribal Statistical Areas 1.781 66.4% 2.576 96.9% 2.307 86.0% Rural Areas 0.657 54.7% 1.168 93.8% 0.896 71.4% Urban Areas 1.124 76.0% 1.408 99.7% 1.411 98.9% Pop. Evaluated 4.083 100.0% 4.051 100.0% 4.043 100.0% Source: FCC Form 477 data; FCC BDC data; Staff Block Estimates. APPX. B-11 Service Availability (Millions) of Fixed 100/20 Mbps and Mobile Services at Different Median Ookla Speed Tiers 2020 2021 2022 Pop. % Pop. % Pop. % Fixed 100/20 Mbps (Including Fixed Wireless) and Mobile 5G-NR with a Median Speed of 7/1 Mbps United States 246.221 93.1% 280.513 95.8% 285.381 93.6% Rural Areas 18.915 67.0% 30.975 78.1% 32.802 70.0% Urban Areas 227.306 96.2% 249.538 98.6% 252.579 97.9% Fixed 100/20 Mbps (Excluding Fixed Wireless) and Mobile 5G-NR with a Median Speed of 7/1 Mbps United States 244.317 92.4% 277.438 94.7% 279.616 91.7% Rural Areas 17.893 63.4% 28.855 72.7% 28.871 61.6% Urban Areas 226.425 95.8% 248.583 98.2% 250.744 97.2% Pop. Evaluated 264.520 80.3% 292.861 88.2% 304.974 91.5% Fixed 100/20 Mbps (Incl. Fixed Wireless) and Mobile Broadband with a Median Speed of 10/3 Mbps United States 289.341 89.5% 298.023 91.5% 297.051 90.8% Rural Areas 36.667 60.1% 40.910 66.2% 39.876 64.0% Urban Areas 252.673 96.3% 257.112 97.4% 257.176 97.2% Fixed 100/20 Mbps (Excl. Fixed Wireless) and Mobile Broadband with a Median Speed of 10/3 Mbps United States 286.149 88.5% 294.186 90.3% 290.501 88.8% Rural Areas 34.622 56.7% 38.056 61.5% 35.191 56.5% Urban Areas 251.527 95.9% 256.130 97.1% 255.310 96.5% Pop. Evaluated 323.358 98.1% 325.755 98.2% 327.008 98.1% Source: FCC Form 477 data; FCC BDC data; Ookla Speedtest data; Staff Block Estimates. APPX. B-12 Service Availability (Millions) of Fixed Terrestrial Services at 100/20 Mbps and Mobile 5G-NR with a Minimum Speed of 35/3 Mbps By State and County, including U.S. Territories (December 31, 2022) State, Territory, County or County Equivalent Pop. Evaluated % of Pop. With Fixed 100/20 Mbps % of Pop. With Mobile 5G-NR 35/3 Mbps % of Pop. with Fixed & Mobile Pop. Density Per Capita Income Alabama 5,074,296 82.8% 85.1% 75.0% 100.2 $33,344 Autauga County 59,759 94.9% 90.9% 86.8% 100.5 $35,332 Baldwin County 246,435 72.1% 91.4% 68.0% 155.0 $38,907 Barbour County 24,706 61.3% 57.3% 42.6% 27.9 $23,378 Bibb County 22,005 14.9% 49.9% 11.4% 35.4 $24,966 Blount County 59,512 34.7% 69.0% 27.2% 92.3 $29,053 Bullock County 10,202 85.0% 5.2% 3.4% 16.4 $22,115 Butler County 18,650 62.8% 55.8% 42.7% 24.0 $26,334 Calhoun County 115,788 92.1% 95.2% 89.8% 191.1 $28,227 Chambers County 34,088 81.5% 76.6% 70.9% 57.1 $27,006 Cherokee County 25,302 31.8% 49.4% 26.2% 45.7 $28,422 Chilton County 45,884 48.2% 47.3% 16.7% 66.2 $28,497 Choctaw County 12,439 21.6% 32.0% 7.6% 13.6 $26,343 Clarke County 22,515 41.0% 55.3% 34.3% 18.2 $29,310 Clay County 14,198 30.1% 39.1% 20.8% 23.5 $27,991 Cleburne County 15,346 13.7% 33.0% 4.7% 27.4 $28,598 Coffee County 54,805 81.7% 52.8% 45.5% 80.7 $31,227 Colbert County 58,033 78.9% 82.9% 71.2% 97.9 $30,724 Conecuh County 11,206 34.0% 44.5% 25.6% 13.2 $24,426 Coosa County 10,166 73.8% 41.1% 35.9% 15.6 $28,998 Covington County 37,602 90.1% 61.7% 59.9% 36.5 $28,528 Crenshaw County 13,025 53.7% 51.8% 32.0% 21.4 $32,396 Cullman County 90,665 75.1% 67.2% 53.6% 123.4 $29,788 Dale County 49,544 66.1% 63.5% 46.4% 88.3 $28,312 Dallas County 36,767 72.3% 51.8% 43.9% 37.6 $22,798 DeKalb County 71,998 84.9% 63.9% 56.0% 92.7 $24,915 Elmore County 89,563 86.6% 86.7% 75.6% 144.8 $34,152 Escambia County 36,666 57.3% 65.2% 46.9% 38.8 $21,758 Etowah County 103,088 88.6% 86.5% 80.5% 192.6 $28,479 Fayette County 16,118 50.1% 46.0% 27.8% 25.7 $27,053 Franklin County 31,932 57.9% 71.0% 50.5% 50.4 $24,874 Geneva County 26,783 58.9% 53.6% 40.2% 46.6 $25,644 Greene County 7,422 21.1% 57.5% 21.1% 11.5 $20,862 Hale County 14,595 47.0% 54.7% 36.7% 22.7 $23,690 Henry County 17,655 47.5% 55.0% 40.7% 31.4 $30,273 Houston County 108,079 86.3% 85.2% 78.6% 186.4 $32,126 Jackson County 52,891 91.3% 48.1% 44.4% 49.1 $27,695 Jefferson County 665,409 94.7% 98.1% 93.3% 598.6 $38,224 Lamar County 13,705 96.5% 44.5% 42.8% 22.7 $24,794 Lauderdale County 95,878 81.5% 89.2% 76.3% 143.5 $32,678 Lawrence County 33,214 92.3% 63.5% 58.5% 48.1 $29,486 Lee County 180,773 94.3% 88.9% 85.1% 297.5 $33,083 Limestone County 110,900 86.8% 97.5% 86.0% 198.0 $37,504 Lowndes County 9,777 26.7% 19.6% 8.6% 13.7 $23,415 Macon County 18,516 64.3% 52.1% 42.6% 30.4 $22,449 Madison County 403,565 98.3% 98.5% 97.0% 503.4 $44,720 Marengo County 18,745 70.1% 65.2% 52.5% 19.2 $27,210 Marion County 29,156 99.7% 65.4% 65.2% 39.3 $25,205 Marshall County 99,423 92.9% 91.4% 86.3% 175.7 $29,509 Mobile County 411,411 90.1% 95.1% 87.2% 334.7 $30,482 Monroe County 19,404 53.1% 44.2% 31.0% 18.9 $23,090 Montgomery County 226,361 92.0% 96.9% 89.8% 288.2 $32,769 Morgan County 124,211 85.3% 84.8% 76.0% 214.3 $33,223 Perry County 8,035 21.4% 35.8% 20.2% 11.2 $16,581 Pickens County 18,697 48.7% 59.5% 40.8% 21.2 $26,912 Pike County 33,014 56.6% 70.1% 41.7% 49.1 $26,685 Randolph County 22,479 33.9% 47.1% 25.3% 38.7 $27,558 Russell County 58,555 85.5% 94.8% 83.9% 91.3 $25,855 Shelby County 230,115 87.9% 97.7% 86.8% 293.0 $45,701 St. Clair County 93,932 85.7% 93.4% 82.0% 148.7 $33,571 Sumter County 11,853 43.2% 62.2% 39.2% 13.1 $19,720 Talladega County 80,704 79.5% 94.6% 76.4% 109.5 $29,236 Tallapoosa County 40,977 82.9% 50.6% 45.6% 57.2 $29,682 Tuscaloosa County 236,780 89.4% 95.6% 87.7% 179.3 $32,141 Walker County 64,339 64.2% 90.5% 61.5% 81.3 $28,204 Washington County 15,122 19.6% 28.2% 11.4% 14.0 $29,210 Wilcox County 10,059 34.7% 18.6% 9.2% 11.3 $20,442 Winston County 23,755 45.9% 51.2% 30.5% 38.8 $26,933 Alaska 733,599 78.7% 63.2% 59.0% 1.3 $42,828 Aleutians East Borough 3,398 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.5 $42,165 Aleutians West Census Area 5,122 3.5% 0.0% 0.0% 1.2 $47,339 Anchorage Municipality 287,145 97.0% 84.3% 83.3% 168.2 $46,554 Bethel Census Area 18,257 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.4 $25,859 Bristol Bay Borough 865 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.8 $45,499 Chugach Census Area 6,874 49.2% 42.1% 38.4% 0.7 $44,700 Copper River Census Area 2,589 69.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1 $37,887 Denali Borough 1,585 2.6% 13.9% 0.2% 0.1 $73,692 Dillingham Census Area 4,723 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.3 $31,948 Fairbanks North Star Borough 95,356 89.0% 69.5% 64.4% 13.0 $42,744 Haines Borough 2,056 39.0% 0.3% 0.1% 0.9 $33,585 Hoonah-Angoon Census Area 2,287 39.0% 18.1% 17.6% 0.3 $39,257 Juneau City and Borough 31,685 98.1% 76.3% 75.9% 11.7 $49,207 Kenai Peninsula Borough 60,690 80.0% 51.2% 45.0% 3.8 $40,720 Ketchikan Gateway Borough 13,741 98.4% 57.0% 56.5% 2.8 $44,368 Kodiak Island Borough 12,720 82.6% 63.5% 59.2% 1.9 $39,563 Kusilvak Census Area 8,278 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.5 $17,166 Lake and Peninsula Borough 1,381 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1 $39,409 Matanuska-Susitna Borough 113,325 67.3% 68.6% 54.5% 4.6 $39,201 Nome Census Area 9,835 40.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.4 $28,678 North Slope Borough 10,805 52.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1 $61,841 Northwest Arctic Borough 7,423 39.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2 $32,133 Petersburg Borough 3,360 93.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.2 $37,856 Prince of Wales-Hyder Census Area 5,666 3.9% 0.2% 0.0% 0.9 $34,433 Sitka City and Borough 8,382 97.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.9 $43,964 Skagway Municipality 1,081 55.7% 84.6% 54.6% 2.5 $46,771 Southeast Fairbanks Census Area 7,021 5.4% 21.7% 4.3% 0.3 $33,809 Wrangell City and Borough 2,070 85.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.8 $35,421 Yakutat City and Borough 700 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1 $45,578 Yukon-Koyukuk Census Area 5,179 0.1% 8.9% 0.0% 0.0 $29,382 American Samoa 45,443 22.1% 0.0% 0.0% 595.2 NA Eastern District 15,034 28.7% 0.0% 0.0% 597.9 NA Manu'a District 777 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 34.9 NA Western District 29,632 19.3% 0.0% 0.0% 1,058.6 NA Arizona 7,359,197 93.0% 96.5% 91.8% 64.8 $38,334 Apache County 65,432 2.5% 17.5% 0.9% 5.8 $18,930 Cochise County 125,663 42.0% 88.5% 37.4% 20.2 $31,423 Coconino County 144,060 70.0% 87.4% 68.6% 7.7 $32,592 Gila County 53,922 54.4% 91.0% 53.2% 11.3 $29,945 Graham County 38,779 85.0% 54.6% 47.8% 8.4 $24,052 Greenlee County 9,302 68.6% 85.0% 57.8% 5.0 $29,394 La Paz County 16,506 1.0% 72.0% 1.0% 3.7 $30,399 Maricopa County 4,551,524 98.8% 99.8% 98.6% 494.6 $41,533 Mohave County 220,816 79.1% 95.5% 79.1% 16.6 $32,835 Navajo County 108,650 50.8% 47.7% 40.5% 10.9 $22,826 Pima County 1,057,597 99.2% 98.9% 98.4% 115.1 $36,494 Pinal County 464,154 91.7% 96.7% 89.8% 86.5 $33,158 Santa Cruz County 48,759 95.3% 78.6% 76.5% 39.4 $25,619 Yavapai County 246,191 71.1% 90.1% 65.9% 30.3 $37,666 Yuma County 207,842 93.1% 99.5% 93.0% 37.7 $27,516 Arkansas 3,045,637 81.1% 81.8% 70.8% 58.6 $31,868 Arkansas County 16,512 43.5% 77.7% 43.5% 16.6 $28,759 Ashley County 18,354 63.0% 34.4% 24.2% 19.8 $25,568 Baxter County 42,435 97.9% 71.5% 70.0% 76.6 $30,264 Benton County 302,863 88.6% 95.2% 87.4% 357.3 $43,359 Boone County 38,284 63.1% 74.8% 52.6% 64.9 $28,886 Bradley County 10,135 78.0% 48.0% 43.4% 15.6 $23,830 Calhoun County 4,695 84.6% 18.2% 14.4% 7.5 $24,047 Carroll County 28,742 55.2% 74.0% 50.2% 45.6 $29,123 Chicot County 9,873 70.8% 67.4% 56.7% 15.5 $24,156 Clark County 21,250 90.7% 66.8% 60.9% 24.5 $24,532 Clay County 14,265 86.9% 37.0% 34.9% 22.3 $26,554 Cleburne County 25,284 47.7% 64.0% 38.7% 45.6 $31,041 Cleveland County 7,467 0.4% 30.9% 0.1% 12.5 $26,479 Columbia County 22,216 64.0% 62.1% 43.7% 29.0 $27,243 Conway County 21,046 63.1% 73.7% 49.5% 38.1 $28,694 Craighead County 113,017 93.1% 85.1% 78.6% 159.8 $31,298 Crawford County 61,075 97.9% 86.7% 85.2% 102.6 $28,920 Crittenden County 47,061 91.6% 93.0% 87.8% 76.8 $27,834 Cross County 16,601 73.8% 60.3% 53.9% 26.9 $27,776 Dallas County 6,191 60.8% 66.4% 50.8% 9.3 $26,378 Desha County 10,771 88.8% 75.2% 72.1% 14.5 $21,588 Drew County 16,911 69.3% 44.6% 38.0% 20.4 $27,349 Faulkner County 127,665 80.1% 94.5% 77.9% 197.2 $31,301 Franklin County 17,271 57.5% 62.0% 35.1% 28.4 $25,517 Fulton County 12,382 98.2% 45.3% 44.6% 20.0 $22,895 Garland County 100,089 86.2% 86.1% 78.3% 147.7 $31,854 Grant County 18,160 68.4% 47.8% 35.2% 28.7 $35,170 Greene County 46,448 99.9% 75.6% 75.5% 80.5 $26,941 Hempstead County 19,453 72.1% 64.7% 59.6% 26.8 $25,577 Hot Spring County 33,203 64.4% 48.5% 38.2% 54.0 $25,486 Howard County 12,557 71.3% 59.0% 47.2% 21.4 $25,458 Independence County 37,945 55.6% 72.9% 49.4% 49.7 $27,867 Izard County 14,048 87.5% 32.9% 31.4% 24.2 $25,331 Jackson County 16,624 61.4% 66.9% 53.2% 26.2 $23,048 Jefferson County 64,246 62.4% 92.6% 62.0% 73.6 $24,571 Johnson County 26,001 88.7% 72.8% 67.1% 39.3 $22,457 Lafayette County 6,101 40.7% 33.3% 20.8% 11.5 $23,699 Lawrence County 16,205 91.7% 62.1% 56.1% 27.6 $25,301 Lee County 8,364 43.2% 50.7% 39.8% 13.9 $20,338 Lincoln County 12,916 36.8% 27.4% 16.1% 23.1 $18,191 Little River County 11,821 57.2% 53.0% 37.3% 22.3 $28,764 Logan County 21,253 27.7% 62.8% 21.6% 30.0 $28,495 Lonoke County 75,225 60.5% 97.3% 58.8% 97.5 $32,720 Madison County 17,486 83.2% 42.1% 37.5% 21.0 $27,709 Marion County 17,254 46.1% 56.3% 30.9% 28.9 $25,315 Miller County 42,552 98.0% 81.0% 79.8% 68.2 $26,572 Mississippi County 38,896 89.3% 73.7% 66.0% 43.1 $27,863 Monroe County 6,564 0.2% 33.6% 0.2% 10.8 $24,117 Montgomery County 8,556 33.1% 41.7% 22.0% 11.0 $26,815 Nevada County 8,181 65.2% 36.0% 28.1% 13.2 $22,041 Newton County 7,078 2.5% 40.5% 0.4% 8.6 $26,544 Ouachita County 22,049 81.0% 76.1% 69.0% 30.1 $25,289 Perry County 10,063 91.1% 61.0% 57.2% 18.3 $26,967 Phillips County 15,304 71.2% 79.8% 64.4% 22.2 $22,644 Pike County 10,179 97.1% 42.5% 41.7% 17.0 $28,392 Poinsett County 22,495 85.2% 64.0% 52.5% 29.7 $24,807 Polk County 19,337 52.1% 39.5% 25.2% 22.6 $30,395 Pope County 64,065 73.2% 85.8% 65.8% 79.0 $28,018 Prairie County 8,069 71.4% 76.8% 58.1% 12.5 $29,018 Pulaski County 399,145 94.9% 99.2% 94.6% 526.4 $39,146 Randolph County 18,837 88.2% 51.9% 48.5% 28.9 $25,528 Saline County 127,357 92.3% 95.9% 89.4% 176.0 $36,151 Scott County 9,805 29.1% 60.4% 26.8% 11.0 $23,086 Searcy County 7,918 23.8% 54.5% 21.0% 11.9 $22,384 Sebastian County 129,059 98.0% 95.4% 93.8% 243.0 $32,577 Sevier County 15,686 76.1% 54.9% 49.4% 27.8 $26,369 Sharp County 17,810 83.0% 32.1% 26.4% 29.5 $25,283 St. Francis County 22,451 50.8% 55.8% 41.0% 35.4 $20,991 Stone County 12,575 12.7% 39.3% 3.3% 20.7 $21,640 Union County 37,752 65.3% 66.2% 50.2% 36.3 $29,252 Van Buren County 16,102 58.3% 48.3% 28.1% 22.7 $26,183 Washington County 256,054 99.9% 94.2% 94.1% 272.0 $34,531 White County 77,755 44.4% 83.4% 39.8% 75.2 $27,364 Woodruff County 6,049 53.1% 85.2% 52.4% 10.3 $29,216 Yell County 20,129 63.0% 62.3% 42.1% 21.6 $26,044 California 39,029,342 96.3% 98.0% 94.9% 250.4 $45,591 Alameda County 1,628,997 99.7% 99.4% 99.1% 2,208.9 $60,193 Alpine County 1,190 10.2% 41.1% 10.1% 1.6 $55,425 Amador County 41,412 50.4% 62.5% 42.4% 69.6 $40,379 Butte County 207,303 94.8% 93.3% 91.0% 126.7 $36,374 Calaveras County 46,563 80.0% 52.6% 45.3% 45.6 $37,935 Colusa County 21,914 96.4% 89.1% 86.8% 19.0 $31,915 Contra Costa County 1,156,966 99.2% 99.0% 98.3% 1,613.8 $59,083 Del Norte County 27,082 81.5% 84.7% 71.8% 26.9 $28,396 El Dorado County 192,646 85.7% 92.5% 81.5% 112.8 $55,455 Fresno County 1,015,190 94.7% 99.2% 94.5% 170.4 $30,130 Glenn County 28,339 96.8% 95.2% 93.9% 21.6 $28,106 Humboldt County 135,010 94.8% 84.9% 81.8% 37.8 $33,988 Imperial County 178,713 87.3% 95.0% 85.0% 42.8 $21,216 Inyo County 18,718 23.2% 80.8% 21.0% 1.8 $36,673 Kern County 916,108 93.1% 97.4% 91.5% 112.6 $27,976 Kings County 152,981 84.8% 98.5% 84.8% 110.0 $26,193 Lake County 68,191 87.0% 70.9% 64.4% 54.3 $34,020 Lassen County 29,904 79.1% 90.4% 76.9% 6.6 $23,646 Los Angeles County 9,721,138 96.8% 99.3% 96.2% 2,394.8 $41,847 Madera County 160,256 77.8% 95.1% 75.2% 75.0 $28,158 Marin County 256,018 97.6% 85.4% 84.0% 491.9 $87,300 Mariposa County 17,020 2.1% 50.2% 1.9% 11.7 $36,106 Mendocino County 89,783 82.0% 62.3% 56.3% 25.6 $34,977 Merced County 290,014 96.8% 99.4% 96.4% 149.6 $26,869 Modoc County 8,511 41.2% 54.9% 31.3% 2.2 $28,860 Mono County 12,978 68.6% 82.5% 62.3% 4.3 $43,315 Monterey County 432,858 98.9% 94.0% 93.4% 131.9 $37,741 Napa County 134,300 96.5% 96.0% 93.2% 179.5 $54,306 Nevada County 102,293 78.4% 76.2% 64.6% 106.8 $46,706 Orange County 3,151,184 97.8% 99.6% 97.5% 3,974.5 $50,683 Placer County 417,772 92.5% 96.8% 90.4% 296.9 $54,004 Plumas County 19,351 53.7% 77.1% 49.4% 7.6 $41,701 Riverside County 2,473,902 95.3% 99.0% 94.7% 343.2 $35,356 Sacramento County 1,584,169 98.5% 99.8% 98.4% 1,641.2 $39,763 San Benito County 67,579 98.7% 87.8% 87.4% 48.7 $40,799 San Bernardino County 2,193,656 93.6% 99.2% 93.1% 109.3 $31,348 San Diego County 3,276,208 98.4% 98.2% 97.0% 778.2 $46,957 San Francisco County 808,437 99.5% 99.9% 99.4% 17,232.3 $86,186 San Joaquin County 793,229 98.3% 99.6% 97.9% 569.7 $33,870 San Luis Obispo County 282,013 96.1% 93.4% 91.0% 85.4 $47,390 San Mateo County 729,181 99.1% 98.5% 97.9% 1,625.4 $77,741 Santa Barbara County 443,837 95.0% 95.6% 92.4% 162.3 $44,635 Santa Clara County 1,870,945 99.8% 99.5% 99.4% 1,449.1 $73,017 Santa Cruz County 264,370 98.3% 82.4% 81.7% 593.9 $52,887 Shasta County 180,930 75.7% 83.0% 69.4% 47.9 $36,458 Sierra County 3,217 29.8% 35.0% 16.2% 3.4 $37,692 Siskiyou County 43,660 72.4% 79.8% 62.1% 7.0 $33,650 Solano County 448,747 99.0% 98.9% 97.9% 546.0 $42,886 Sonoma County 482,650 95.0% 95.5% 91.8% 306.3 $52,523 Stanislaus County 551,275 99.2% 99.8% 99.1% 368.5 $32,044 Sutter County 98,503 99.7% 97.6% 97.3% 163.4 $34,039 Tehama County 65,245 82.5% 79.4% 68.2% 22.1 $33,800 Trinity County 15,781 6.1% 39.6% 0.4% 5.0 $32,856 Tulare County 477,544 90.0% 98.7% 89.5% 99.0 $26,282 Tuolumne County 54,531 71.9% 75.7% 58.5% 24.6 $40,095 Ventura County 832,605 96.3% 98.2% 94.7% 452.3 $45,846 Yolo County 222,115 96.7% 99.5% 96.5% 218.9 $41,703 Yuba County 84,310 94.4% 94.6% 92.4% 133.4 $30,036 Colorado 5,839,926 94.2% 93.5% 90.5% 56.3 $47,346 Adams County 527,575 98.0% 98.8% 97.1% 452.2 $37,550 Alamosa County 16,592 85.5% 75.0% 71.1% 23.0 $28,945 Arapahoe County 655,808 99.2% 99.2% 98.6% 822.0 $49,530 Archuleta County 14,003 80.9% 65.0% 61.4% 10.4 $39,155 Baca County 3,432 29.7% 51.8% 27.0% 1.3 $28,115 Bent County 5,399 66.3% 6.1% 0.0% 3.6 $19,041 Boulder County 327,468 96.5% 94.9% 93.7% 450.8 $57,339 Broomfield County 76,121 99.3% 99.9% 99.2% 2,308.9 $60,862 Chaffee County 20,223 65.2% 78.1% 59.9% 20.0 $38,167 Cheyenne County 1,732 18.2% 33.4% 13.1% 1.0 $38,791 Clear Creek County 9,355 49.3% 61.4% 38.3% 23.7 $59,550 Conejos County 7,579 69.3% 43.7% 32.4% 5.9 $25,240 Costilla County 3,603 64.2% 39.7% 36.2% 2.9 $24,318 Crowley County 5,614 4.2% 27.1% 3.2% 7.1 $20,909 Custer County 5,335 0.5% 39.2% 0.2% 7.2 $37,232 Delta County 31,602 84.1% 83.1% 73.9% 27.7 $33,055 Denver County 713,252 99.9% 99.2% 99.1% 4,659.5 $56,381 Dolores County 2,455 4.6% 51.1% 0.0% 2.3 $38,098 Douglas County 375,988 98.3% 95.4% 94.3% 447.5 $63,186 Eagle County 55,285 93.2% 92.1% 89.4% 32.8 $55,007 El Paso County 740,567 96.4% 97.6% 95.1% 348.3 $41,444 Elbert County 27,799 71.2% 30.0% 23.4% 15.0 $55,535 Fremont County 49,621 66.2% 86.1% 62.8% 32.4 $28,224 Garfield County 62,271 83.4% 87.2% 77.2% 21.1 $39,024 Gilpin County 5,891 47.2% 79.6% 45.2% 39.3 $57,593 Grand County 15,769 76.8% 60.0% 51.8% 8.5 $43,553 Gunnison County 17,267 87.3% 59.3% 58.1% 5.3 $44,167 Hinsdale County 775 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.7 $46,944 Huerfano County 7,082 53.7% 54.7% 44.0% 4.5 $29,508 Jackson County 1,302 82.1% 65.1% 63.3% 0.8 $29,657 Jefferson County 576,143 95.8% 97.0% 94.5% 753.7 $54,571 Kiowa County 1,424 57.2% 0.6% 0.0% 0.8 $27,957 Kit Carson County 6,961 73.5% 60.0% 54.3% 3.2 $36,039 La Plata County 56,607 81.5% 73.6% 64.8% 33.5 $44,614 Lake County 7,327 80.7% 90.1% 75.7% 19.4 $44,794 Larimer County 366,778 96.4% 94.5% 93.1% 141.3 $46,676 Las Animas County 14,327 64.1% 78.6% 61.2% 3.0 $29,432 Lincoln County 5,510 36.6% 43.7% 31.4% 2.1 $27,610 Logan County 20,823 91.3% 0.6% 0.4% 11.3 $29,440 Mesa County 158,636 88.9% 97.1% 88.2% 47.7 $36,303 Mineral County 931 51.1% 1.6% 0.5% 1.1 $37,647 Moffat County 13,177 90.6% 62.1% 60.2% 2.8 $33,019 Montezuma County 26,468 71.6% 71.4% 58.6% 13.0 $31,044 Montrose County 43,811 82.4% 90.8% 79.5% 19.6 $35,755 Morgan County 29,239 95.2% 82.7% 81.8% 22.8 $30,422 Otero County 18,303 80.2% 77.9% 67.0% 14.5 $25,789 Ouray County 5,100 52.0% 32.5% 21.4% 9.4 $47,768 Park County 17,939 39.6% 40.0% 20.1% 8.2 $48,221 Phillips County 4,449 90.0% 5.3% 4.9% 6.5 $37,996 Pitkin County 16,876 86.2% 86.6% 82.3% 17.4 $87,561 Prowers County 11,854 69.1% 84.7% 68.8% 7.2 $29,026 Pueblo County 169,544 94.6% 94.3% 90.1% 71.0 $31,513 Rio Blanco County 6,569 66.3% 37.6% 32.9% 2.0 $30,140 Rio Grande County 11,325 65.6% 64.6% 51.1% 12.4 $34,328 Routt County 25,007 90.7% 73.8% 73.1% 10.6 $58,304 Saguache County 6,623 57.7% 20.7% 7.9% 2.1 $34,311 San Juan County 803 82.1% 87.5% 81.6% 2.1 $42,678 San Miguel County 8,003 56.0% 72.8% 50.5% 6.2 $55,184 Sedgwick County 2,295 76.7% 65.0% 62.2% 4.2 $32,776 Summit County 30,565 93.2% 97.6% 91.9% 50.2 $54,935 Teller County 24,857 56.6% 67.4% 54.1% 44.6 $41,836 Washington County 4,812 78.1% 12.0% 11.9% 1.9 $33,374 Weld County 350,176 94.2% 95.4% 90.4% 87.9 $39,480 Yuma County 9,899 90.3% 55.6% 55.5% 4.2 $32,575 Connecticut 3,626,205 98.1% 89.2% 87.7% 748.8 $52,034 Capitol Planning Region 974,517 99.4% 95.8% 95.3% 948.6 $47,802 Greater Bridgeport Planning Region 328,984 95.7% 95.2% 91.0% 2,346.8 $48,201 Lower Connecticut River Valley Planning Region 178,603 99.1% 87.2% 86.6% 421.1 $54,712 Naugatuck Valley Planning Region 457,179 99.4% 91.0% 90.5% 1,107.7 $44,275 Northeastern Connecticut Planning Region 96,123 92.3% 61.6% 57.0% 173.5 $40,723 Northwest Hills Planning Region 114,747 93.6% 66.3% 62.5% 145.9 $52,279 South Central Connecticut Planning Region 572,282 99.5% 93.6% 93.1% 1,558.5 $46,781 Southeastern Connecticut Planning Region 283,944 98.0% 82.7% 81.1% 474.7 $43,292 Western Connecticut Planning Region 619,826 96.7% 82.6% 79.7% 1,164.8 $76,090 Delaware 1,018,396 96.3% 94.7% 91.9% 522.6 $42,180 Kent County 186,946 92.9% 95.0% 89.1% 319.0 $33,191 New Castle County 575,494 99.0% 97.7% 96.8% 1,349.9 $44,725 Sussex County 255,956 92.9% 87.6% 82.9% 273.4 $42,958 District of Columbia 671,803 99.7% 100.0% 99.7% 10,990.4 $71,297 District of Columbia 671,803 99.7% 100.0% 99.7% 10,990.4 $71,297 Florida 22,244,826 94.4% 95.4% 91.2% 410.5 $38,850 Alachua County 284,030 88.0% 91.0% 81.7% 324.4 $35,684 Baker County 27,803 74.2% 56.9% 48.4% 47.5 $28,612 Bay County 185,134 95.2% 92.9% 89.1% 244.0 $36,868 Bradford County 27,313 39.9% 92.4% 38.5% 92.9 $25,276 Brevard County 630,693 96.3% 99.4% 95.8% 621.4 $40,111 Broward County 1,947,026 97.9% 99.0% 96.9% 1,618.8 $39,753 Calhoun County 13,464 30.5% 40.6% 24.9% 23.7 $21,324 Charlotte County 202,661 92.0% 90.3% 83.2% 297.5 $38,466 Citrus County 162,529 89.3% 84.3% 76.0% 279.3 $33,514 Clay County 226,589 90.9% 93.6% 86.8% 374.8 $37,334 Collier County 397,994 98.2% 92.7% 91.2% 199.3 $56,666 Columbia County 71,908 61.0% 63.8% 44.6% 90.2 $28,317 DeSoto County 35,312 36.7% 87.5% 32.3% 55.5 $21,726 Dixie County 17,124 1.7% 44.3% 1.0% 24.3 $20,508 Duval County 1,016,536 98.7% 97.6% 96.4% 1,332.9 $37,376 Escambia County 324,878 97.5% 96.3% 94.6% 494.5 $33,656 Flagler County 126,705 96.4% 89.0% 86.0% 260.6 $40,463 Franklin County 12,498 86.7% 67.3% 62.6% 22.9 $31,433 Gadsden County 43,403 72.0% 60.7% 51.3% 84.1 $23,898 Gilchrist County 18,992 14.3% 68.6% 11.9% 54.3 $31,477 Glades County 12,454 43.1% 76.6% 39.7% 15.4 $23,296 Gulf County 15,314 70.7% 59.6% 52.9% 27.7 $30,011 Hamilton County 13,217 30.4% 51.6% 16.5% 25.7 $17,331 Hardee County 25,645 66.4% 88.8% 65.2% 40.2 $23,380 Hendry County 41,339 72.8% 86.7% 68.9% 35.8 $24,825 Hernando County 206,896 95.7% 95.8% 91.8% 437.4 $31,516 Highlands County 105,618 85.2% 84.1% 74.3% 103.8 $31,864 Hillsborough County 1,513,301 95.8% 99.0% 95.0% 1,480.9 $39,509 Holmes County 19,651 20.2% 48.6% 19.9% 41.0 $22,860 Indian River County 167,352 97.6% 91.8% 89.6% 332.8 $44,102 Jackson County 48,211 45.3% 55.0% 33.8% 52.5 $23,210 Jefferson County 15,042 4.1% 53.8% 3.9% 25.2 $29,189 Lafayette County 7,786 27.8% 72.8% 24.0% 14.3 $20,073 Lake County 410,139 88.5% 95.0% 85.8% 431.0 $35,150 Lee County 822,453 94.4% 97.1% 92.3% 1,053.1 $41,332 Leon County 297,369 95.7% 95.0% 92.5% 444.9 $36,823 Levy County 45,260 15.2% 63.7% 11.2% 40.5 $29,042 Liberty County 7,603 28.7% 33.5% 21.8% 9.1 $24,080 Madison County 18,198 40.2% 58.6% 33.7% 26.1 $22,760 Manatee County 429,125 96.9% 97.0% 94.0% 577.7 $41,760 Marion County 396,415 83.2% 89.4% 76.8% 249.6 $31,086 Martin County 162,006 97.2% 94.2% 91.9% 297.9 $50,748 Miami-Dade County 2,673,837 98.8% 98.1% 97.1% 1,407.4 $35,563 Monroe County 81,711 99.1% 81.9% 81.4% 53.8 $54,630 Nassau County 97,899 89.5% 77.0% 71.7% 150.9 $44,483 Okaloosa County 216,482 93.0% 85.2% 81.1% 232.7 $40,002 Okeechobee County 40,412 73.6% 81.5% 68.7% 52.5 $26,904 Orange County 1,452,726 96.6% 99.7% 96.3% 1,610.5 $37,330 Osceola County 422,545 96.4% 98.1% 94.6% 318.3 $28,690 Palm Beach County 1,518,477 99.0% 97.8% 96.9% 773.0 $48,121 Pasco County 608,794 94.4% 93.9% 88.8% 815.4 $35,201 Pinellas County 961,739 96.9% 96.8% 93.7% 3,513.8 $44,020 Polk County 787,404 93.8% 95.0% 89.9% 438.0 $30,262 Putnam County 74,731 67.3% 75.0% 56.5% 102.6 $25,966 Santa Rosa County 198,268 89.6% 89.8% 83.4% 195.8 $39,143 Sarasota County 462,286 98.8% 96.3% 95.2% 831.4 $53,149 Seminole County 478,772 96.5% 98.8% 95.4% 1,547.5 $42,281 St. Johns County 306,841 97.1% 94.6% 92.8% 510.9 $52,096 St. Lucie County 358,704 97.7% 97.7% 95.6% 627.5 $33,847 Sumter County 144,970 85.2% 96.7% 83.2% 260.2 $44,431 Suwannee County 45,411 37.3% 51.3% 24.2% 65.9 $24,991 Taylor County 21,283 63.3% 65.4% 49.1% 20.4 $26,859 Union County 15,460 42.4% 72.1% 29.1% 63.5 $24,293 Volusia County 579,192 94.5% 97.8% 92.9% 525.9 $35,364 Wakulla County 35,178 70.5% 71.9% 58.4% 58.0 $31,683 Walton County 83,304 93.0% 62.9% 60.0% 80.2 $45,348 Washington County 25,414 64.5% 50.6% 36.6% 43.5 $23,984 Georgia 10,912,876 91.1% 87.4% 82.6% 189.1 $37,836 Appling County 18,428 76.8% 51.0% 44.9% 36.3 $23,940 Atkinson County 8,183 97.7% 60.7% 59.4% 23.9 $23,066 Bacon County 11,191 86.6% 41.9% 40.6% 39.4 $24,654 Baker County 2,788 3.6% 27.6% 3.6% 8.2 $23,731 Baldwin County 43,635 89.5% 69.0% 65.4% 168.7 $31,681 Banks County 19,328 37.4% 42.8% 19.2% 83.1 $30,024 Barrow County 89,299 94.5% 89.9% 85.1% 554.5 $30,899 Bartow County 112,816 89.3% 84.7% 79.6% 245.8 $32,102 Ben Hill County 17,069 80.4% 60.3% 53.9% 68.2 $22,625 Berrien County 18,214 57.8% 58.2% 43.5% 40.2 $25,100 Bibb County 156,197 99.3% 98.9% 98.2% 626.3 $30,115 Bleckley County 12,257 77.9% 62.2% 50.7% 56.8 $28,207 Brantley County 18,183 99.4% 41.9% 41.6% 41.0 $22,767 Brooks County 16,253 59.1% 55.7% 41.2% 33.0 $28,004 Bryan County 48,225 94.8% 59.2% 56.6% 110.2 $39,829 Bulloch County 83,059 100.0% 64.8% 64.8% 122.9 $28,484 Burke County 24,388 60.6% 58.9% 41.5% 29.5 $29,735 Butts County 26,649 82.3% 86.3% 70.6% 145.1 $27,875 Calhoun County 5,469 16.7% 70.6% 14.2% 19.5 $18,074 Camden County 57,013 91.4% 69.5% 66.6% 90.4 $32,712 Candler County 11,000 99.8% 52.5% 52.5% 45.3 $24,477 Carroll County 124,592 82.2% 74.2% 63.8% 249.6 $30,827 Catoosa County 68,826 95.3% 91.6% 88.6% 424.4 $33,515 Charlton County 12,781 68.9% 45.4% 39.2% 16.4 $22,742 Chatham County 301,107 97.1% 92.1% 89.5% 695.2 $37,637 Chattahoochee County 8,819 0.0% 69.6% 0.0% 35.5 $23,574 Chattooga County 24,936 74.4% 61.2% 55.1% 79.6 $21,576 Cherokee County 281,278 96.7% 95.4% 93.2% 668.0 $45,334 Clarke County 129,875 93.7% 94.6% 88.8% 1,089.3 $30,138 Clay County 2,845 26.3% 28.8% 5.7% 14.6 $22,191 Clayton County 296,564 99.3% 99.2% 98.5% 2,093.6 $25,549 Clinch County 6,662 31.0% 66.1% 26.3% 8.2 $20,294 Cobb County 771,952 99.1% 99.0% 98.1% 2,271.9 $48,510 Coffee County 43,172 78.3% 69.6% 60.5% 72.9 $23,839 Colquitt County 45,762 69.0% 53.5% 40.4% 83.7 $25,766 Columbia County 162,419 98.2% 98.3% 96.6% 559.7 $40,677 Cook County 17,404 68.7% 48.6% 38.3% 76.2 $24,060 Coweta County 152,882 92.2% 85.6% 80.3% 346.6 $41,373 Crawford County 12,140 88.7% 56.4% 51.5% 37.4 $31,240 Crisp County 19,708 75.6% 75.0% 64.7% 72.3 $28,063 Dade County 16,081 95.6% 81.8% 78.0% 92.4 $30,078 Dawson County 30,138 73.3% 70.1% 60.6% 143.0 $41,096 DeKalb County 762,820 99.1% 98.5% 97.6% 2,849.1 $43,958 Decatur County 28,982 57.9% 53.5% 38.0% 48.5 $24,974 Dodge County 19,802 63.5% 71.2% 53.9% 39.9 $23,137 Dooly County 10,572 90.7% 73.4% 70.8% 26.9 $27,232 Dougherty County 82,966 96.3% 84.1% 81.9% 252.4 $26,563 Douglas County 147,316 96.6% 97.2% 94.1% 736.1 $34,010 Early County 10,574 13.8% 57.0% 10.5% 20.6 $25,929 Echols County 3,686 0.2% 44.5% 0.1% 8.8 $24,751 Effingham County 69,041 90.0% 41.0% 39.7% 144.2 $36,506 Elbert County 19,814 94.1% 62.5% 60.6% 56.4 $27,848 Emanuel County 22,929 99.0% 55.9% 55.7% 33.7 $24,696 Evans County 10,695 83.9% 63.5% 59.0% 58.5 $25,580 Fannin County 25,737 65.5% 35.4% 28.7% 66.5 $36,058 Fayette County 122,030 96.6% 97.8% 94.6% 627.2 $51,004 Floyd County 99,443 87.8% 87.6% 82.0% 195.1 $30,523 Forsyth County 267,237 97.7% 98.1% 95.9% 1,189.7 $54,002 Franklin County 24,128 62.2% 51.7% 34.2% 92.3 $27,671 Fulton County 1,074,634 98.0% 99.1% 97.1% 2,040.3 $58,314 Gilmer County 32,407 80.9% 40.5% 37.5% 76.0 $34,412 Glascock County 2,939 10.3% 33.9% 6.6% 20.4 $28,733 Glynn County 85,079 98.2% 80.1% 79.2% 202.7 $39,221 Gordon County 58,954 75.6% 64.3% 54.8% 165.4 $29,787 Grady County 26,008 58.4% 55.5% 41.7% 57.2 $26,887 Greene County 20,139 69.0% 48.7% 37.2% 52.0 $51,577 Gwinnett County 975,353 98.4% 98.9% 97.4% 2,264.3 $36,778 Habersham County 47,475 91.4% 67.2% 63.5% 171.5 $29,069 Hall County 212,692 93.2% 93.0% 87.6% 541.2 $35,624 Hancock County 8,387 13.4% 32.9% 9.7% 17.8 $19,730 Haralson County 31,337 67.0% 46.0% 31.9% 111.1 $31,342 Harris County 36,276 76.9% 51.9% 39.7% 78.2 $39,851 Hart County 26,909 89.4% 52.4% 48.3% 115.8 $30,636 Heard County 11,725 54.9% 16.9% 12.1% 39.6 $32,386 Henry County 248,364 96.9% 98.4% 95.4% 779.3 $35,065 Houston County 169,631 97.9% 98.5% 96.8% 451.1 $35,223 Irwin County 9,126 75.9% 24.3% 19.2% 25.8 $23,794 Jackson County 83,936 74.2% 87.2% 66.6% 247.1 $34,703 Jasper County 15,951 31.7% 52.4% 20.1% 43.3 $31,026 Jeff Davis County 14,889 87.5% 62.8% 55.5% 45.0 $22,065 Jefferson County 15,314 67.5% 72.0% 52.3% 29.1 $25,820 Jenkins County 8,689 52.2% 51.2% 41.5% 25.0 $19,360 Johnson County 9,242 62.2% 46.7% 29.7% 30.5 $23,878 Jones County 28,472 90.7% 83.7% 75.9% 72.3 $31,934 Lamar County 19,467 79.5% 52.9% 46.7% 106.1 $30,978 Lanier County 10,171 67.9% 20.8% 14.8% 51.8 $22,128 Laurens County 49,660 79.8% 64.5% 54.8% 61.5 $27,565 Lee County 33,642 79.9% 73.2% 63.1% 94.5 $34,074 Liberty County 68,030 92.7% 80.1% 76.1% 131.7 $26,121 Lincoln County 7,841 99.9% 55.9% 55.9% 37.3 $28,414 Long County 18,348 75.5% 50.0% 41.0% 45.8 $26,995 Lowndes County 119,739 77.9% 91.0% 74.1% 240.8 $27,553 Lumpkin County 34,796 64.3% 63.7% 46.9% 123.0 $33,322 Macon County 11,765 50.8% 65.6% 35.0% 29.4 $22,681 Madison County 31,473 55.6% 59.1% 40.0% 111.5 $27,769 Marion County 7,449 47.7% 10.1% 7.2% 20.4 $24,727 McDuffie County 21,713 70.6% 85.8% 69.3% 84.4 $28,259 McIntosh County 11,180 100.0% 46.8% 46.8% 25.9 $28,773 Meriwether County 20,845 41.7% 40.2% 23.6% 41.6 $25,784 Miller County 5,807 40.0% 42.4% 33.6% 20.6 $29,135 Mitchell County 21,116 50.6% 45.1% 32.2% 41.2 $24,705 Monroe County 29,427 97.3% 51.5% 50.2% 74.3 $40,063 Montgomery County 8,655 45.2% 62.8% 35.7% 35.9 $27,994 Morgan County 21,031 57.4% 47.1% 29.5% 60.5 $38,932 Murray County 40,472 86.8% 69.2% 62.0% 117.5 $27,383 Muscogee County 202,616 96.1% 99.0% 95.2% 935.9 $30,980 Newton County 117,621 92.4% 95.3% 88.1% 429.6 $30,101 Oconee County 43,588 80.4% 73.6% 63.6% 236.5 $53,848 Oglethorpe County 15,469 43.5% 37.1% 21.6% 35.2 $30,225 Paulding County 178,421 94.2% 95.7% 90.8% 571.2 $35,242 Peach County 28,562 83.5% 97.4% 82.3% 190.1 $31,349 Pickens County 34,826 79.2% 51.7% 45.2% 150.1 $37,686 Pierce County 20,168 75.0% 52.4% 43.8% 59.2 $26,392 Pike County 19,990 43.0% 45.1% 18.8% 92.5 $35,993 Polk County 43,709 82.9% 72.4% 64.5% 140.8 $26,843 Pulaski County 9,984 85.3% 79.2% 74.2% 40.1 $23,007 Putnam County 22,984 77.3% 52.3% 43.8% 66.7 $42,468 Quitman County 2,249 38.6% 34.5% 12.0% 14.9 $22,189 Rabun County 17,206 62.7% 50.1% 35.4% 46.5 $35,889 Randolph County 6,116 71.5% 41.7% 36.9% 14.3 $18,208 Richmond County 206,640 99.0% 98.5% 97.6% 637.1 $28,480 Rockdale County 94,984 98.4% 98.3% 96.7% 731.7 $33,481 Schley County 4,496 47.4% 51.3% 37.0% 26.9 $24,255 Screven County 13,977 86.4% 46.5% 40.4% 21.6 $28,356 Seminole County 9,127 49.2% 43.4% 29.5% 38.4 $36,184 Spalding County 68,919 89.8% 91.5% 82.6% 351.7 $35,823 Stephens County 26,767 81.6% 72.4% 61.4% 149.7 $26,620 Stewart County 4,648 10.0% 81.6% 10.0% 10.1 $21,096 Sumter County 28,877 72.2% 75.7% 61.9% 59.8 $23,891 Talbot County 5,747 53.4% 41.3% 29.8% 14.7 $28,528 Taliaferro County 1,600 98.7% 28.8% 28.8% 8.2 $24,766 Tattnall County 24,064 71.5% 47.7% 38.5% 50.0 $21,842 Taylor County 7,737 77.5% 39.8% 34.7% 20.5 $24,453 Telfair County 12,354 50.9% 75.6% 46.7% 28.3 $17,162 Terrell County 8,754 63.5% 68.2% 56.2% 26.1 $24,200 Thomas County 45,561 75.1% 72.1% 60.3% 83.7 $32,414 Tift County 41,412 83.8% 67.7% 59.9% 158.7 $27,987 Toombs County 26,837 66.1% 61.7% 49.9% 73.7 $27,912 Towns County 12,972 87.0% 62.2% 57.6% 77.9 $33,443 Treutlen County 6,365 67.4% 67.9% 37.5% 31.9 $27,309 Troup County 70,191 86.6% 76.8% 67.5% 169.5 $29,562 Turner County 8,842 66.6% 62.8% 50.6% 31.0 $21,771 Twiggs County 7,680 39.6% 91.4% 34.7% 21.4 $32,105 Union County 26,388 67.3% 42.4% 32.2% 81.9 $37,709 Upson County 28,086 87.1% 58.5% 56.1% 86.8 $27,906 Walker County 68,915 90.3% 88.7% 83.2% 154.4 $28,554 Walton County 103,065 83.2% 94.9% 80.0% 315.4 $34,295 Ware County 35,614 80.9% 83.2% 70.5% 39.6 $23,319 Warren County 5,155 0.7% 6.7% 0.7% 18.1 $24,249 Washington County 19,738 80.1% 53.3% 49.5% 29.1 $23,687 Wayne County 30,896 71.8% 69.3% 57.8% 48.1 $24,838 Webster County 2,328 24.9% 59.5% 22.1% 11.1 $22,246 Wheeler County 7,314 31.8% 50.8% 26.0% 24.8 $17,980 White County 28,806 90.8% 67.3% 62.2% 119.7 $32,311 Whitfield County 103,132 94.6% 84.4% 81.7% 355.1 $28,594 Wilcox County 8,761 43.6% 66.6% 38.2% 23.2 $19,237 Wilkes County 9,599 99.8% 52.1% 52.1% 20.4 $29,042 Wilkinson County 8,681 62.0% 58.4% 41.2% 19.3 $24,070 Worth County 20,424 72.7% 59.4% 49.6% 35.8 $28,119 Guam 169,086 85.9% 45.1% 42.4% 805.7 NA Guam 169,086 85.9% 45.1% 42.4% 805.7 NA Hawaii 1,440,196 95.3% 93.5% 89.9% 224.2 $42,683 Hawaii County 206,315 88.7% 75.0% 68.7% 51.2 $37,236 Honolulu County 995,638 96.7% 98.3% 95.1% 1,657.7 $44,026 Kalawao County 82 76.8% 0.0% 0.0% 6.8 $54,390 Kauai County 73,810 96.4% 88.0% 85.1% 119.1 $39,372 Maui County 164,351 95.1% 90.2% 87.3% 141.5 $42,607 Idaho 1,939,033 88.5% 87.2% 81.7% 23.5 $34,919 Ada County 518,907 99.3% 99.7% 99.0% 493.3 $44,645 Adams County 4,817 21.8% 63.3% 17.6% 3.5 $35,844 Bannock County 89,517 95.5% 98.1% 95.0% 80.5 $30,257 Bear Lake County 6,722 67.3% 80.7% 61.2% 6.9 $30,266 Benewah County 10,370 9.5% 49.9% 7.9% 13.3 $28,420 Bingham County 49,923 91.9% 77.4% 72.5% 23.8 $29,421 Blaine County 24,866 91.1% 88.8% 86.4% 9.4 $47,151 Boise County 8,333 18.9% 42.9% 16.5% 4.4 $36,518 Bonner County 51,414 39.3% 57.3% 33.9% 29.7 $35,275 Bonneville County 129,496 98.5% 97.2% 96.3% 69.4 $33,008 Boundary County 13,345 26.7% 75.8% 26.1% 10.5 $27,287 Butte County 2,684 45.7% 63.3% 31.1% 1.2 $26,987 Camas County 1,153 5.7% 19.9% 0.0% 1.1 $34,790 Canyon County 251,065 94.8% 98.0% 93.8% 427.7 $28,569 Caribou County 7,190 15.3% 55.4% 10.8% 4.1 $29,819 Cassia County 25,655 97.8% 69.4% 68.9% 10.0 $28,986 Clark County 806 59.6% 64.5% 57.7% 0.5 $24,370 Clearwater County 9,015 49.8% 43.4% 28.8% 3.7 $29,925 Custer County 4,506 59.5% 65.4% 50.6% 0.9 $28,913 Elmore County 29,403 90.3% 95.1% 88.3% 9.6 $28,599 Franklin County 15,189 88.9% 71.9% 68.3% 22.9 $27,316 Fremont County 13,978 70.7% 92.0% 66.5% 7.5 $27,427 Gem County 20,418 92.6% 88.1% 83.1% 36.5 $33,032 Gooding County 15,715 99.3% 79.1% 78.8% 21.5 $29,147 Idaho County 17,593 9.7% 45.1% 7.5% 2.1 $29,657 Jefferson County 33,428 93.9% 78.7% 76.1% 30.6 $29,028 Jerome County 25,311 98.6% 64.1% 63.2% 42.4 $28,266 Kootenai County 183,578 82.9% 76.6% 70.7% 148.3 $36,718 Latah County 40,978 78.3% 68.7% 58.2% 38.1 $33,342 Lemhi County 8,240 44.5% 67.3% 41.5% 1.8 $32,446 Lewis County 3,763 0.1% 62.6% 0.0% 7.9 $27,519 Lincoln County 5,329 64.3% 52.4% 44.1% 4.4 $27,335 Madison County 54,976 97.8% 98.9% 96.9% 117.2 $21,394 Minidoka County 22,194 99.7% 73.0% 73.0% 29.3 $29,561 Nez Perce County 43,004 89.2% 89.9% 85.8% 50.7 $35,387 Oneida County 4,712 94.5% 51.7% 47.7% 3.9 $28,592 Owyhee County 12,613 53.5% 62.1% 41.7% 1.6 $25,106 Payette County 26,956 99.4% 88.5% 88.3% 66.2 $30,102 Power County 8,068 87.6% 85.7% 80.9% 5.7 $24,069 Shoshone County 14,012 35.1% 46.6% 29.4% 5.3 $26,176 Teton County 12,544 71.2% 72.0% 50.4% 27.9 $43,396 Twin Falls County 93,696 99.6% 76.2% 75.9% 48.8 $32,393 Valley County 12,464 52.8% 54.0% 42.9% 3.4 $34,544 Washington County 11,087 61.5% 80.6% 57.9% 7.6 $26,213 Illinois 12,582,032 95.3% 94.6% 91.8% 226.6 $43,198 Adams County 64,725 92.1% 79.5% 77.0% 75.7 $34,934 Alexander County 4,858 44.2% 76.6% 43.8% 20.6 $21,922 Bond County 16,566 60.0% 77.3% 50.8% 43.6 $29,944 Boone County 53,154 93.5% 99.1% 93.1% 189.3 $37,055 Brown County 6,330 72.5% 67.4% 54.7% 20.7 $25,951 Bureau County 32,828 82.4% 58.4% 54.9% 37.8 $34,873 Calhoun County 4,360 38.4% 41.6% 16.8% 17.2 $33,062 Carroll County 15,529 66.9% 41.8% 29.8% 34.9 $31,882 Cass County 12,657 83.9% 38.9% 32.2% 33.7 $29,842 Champaign County 206,542 92.0% 96.7% 89.5% 207.3 $35,810 Christian County 33,436 78.7% 73.8% 66.0% 47.1 $29,960 Clark County 15,229 56.6% 57.6% 42.3% 30.4 $33,341 Clay County 13,047 96.8% 60.7% 60.6% 27.9 $32,495 Clinton County 36,909 72.6% 94.4% 71.9% 77.9 $39,409 Coles County 46,334 81.2% 85.2% 77.4% 91.2 $32,395 Cook County 5,109,292 99.6% 99.9% 99.5% 5,407.1 $45,646 Crawford County 18,536 70.6% 68.7% 59.4% 41.8 $32,786 Cumberland County 10,324 49.4% 48.8% 33.4% 29.8 $34,338 De Witt County 15,310 78.6% 83.4% 70.1% 38.5 $35,630 DeKalb County 100,232 96.4% 97.7% 94.7% 158.8 $34,196 Douglas County 19,755 78.4% 62.0% 54.2% 47.4 $32,351 DuPage County 920,901 99.6% 100.0% 99.6% 2,809.3 $55,107 Edgar County 16,433 64.0% 37.1% 31.9% 26.4 $31,634 Edwards County 6,071 98.0% 66.5% 66.1% 27.3 $31,081 Effingham County 34,325 91.1% 69.6% 65.8% 71.7 $37,844 Fayette County 21,305 74.3% 65.8% 60.5% 29.7 $28,392 Ford County 13,249 76.7% 68.8% 61.1% 27.3 $31,754 Franklin County 37,242 83.0% 85.2% 75.2% 91.1 $28,310 Fulton County 33,021 87.3% 57.9% 50.6% 38.1 $32,378 Gallatin County 4,855 86.2% 51.9% 48.3% 15.0 $36,928 Greene County 11,651 89.2% 60.0% 57.6% 21.5 $31,536 Grundy County 53,041 86.9% 95.3% 84.7% 126.9 $42,192 Hamilton County 7,984 65.1% 56.1% 45.8% 18.4 $29,785 Hancock County 17,244 76.8% 45.2% 40.5% 21.7 $35,154 Hardin County 3,597 75.3% 16.1% 13.2% 20.3 $31,928 Henderson County 6,151 67.6% 38.2% 29.5% 16.2 $34,734 Henry County 48,419 97.3% 79.4% 78.5% 58.8 $37,212 Iroquois County 26,473 60.7% 53.6% 35.8% 23.7 $33,347 Jackson County 52,617 89.6% 91.2% 84.2% 90.2 $29,687 Jasper County 9,212 57.1% 55.1% 39.9% 18.6 $33,353 Jefferson County 36,400 80.4% 78.8% 68.5% 63.7 $30,167 Jersey County 21,246 84.1% 75.9% 67.6% 57.5 $37,352 Jo Daviess County 21,758 71.3% 54.4% 43.5% 36.2 $39,477 Johnson County 13,381 69.8% 70.9% 56.6% 38.9 $27,096 Kane County 514,182 98.1% 100.0% 98.1% 990.0 $44,523 Kankakee County 106,074 89.9% 95.8% 88.3% 156.8 $32,941 Kendall County 137,254 97.3% 99.6% 97.0% 428.6 $40,761 Knox County 48,640 95.5% 68.6% 67.3% 67.9 $28,840 LaSalle County 108,078 84.5% 87.9% 78.2% 95.2 $36,060 Lake County 709,150 98.9% 99.8% 98.7% 1,598.6 $53,677 Lawrence County 14,914 98.1% 43.4% 42.8% 40.1 $30,393 Lee County 33,848 71.6% 45.5% 36.8% 46.7 $33,491 Livingston County 35,521 73.0% 74.5% 59.7% 34.0 $34,996 Logan County 27,591 93.0% 77.5% 74.7% 44.6 $33,280 Macon County 101,483 94.2% 83.0% 80.4% 174.8 $34,644 Macoupin County 44,245 79.2% 70.5% 62.2% 51.3 $33,665 Madison County 263,864 95.1% 97.9% 93.4% 368.8 $38,828 Marion County 36,914 77.0% 80.8% 69.6% 64.5 $30,360 Marshall County 11,678 81.4% 41.8% 36.8% 30.2 $34,369 Mason County 12,748 76.5% 66.9% 59.9% 23.6 $34,223 Massac County 13,896 59.1% 82.7% 57.9% 58.6 $28,817 McDonough County 26,861 94.7% 59.3% 58.1% 45.6 $29,658 McHenry County 311,747 96.2% 99.5% 95.9% 516.7 $46,322 McLean County 171,141 93.2% 92.7% 88.7% 144.6 $40,252 Menard County 12,121 70.6% 62.8% 52.6% 38.6 $41,497 Mercer County 15,504 91.9% 51.4% 49.1% 27.6 $34,455 Monroe County 35,033 75.1% 92.2% 73.8% 90.9 $47,248 Montgomery County 28,020 69.3% 67.3% 56.8% 39.8 $30,918 Morgan County 32,209 85.5% 77.3% 72.3% 56.6 $34,098 Moultrie County 14,323 69.4% 50.2% 42.2% 42.6 $34,849 Ogle County 51,351 74.6% 80.4% 62.6% 67.7 $36,436 Peoria County 178,383 97.6% 82.9% 81.6% 288.3 $38,581 Perry County 20,588 74.0% 87.9% 71.1% 46.6 $27,880 Piatt County 16,723 84.5% 65.3% 59.3% 38.1 $41,429 Pike County 14,484 59.4% 56.7% 45.3% 17.4 $28,895 Pope County 3,770 48.2% 35.0% 23.8% 10.2 $26,251 Pulaski County 4,991 61.2% 74.4% 47.9% 25.0 $22,947 Putnam County 5,572 51.4% 38.6% 28.8% 34.8 $37,218 Randolph County 30,068 61.1% 84.4% 55.9% 52.3 $29,832 Richland County 15,435 98.0% 71.5% 71.3% 42.9 $30,975 Rock Island County 141,527 98.5% 96.3% 95.1% 331.1 $34,233 Saline County 23,087 85.0% 47.8% 44.3% 60.8 $34,340 Sangamon County 194,534 94.6% 96.4% 92.3% 224.1 $41,387 Schuyler County 6,746 63.8% 61.0% 52.3% 15.4 $31,679 Scott County 4,790 87.7% 52.0% 50.7% 19.1 $32,891 Shelby County 20,761 51.9% 54.2% 41.3% 27.4 $32,085 St. Clair County 252,671 91.9% 99.8% 91.9% 384.2 $36,010 Stark County 5,345 96.4% 9.1% 9.1% 18.6 $32,618 Stephenson County 43,627 78.7% 71.5% 64.5% 77.3 $32,900 Tazewell County 129,911 92.7% 84.6% 81.0% 201.0 $38,573 Union County 16,767 72.4% 79.8% 65.3% 40.6 $30,171 Vermilion County 72,337 81.5% 81.4% 70.7% 80.5 $28,933 Wabash County 11,087 79.5% 13.8% 10.2% 49.6 $33,137 Warren County 16,354 92.5% 57.9% 56.7% 30.2 $32,304 Washington County 13,643 56.7% 80.5% 48.7% 24.3 $38,112 Wayne County 15,872 93.4% 50.5% 48.0% 22.2 $29,124 White County 13,614 94.0% 49.8% 48.5% 27.5 $29,977 Whiteside County 54,658 86.1% 79.7% 74.1% 79.9 $35,366 Will County 696,757 98.3% 99.9% 98.3% 833.6 $44,356 Williamson County 66,695 86.3% 90.6% 83.1% 158.7 $34,810 Winnebago County 282,188 96.5% 99.4% 96.1% 550.0 $33,474 Woodford County 38,128 82.3% 70.9% 62.2% 72.3 $41,400 Indiana 6,833,037 90.4% 88.7% 83.3% 190.7 $35,578 Adams County 36,068 69.4% 82.2% 61.9% 106.4 $26,489 Allen County 391,449 98.3% 99.1% 97.4% 595.5 $35,389 Bartholomew County 83,540 91.5% 88.2% 83.1% 205.3 $38,950 Benton County 8,719 67.4% 39.6% 28.4% 21.5 $30,372 Blackford County 11,919 56.6% 90.3% 54.6% 72.2 $29,751 Boone County 74,164 82.3% 98.0% 82.2% 175.4 $54,866 Brown County 15,570 88.5% 44.8% 40.6% 49.9 $40,792 Carroll County 20,555 56.0% 63.4% 41.6% 55.2 $33,222 Cass County 37,540 74.1% 81.9% 70.6% 91.1 $28,391 Clark County 124,237 90.9% 95.5% 88.9% 333.2 $34,946 Clay County 26,379 69.1% 73.0% 56.8% 73.8 $33,430 Clinton County 32,843 74.1% 83.5% 69.1% 81.1 $28,063 Crawford County 10,536 28.9% 35.5% 16.0% 34.5 $29,114 Daviess County 33,418 67.0% 64.2% 51.8% 77.8 $28,886 DeKalb County 43,731 99.2% 88.6% 88.1% 120.5 $33,164 Dearborn County 51,138 92.7% 72.9% 68.7% 167.6 $36,005 Decatur County 26,416 60.6% 80.5% 57.6% 70.9 $34,430 Delaware County 112,031 90.2% 98.6% 89.8% 285.7 $28,874 Dubois County 43,632 85.5% 56.1% 52.8% 102.1 $35,226 Elkhart County 206,890 97.4% 88.1% 86.0% 446.7 $30,708 Fayette County 23,349 75.2% 72.3% 64.6% 108.6 $27,435 Floyd County 80,714 95.9% 98.7% 94.8% 543.6 $38,949 Fountain County 16,574 74.6% 71.1% 56.6% 41.9 $30,562 Franklin County 23,028 40.5% 43.1% 26.2% 59.9 $36,246 Fulton County 20,327 68.1% 68.1% 55.5% 55.2 $32,479 Gibson County 32,993 70.7% 77.8% 62.8% 67.7 $31,602 Grant County 66,022 81.3% 93.1% 78.1% 159.4 $27,725 Greene County 31,006 61.7% 61.1% 50.0% 57.2 $31,155 Hamilton County 364,921 97.4% 99.9% 97.4% 925.3 $56,943 Hancock County 83,070 97.6% 97.4% 95.4% 271.5 $42,666 Harrison County 39,851 77.4% 48.6% 40.3% 82.3 $33,773 Hendricks County 182,534 95.3% 99.7% 95.1% 448.6 $43,651 Henry County 48,915 81.1% 69.6% 60.8% 124.8 $29,421 Howard County 83,574 91.1% 94.6% 87.7% 285.2 $33,391 Huntington County 36,834 92.3% 84.5% 80.7% 96.3 $32,046 Jackson County 46,300 97.0% 76.2% 74.6% 90.8 $31,743 Jasper County 33,281 63.8% 60.7% 49.0% 59.5 $35,793 Jay County 20,198 60.2% 71.2% 48.7% 52.6 $27,794 Jefferson County 32,946 74.4% 63.8% 55.2% 91.4 $30,450 Jennings County 27,536 84.3% 58.7% 53.5% 73.1 $30,254 Johnson County 165,782 97.8% 98.9% 97.1% 517.4 $40,055 Knox County 35,789 84.8% 74.4% 66.5% 69.4 $33,052 Kosciusko County 80,826 95.4% 70.0% 67.7% 152.1 $35,297 LaGrange County 40,866 85.7% 53.7% 47.3% 107.6 $31,404 LaPorte County 111,675 85.0% 89.7% 76.7% 186.7 $33,048 Lake County 499,689 98.0% 99.7% 97.9% 1,001.9 $34,458 Lawrence County 45,222 84.7% 67.0% 62.5% 100.7 $32,149 Madison County 131,744 88.6% 99.4% 88.5% 291.5 $31,556 Marion County 969,466 99.1% 100.0% 99.1% 2,444.4 $34,796 Marshall County 46,332 77.9% 67.4% 59.1% 104.4 $32,218 Martin County 9,803 61.5% 59.0% 48.0% 29.2 $31,921 Miami County 35,674 66.3% 70.8% 54.2% 95.4 $28,221 Monroe County 139,745 96.2% 88.4% 86.2% 354.2 $34,750 Montgomery County 38,273 72.0% 68.2% 58.0% 75.8 $32,975 Morgan County 72,236 89.0% 87.8% 77.6% 178.9 $37,861 Newton County 13,823 72.2% 46.5% 35.2% 34.4 $30,168 Noble County 47,367 97.5% 65.5% 65.0% 115.3 $31,953 Ohio County 6,114 58.0% 50.1% 44.8% 71.0 $35,310 Orange County 19,623 98.5% 56.1% 55.7% 49.3 $30,435 Owen County 21,482 62.9% 32.5% 24.8% 55.8 $31,541 Parke County 16,369 51.3% 46.2% 28.5% 36.8 $29,961 Perry County 19,183 90.6% 54.9% 52.9% 50.3 $29,144 Pike County 12,168 49.6% 42.8% 29.8% 36.4 $31,321 Porter County 174,791 95.0% 98.9% 94.4% 418.1 $40,792 Posey County 25,063 65.4% 82.0% 55.5% 61.2 $37,102 Pulaski County 12,485 44.6% 39.8% 24.7% 28.8 $30,068 Putnam County 37,301 70.0% 57.7% 44.2% 77.6 $31,015 Randolph County 24,437 62.2% 67.4% 53.4% 54.0 $30,253 Ripley County 29,087 81.9% 62.1% 54.8% 65.2 $34,578 Rush County 16,673 54.0% 65.0% 45.6% 40.9 $29,735 Scott County 24,588 86.5% 50.4% 43.0% 129.1 $26,506 Shelby County 44,991 89.1% 81.3% 74.6% 109.4 $33,909 Spencer County 19,967 84.0% 49.7% 41.8% 50.3 $34,874 St. Joseph County 272,234 96.1% 96.9% 93.9% 594.7 $34,266 Starke County 23,258 50.4% 48.8% 31.4% 75.2 $28,788 Steuben County 34,725 98.6% 67.2% 66.6% 112.5 $36,648 Sullivan County 20,670 54.5% 65.7% 42.0% 46.2 $27,792 Switzerland County 10,006 50.2% 41.0% 25.0% 45.3 $29,202 Tippecanoe County 188,717 95.4% 94.6% 91.5% 378.3 $30,608 Tipton County 15,361 67.1% 89.4% 61.7% 59.0 $34,595 Union County 6,952 14.4% 57.2% 11.0% 43.1 $33,377 Vanderburgh County 179,744 98.1% 97.8% 96.0% 770.1 $33,614 Vermillion County 15,451 73.3% 52.6% 43.8% 60.2 $30,071 Vigo County 106,006 87.4% 90.4% 82.2% 262.6 $30,240 Wabash County 30,828 74.2% 75.4% 64.0% 74.7 $32,763 Warren County 8,461 24.7% 48.6% 22.5% 23.2 $38,792 Warrick County 65,185 85.6% 91.6% 82.2% 169.4 $46,734 Washington County 28,224 92.6% 50.8% 47.0% 54.9 $28,963 Wayne County 66,273 81.5% 71.3% 63.4% 165.0 $29,848 Wells County 28,335 89.1% 81.7% 74.2% 77.0 $33,020 White County 24,598 83.7% 71.9% 64.0% 48.7 $32,001 Whitley County 34,627 90.0% 83.3% 76.9% 103.2 $36,515 Iowa 3,200,517 94.2% 82.0% 78.9% 57.3 $37,949 Adair County 7,494 94.3% 57.0% 56.7% 13.2 $36,118 Adams County 3,611 63.4% 8.6% 4.4% 8.5 $39,402 Allamakee County 13,960 88.0% 48.4% 47.7% 21.8 $33,214 Appanoose County 12,094 81.7% 79.1% 71.4% 24.3 $28,109 Audubon County 5,598 96.3% 32.0% 31.7% 12.6 $33,125 Benton County 25,711 87.4% 72.3% 67.3% 35.9 $37,926 Black Hawk County 130,274 98.6% 90.7% 89.9% 230.3 $35,400 Boone County 26,609 85.7% 80.8% 71.8% 46.6 $38,479 Bremer County 25,259 96.0% 69.9% 68.7% 58.0 $40,912 Buchanan County 20,714 91.8% 72.2% 68.8% 36.3 $34,579 Buena Vista County 20,600 99.6% 70.7% 70.7% 35.8 $31,985 Butler County 14,269 91.7% 50.8% 47.4% 24.6 $33,943 Calhoun County 9,725 94.8% 41.6% 40.2% 17.1 $34,490 Carroll County 20,567 94.8% 54.9% 54.5% 36.1 $36,599 Cass County 13,104 98.0% 38.2% 38.0% 23.2 $36,219 Cedar County 18,399 88.5% 79.7% 73.7% 31.8 $36,808 Cerro Gordo County 42,409 98.5% 71.0% 70.8% 74.6 $38,377 Cherokee County 11,491 90.6% 46.7% 45.3% 19.9 $35,939 Chickasaw County 11,716 96.9% 60.9% 59.4% 23.2 $35,432 Clarke County 9,692 76.6% 82.4% 67.5% 22.5 $32,003 Clay County 16,475 99.1% 73.6% 73.5% 29.0 $35,787 Clayton County 17,027 89.0% 51.0% 49.2% 21.9 $34,394 Clinton County 46,344 98.2% 82.6% 81.7% 66.7 $33,979 Crawford County 16,123 93.2% 36.0% 35.3% 22.6 $30,781 Dallas County 108,016 94.1% 97.2% 92.1% 183.6 $51,347 Davis County 9,130 96.8% 50.2% 49.8% 18.2 $32,889 Decatur County 7,683 97.4% 67.5% 66.7% 14.4 $26,334 Delaware County 17,568 96.7% 66.8% 64.9% 30.4 $40,709 Des Moines County 38,293 95.0% 83.5% 80.5% 92.0 $35,689 Dickinson County 18,028 98.6% 67.7% 66.7% 47.4 $45,523 Dubuque County 98,677 98.6% 83.1% 82.5% 162.2 $38,705 Emmet County 9,176 99.6% 76.0% 75.9% 23.2 $34,657 Fayette County 19,294 93.2% 63.6% 63.0% 26.4 $31,566 Floyd County 15,337 92.7% 55.8% 53.8% 30.6 $34,900 Franklin County 9,916 88.2% 57.6% 54.5% 17.0 $30,733 Fremont County 6,464 93.0% 16.9% 13.5% 12.6 $37,236 Greene County 8,741 88.3% 68.9% 63.2% 15.3 $32,340 Grundy County 12,356 94.0% 43.7% 41.5% 24.6 $38,265 Guthrie County 10,647 93.7% 53.3% 50.9% 18.0 $39,571 Hamilton County 14,820 90.2% 74.5% 69.5% 25.7 $35,822 Hancock County 10,685 96.8% 66.4% 65.5% 18.7 $35,033 Hardin County 16,567 97.4% 71.7% 70.6% 29.1 $32,181 Harrison County 14,658 88.0% 56.5% 50.9% 21.0 $36,998 Henry County 20,196 94.0% 82.2% 80.9% 46.5 $30,151 Howard County 9,533 92.9% 61.1% 59.7% 20.1 $32,033 Humboldt County 9,572 98.1% 81.1% 80.9% 22.0 $35,837 Ida County 6,888 65.4% 37.2% 26.5% 16.0 $35,708 Iowa County 16,475 83.8% 76.4% 67.3% 28.1 $40,182 Jackson County 19,324 95.5% 62.9% 60.6% 30.4 $34,739 Jasper County 37,938 91.2% 80.5% 74.4% 51.9 $35,346 Jefferson County 15,698 74.4% 81.7% 69.0% 36.0 $36,111 Johnson County 156,420 96.8% 92.5% 90.3% 255.2 $42,175 Jones County 20,848 98.5% 64.9% 64.3% 36.2 $33,996 Keokuk County 9,904 98.3% 61.5% 61.2% 17.1 $32,747 Kossuth County 14,475 90.4% 54.1% 50.0% 14.9 $34,723 Lee County 32,840 76.0% 67.0% 59.1% 63.5 $32,465 Linn County 229,033 96.7% 95.2% 93.0% 319.4 $41,446 Louisa County 10,677 80.5% 77.9% 68.2% 26.6 $33,296 Lucas County 8,689 70.4% 76.4% 64.5% 20.2 $32,575 Lyon County 12,179 97.6% 54.5% 53.5% 20.7 $33,428 Madison County 17,036 66.0% 79.2% 57.7% 30.4 $39,442 Mahaska County 21,946 88.8% 68.0% 63.8% 38.4 $33,812 Marion County 33,642 91.0% 77.1% 73.3% 60.7 $38,168 Marshall County 39,879 97.7% 86.1% 85.0% 69.7 $31,486 Mills County 14,553 80.7% 44.0% 34.0% 33.3 $40,709 Mitchell County 10,532 90.9% 58.2% 57.5% 22.4 $36,006 Monona County 8,486 75.6% 42.1% 30.6% 12.2 $33,080 Monroe County 7,550 72.6% 52.6% 42.9% 17.4 $35,392 Montgomery County 10,205 100.0% 42.9% 42.9% 24.1 $36,122 Muscatine County 42,377 91.6% 84.9% 80.5% 96.9 $34,055 O'Brien County 14,060 89.2% 55.6% 53.6% 24.5 $32,460 Osceola County 6,036 85.4% 68.7% 62.7% 15.1 $35,657 Page County 15,143 99.4% 61.6% 61.6% 28.3 $32,886 Palo Alto County 8,764 84.9% 66.8% 59.5% 15.5 $33,517 Plymouth County 25,681 87.0% 74.1% 70.2% 29.8 $40,150 Pocahontas County 7,053 97.5% 32.5% 32.5% 12.2 $33,918 Polk County 501,089 97.7% 99.5% 97.4% 875.7 $41,894 Pottawattamie County 93,173 99.1% 89.2% 88.7% 97.9 $34,701 Poweshiek County 18,467 82.0% 86.6% 74.1% 31.6 $37,527 Ringgold County 4,670 97.0% 37.8% 37.5% 8.7 $34,138 Sac County 9,673 85.1% 36.7% 33.4% 16.8 $38,596 Scott County 173,924 98.1% 97.1% 95.7% 379.7 $40,926 Shelby County 11,645 95.4% 1.4% 1.4% 19.7 $38,664 Sioux County 36,050 94.1% 68.5% 63.7% 46.9 $34,914 Story County 99,673 93.4% 83.9% 79.9% 174.1 $35,704 Tama County 16,903 93.7% 67.1% 65.9% 23.4 $33,046 Taylor County 5,858 90.8% 21.5% 20.2% 11.0 $33,092 Union County 11,887 91.1% 87.0% 81.1% 28.1 $30,966 Van Buren County 7,256 80.7% 53.9% 42.2% 15.0 $32,188 Wapello County 35,043 89.1% 89.5% 83.2% 81.1 $30,025 Warren County 54,327 78.5% 91.6% 75.4% 95.3 $41,279 Washington County 22,571 97.5% 78.4% 77.1% 39.7 $35,451 Wayne County 6,467 80.5% 39.8% 35.5% 12.3 $32,524 Webster County 36,626 93.1% 84.3% 78.3% 51.2 $33,836 Winnebago County 10,617 99.9% 70.9% 70.9% 26.5 $34,966 Winneshiek County 19,974 92.8% 37.0% 35.9% 29.0 $37,561 Woodbury County 105,671 96.6% 89.6% 87.9% 121.1 $33,080 Worth County 7,319 99.6% 68.5% 68.4% 18.3 $36,585 Wright County 12,681 96.7% 73.5% 71.6% 21.8 $33,964 Kansas 2,937,150 91.8% 88.5% 83.8% 35.9 $38,108 Allen County 12,579 80.0% 88.2% 74.4% 25.1 $27,155 Anderson County 7,776 56.7% 63.9% 48.1% 13.4 $29,665 Atchison County 16,108 95.2% 85.1% 83.2% 37.4 $27,644 Barber County 4,122 92.4% 73.8% 72.8% 3.6 $32,879 Barton County 25,080 99.6% 62.5% 62.5% 28.0 $31,516 Bourbon County 14,493 72.1% 79.9% 68.6% 22.8 $29,328 Brown County 9,364 90.4% 79.9% 75.7% 16.4 $29,646 Butler County 68,240 91.1% 95.8% 89.2% 47.7 $35,209 Chase County 2,548 59.2% 13.0% 7.5% 3.3 $32,022 Chautauqua County 3,415 17.0% 61.3% 13.5% 5.3 $28,267 Cherokee County 19,088 70.9% 70.6% 59.2% 32.5 $26,832 Cheyenne County 2,583 53.8% 0.0% 0.0% 2.5 $34,829 Clark County 1,933 92.3% 84.7% 82.2% 2.0 $30,253 Clay County 8,043 89.1% 71.7% 67.7% 12.5 $32,628 Cloud County 8,946 96.4% 74.9% 72.8% 12.5 $28,318 Coffey County 8,280 70.0% 64.8% 54.5% 13.2 $35,984 Comanche County 1,681 71.9% 47.8% 39.7% 2.1 $30,989 Cowley County 34,453 96.5% 70.8% 69.9% 30.6 $29,977 Crawford County 39,078 96.5% 85.6% 84.9% 66.3 $28,530 Decatur County 2,689 79.5% 8.5% 6.6% 3.0 $33,767 Dickinson County 18,430 85.8% 80.1% 68.8% 21.8 $35,615 Doniphan County 7,440 87.8% 83.7% 76.9% 18.9 $31,314 Douglas County 119,964 94.3% 93.7% 89.2% 263.2 $37,261 Edwards County 2,739 78.6% 27.5% 20.5% 4.4 $31,368 Elk County 2,441 60.3% 27.4% 24.8% 3.8 $28,159 Ellis County 28,941 99.8% 83.3% 83.3% 32.2 $37,217 Ellsworth County 6,355 89.7% 84.4% 78.7% 8.9 $29,968 Finney County 37,650 92.4% 95.6% 89.4% 28.9 $29,805 Ford County 33,848 91.3% 93.7% 87.5% 30.8 $28,502 Franklin County 25,992 68.1% 74.9% 61.4% 45.5 $32,997 Geary County 35,691 78.9% 73.5% 62.7% 92.8 $27,030 Gove County 2,717 78.3% 15.8% 13.5% 2.5 $33,295 Graham County 2,411 99.9% 53.5% 53.5% 2.7 $30,222 Grant County 7,197 86.2% 29.3% 27.2% 12.5 $36,280 Gray County 5,729 98.7% 48.9% 48.6% 6.6 $34,339 Greeley County 1,223 68.5% 90.7% 68.5% 1.6 $36,078 Greenwood County 5,939 22.7% 60.4% 17.6% 5.2 $34,862 Hamilton County 2,430 78.4% 88.1% 78.4% 2.4 $28,145 Harper County 5,323 97.4% 70.5% 70.3% 6.6 $26,970 Harvey County 33,801 97.3% 80.8% 79.4% 62.6 $33,965 Haskell County 3,576 76.2% 47.9% 39.1% 6.2 $32,908 Hodgeman County 1,755 68.9% 50.6% 46.0% 2.0 $33,911 Jackson County 13,286 79.3% 69.4% 59.8% 20.2 $32,499 Jefferson County 18,344 82.4% 75.9% 64.6% 34.4 $38,535 Jewell County 2,898 93.7% 6.9% 6.4% 3.2 $32,759 Johnson County 619,195 97.3% 99.9% 97.2% 1,307.3 $56,364 Kearny County 3,855 61.8% 80.3% 54.9% 4.4 $29,465 Kingman County 7,193 93.1% 69.4% 67.6% 8.3 $33,453 Kiowa County 2,404 66.9% 19.5% 10.4% 3.3 $35,199 Labette County 19,757 68.9% 78.7% 57.9% 30.6 $29,585 Lane County 1,556 95.3% 92.2% 89.8% 2.2 $35,779 Leavenworth County 82,892 88.3% 96.4% 85.4% 178.9 $37,482 Lincoln County 2,899 77.1% 7.5% 3.8% 4.0 $31,383 Linn County 9,796 61.3% 50.7% 41.7% 16.5 $34,053 Logan County 2,705 86.8% 11.6% 10.9% 2.5 $38,363 Lyon County 31,898 91.9% 84.4% 83.1% 37.6 $29,425 Marion County 11,868 69.3% 67.7% 55.4% 12.6 $33,087 Marshall County 9,982 72.9% 55.1% 43.3% 11.1 $36,854 McPherson County 30,012 92.3% 69.4% 64.4% 33.4 $34,116 Meade County 3,897 78.8% 67.8% 62.3% 4.0 $47,644 Miami County 34,867 30.8% 88.2% 30.1% 60.5 $40,169 Mitchell County 5,738 95.4% 69.3% 68.8% 8.2 $35,258 Montgomery County 30,996 78.2% 59.5% 51.4% 48.2 $28,270 Morris County 5,349 96.9% 66.9% 64.9% 7.7 $32,462 Morton County 2,599 76.2% 91.5% 73.6% 3.6 $27,423 Nemaha County 10,115 77.2% 59.5% 51.9% 14.1 $36,959 Neosho County 15,606 75.3% 67.2% 57.6% 27.3 $29,850 Ness County 2,645 95.3% 75.5% 72.9% 2.5 $39,978 Norton County 5,301 83.2% 63.2% 59.1% 6.0 $28,514 Osage County 15,654 64.3% 78.1% 56.1% 22.2 $32,120 Osborne County 3,490 99.9% 61.1% 61.1% 3.9 $34,669 Ottawa County 5,795 84.7% 69.7% 61.3% 8.0 $34,893 Pawnee County 6,179 96.6% 17.9% 17.8% 8.2 $32,542 Phillips County 4,809 81.3% 56.2% 51.7% 5.4 $34,396 Pottawatomie County 26,273 95.2% 70.9% 66.8% 31.2 $35,715 Pratt County 9,067 94.3% 82.3% 81.3% 12.3 $31,949 Rawlins County 2,528 54.0% 8.1% 3.5% 2.4 $33,003 Reno County 61,516 89.3% 65.0% 61.9% 49.0 $31,695 Republic County 4,642 81.2% 69.9% 60.9% 6.5 $31,626 Rice County 9,407 88.9% 46.7% 43.1% 13.0 $32,074 Riley County 71,108 97.3% 90.6% 89.3% 116.6 $33,147 Rooks County 4,813 88.4% 78.7% 72.5% 5.4 $33,751 Rush County 2,927 90.5% 8.1% 7.7% 4.1 $37,166 Russell County 6,639 99.9% 50.1% 50.0% 7.5 $30,680 Saline County 53,596 99.6% 93.3% 93.2% 74.4 $32,504 Scott County 5,014 80.2% 94.8% 80.2% 7.0 $29,999 Sedgwick County 525,525 99.2% 99.6% 98.8% 527.1 $35,338 Seward County 21,358 93.0% 96.4% 91.6% 33.4 $25,391 Shawnee County 177,480 98.5% 96.9% 95.6% 326.2 $36,011 Sheridan County 2,425 79.6% 57.7% 55.1% 2.7 $41,462 Sherman County 5,830 85.2% 87.1% 82.9% 5.5 $37,930 Smith County 3,533 93.1% 57.5% 53.4% 3.9 $33,881 Stafford County 3,993 94.6% 7.5% 7.2% 5.0 $32,921 Stanton County 1,963 76.5% 28.7% 24.7% 2.9 $39,063 Stevens County 5,175 72.6% 84.5% 72.6% 7.1 $25,674 Sumner County 22,473 49.6% 49.3% 24.4% 19.0 $31,072 Thomas County 7,893 89.7% 78.5% 74.4% 7.3 $37,610 Trego County 2,752 99.5% 30.5% 30.5% 3.1 $42,029 Wabaunsee County 7,019 89.3% 64.5% 59.9% 8.8 $34,243 Wallace County 1,488 51.2% 5.4% 0.0% 1.6 $34,406 Washington County 5,501 39.9% 43.4% 14.7% 6.1 $32,781 Wichita County 2,064 72.9% 10.8% 6.5% 2.9 $36,589 Wilson County 8,622 60.9% 67.8% 55.5% 15.1 $32,008 Woodson County 3,109 43.2% 57.1% 43.2% 6.2 $28,380 Wyandotte County 165,746 96.8% 99.6% 96.4% 1,093.0 $27,534 Kentucky 4,512,310 85.2% 75.3% 68.8% 114.3 $33,515 Adair County 19,067 55.4% 48.7% 41.1% 47.0 $26,098 Allen County 21,275 98.8% 48.1% 47.8% 61.8 $28,307 Anderson County 24,224 71.0% 78.5% 66.0% 119.8 $33,513 Ballard County 7,650 100.0% 38.4% 38.4% 31.0 $31,315 Barren County 44,854 83.3% 49.8% 42.6% 92.0 $27,732 Bath County 12,829 68.0% 49.8% 39.2% 46.0 $27,018 Bell County 23,568 90.6% 64.6% 60.7% 65.6 $19,262 Boone County 139,093 98.3% 95.7% 94.2% 564.8 $41,281 Bourbon County 20,093 68.8% 88.9% 67.4% 69.3 $30,123 Boyd County 48,110 93.4% 67.8% 66.0% 300.9 $30,993 Boyle County 30,904 75.3% 74.7% 63.9% 171.4 $29,955 Bracken County 8,452 44.1% 73.7% 41.4% 41.7 $29,164 Breathitt County 13,351 65.9% 29.6% 28.4% 27.1 $21,985 Breckinridge County 20,943 53.3% 53.1% 26.2% 36.8 $27,733 Bullitt County 83,836 92.9% 94.4% 89.0% 282.2 $34,362 Butler County 12,295 37.0% 48.0% 27.5% 28.9 $23,862 Caldwell County 12,570 65.2% 63.8% 54.0% 36.5 $31,255 Calloway County 37,685 85.9% 65.1% 57.6% 97.9 $27,850 Campbell County 93,300 98.9% 95.0% 94.0% 616.5 $42,846 Carlisle County 4,720 70.3% 18.8% 10.7% 24.9 $31,403 Carroll County 10,938 68.8% 83.7% 65.1% 85.0 $27,858 Carter County 26,395 59.1% 55.7% 42.5% 64.5 $24,949 Casey County 15,920 50.3% 23.8% 19.4% 35.8 $22,970 Christian County 73,037 86.7% 87.7% 79.4% 101.8 $25,973 Clark County 37,061 79.9% 88.7% 75.0% 146.8 $36,028 Clay County 19,913 85.8% 21.8% 21.0% 42.4 $19,579 Clinton County 9,123 62.3% 51.6% 37.4% 46.3 $23,905 Crittenden County 8,981 41.9% 49.7% 37.2% 24.9 $28,035 Cumberland County 5,946 44.2% 42.1% 31.2% 19.5 $22,668 Daviess County 103,222 86.4% 87.1% 78.7% 225.2 $33,599 Edmonson County 12,269 48.7% 28.6% 14.9% 40.5 $26,781 Elliott County 7,293 100.0% 0.1% 0.1% 31.1 $17,242 Estill County 14,044 76.4% 33.6% 29.9% 55.5 $21,880 Fayette County 320,347 98.2% 99.9% 98.2% 1,129.4 $40,953 Fleming County 15,288 55.7% 53.2% 37.0% 43.9 $26,230 Floyd County 34,978 90.2% 11.8% 10.3% 88.9 $22,179 Franklin County 51,607 57.9% 88.1% 54.2% 248.3 $38,104 Fulton County 6,382 73.7% 68.4% 59.0% 31.0 $19,960 Gallatin County 8,763 81.4% 91.3% 75.9% 89.1 $27,398 Garrard County 17,589 58.6% 58.3% 42.7% 76.4 $30,728 Grant County 25,502 90.9% 78.8% 73.1% 98.9 $29,113 Graves County 36,412 93.3% 56.8% 54.2% 66.0 $28,978 Grayson County 26,631 80.8% 35.2% 29.9% 53.3 $25,565 Green County 11,365 39.5% 27.1% 17.4% 39.7 $24,090 Greenup County 35,403 82.9% 73.3% 68.5% 102.8 $32,070 Hancock County 9,021 21.0% 31.0% 8.2% 48.1 $30,579 Hardin County 111,862 89.8% 88.1% 82.0% 179.4 $35,226 Harlan County 25,662 69.3% 27.6% 20.3% 55.1 $20,511 Harrison County 19,103 43.1% 72.6% 40.8% 62.3 $29,748 Hart County 19,600 67.8% 24.2% 20.2% 47.5 $23,837 Henderson County 44,046 78.8% 83.6% 69.0% 100.9 $30,949 Henry County 15,771 55.0% 73.6% 46.9% 55.1 $28,842 Hickman County 4,422 42.8% 57.6% 34.4% 18.3 $38,895 Hopkins County 44,812 76.2% 78.3% 64.3% 82.7 $27,878 Jackson County 12,973 100.0% 2.3% 2.3% 37.6 $21,876 Jefferson County 773,399 97.9% 99.9% 97.8% 2,031.0 $39,994 Jessamine County 54,254 91.5% 96.6% 90.3% 315.1 $37,703 Johnson County 22,244 97.1% 23.6% 23.4% 84.9 $22,931 Kenton County 170,313 99.2% 96.9% 96.2% 1,062.5 $40,780 Knott County 13,874 99.3% 9.3% 9.2% 39.5 $20,536 Knox County 29,791 85.9% 39.1% 36.6% 77.1 $20,658 Larue County 15,163 65.5% 44.7% 36.6% 58.0 $28,038 Laurel County 62,885 90.0% 44.8% 42.9% 144.9 $26,829 Lawrence County 16,109 99.8% 34.0% 33.8% 38.8 $21,163 Lee County 7,261 52.9% 23.5% 13.6% 34.8 $18,651 Leslie County 10,093 40.9% 4.8% 2.1% 25.2 $18,739 Letcher County 20,893 97.0% 17.6% 17.5% 61.8 $23,522 Lewis County 12,954 53.0% 56.7% 41.4% 26.8 $20,579 Lincoln County 24,360 50.5% 54.2% 33.1% 73.2 $25,972 Livingston County 8,963 45.9% 42.9% 24.4% 28.6 $31,024 Logan County 27,877 73.5% 54.6% 47.0% 50.5 $27,741 Lyon County 9,101 43.6% 47.1% 20.6% 42.6 $30,441 Madison County 95,187 91.5% 83.3% 79.4% 217.6 $31,290 Magoffin County 11,357 100.0% 17.7% 17.7% 36.8 $19,582 Marion County 19,775 70.6% 50.8% 44.0% 57.6 $25,133 Marshall County 31,777 84.0% 51.4% 44.8% 105.1 $32,853 Martin County 11,095 36.1% 7.1% 3.3% 48.3 $21,276 Mason County 16,930 73.4% 84.7% 68.8% 70.5 $33,842 McCracken County 67,490 96.6% 81.9% 80.0% 271.3 $36,401 McCreary County 16,701 99.9% 39.1% 39.1% 39.1 $17,450 McLean County 9,105 38.0% 47.1% 23.8% 36.1 $32,382 Meade County 30,001 98.5% 49.2% 48.5% 98.2 $34,781 Menifee County 6,250 100.0% 32.9% 32.9% 30.7 $22,682 Mercer County 22,902 66.7% 69.4% 53.6% 92.0 $30,424 Metcalfe County 10,370 53.3% 21.3% 15.2% 35.8 $23,380 Monroe County 11,355 52.7% 10.8% 8.5% 34.5 $26,549 Montgomery County 28,367 77.6% 72.6% 61.6% 143.7 $26,423 Morgan County 14,120 100.0% 12.0% 12.0% 37.0 $23,257 Muhlenberg County 30,455 70.6% 49.2% 37.6% 65.2 $31,621 Nelson County 47,392 93.1% 74.8% 72.3% 113.5 $33,585 Nicholas County 7,805 33.9% 66.0% 33.6% 40.0 $24,714 Ohio County 23,527 43.4% 53.8% 32.8% 40.1 $26,712 Oldham County 69,431 89.6% 97.2% 87.8% 370.8 $50,534 Owen County 11,290 47.6% 68.7% 41.2% 32.2 $28,446 Owsley County 3,929 99.5% 31.7% 31.7% 19.9 $19,405 Pendleton County 14,676 82.6% 59.4% 52.5% 53.0 $28,919 Perry County 27,361 89.0% 18.2% 17.8% 80.5 $27,913 Pike County 56,286 67.9% 13.4% 8.2% 71.5 $25,153 Powell County 13,083 47.8% 61.8% 36.4% 73.1 $23,336 Pulaski County 65,795 80.5% 66.6% 60.8% 99.9 $29,215 Robertson County 2,229 8.6% 29.4% 4.4% 22.3 $24,146 Rockcastle County 16,242 55.1% 54.6% 39.1% 51.3 $26,640 Rowan County 24,388 88.6% 60.9% 58.7% 87.1 $28,578 Russell County 18,178 94.7% 32.9% 32.2% 71.7 $25,790 Scott County 59,099 79.7% 93.7% 78.7% 209.7 $38,391 Shelby County 48,886 71.8% 88.3% 68.9% 128.7 $37,918 Simpson County 19,949 96.3% 80.5% 79.0% 85.2 $27,951 Spencer County 20,204 63.1% 50.7% 35.6% 108.2 $39,997 Taylor County 26,407 75.5% 52.2% 48.8% 99.1 $29,899 Todd County 12,404 44.3% 51.3% 28.8% 33.1 $30,252 Trigg County 14,332 53.0% 49.5% 34.9% 32.5 $30,172 Trimble County 8,539 62.9% 53.4% 33.1% 56.3 $28,958 Union County 12,961 70.6% 64.2% 53.6% 37.8 $28,196 Warren County 139,843 92.4% 87.3% 81.4% 258.1 $34,201 Washington County 12,061 52.2% 64.3% 38.0% 40.6 $30,217 Wayne County 19,681 72.9% 47.2% 42.3% 43.0 $27,016 Webster County 12,726 53.4% 52.3% 31.9% 38.3 $25,177 Whitley County 36,873 75.9% 34.9% 28.2% 84.2 $22,310 Wolfe County 6,400 100.0% 28.1% 28.1% 28.8 $14,727 Woodford County 27,062 82.2% 92.4% 80.3% 142.3 $38,567 Louisiana 4,590,241 83.4% 87.3% 77.7% 106.2 $32,981 Acadia Parish 56,744 71.4% 74.8% 60.7% 86.6 $25,731 Allen Parish 22,320 19.3% 73.6% 17.1% 29.3 $23,971 Ascension Parish 130,458 99.7% 98.6% 98.4% 449.9 $41,355 Assumption Parish 20,604 95.4% 74.9% 71.5% 59.9 $28,758 Avoyelles Parish 38,751 0.6% 73.1% 0.6% 46.6 $23,597 Beauregard Parish 36,570 29.6% 56.0% 22.9% 31.6 $33,582 Bienville Parish 12,641 16.0% 44.6% 15.3% 15.6 $22,269 Bossier Parish 129,276 80.1% 82.0% 70.8% 154.0 $33,873 Caddo Parish 229,025 95.3% 81.3% 79.3% 260.4 $31,612 Calcasieu Parish 202,418 82.3% 92.8% 78.5% 190.2 $33,486 Caldwell Parish 9,554 42.5% 65.3% 38.5% 18.0 $28,491 Cameron Parish 4,902 66.3% 58.0% 37.5% 3.8 $33,858 Catahoula Parish 8,566 5.1% 58.4% 5.1% 12.1 $24,910 Claiborne Parish 13,744 44.0% 42.3% 33.7% 18.2 $18,721 Concordia Parish 18,116 25.5% 87.6% 24.4% 26.0 $21,941 De Soto Parish 26,853 64.6% 59.1% 49.4% 30.6 $28,772 East Baton Rouge Parish 450,544 100.0% 99.0% 99.0% 989.1 $37,540 East Carroll Parish 6,990 64.7% 86.7% 63.6% 16.6 $19,646 East Feliciana Parish 19,135 10.8% 60.7% 9.5% 42.2 $32,720 Evangeline Parish 31,986 34.8% 59.3% 22.5% 48.3 $21,877 Franklin Parish 19,308 50.4% 60.5% 37.1% 30.9 $23,658 Grant Parish 22,000 23.9% 37.4% 15.8% 34.2 $25,077 Iberia Parish 68,327 71.6% 87.5% 68.7% 119.1 $28,315 Iberville Parish 29,506 90.2% 86.6% 77.9% 47.7 $28,538 Jackson Parish 14,839 2.6% 50.7% 2.3% 26.1 $22,804 Jefferson Davis Parish 32,026 63.2% 71.7% 49.4% 49.2 $30,081 Jefferson Parish 425,884 99.9% 100.0% 99.9% 1,415.1 $35,720 LaSalle Parish 14,729 0.0% 53.1% 0.0% 23.6 $29,769 Lafayette Parish 247,866 98.3% 96.8% 95.8% 922.0 $38,161 Lafourche Parish 95,870 72.5% 88.9% 65.7% 89.8 $32,716 Lincoln Parish 48,129 61.9% 71.1% 50.5% 102.0 $24,411 Livingston Parish 148,425 97.1% 90.2% 88.1% 229.0 $34,237 Madison Parish 9,478 74.2% 84.3% 72.6% 15.2 $18,314 Morehouse Parish 24,446 86.2% 65.6% 57.9% 30.8 $22,534 Natchitoches Parish 36,663 60.0% 49.1% 39.4% 29.3 $25,302 Orleans Parish 369,749 99.9% 100.0% 99.9% 2,181.5 $37,013 Ouachita Parish 157,702 91.8% 86.0% 83.0% 258.4 $29,670 Plaquemines Parish 22,516 61.9% 96.8% 61.9% 28.9 $35,413 Pointe Coupee Parish 20,151 85.5% 70.0% 62.2% 36.2 $31,595 Rapides Parish 127,189 69.9% 72.5% 55.2% 96.3 $31,010 Red River Parish 7,420 21.8% 16.1% 1.7% 19.1 $23,162 Richland Parish 19,826 49.5% 76.9% 47.1% 35.7 $25,285 Sabine Parish 21,985 6.2% 16.3% 2.6% 25.4 $24,911 St. Bernard Parish 44,479 99.9% 100.0% 99.8% 117.8 $28,451 St. Charles Parish 50,998 99.5% 96.9% 96.3% 183.6 $38,220 St. Helena Parish 10,822 32.2% 35.3% 11.0% 26.5 $24,660 St. James Parish 19,423 84.3% 97.6% 82.4% 81.7 $33,616 St. John the Baptist Parish 39,864 98.2% 99.5% 98.2% 185.9 $30,643 St. Landry Parish 81,773 76.3% 78.1% 62.9% 88.5 $24,413 St. Martin Parish 51,236 82.9% 81.5% 70.0% 69.5 $28,679 St. Mary Parish 47,789 91.9% 94.2% 87.8% 86.0 $26,949 St. Tammany Parish 273,263 93.6% 95.3% 89.9% 323.3 $40,393 Tangipahoa Parish 137,048 88.4% 90.3% 81.8% 173.2 $29,192 Tensas Parish 3,846 14.1% 17.7% 1.6% 6.4 $21,019 Terrebonne Parish 104,786 98.6% 90.8% 89.7% 85.2 $32,143 Union Parish 20,721 24.8% 39.2% 16.6% 23.6 $28,575 Vermilion Parish 56,952 71.3% 77.9% 61.1% 48.5 $29,293 Vernon Parish 47,247 33.5% 71.3% 30.6% 35.6 $28,797 Washington Parish 45,025 15.0% 77.9% 14.8% 67.2 $24,287 Webster Parish 35,643 50.9% 59.6% 35.6% 60.1 $22,706 West Baton Rouge Parish 28,034 100.0% 93.0% 92.9% 145.7 $33,445 West Carroll Parish 9,475 29.8% 53.1% 21.4% 26.3 $25,949 West Feliciana Parish 15,381 13.4% 68.6% 10.3% 38.1 $30,055 Winn Parish 13,205 23.2% 56.9% 23.0% 13.9 $25,617 Maine 1,385,340 88.2% 64.7% 60.2% 44.9 $39,718 Androscoggin County 113,023 96.9% 75.9% 74.0% 241.5 $34,273 Aroostook County 67,255 71.4% 57.8% 48.0% 10.1 $31,001 Cumberland County 307,451 97.6% 72.4% 71.1% 367.7 $51,405 Franklin County 30,474 80.6% 58.9% 54.7% 18.0 $33,161 Hancock County 56,701 77.5% 47.4% 39.4% 35.7 $38,785 Kennebec County 125,540 92.5% 72.1% 67.4% 144.7 $36,009 Knox County 41,164 86.5% 54.9% 48.4% 112.7 $39,379 Lincoln County 36,215 86.3% 31.1% 28.1% 79.4 $43,436 Oxford County 59,495 75.9% 62.2% 51.6% 28.6 $30,884 Penobscot County 153,704 84.9% 65.3% 60.0% 45.2 $34,423 Piscataquis County 17,417 65.2% 37.9% 27.7% 4.4 $32,843 Sagadahoc County 37,393 94.0% 64.8% 63.2% 147.2 $40,950 Somerset County 51,098 74.5% 60.7% 52.0% 13.0 $31,348 Waldo County 40,241 54.0% 43.6% 27.6% 55.1 $35,677 Washington County 31,437 68.4% 34.1% 28.1% 12.3 $30,731 York County 216,732 96.4% 70.2% 68.0% 218.7 $42,053 Maryland 6,164,660 97.5% 94.3% 92.5% 634.8 $49,865 Allegany County 67,267 91.3% 87.4% 81.8% 159.3 $29,343 Anne Arundel County 593,286 99.7% 96.3% 96.0% 1,430.3 $56,187 Baltimore County 846,161 99.0% 98.3% 97.4% 1,414.1 $46,603 Baltimore city 569,931 99.7% 99.8% 99.5% 7,040.9 $37,845 Calvert County 94,573 98.0% 83.7% 82.1% 443.6 $54,038 Caroline County 33,433 77.1% 85.2% 67.9% 104.7 $34,655 Carroll County 175,305 90.6% 92.2% 84.2% 391.6 $49,434 Cecil County 104,942 94.0% 87.3% 83.1% 303.0 $40,520 Charles County 170,102 95.7% 87.7% 85.1% 371.5 $47,977 Dorchester County 32,726 80.8% 85.4% 75.4% 60.5 $33,950 Frederick County 287,079 95.1% 89.1% 86.0% 434.6 $51,169 Garrett County 28,579 68.3% 65.8% 49.5% 44.0 $41,130 Harford County 263,867 97.8% 94.5% 92.6% 603.6 $48,615 Howard County 335,411 99.4% 97.8% 97.4% 1,336.6 $63,441 Kent County 19,320 89.4% 62.9% 58.8% 69.7 $44,283 Montgomery County 1,052,521 99.7% 94.2% 94.0% 2,134.5 $64,126 Prince George's County 946,971 99.6% 96.5% 96.2% 1,962.0 $43,833 Queen Anne's County 51,711 90.0% 78.7% 71.2% 139.1 $52,652 Somerset County 24,546 78.1% 73.0% 61.6% 76.8 $24,176 St. Mary's County 114,877 91.9% 83.3% 77.9% 320.3 $49,755 Talbot County 37,932 89.2% 72.1% 68.6% 141.2 $52,555 Washington County 155,590 90.3% 95.2% 86.9% 339.9 $36,528 Wicomico County 104,664 93.5% 94.1% 89.6% 279.5 $35,658 Worcester County 53,866 87.3% 84.5% 77.6% 115.0 $48,769 Massachusetts 6,981,974 98.7% 92.1% 91.0% 895.0 $53,513 Barnstable County 232,457 99.5% 85.8% 85.4% 589.7 $55,940 Berkshire County 127,859 92.0% 74.3% 68.8% 137.9 $45,300 Bristol County 580,068 99.6% 93.5% 93.1% 1,048.7 $42,006 Dukes County 20,868 97.7% 63.0% 61.8% 202.2 $60,845 Essex County 806,765 99.8% 94.5% 94.3% 1,638.0 $50,932 Franklin County 70,894 95.2% 64.8% 62.9% 101.4 $40,282 Hampden County 461,041 98.7% 93.2% 92.1% 747.2 $35,884 Hampshire County 162,588 97.8% 89.2% 87.3% 308.4 $43,639 Middlesex County 1,617,105 99.7% 94.8% 94.6% 1,977.2 $64,197 Nantucket County 14,421 99.4% 57.7% 57.6% 312.2 $62,153 Norfolk County 725,531 99.4% 94.6% 94.0% 1,831.7 $66,685 Plymouth County 533,069 99.5% 87.8% 87.4% 809.5 $53,423 Suffolk County 766,381 99.9% 99.1% 99.0% 13,155.9 $53,173 Worcester County 862,927 94.4% 86.0% 81.2% 571.2 $45,433 Michigan 10,034,113 90.8% 88.3% 82.9% 177.3 $37,929 Alcona County 10,417 46.5% 22.7% 9.2% 15.4 $31,167 Alger County 8,807 57.7% 39.6% 30.2% 9.6 $25,099 Allegan County 121,210 65.4% 72.6% 52.1% 146.9 $35,220 Alpena County 28,847 99.6% 65.5% 65.2% 50.4 $30,893 Antrim County 24,249 72.4% 51.8% 40.7% 51.0 $39,166 Arenac County 15,089 53.0% 38.2% 19.8% 41.5 $29,246 Baraga County 8,277 72.1% 34.2% 24.3% 9.2 $28,665 Barry County 63,554 62.4% 58.0% 38.9% 114.9 $38,843 Bay County 102,821 84.3% 96.8% 83.5% 232.4 $33,331 Benzie County 18,297 67.0% 50.8% 37.9% 57.2 $38,875 Berrien County 152,900 95.5% 83.2% 80.4% 269.3 $36,764 Branch County 44,531 71.8% 58.1% 50.0% 87.9 $29,824 Calhoun County 133,289 86.9% 80.8% 74.8% 188.7 $32,047 Cass County 51,403 89.0% 54.6% 48.7% 104.9 $36,851 Charlevoix County 26,293 89.5% 57.4% 52.3% 63.2 $43,782 Cheboygan County 25,940 62.9% 52.3% 37.9% 36.3 $32,679 Chippewa County 36,293 56.0% 58.7% 41.4% 23.3 $31,167 Clare County 31,352 72.4% 52.0% 42.9% 55.6 $27,147 Clinton County 79,748 84.8% 90.5% 77.4% 140.8 $41,790 Crawford County 13,491 52.5% 48.9% 33.1% 24.2 $30,379 Delta County 36,741 79.1% 62.6% 55.7% 31.4 $32,311 Dickinson County 25,874 78.0% 73.9% 65.3% 34.0 $35,722 Eaton County 108,992 84.1% 90.4% 79.1% 189.5 $39,207 Emmet County 34,163 87.7% 54.5% 47.3% 73.1 $42,373 Genesee County 401,983 96.1% 99.1% 95.5% 631.1 $33,562 Gladwin County 25,728 71.7% 42.2% 35.9% 51.3 $30,893 Gogebic County 14,319 72.5% 75.3% 62.4% 13.0 $33,516 Grand Traverse County 96,464 85.9% 57.2% 50.5% 207.7 $40,644 Gratiot County 41,100 98.4% 71.3% 70.9% 72.3 $28,123 Hillsdale County 45,762 88.2% 60.0% 56.0% 76.5 $30,409 Houghton County 37,035 78.1% 72.2% 63.5% 36.7 $29,173 Huron County 31,248 59.6% 40.1% 26.8% 37.4 $32,069 Ingham County 284,108 93.2% 97.5% 91.9% 510.9 $36,077 Ionia County 66,809 89.1% 86.2% 77.3% 116.9 $29,736 Iosco County 25,521 74.5% 55.2% 45.6% 46.5 $28,301 Iron County 11,622 53.5% 52.9% 43.0% 10.0 $31,990 Isabella County 64,447 94.3% 72.5% 70.4% 112.5 $28,809 Jackson County 160,066 81.3% 87.1% 72.6% 228.0 $33,065 Kalamazoo County 261,173 96.1% 84.0% 81.1% 464.8 $37,852 Kalkaska County 18,182 47.3% 42.8% 23.9% 32.5 $31,074 Kent County 659,083 95.6% 96.6% 92.9% 776.4 $39,342 Keweenaw County 2,180 47.1% 40.3% 34.7% 4.0 $41,795 Lake County 12,594 32.5% 43.9% 16.8% 22.2 $25,695 Lapeer County 88,780 61.3% 83.4% 54.0% 137.2 $37,419 Leelanau County 22,870 69.4% 35.9% 25.1% 65.9 $48,491 Lenawee County 98,567 97.1% 72.4% 71.2% 131.5 $32,976 Livingston County 196,161 89.9% 91.6% 83.2% 347.0 $47,253 Luce County 5,330 53.3% 24.8% 17.6% 5.9 $23,599 Mackinac County 10,941 55.1% 44.7% 31.4% 10.7 $35,512 Macomb County 874,195 99.0% 99.5% 98.6% 1,823.7 $38,015 Manistee County 25,287 56.0% 48.6% 32.9% 46.6 $33,818 Marquette County 66,661 79.7% 67.2% 60.8% 36.8 $32,711 Mason County 29,409 59.8% 66.0% 46.2% 59.4 $34,386 Mecosta County 40,720 93.2% 54.1% 52.4% 73.3 $27,692 Menominee County 23,266 54.4% 56.7% 43.9% 22.3 $31,313 Midland County 83,674 80.4% 93.0% 77.4% 161.7 $41,594 Missaukee County 15,213 33.3% 44.5% 16.8% 26.9 $29,386 Monroe County 155,609 91.9% 93.3% 86.3% 283.3 $37,704 Montcalm County 67,433 97.2% 72.2% 70.8% 95.6 $28,370 Montmorency County 9,569 57.2% 28.0% 17.7% 17.5 $28,394 Muskegon County 176,565 90.3% 73.3% 67.7% 350.4 $30,812 Newaygo County 50,886 65.1% 46.4% 32.9% 60.7 $29,687 Oakland County 1,269,431 98.9% 99.2% 98.1% 1,463.7 $53,157 Oceana County 26,973 76.6% 54.1% 43.6% 50.1 $28,786 Ogemaw County 20,970 63.5% 43.8% 30.9% 37.2 $28,837 Ontonagon County 5,863 58.6% 39.9% 29.2% 4.5 $30,182 Osceola County 23,274 72.2% 66.7% 52.5% 41.1 $27,211 Oscoda County 8,404 60.3% 32.5% 26.0% 14.9 $26,129 Otsego County 25,644 68.4% 56.2% 44.7% 49.8 $34,190 Ottawa County 300,873 92.4% 90.0% 83.5% 533.9 $39,116 Presque Isle County 13,361 57.5% 40.1% 29.1% 20.3 $34,698 Roscommon County 23,708 85.0% 56.7% 47.5% 45.6 $34,587 Saginaw County 188,330 87.8% 96.6% 85.7% 235.2 $32,839 Sanilac County 40,657 50.3% 27.7% 17.0% 42.2 $30,904 Schoolcraft County 8,188 51.1% 42.9% 30.7% 7.0 $33,805 Shiawassee County 68,022 69.9% 95.0% 67.8% 128.1 $33,328 St. Clair County 160,151 79.7% 90.8% 73.9% 222.0 $35,483 St. Joseph County 60,874 95.0% 68.1% 64.8% 121.6 $30,171 Tuscola County 52,945 66.4% 39.4% 28.6% 65.8 $30,698 Van Buren County 75,692 69.8% 57.6% 42.4% 124.5 $32,361 Washtenaw County 366,376 93.6% 98.4% 92.6% 518.9 $49,568 Wayne County 1,757,043 99.4% 99.6% 99.1% 2,871.7 $32,643 Wexford County 34,196 62.0% 61.8% 44.3% 60.5 $29,617 Minnesota 5,717,184 94.3% 88.8% 85.4% 71.8 $44,947 Aitkin County 16,126 69.5% 48.5% 38.5% 8.9 $32,980 Anoka County 368,864 97.5% 97.0% 94.8% 874.2 $43,106 Becker County 35,371 81.0% 49.9% 44.2% 26.9 $38,444 Beltrami County 46,799 99.2% 54.5% 54.4% 18.7 $32,055 Benton County 41,463 88.4% 94.1% 83.1% 101.6 $35,885 Big Stone County 5,144 98.9% 24.3% 24.0% 10.3 $35,797 Blue Earth County 69,631 97.0% 82.9% 80.4% 93.1 $35,182 Brown County 25,723 94.5% 72.6% 70.9% 42.1 $35,340 Carlton County 36,708 60.6% 58.8% 41.7% 42.6 $35,642 Carver County 110,034 98.9% 99.0% 98.0% 310.8 $55,216 Cass County 31,274 63.7% 55.3% 39.9% 15.5 $34,505 Chippewa County 12,284 99.1% 66.4% 65.9% 21.1 $32,772 Chisago County 57,988 76.2% 92.4% 72.4% 139.8 $41,814 Clay County 65,929 99.3% 90.1% 89.9% 63.1 $36,586 Clearwater County 8,649 99.2% 53.3% 53.0% 8.7 $31,879 Cook County 5,708 95.2% 54.0% 53.3% 3.9 $44,316 Cottonwood County 11,356 88.7% 76.6% 71.1% 17.7 $32,818 Crow Wing County 67,948 88.2% 71.0% 65.6% 68.1 $36,878 Dakota County 443,341 99.2% 99.3% 98.6% 788.1 $48,894 Dodge County 20,981 99.9% 72.1% 72.1% 47.8 $42,838 Douglas County 39,668 84.6% 56.2% 51.2% 62.3 $41,889 Faribault County 13,926 86.2% 49.2% 43.2% 19.5 $35,307 Fillmore County 21,414 86.0% 63.4% 58.6% 24.9 $35,645 Freeborn County 30,718 99.4% 70.6% 70.2% 43.4 $36,751 Goodhue County 48,013 94.0% 73.5% 71.7% 63.5 $40,087 Grant County 6,136 82.2% 39.1% 36.7% 11.2 $36,750 Hennepin County 1,260,121 99.3% 99.8% 99.1% 2,274.4 $55,199 Houston County 18,800 84.5% 49.1% 46.9% 34.1 $39,340 Hubbard County 21,960 92.3% 56.2% 52.7% 23.7 $36,944 Isanti County 42,727 59.7% 83.9% 56.8% 98.1 $38,609 Itasca County 45,205 92.8% 62.3% 59.4% 16.9 $34,528 Jackson County 9,893 95.5% 56.6% 54.1% 14.1 $37,818 Kanabec County 16,463 27.4% 59.8% 25.1% 31.6 $33,805 Kandiyohi County 43,839 95.7% 85.8% 82.5% 55.0 $35,814 Kittson County 4,059 95.2% 34.0% 33.9% 3.7 $35,565 Koochiching County 11,844 83.1% 52.0% 49.2% 3.8 $36,515 Lac qui Parle County 6,689 100.0% 43.7% 43.7% 8.7 $37,520 Lake County 10,939 90.6% 75.2% 71.5% 5.2 $39,930 Lake of the Woods County 3,871 80.9% 57.6% 53.3% 3.0 $35,308 Le Sueur County 29,153 98.5% 78.0% 77.3% 65.0 $41,400 Lincoln County 5,580 99.1% 41.6% 41.1% 10.4 $35,638 Lyon County 25,262 99.9% 78.0% 77.9% 35.4 $35,256 Mahnomen County 5,328 71.3% 38.0% 32.8% 9.6 $24,710 Marshall County 8,861 94.6% 45.3% 44.7% 5.0 $35,920 Martin County 19,650 98.6% 62.1% 61.9% 27.6 $35,152 McLeod County 36,714 97.5% 97.2% 95.0% 74.7 $39,361 Meeker County 23,496 92.9% 80.5% 75.5% 38.6 $37,233 Mille Lacs County 27,280 81.7% 76.8% 65.9% 47.7 $33,933 Morrison County 34,246 82.0% 63.8% 54.0% 30.4 $34,269 Mower County 40,140 98.7% 75.6% 75.4% 56.4 $33,921 Murray County 8,060 98.8% 61.3% 60.8% 11.4 $38,783 Nicollet County 34,441 93.0% 83.4% 79.2% 76.8 $41,658 Nobles County 21,947 96.0% 79.7% 77.3% 30.7 $29,786 Norman County 6,377 87.7% 50.2% 46.9% 7.3 $36,245 Olmsted County 164,020 99.1% 97.5% 96.9% 251.0 $49,799 Otter Tail County 60,519 75.9% 49.4% 41.8% 30.7 $37,202 Pennington County 13,845 98.7% 75.0% 74.4% 22.5 $37,342 Pine County 29,446 48.8% 57.7% 37.6% 20.9 $32,335 Pipestone County 9,355 99.0% 59.8% 59.5% 20.1 $34,973 Polk County 30,731 99.0% 66.9% 66.7% 15.6 $34,273 Pope County 11,431 91.6% 35.0% 32.7% 17.1 $38,905 Ramsey County 536,413 99.6% 99.9% 99.5% 3,523.3 $43,203 Red Lake County 3,874 94.7% 62.2% 61.7% 9.0 $35,198 Redwood County 15,361 80.5% 54.7% 49.8% 17.5 $33,175 Renville County 14,525 97.9% 61.4% 60.7% 14.8 $34,554 Rice County 67,693 96.4% 93.5% 90.5% 136.5 $37,050 Rock County 9,537 97.7% 22.9% 21.9% 19.8 $38,472 Roseau County 15,292 94.8% 61.3% 58.8% 9.1 $36,125 Scott County 154,520 98.9% 99.2% 98.2% 433.7 $51,259 Sherburne County 100,824 89.1% 95.7% 85.9% 232.9 $41,412 Sibley County 14,955 94.6% 73.1% 71.3% 25.4 $37,919 St. Louis County 199,532 79.2% 86.3% 74.0% 31.9 $37,850 Stearns County 160,405 92.5% 95.3% 88.7% 119.5 $36,087 Steele County 37,398 100.0% 68.8% 68.8% 87.0 $40,146 Stevens County 9,637 98.2% 24.3% 24.2% 17.1 $38,425 Swift County 9,755 99.2% 27.4% 27.2% 13.1 $35,595 Todd County 25,538 63.9% 52.8% 39.9% 27.0 $30,812 Traverse County 3,275 82.3% 45.5% 43.3% 5.7 $36,023 Wabasha County 21,658 93.7% 57.9% 57.3% 41.4 $40,471 Wadena County 14,307 99.3% 36.9% 36.8% 26.7 $28,011 Waseca County 18,893 100.0% 77.5% 77.5% 44.6 $35,814 Washington County 275,912 94.8% 97.7% 93.2% 717.2 $54,418 Watonwan County 11,075 100.0% 76.0% 76.0% 25.5 $34,363 Wilkin County 6,350 84.5% 63.6% 58.8% 8.5 $38,317 Winona County 49,478 97.1% 51.7% 51.1% 79.0 $34,889 Wright County 148,003 86.9% 98.8% 86.5% 223.9 $43,067 Yellow Medicine County 9,486 99.5% 56.3% 56.0% 12.5 $36,737 Mississippi 2,940,057 78.9% 70.3% 61.4% 62.7 $29,209 Adams County 28,408 77.7% 72.2% 64.2% 61.4 $22,924 Alcorn County 34,204 99.9% 63.2% 63.1% 85.5 $27,320 Amite County 12,619 0.6% 30.3% 0.6% 17.3 $24,135 Attala County 17,509 55.4% 57.2% 43.3% 23.8 $27,625 Benton County 7,550 37.9% 35.9% 12.6% 18.6 $24,690 Bolivar County 29,370 79.8% 53.4% 48.6% 33.5 $25,440 Calhoun County 12,781 83.7% 55.6% 52.9% 21.8 $24,192 Carroll County 9,731 86.0% 34.8% 28.8% 15.5 $29,588 Chickasaw County 16,812 85.5% 51.7% 45.4% 33.5 $21,968 Choctaw County 8,037 57.3% 17.8% 10.6% 19.2 $27,628 Claiborne County 8,805 5.3% 56.7% 1.7% 18.1 $17,250 Clarke County 15,271 71.1% 49.9% 40.9% 22.1 $26,435 Clay County 18,380 92.4% 61.9% 60.4% 44.8 $24,702 Coahoma County 20,197 75.5% 80.1% 71.4% 36.5 $22,701 Copiah County 27,719 28.3% 61.0% 24.3% 35.7 $28,072 Covington County 18,098 11.1% 44.1% 6.3% 43.7 $24,147 DeSoto County 191,723 94.2% 93.6% 89.6% 402.5 $34,989 Forrest County 78,110 90.7% 86.1% 80.8% 167.6 $28,197 Franklin County 7,642 35.4% 42.6% 25.1% 13.6 $26,844 George County 25,206 48.4% 35.6% 18.1% 52.7 $24,756 Greene County 13,552 4.2% 37.6% 1.1% 19.0 $18,257 Grenada County 21,088 80.7% 55.7% 49.5% 50.0 $27,128 Hancock County 46,094 98.8% 64.9% 64.0% 97.3 $36,883 Harrison County 211,044 96.8% 90.4% 89.4% 367.9 $30,120 Hinds County 217,730 89.3% 96.2% 88.9% 250.3 $27,943 Holmes County 16,121 66.1% 63.7% 50.5% 21.3 $20,132 Humphreys County 7,333 73.1% 62.4% 52.6% 17.5 $24,506 Issaquena County 1,273 0.0% 27.3% 0.0% 3.1 $13,539 Itawamba County 23,903 92.0% 50.8% 48.1% 44.9 $33,243 Jackson County 144,975 92.6% 86.6% 82.2% 200.6 $31,509 Jasper County 16,167 43.8% 30.5% 17.0% 23.9 $24,068 Jefferson County 7,087 0.1% 23.4% 0.0% 13.6 $19,366 Jefferson Davis County 11,088 23.2% 37.3% 8.3% 27.1 $22,693 Jones County 66,569 91.0% 49.2% 46.3% 95.8 $26,063 Kemper County 8,654 72.1% 45.0% 34.1% 11.3 $22,046 Lafayette County 57,615 93.9% 76.7% 71.5% 91.2 $32,536 Lamar County 65,783 70.2% 76.7% 65.8% 132.5 $37,681 Lauderdale County 70,904 96.3% 77.4% 75.2% 100.8 $26,590 Lawrence County 11,713 2.3% 41.8% 1.8% 27.2 $24,809 Leake County 21,135 27.8% 62.0% 26.6% 36.3 $25,662 Lee County 82,959 97.9% 56.2% 55.4% 184.4 $33,209 Leflore County 26,570 80.6% 78.9% 68.4% 44.7 $23,281 Lincoln County 34,717 41.3% 40.2% 26.9% 59.2 $25,775 Lowndes County 57,603 99.3% 72.2% 72.0% 114.0 $29,750 Madison County 111,113 88.6% 93.0% 86.2% 155.5 $46,538 Marion County 24,050 51.4% 22.2% 7.6% 44.3 $23,055 Marshall County 34,110 60.8% 61.2% 42.1% 48.3 $27,680 Monroe County 33,577 86.6% 54.0% 47.1% 43.9 $27,619 Montgomery County 9,530 81.5% 58.3% 50.2% 23.4 $24,126 Neshoba County 28,673 41.1% 52.4% 29.4% 50.3 $23,538 Newton County 21,029 38.9% 57.7% 30.4% 36.4 $28,364 Noxubee County 9,990 32.0% 61.4% 13.9% 14.4 $19,804 Oktibbeha County 51,427 93.4% 72.2% 67.4% 112.2 $28,221 Panola County 32,661 89.6% 52.0% 48.5% 47.7 $25,822 Pearl River County 57,261 85.7% 45.3% 36.2% 70.6 $27,549 Perry County 11,368 67.0% 20.3% 16.9% 17.6 $24,935 Pike County 39,644 64.6% 56.2% 46.5% 96.9 $23,013 Pontotoc County 31,389 76.8% 59.8% 47.1% 63.1 $26,359 Prentiss County 24,792 98.4% 48.3% 48.3% 59.7 $27,979 Quitman County 5,701 74.3% 69.0% 63.1% 14.1 $18,546 Rankin County 158,979 88.4% 93.0% 85.3% 205.0 $36,605 Scott County 27,707 46.3% 63.2% 39.9% 45.5 $23,043 Sharkey County 3,488 62.6% 55.7% 50.8% 8.1 $22,203 Simpson County 25,587 8.3% 60.7% 6.7% 43.4 $27,920 Smith County 14,092 34.5% 40.8% 17.5% 22.1 $25,394 Stone County 18,669 43.7% 48.2% 28.4% 41.9 $25,768 Sunflower County 24,811 67.7% 51.3% 44.4% 35.6 $18,851 Tallahatchie County 12,035 57.0% 65.3% 45.3% 18.7 $20,348 Tate County 28,296 73.5% 59.3% 50.4% 69.9 $28,306 Tippah County 21,431 96.2% 45.8% 44.2% 46.8 $27,762 Tishomingo County 18,619 99.4% 57.5% 57.1% 43.9 $26,896 Tunica County 9,458 57.7% 54.1% 42.8% 20.8 $20,086 Union County 28,125 77.0% 57.0% 47.5% 67.7 $27,373 Walthall County 13,761 0.5% 28.6% 0.3% 34.1 $25,673 Warren County 42,649 80.8% 73.5% 65.0% 72.5 $31,701 Washington County 42,514 80.4% 69.8% 59.9% 58.7 $23,190 Wayne County 19,681 91.1% 44.2% 42.4% 24.3 $24,479 Webster County 9,993 91.6% 46.8% 44.8% 23.7 $27,836 Wilkinson County 8,143 0.9% 27.6% 0.9% 12.0 $22,479 Winston County 17,543 62.5% 42.5% 34.9% 28.9 $27,743 Yalobusha County 12,364 54.9% 48.8% 37.5% 26.5 $24,719 Yazoo County 25,948 47.7% 48.9% 36.7% 28.1 $19,836 Missouri 6,177,957 89.0% 88.6% 82.0% 89.9 $36,754 Adair County 25,165 89.4% 79.8% 75.9% 44.4 $28,976 Andrew County 18,003 88.9% 76.1% 68.6% 41.6 $33,722 Atchison County 5,182 46.7% 9.0% 2.5% 9.5 $32,549 Audrain County 24,434 68.5% 74.7% 61.1% 35.3 $27,133 Barry County 34,926 68.7% 70.7% 49.2% 44.9 $30,932 Barton County 11,694 32.9% 66.3% 21.0% 19.8 $25,637 Bates County 16,177 58.3% 74.0% 52.0% 19.3 $27,333 Benton County 20,224 35.6% 56.6% 18.5% 28.7 $31,484 Bollinger County 10,518 5.2% 50.3% 2.6% 17.0 $24,647 Boone County 187,690 91.4% 81.4% 77.9% 273.8 $37,393 Buchanan County 82,911 98.0% 95.7% 94.1% 203.1 $31,886 Butler County 42,179 71.4% 76.1% 62.4% 60.7 $25,242 Caldwell County 8,933 44.2% 77.0% 39.1% 21.0 $29,673 Callaway County 44,762 97.9% 72.9% 71.0% 53.6 $31,874 Camden County 43,768 100.0% 75.3% 75.3% 66.7 $35,927 Cape Girardeau County 82,899 85.3% 88.5% 79.7% 143.3 $32,619 Carroll County 8,423 67.7% 70.5% 53.6% 12.1 $30,403 Carter County 5,268 8.0% 56.4% 6.7% 10.4 $27,150 Cass County 110,394 91.3% 97.5% 90.0% 158.5 $38,766 Cedar County 14,601 74.2% 47.0% 39.4% 30.8 $27,243 Chariton County 7,386 66.7% 74.2% 54.7% 9.8 $28,616 Christian County 93,114 79.3% 95.1% 78.1% 165.5 $35,587 Clark County 6,723 50.0% 59.2% 33.3% 13.3 $26,417 Clay County 257,033 97.5% 99.4% 97.0% 646.4 $40,278 Clinton County 21,328 84.9% 84.4% 76.3% 50.9 $31,924 Cole County 76,969 100.0% 85.6% 85.6% 196.6 $35,519 Cooper County 16,772 81.5% 63.4% 56.2% 29.7 $27,471 Crawford County 22,659 100.0% 56.7% 56.7% 30.5 $29,581 Dade County 7,660 51.7% 47.4% 33.6% 15.6 $28,731 Dallas County 17,626 46.6% 58.2% 36.0% 32.6 $24,646 Daviess County 8,435 63.0% 62.7% 42.6% 15.0 $29,497 DeKalb County 11,336 88.6% 75.3% 68.8% 26.9 $25,591 Dent County 14,467 100.0% 46.2% 46.2% 19.2 $27,342 Douglas County 11,975 38.0% 29.3% 17.2% 14.7 $27,762 Dunklin County 27,406 91.5% 82.4% 78.1% 50.6 $26,123 Franklin County 105,879 100.0% 89.9% 89.9% 114.8 $35,679 Gasconade County 14,768 100.0% 65.7% 65.7% 28.5 $34,414 Gentry County 6,253 92.1% 70.2% 67.4% 12.7 $28,968 Greene County 303,293 96.3% 97.8% 94.7% 449.1 $33,275 Grundy County 9,838 83.8% 71.6% 63.8% 22.6 $27,809 Harrison County 8,199 74.3% 62.3% 52.0% 11.3 $24,530 Henry County 22,438 40.9% 85.7% 40.9% 32.2 $31,801 Hickory County 8,630 19.7% 53.1% 13.5% 21.6 $21,476 Holt County 4,262 29.2% 40.2% 24.7% 9.2 $33,121 Howard County 10,168 75.7% 47.3% 41.1% 21.9 $27,474 Howell County 40,631 69.9% 64.4% 53.6% 43.8 $24,389 Iron County 9,414 100.0% 51.9% 51.9% 17.1 $26,798 Jackson County 716,531 97.2% 99.8% 97.1% 1,185.3 $36,890 Jasper County 124,075 86.0% 92.9% 82.0% 194.3 $28,371 Jefferson County 229,336 88.9% 96.9% 87.4% 349.4 $36,184 Johnson County 54,368 74.4% 79.3% 64.2% 65.6 $30,639 Knox County 3,776 29.4% 10.3% 1.6% 7.5 $22,902 Laclede County 36,313 100.0% 43.4% 43.4% 47.5 $27,790 Lafayette County 32,961 63.4% 88.3% 59.9% 52.5 $34,166 Lawrence County 38,683 62.3% 81.1% 55.0% 63.2 $26,407 Lewis County 9,891 52.0% 69.8% 44.3% 19.6 $24,407 Lincoln County 63,155 79.5% 89.3% 74.5% 100.8 $33,925 Linn County 11,820 86.2% 78.4% 70.4% 19.2 $32,065 Livingston County 14,402 77.9% 77.2% 67.2% 27.1 $31,495 Macon County 15,049 73.1% 62.4% 51.8% 18.8 $27,227 Madison County 12,753 67.1% 69.5% 59.3% 25.8 $31,299 Maries County 8,431 100.0% 39.4% 39.4% 16.0 $30,095 Marion County 28,438 83.1% 89.8% 78.8% 65.1 $30,455 McDonald County 23,588 26.1% 65.0% 21.7% 43.7 $23,210 Mercer County 3,437 92.3% 49.8% 47.9% 7.6 $26,850 Miller County 25,403 100.0% 69.5% 69.5% 42.9 $29,347 Mississippi County 11,688 90.7% 86.5% 78.2% 28.4 $21,070 Moniteau County 15,220 88.2% 69.3% 61.5% 36.7 $28,546 Monroe County 8,652 54.2% 67.4% 48.8% 13.4 $28,787 Montgomery County 11,470 65.0% 63.8% 45.5% 21.4 $29,570 Morgan County 21,785 100.0% 57.8% 57.8% 36.5 $27,836 New Madrid County 15,695 95.6% 79.0% 75.9% 23.3 $26,357 Newton County 60,011 70.6% 86.3% 65.3% 96.1 $32,893 Nodaway County 20,670 93.4% 57.8% 56.0% 23.6 $28,136 Oregon County 8,732 41.6% 47.4% 31.4% 11.1 $21,405 Osage County 13,399 100.0% 55.1% 55.1% 22.1 $38,553 Ozark County 8,940 3.6% 36.8% 1.0% 12.0 $26,638 Pemiscot County 14,841 97.5% 69.5% 67.7% 30.1 $24,295 Perry County 18,858 70.9% 69.3% 59.2% 39.8 $30,731 Pettis County 43,353 78.4% 87.2% 74.4% 63.5 $30,991 Phelps County 45,313 100.0% 70.6% 70.6% 67.5 $28,335 Pike County 17,664 75.8% 64.7% 58.5% 26.3 $26,206 Platte County 110,534 95.0% 97.1% 92.7% 263.3 $47,440 Polk County 32,693 72.7% 68.0% 58.7% 51.4 $26,804 Pulaski County 53,941 100.0% 67.4% 67.4% 98.6 $27,098 Putnam County 4,666 97.7% 64.3% 64.2% 9.0 $33,176 Ralls County 10,420 95.9% 63.4% 61.3% 22.2 $29,625 Randolph County 24,622 72.7% 76.5% 61.9% 51.0 $25,496 Ray County 23,107 66.8% 87.5% 63.3% 40.6 $35,601 Reynolds County 6,006 100.0% 25.1% 25.1% 7.4 $25,204 Ripley County 10,703 30.1% 42.7% 17.8% 17.0 $22,076 Saline County 23,007 81.4% 85.8% 77.0% 30.5 $26,704 Schuyler County 4,002 72.2% 54.4% 31.4% 13.0 $22,625 Scotland County 4,643 93.2% 47.3% 47.3% 10.6 $27,808 Scott County 37,840 96.1% 85.2% 81.9% 90.1 $29,687 Shannon County 7,193 100.0% 51.5% 51.5% 7.2 $23,661 Shelby County 5,982 44.8% 70.2% 38.9% 11.9 $27,547 St. Charles County 413,803 95.6% 99.4% 95.3% 738.3 $47,746 St. Clair County 9,576 29.3% 38.6% 11.9% 14.2 $24,845 St. Francois County 66,969 85.7% 87.5% 80.0% 148.2 $25,304 St. Louis County 990,414 97.9% 99.7% 97.8% 1,950.1 $49,009 St. Louis city 286,578 97.4% 100.0% 97.4% 4,642.0 $36,722 Ste. Genevieve County 18,644 69.4% 69.8% 55.4% 37.4 $33,060 Stoddard County 28,377 81.3% 78.0% 66.5% 34.5 $26,614 Stone County 32,136 24.9% 66.5% 21.9% 69.3 $31,865 Sullivan County 5,840 81.0% 59.0% 52.1% 9.0 $25,882 Taney County 56,821 82.9% 76.9% 67.4% 89.9 $28,267 Texas County 25,336 100.0% 44.2% 44.2% 21.5 $23,621 Vernon County 19,651 73.8% 71.6% 60.6% 23.8 $26,515 Warren County 37,260 59.9% 82.4% 56.4% 86.9 $34,909 Washington County 23,441 100.0% 63.1% 63.1% 30.8 $28,191 Wayne County 10,792 25.4% 30.1% 17.0% 14.2 $23,041 Webster County 40,335 53.5% 63.5% 46.6% 68.1 $27,611 Worth County 1,955 74.3% 56.8% 47.1% 7.3 $30,800 Wright County 19,156 100.0% 52.2% 52.2% 28.1 $22,602 Montana 1,122,867 75.2% 82.0% 66.4% 7.7 $37,837 Beaverhead County 9,719 69.6% 68.1% 50.5% 1.8 $34,640 Big Horn County 12,851 55.5% 69.8% 44.9% 2.6 $21,849 Blaine County 6,936 76.4% 48.1% 32.2% 1.6 $24,353 Broadwater County 7,793 29.2% 56.4% 20.8% 6.5 $34,956 Carbon County 11,179 31.9% 75.8% 29.3% 5.5 $40,838 Carter County 1,382 42.9% 1.9% 0.4% 0.4 $28,824 Cascade County 84,864 83.5% 82.8% 71.7% 31.5 $34,481 Chouteau County 5,898 87.4% 39.7% 39.0% 1.5 $28,980 Custer County 12,032 73.6% 91.6% 70.8% 3.2 $34,830 Daniels County 1,628 93.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.1 $33,757 Dawson County 8,830 71.7% 39.5% 29.7% 3.7 $37,705 Deer Lodge County 9,510 81.4% 91.2% 77.8% 12.9 $30,185 Fallon County 3,011 68.5% 26.6% 19.1% 1.9 $42,516 Fergus County 11,663 71.3% 76.3% 56.8% 2.7 $34,932 Flathead County 111,814 66.4% 85.6% 59.8% 22.0 $37,984 Gallatin County 124,857 91.1% 94.2% 88.2% 47.9 $47,269 Garfield County 1,218 45.3% 46.4% 38.7% 0.3 $33,745 Glacier County 13,681 32.0% 58.2% 28.6% 4.6 $21,438 Golden Valley County 835 74.3% 36.2% 30.9% 0.7 $31,204 Granite County 3,502 5.8% 69.2% 4.2% 2.0 $33,776 Hill County 16,068 90.3% 74.7% 71.4% 5.5 $27,996 Jefferson County 12,826 37.6% 75.3% 29.7% 7.7 $39,963 Judith Basin County 2,105 88.0% 48.2% 44.1% 1.1 $36,713 Lake County 32,853 61.4% 69.9% 50.7% 22.0 $31,177 Lewis and Clark County 73,832 79.1% 92.6% 76.0% 21.3 $41,274 Liberty County 1,972 76.4% 41.5% 38.5% 1.4 $34,682 Lincoln County 21,525 57.7% 64.6% 47.9% 6.0 $29,387 Madison County 9,265 74.7% 71.5% 56.4% 2.6 $40,358 McCone County 1,709 48.8% 46.5% 37.2% 0.6 $39,284 Meagher County 2,013 84.6% 74.8% 70.9% 0.8 $37,498 Mineral County 5,058 10.6% 78.8% 10.6% 4.1 $32,940 Missoula County 121,041 83.8% 86.9% 75.4% 46.7 $40,311 Musselshell County 5,197 55.1% 23.8% 16.2% 2.8 $32,506 Park County 17,790 61.5% 81.7% 59.9% 6.3 $44,273 Petroleum County 524 45.8% 44.5% 36.1% 0.3 $32,590 Phillips County 4,240 81.6% 63.2% 61.7% 0.8 $32,450 Pondera County 6,078 37.8% 53.4% 23.4% 3.7 $30,424 Powder River County 1,725 17.1% 7.8% 1.8% 0.5 $38,588 Powell County 7,051 45.2% 85.9% 44.9% 3.0 $29,675 Prairie County 1,107 27.1% 22.6% 12.1% 0.6 $28,287 Ravalli County 47,298 90.4% 74.6% 70.0% 19.8 $38,555 Richland County 11,237 64.2% 61.5% 45.1% 5.4 $34,169 Roosevelt County 10,572 64.4% 71.7% 58.8% 4.5 $20,564 Rosebud County 8,088 11.3% 63.3% 8.4% 1.6 $27,655 Sanders County 13,442 47.4% 63.4% 36.0% 4.9 $29,707 Sheridan County 3,564 76.7% 59.5% 51.8% 2.1 $42,653 Silver Bow County 36,068 84.4% 97.0% 84.0% 50.2 $35,047 Stillwater County 9,177 45.2% 67.0% 35.9% 5.1 $45,245 Sweet Grass County 3,715 80.1% 74.1% 69.0% 2.0 $35,495 Teton County 6,368 89.4% 66.2% 61.0% 2.8 $30,874 Toole County 5,082 2.4% 74.3% 0.6% 2.7 $28,621 Treasure County 758 9.4% 46.6% 6.2% 0.8 $37,349 Valley County 7,513 57.3% 46.1% 39.1% 1.5 $30,941 Wheatland County 2,032 94.3% 72.5% 71.3% 1.4 $28,410 Wibaux County 919 11.2% 68.7% 2.2% 1.0 $31,089 Yellowstone County 169,852 87.4% 94.4% 84.2% 64.5 $40,978 N. Mariana Isl. 51,475 31.9% 0.2% 0.2% 282.3 NA Rota Municipality 2,194 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 66.8 NA Saipan Municipality 46,769 27.3% 0.3% 0.2% 1,018.8 NA Tinian Municipality 2,512 57.9% 0.0% 0.0% 60.1 NA Nebraska 1,967,923 94.4% 73.1% 71.5% 25.6 $38,585 Adams County 30,970 99.7% 72.5% 72.5% 55.0 $34,688 Antelope County 6,293 88.0% 8.8% 7.9% 7.3 $32,172 Arthur County 433 44.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.6 $31,210 Banner County 660 66.5% 0.3% 0.2% 0.9 $38,474 Blaine County 453 43.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.6 $40,093 Boone County 5,385 68.6% 0.0% 0.0% 7.8 $36,583 Box Butte County 10,672 96.3% 0.4% 0.4% 9.9 $32,141 Boyd County 1,741 99.9% 7.4% 7.4% 3.2 $35,198 Brown County 2,872 83.0% 2.1% 2.1% 2.4 $31,772 Buffalo County 50,586 91.3% 79.5% 74.7% 52.2 $36,327 Burt County 6,755 95.6% 42.2% 41.3% 13.7 $33,457 Butler County 8,427 96.7% 0.2% 0.2% 14.4 $39,639 Cass County 27,122 87.9% 46.9% 42.7% 48.7 $40,941 Cedar County 8,371 79.3% 23.2% 18.7% 11.3 $35,820 Chase County 3,772 88.0% 50.8% 50.6% 4.2 $34,477 Cherry County 5,464 68.5% 52.4% 45.4% 0.9 $31,424 Cheyenne County 9,511 87.0% 69.1% 67.8% 8.0 $30,467 Clay County 6,049 97.6% 5.9% 5.6% 10.6 $36,425 Colfax County 10,444 92.8% 16.7% 16.0% 25.4 $29,436 Cuming County 8,929 99.1% 13.8% 13.8% 15.7 $34,825 Custer County 10,476 58.2% 67.0% 47.8% 4.1 $35,562 Dakota County 21,042 95.7% 91.2% 88.8% 79.6 $29,584 Dawes County 8,241 72.7% 3.9% 2.8% 5.9 $27,256 Dawson County 23,884 86.9% 82.4% 77.5% 23.6 $34,648 Deuel County 1,902 73.7% 52.8% 50.0% 4.3 $38,667 Dixon County 5,464 95.3% 25.9% 24.0% 11.5 $36,911 Dodge County 36,997 96.2% 84.1% 82.1% 69.9 $33,674 Douglas County 586,327 99.6% 99.9% 99.5% 1,796.3 $42,802 Dundy County 1,590 95.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.7 $36,436 Fillmore County 5,553 95.1% 0.0% 0.0% 9.7 $41,909 Franklin County 2,873 67.1% 0.4% 0.0% 5.0 $34,650 Frontier County 2,633 58.8% 0.0% 0.0% 2.7 $30,189 Furnas County 4,575 79.1% 0.0% 0.0% 6.4 $32,494 Gage County 21,583 93.1% 6.5% 6.4% 25.3 $33,435 Garden County 1,837 55.7% 0.0% 0.0% 1.1 $28,787 Garfield County 1,801 68.1% 0.0% 0.0% 3.2 $31,710 Gosper County 1,808 56.9% 0.1% 0.0% 3.9 $38,057 Grant County 576 13.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.7 $32,905 Greeley County 2,227 48.6% 47.0% 38.1% 3.9 $28,736 Hall County 62,097 96.5% 84.4% 82.8% 113.6 $32,671 Hamilton County 9,429 98.9% 10.7% 10.2% 17.4 $34,813 Harlan County 3,054 71.4% 0.3% 0.0% 5.5 $38,129 Hayes County 849 27.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.2 $35,135 Hitchcock County 2,598 26.9% 0.0% 0.0% 3.7 $30,595 Holt County 10,043 72.1% 76.3% 59.6% 4.2 $34,952 Hooker County 686 14.1% 0.0% 0.0% 1.0 $29,390 Howard County 6,515 57.3% 56.3% 35.5% 11.4 $33,509 Jefferson County 7,154 87.0% 0.1% 0.0% 12.5 $30,363 Johnson County 5,287 95.6% 38.7% 37.8% 14.1 $28,046 Kearney County 6,690 75.2% 84.5% 68.5% 13.0 $37,233 Keith County 8,269 87.5% 61.6% 59.9% 7.8 $34,905 Keya Paha County 787 94.2% 8.5% 8.5% 1.0 $33,995 Kimball County 3,315 88.3% 4.9% 4.3% 3.5 $31,290 Knox County 8,336 53.3% 37.3% 20.7% 7.5 $31,269 Lancaster County 324,756 98.8% 97.7% 96.8% 387.7 $38,509 Lincoln County 33,685 88.8% 6.0% 5.9% 13.1 $33,437 Logan County 675 38.1% 0.6% 0.4% 1.2 $35,645 Loup County 599 46.2% 0.0% 0.0% 1.1 $28,251 Madison County 35,368 95.6% 8.4% 7.9% 61.8 $34,690 McPherson County 372 19.6% 30.6% 1.1% 0.4 $32,675 Merrick County 7,721 83.4% 51.8% 48.2% 15.8 $31,349 Morrill County 4,527 84.9% 0.0% 0.0% 3.2 $29,741 Nance County 3,326 75.3% 38.8% 32.9% 7.5 $32,568 Nemaha County 7,035 96.0% 50.8% 50.8% 17.3 $36,367 Nuckolls County 4,041 86.2% 0.0% 0.0% 7.0 $39,201 Otoe County 16,198 95.7% 61.9% 61.1% 26.3 $36,817 Pawnee County 2,528 94.4% 42.1% 42.1% 5.9 $29,091 Perkins County 2,829 75.8% 47.5% 45.8% 3.2 $34,696 Phelps County 8,988 83.1% 75.4% 67.3% 16.7 $38,930 Pierce County 7,332 90.3% 54.2% 52.7% 12.8 $33,513 Platte County 34,296 94.4% 4.2% 3.8% 50.9 $35,991 Polk County 5,166 91.1% 0.0% 0.0% 11.8 $34,344 Red Willow County 10,573 79.4% 0.3% 0.1% 14.7 $34,401 Richardson County 7,705 94.5% 13.0% 12.9% 14.0 $32,336 Rock County 1,245 4.7% 0.0% 0.0% 1.2 $34,660 Saline County 14,116 88.8% 0.6% 0.3% 24.6 $32,563 Sarpy County 196,553 98.4% 98.9% 97.5% 825.5 $43,845 Saunders County 23,118 89.9% 24.1% 23.1% 30.9 $41,364 Scotts Bluff County 35,603 99.6% 11.3% 11.3% 48.1 $33,158 Seward County 17,692 92.1% 7.9% 5.9% 31.0 $36,054 Sheridan County 4,996 50.1% 4.5% 2.0% 2.0 $31,699 Sherman County 2,980 57.7% 49.1% 42.2% 5.3 $31,023 Sioux County 1,127 63.6% 5.1% 4.9% 0.5 $26,748 Stanton County 5,717 95.4% 4.7% 4.0% 13.4 $36,737 Thayer County 4,885 80.1% 6.6% 4.6% 8.5 $32,028 Thomas County 671 39.6% 0.3% 0.3% 0.9 $42,187 Thurston County 6,507 44.9% 38.3% 6.2% 16.5 $23,785 Valley County 4,073 59.7% 60.2% 49.5% 7.2 $34,637 Washington County 21,167 85.5% 42.4% 36.5% 54.3 $44,206 Wayne County 9,871 98.5% 64.1% 64.1% 22.3 $29,985 Webster County 3,336 86.5% 29.9% 28.0% 5.8 $34,652 Wheeler County 785 56.1% 1.5% 0.0% 1.4 $35,158 York County 14,354 99.6% 56.4% 56.3% 25.1 $39,507 Nevada 3,177,772 97.7% 98.4% 96.8% 28.9 $37,945 Carson City 58,130 99.9% 99.7% 99.7% 402.2 $37,677 Churchill County 25,843 87.4% 89.7% 81.9% 5.2 $35,869 Clark County 2,322,985 98.8% 99.7% 98.8% 294.4 $36,615 Douglas County 49,628 98.8% 90.3% 89.1% 69.9 $49,115 Elko County 54,046 94.4% 88.8% 86.3% 3.1 $39,001 Esmeralda County 744 0.1% 62.0% 0.1% 0.2 $31,776 Eureka County 1,863 83.3% 85.8% 72.6% 0.4 $32,187 Humboldt County 17,272 88.3% 72.0% 67.6% 1.8 $35,979 Lander County 5,766 93.8% 55.7% 52.7% 1.0 $41,561 Lincoln County 4,482 39.6% 22.0% 7.4% 0.4 $32,459 Lyon County 61,585 99.4% 95.1% 94.6% 30.7 $36,330 Mineral County 4,525 69.0% 77.0% 69.0% 1.2 $26,662 Nye County 54,738 74.9% 94.4% 74.7% 3.0 $30,751 Pershing County 6,462 19.6% 72.2% 13.1% 1.1 $25,896 Storey County 4,170 97.5% 78.0% 76.0% 15.8 $44,539 Washoe County 496,745 99.5% 98.8% 98.4% 78.7 $44,448 White Pine County 8,788 0.1% 81.7% 0.0% 1.0 $30,668 New Hampshire 1,395,231 95.1% 66.5% 64.7% 155.8 $48,250 Belknap County 64,781 91.0% 64.2% 60.4% 161.2 $43,670 Carroll County 52,199 88.3% 45.7% 41.3% 56.0 $48,199 Cheshire County 77,350 88.8% 54.3% 49.4% 109.5 $40,196 Coos County 31,504 66.7% 45.5% 38.2% 17.6 $32,570 Grafton County 91,126 84.9% 53.4% 49.1% 53.3 $47,080 Hillsborough County 426,594 98.8% 77.3% 76.6% 486.7 $49,675 Merrimack County 156,020 95.6% 44.1% 42.8% 167.2 $44,391 Rockingham County 319,424 99.0% 73.1% 72.5% 459.3 $56,321 Strafford County 132,275 96.9% 76.3% 75.0% 360.0 $43,338 Sullivan County 43,958 90.4% 54.2% 51.5% 81.7 $39,087 New Jersey 9,261,699 96.5% 96.9% 93.7% 1,259.3 $50,995 Atlantic County 275,638 98.9% 94.3% 93.6% 496.2 $39,699 Bergen County 952,997 97.4% 99.2% 96.6% 4,093.8 $60,222 Burlington County 466,103 98.1% 95.0% 94.2% 583.1 $51,549 Camden County 524,907 99.7% 99.0% 98.7% 2,371.3 $42,398 Cape May County 95,634 98.6% 93.7% 92.7% 380.2 $51,344 Cumberland County 151,356 94.3% 86.8% 84.5% 313.1 $32,551 Essex County 849,477 93.8% 99.8% 93.6% 6,737.4 $45,946 Gloucester County 306,601 99.4% 95.6% 95.1% 952.2 $45,933 Hudson County 703,366 99.4% 99.9% 99.2% 15,226.5 $51,277 Hunterdon County 129,777 96.7% 72.5% 70.6% 303.3 $68,112 Mercer County 380,688 98.7% 98.6% 97.3% 1,696.2 $50,053 Middlesex County 861,418 95.5% 99.0% 94.5% 2,785.8 $47,196 Monmouth County 644,098 97.9% 96.2% 94.2% 1,375.7 $62,998 Morris County 511,151 96.1% 93.4% 89.8% 1,108.9 $67,555 Ocean County 655,735 97.8% 98.5% 96.3% 1,043.7 $42,497 Passaic County 513,936 88.4% 98.5% 87.0% 2,762.9 $38,932 Salem County 65,117 94.3% 84.7% 80.7% 196.2 $37,904 Somerset County 346,875 97.6% 95.9% 93.6% 1,149.1 $67,554 Sussex County 146,084 86.2% 80.8% 70.9% 281.7 $54,124 Union County 569,815 96.0% 99.5% 95.5% 5,544.8 $49,666 Warren County 110,926 91.6% 90.6% 84.3% 311.1 $45,517 New Mexico 2,113,344 83.5% 89.0% 78.6% 17.4 $32,667 Bernalillo County 672,508 97.3% 98.3% 96.7% 579.1 $36,996 Catron County 3,827 0.0% 14.2% 0.0% 0.6 $26,678 Chaves County 63,894 88.5% 75.4% 69.4% 10.5 $26,568 Cibola County 26,950 57.3% 76.8% 51.5% 5.9 $22,394 Colfax County 12,246 21.3% 81.5% 16.0% 3.3 $28,275 Curry County 47,532 94.1% 94.6% 90.1% 33.8 $28,045 De Baca County 1,693 86.6% 43.1% 40.1% 0.7 $27,710 Doña Ana County 223,337 85.4% 90.2% 80.2% 58.6 $26,900 Eddy County 60,400 89.3% 87.4% 81.7% 14.5 $36,274 Grant County 27,686 70.9% 89.0% 68.9% 7.0 $29,123 Guadalupe County 4,310 84.1% 84.6% 71.6% 1.4 $27,526 Harding County 628 71.8% 47.6% 38.2% 0.3 $68,690 Hidalgo County 4,003 4.0% 68.0% 0.3% 1.2 $25,476 Lea County 72,452 97.5% 82.6% 81.7% 16.5 $29,635 Lincoln County 20,411 82.4% 74.5% 68.6% 4.2 $31,332 Los Alamos County 19,187 98.4% 98.0% 96.4% 175.8 $71,527 Luna County 25,749 0.4% 80.3% 0.2% 8.7 $20,799 McKinley County 69,830 37.6% 69.3% 37.3% 12.8 $19,188 Mora County 4,169 76.7% 34.8% 29.7% 2.2 $28,356 Otero County 68,823 71.3% 67.6% 46.5% 10.4 $26,319 Quay County 8,546 86.0% 87.2% 76.4% 3.0 $25,348 Rio Arriba County 40,048 57.7% 76.5% 49.6% 6.8 $27,878 Roosevelt County 18,934 85.3% 86.7% 77.1% 7.7 $24,954 San Juan County 120,418 86.9% 92.0% 82.2% 21.8 $25,008 San Miguel County 26,953 74.5% 79.4% 67.3% 5.7 $26,314 Sandoval County 153,501 87.4% 93.3% 85.8% 41.4 $36,603 Santa Fe County 155,664 89.4% 91.2% 84.8% 81.5 $45,402 Sierra County 11,436 72.5% 86.6% 70.3% 2.7 $26,396 Socorro County 16,115 55.1% 71.9% 54.8% 2.4 $21,792 Taos County 34,580 26.0% 45.6% 13.1% 15.7 $36,361 Torrance County 15,454 25.3% 69.8% 21.3% 4.6 $24,657 Union County 3,980 69.3% 76.8% 60.5% 1.0 $20,779 Valencia County 78,080 76.0% 95.0% 73.8% 73.2 $28,817 New York 19,677,151 96.1% 93.8% 90.7% 417.6 $47,173 Albany County 315,811 97.0% 95.4% 93.1% 604.0 $44,101 Allegany County 46,694 88.6% 60.4% 54.4% 45.4 $28,506 Bronx County 1,379,946 97.0% 100.0% 97.0% 32,722.0 $25,845 Broome County 197,117 96.8% 90.3% 87.9% 279.3 $33,674 Cattaraugus County 76,439 82.1% 65.0% 57.3% 58.4 $30,286 Cayuga County 74,998 92.8% 76.5% 72.6% 108.4 $35,579 Chautauqua County 126,027 89.5% 76.9% 71.4% 118.8 $30,718 Chemung County 81,426 94.0% 86.1% 81.1% 199.9 $34,304 Chenango County 46,458 80.5% 57.0% 48.7% 52.0 $32,708 Clinton County 78,753 92.8% 44.8% 42.2% 75.9 $34,834 Columbia County 61,286 91.4% 61.4% 56.7% 96.6 $49,093 Cortland County 46,126 91.6% 79.8% 73.9% 92.5 $31,594 Delaware County 44,740 92.9% 51.5% 48.5% 31.0 $33,332 Dutchess County 297,545 93.0% 81.9% 76.8% 374.0 $49,379 Erie County 950,312 96.9% 97.4% 94.8% 911.4 $39,703 Essex County 36,910 83.7% 27.1% 24.2% 20.6 $39,049 Franklin County 46,373 74.8% 36.8% 28.3% 28.5 $30,411 Fulton County 52,669 88.8% 78.1% 71.9% 106.3 $33,282 Genesee County 57,535 91.9% 82.2% 76.2% 116.7 $35,053 Greene County 48,061 93.0% 56.8% 53.4% 74.3 $38,587 Hamilton County 5,118 67.3% 32.8% 26.2% 3.0 $37,326 Herkimer County 59,822 90.1% 80.9% 74.7% 42.4 $34,394 Jefferson County 116,637 92.5% 80.6% 75.4% 91.9 $32,775 Kings County 2,590,516 97.9% 100.0% 97.9% 37,339.9 $43,165 Lewis County 26,699 78.4% 38.0% 32.3% 20.9 $31,127 Livingston County 61,516 81.2% 72.6% 63.6% 97.4 $35,673 Madison County 67,097 90.7% 83.0% 77.2% 102.5 $37,666 Monroe County 752,035 97.2% 98.6% 95.8% 1,144.7 $40,937 Montgomery County 49,623 83.9% 80.7% 70.8% 123.1 $29,961 Nassau County 1,383,726 98.2% 99.3% 97.5% 4,863.0 $60,456 New York County 1,596,273 99.4% 100.0% 99.4% 70,456.1 $89,702 Niagara County 210,880 95.0% 95.3% 90.5% 403.7 $36,556 Oneida County 228,846 92.4% 90.1% 84.3% 188.8 $35,284 Onondaga County 468,249 97.7% 98.8% 96.6% 601.6 $39,371 Ontario County 112,707 95.3% 89.5% 85.9% 175.0 $43,046 Orange County 405,941 88.6% 84.1% 73.9% 499.7 $40,410 Orleans County 39,318 91.4% 76.0% 69.6% 100.5 $33,054 Oswego County 118,287 94.2% 81.0% 77.4% 124.3 $33,904 Otsego County 60,636 82.8% 66.8% 58.0% 60.5 $34,573 Putnam County 98,045 97.7% 89.7% 87.8% 425.9 $53,105 Queens County 2,278,029 99.2% 100.0% 99.1% 20,952.4 $39,201 Rensselaer County 159,853 96.6% 88.9% 86.2% 245.0 $42,728 Richmond County 491,133 99.3% 98.1% 97.4% 8,538.1 $43,199 Rockland County 339,022 95.9% 97.1% 93.0% 1,954.6 $44,212 Saratoga County 238,797 96.1% 89.3% 86.1% 294.8 $51,931 Schenectady County 160,093 97.3% 95.2% 92.7% 782.5 $39,791 Schoharie County 30,063 90.6% 51.7% 45.7% 48.3 $37,280 Schuyler County 17,650 89.5% 62.2% 58.4% 53.8 $35,062 Seneca County 32,882 94.2% 77.9% 75.7% 101.6 $34,212 St. Lawrence County 107,733 86.2% 49.9% 45.3% 40.2 $29,827 Steuben County 92,599 89.3% 66.1% 62.5% 66.6 $35,282 Suffolk County 1,525,465 96.1% 95.5% 91.9% 1,674.2 $54,127 Sullivan County 79,658 91.0% 62.9% 58.0% 82.3 $37,854 Tioga County 47,772 91.2% 70.5% 66.0% 92.1 $37,691 Tompkins County 104,777 91.2% 86.9% 79.7% 220.7 $40,781 Ulster County 182,319 91.8% 67.1% 61.0% 162.2 $43,168 Warren County 65,599 92.9% 73.8% 70.2% 75.6 $44,183 Washington County 60,841 87.6% 65.9% 59.4% 73.2 $34,233 Wayne County 91,125 92.1% 72.7% 67.8% 150.9 $36,834 Westchester County 990,427 92.3% 95.9% 88.3% 2,299.5 $67,776 Wyoming County 39,666 81.1% 57.2% 50.6% 66.9 $35,228 Yates County 24,451 85.4% 72.7% 63.6% 72.3 $32,291 North Carolina 10,698,973 89.1% 86.2% 79.6% 220.0 $37,641 Alamance County 176,353 92.9% 95.7% 89.6% 416.5 $32,105 Alexander County 36,512 66.2% 72.3% 54.0% 140.4 $30,510 Alleghany County 11,185 98.6% 17.5% 17.4% 47.6 $32,330 Anson County 22,202 58.2% 55.2% 37.9% 41.8 $22,854 Ashe County 27,110 99.5% 21.1% 20.9% 63.6 $29,683 Avery County 17,571 70.1% 67.0% 53.6% 71.0 $30,578 Beaufort County 44,272 56.0% 57.0% 40.0% 53.2 $32,936 Bertie County 17,240 62.6% 45.2% 33.2% 24.7 $27,311 Bladen County 29,446 66.1% 58.4% 42.5% 33.7 $26,544 Brunswick County 153,064 98.6% 80.8% 80.0% 180.1 $42,263 Buncombe County 273,589 93.4% 88.2% 83.3% 416.7 $39,495 Burke County 87,881 79.6% 79.6% 65.4% 173.6 $30,633 Cabarrus County 235,797 95.9% 98.4% 94.7% 652.8 $38,690 Caldwell County 80,492 90.1% 82.0% 76.6% 170.6 $29,125 Camden County 11,088 73.5% 43.1% 35.7% 46.1 $34,117 Carteret County 69,380 95.3% 84.5% 80.6% 136.7 $39,817 Caswell County 22,614 52.1% 32.3% 24.3% 53.2 $27,503 Catawba County 163,462 91.5% 84.8% 78.1% 407.3 $34,369 Chatham County 79,864 71.7% 63.0% 50.2% 117.2 $53,291 Cherokee County 29,512 58.7% 33.2% 23.6% 64.8 $28,752 Chowan County 13,940 63.6% 43.9% 31.0% 80.7 $32,479 Clay County 11,614 59.0% 21.3% 15.7% 54.0 $34,382 Cleveland County 100,670 85.2% 84.9% 75.9% 216.8 $27,522 Columbus County 49,885 87.5% 44.1% 38.7% 53.2 $24,236 Craven County 100,874 79.7% 86.5% 72.6% 142.8 $33,963 Cumberland County 336,699 95.1% 96.8% 92.6% 516.0 $29,681 Currituck County 31,015 87.7% 77.7% 68.6% 118.4 $40,352 Dare County 37,956 96.3% 68.8% 66.1% 99.0 $45,669 Davidson County 172,586 96.5% 94.1% 91.4% 312.0 $31,024 Davie County 44,090 96.7% 90.2% 87.9% 167.2 $36,570 Duplin County 48,990 53.3% 77.8% 45.3% 60.1 $25,428 Durham County 332,680 94.2% 98.8% 93.5% 1,161.1 $43,945 Edgecombe County 48,301 67.3% 77.7% 60.7% 95.6 $25,813 Forsyth County 389,157 97.7% 99.4% 97.2% 954.2 $35,600 Franklin County 74,539 73.5% 66.7% 54.5% 151.6 $33,313 Gaston County 234,215 95.4% 98.7% 94.3% 658.4 $33,806 Gates County 10,383 51.1% 32.7% 17.0% 30.5 $28,091 Graham County 7,980 43.0% 28.1% 23.6% 27.3 $25,835 Granville County 61,903 66.6% 65.7% 50.6% 116.4 $31,604 Greene County 20,211 36.3% 80.8% 30.9% 75.8 $21,972 Guilford County 546,101 96.2% 99.1% 95.5% 845.5 $36,563 Halifax County 47,848 59.2% 71.3% 51.9% 66.1 $25,504 Harnett County 138,832 82.2% 70.7% 60.6% 233.4 $29,678 Haywood County 62,609 84.8% 71.3% 64.2% 113.1 $34,609 Henderson County 118,106 80.5% 87.9% 75.0% 316.7 $37,457 Hertford County 20,875 72.4% 68.7% 53.4% 59.1 $25,313 Hoke County 53,787 82.0% 89.5% 78.4% 137.9 $27,991 Hyde County 4,576 1.3% 26.1% 0.0% 7.5 $19,258 Iredell County 195,897 93.8% 94.3% 88.9% 341.0 $40,959 Jackson County 42,955 35.2% 57.1% 25.3% 87.5 $31,384 Johnston County 234,778 87.3% 73.8% 65.4% 296.4 $35,078 Jones County 9,233 83.7% 57.8% 45.9% 19.6 $28,373 Lee County 65,476 83.4% 63.9% 56.2% 256.7 $30,083 Lenoir County 54,633 74.4% 84.6% 64.7% 136.9 $26,697 Lincoln County 93,095 88.7% 78.6% 71.5% 314.7 $40,574 Macon County 38,065 47.6% 36.6% 26.9% 73.8 $32,623 Madison County 21,768 91.2% 37.3% 35.1% 48.4 $33,821 Martin County 21,508 51.2% 51.3% 36.8% 47.1 $25,769 McDowell County 44,753 62.6% 72.8% 50.3% 101.7 $29,047 Mecklenburg County 1,145,392 97.9% 99.9% 97.8% 2,187.5 $48,625 Mitchell County 15,094 91.9% 56.0% 52.6% 68.2 $31,696 Montgomery County 25,894 50.9% 53.5% 34.3% 52.7 $29,346 Moore County 105,531 78.7% 37.6% 32.3% 151.3 $42,094 Nash County 95,789 69.0% 77.6% 57.6% 177.2 $31,987 New Hanover County 234,921 97.0% 96.3% 93.3% 1,221.9 $43,378 Northampton County 16,779 70.0% 37.4% 30.8% 31.3 $29,047 Onslow County 207,298 91.5% 82.9% 75.8% 272.0 $29,214 Orange County 150,477 84.3% 89.2% 78.4% 378.5 $50,449 Pamlico County 12,381 68.7% 39.2% 29.1% 36.8 $32,677 Pasquotank County 40,938 88.6% 76.1% 68.5% 180.4 $31,762 Pender County 65,737 77.6% 77.6% 64.7% 75.4 $36,352 Perquimans County 13,210 57.0% 36.5% 28.4% 53.4 $31,919 Person County 39,386 71.1% 46.6% 38.8% 100.4 $33,456 Pitt County 173,542 84.2% 90.4% 78.4% 266.0 $32,224 Polk County 19,986 50.7% 55.7% 31.1% 84.1 $35,916 Randolph County 146,043 90.2% 84.8% 76.9% 186.7 $29,131 Richmond County 42,778 84.0% 48.2% 40.5% 90.3 $24,416 Robeson County 116,663 82.0% 62.7% 52.7% 123.2 $21,998 Rockingham County 91,957 84.1% 65.9% 58.6% 162.6 $29,239 Rowan County 149,645 92.3% 95.2% 88.9% 292.5 $31,108 Rutherford County 64,963 63.3% 80.8% 57.9% 114.9 $28,873 Sampson County 59,120 69.2% 69.8% 50.2% 62.5 $25,969 Scotland County 34,162 75.1% 79.1% 62.2% 107.0 $24,464 Stanly County 64,153 82.5% 83.4% 70.9% 162.4 $30,857 Stokes County 45,175 83.2% 79.4% 68.3% 100.5 $32,601 Surry County 71,403 95.1% 68.4% 66.0% 134.1 $30,274 Swain County 13,967 37.0% 46.0% 28.2% 26.5 $28,624 Transylvania County 33,355 83.2% 41.1% 38.5% 88.2 $36,660 Tyrrell County 3,365 33.9% 29.2% 20.0% 8.6 $22,403 Union County 249,070 92.6% 95.8% 90.2% 393.6 $43,957 Vance County 42,138 79.3% 68.1% 59.3% 167.0 $26,771 Wake County 1,175,021 97.7% 99.6% 97.4% 1,407.9 $50,188 Warren County 18,713 31.7% 36.0% 14.4% 43.6 $29,771 Washington County 10,828 67.6% 29.0% 24.3% 31.2 $26,209 Watauga County 55,089 93.1% 69.5% 65.4% 176.3 $30,807 Wayne County 117,286 87.9% 87.7% 78.1% 211.7 $30,540 Wilkes County 65,784 95.1% 45.1% 43.0% 87.3 $27,592 Wilson County 78,449 95.2% 86.2% 82.6% 213.4 $28,715 Yadkin County 37,463 92.1% 83.4% 77.8% 111.8 $32,680 Yancey County 18,811 94.5% 56.2% 54.2% 60.2 $31,037 North Dakota 779,261 98.2% 79.2% 78.3% 11.3 $40,748 Adams County 2,115 100.0% 7.2% 7.2% 2.1 $35,830 Barnes County 10,758 97.6% 81.2% 79.9% 7.2 $38,626 Benson County 5,770 75.6% 59.5% 44.3% 4.2 $24,490 Billings County 1,018 49.3% 47.9% 27.5% 0.9 $36,923 Bottineau County 6,376 98.2% 55.4% 55.1% 3.8 $45,506 Bowman County 2,894 100.0% 63.2% 63.2% 2.5 $38,585 Burke County 2,155 96.5% 56.7% 55.8% 2.0 $50,714 Burleigh County 99,280 99.1% 76.2% 75.4% 60.8 $43,615 Cass County 192,734 99.6% 96.9% 96.7% 109.2 $43,474 Cavalier County 3,597 99.7% 72.5% 72.5% 2.4 $44,346 Dickey County 4,923 99.4% 75.4% 74.8% 4.4 $35,649 Divide County 2,187 95.4% 72.1% 70.9% 1.7 $43,850 Dunn County 4,015 97.9% 45.6% 45.3% 2.0 $50,132 Eddy County 2,314 90.6% 82.5% 76.7% 3.7 $34,852 Emmons County 3,250 100.0% 55.9% 55.9% 2.2 $38,027 Foster County 3,378 100.0% 67.3% 67.3% 5.3 $41,796 Golden Valley County 1,744 81.3% 64.3% 56.0% 1.7 $35,953 Grand Forks County 72,413 99.9% 93.3% 93.3% 50.4 $37,159 Grant County 2,243 96.6% 51.1% 50.5% 1.4 $37,252 Griggs County 2,252 99.7% 73.5% 73.4% 3.2 $43,383 Hettinger County 2,406 100.0% 53.0% 53.0% 2.1 $40,931 Kidder County 2,393 100.0% 58.3% 58.3% 1.8 $32,974 LaMoure County 4,098 100.0% 55.6% 55.6% 3.6 $37,453 Logan County 1,855 100.0% 37.7% 37.7% 1.9 $33,240 McHenry County 5,189 95.2% 61.0% 59.1% 2.8 $39,973 McIntosh County 2,475 100.0% 37.9% 37.9% 2.5 $37,236 McKenzie County 13,908 89.8% 64.4% 62.0% 5.0 $44,409 McLean County 9,824 95.5% 61.7% 60.4% 4.7 $40,448 Mercer County 8,333 100.0% 68.2% 68.2% 8.0 $39,783 Morton County 33,710 99.7% 69.9% 69.6% 17.5 $42,603 Mountrail County 9,290 93.6% 79.8% 76.9% 5.1 $39,603 Nelson County 2,995 86.9% 30.1% 25.7% 3.1 $37,130 Oliver County 1,856 100.0% 39.9% 39.9% 2.6 $36,532 Pembina County 6,763 100.0% 42.8% 42.8% 6.0 $39,230 Pierce County 3,942 79.8% 74.8% 66.5% 3.9 $35,931 Ramsey County 11,515 91.9% 85.5% 80.4% 9.7 $35,624 Ransom County 5,640 99.4% 59.8% 59.6% 6.5 $36,706 Renville County 2,220 95.6% 57.9% 56.3% 2.5 $37,370 Richland County 16,580 98.0% 70.0% 69.3% 11.5 $38,265 Rolette County 11,933 99.6% 52.7% 52.5% 13.2 $23,160 Sargent County 3,795 99.9% 35.1% 35.1% 4.4 $42,970 Sheridan County 1,295 96.0% 57.8% 56.3% 1.3 $40,365 Sioux County 3,711 98.1% 12.3% 12.1% 3.4 $17,185 Slope County 672 99.7% 38.1% 38.1% 0.6 $40,987 Stark County 32,803 98.9% 85.4% 84.9% 24.6 $40,025 Steele County 1,788 100.0% 17.3% 17.3% 2.5 $40,435 Stutsman County 21,487 100.0% 76.3% 76.3% 9.7 $37,288 Towner County 2,064 94.8% 63.2% 61.4% 2.0 $37,116 Traill County 7,958 98.9% 73.0% 72.7% 9.2 $40,942 Walsh County 10,438 100.0% 82.5% 82.5% 8.1 $37,344 Ward County 68,870 98.6% 82.0% 81.0% 34.2 $40,896 Wells County 3,930 89.0% 32.3% 29.4% 3.1 $41,957 Williams County 38,109 95.3% 67.1% 65.3% 18.3 $44,076 Ohio 11,756,058 92.0% 91.8% 86.7% 287.7 $37,729 Adams County 27,420 41.4% 47.2% 26.7% 47.0 $25,428 Allen County 101,115 92.7% 70.3% 67.0% 251.2 $31,523 Ashland County 52,181 83.9% 91.2% 78.4% 123.4 $30,303 Ashtabula County 97,014 85.1% 79.7% 70.3% 138.2 $29,586 Athens County 58,979 74.0% 71.5% 59.8% 117.1 $27,366 Auglaize County 45,948 87.4% 50.6% 47.3% 114.5 $36,849 Belmont County 65,509 76.3% 71.7% 60.6% 123.1 $30,563 Brown County 43,680 65.5% 63.7% 46.6% 89.2 $31,823 Butler County 388,420 97.6% 99.0% 96.7% 832.6 $37,650 Carroll County 26,659 51.9% 67.4% 40.4% 67.6 $33,798 Champaign County 38,709 81.7% 70.1% 60.6% 90.2 $33,377 Clark County 134,831 95.6% 98.2% 94.1% 339.7 $31,099 Clermont County 210,805 96.8% 95.7% 92.9% 465.8 $41,566 Clinton County 41,964 76.5% 87.0% 68.7% 102.7 $32,533 Columbiana County 100,511 76.7% 87.8% 71.7% 189.0 $30,553 Coshocton County 36,571 59.0% 65.2% 50.2% 64.8 $27,280 Crawford County 41,522 80.1% 72.5% 61.6% 103.3 $29,566 Cuyahoga County 1,236,041 99.1% 99.8% 99.0% 2,703.4 $39,807 Darke County 51,529 73.7% 56.4% 45.5% 86.2 $32,732 Defiance County 38,187 98.5% 53.8% 53.4% 92.8 $33,533 Delaware County 226,296 96.7% 99.4% 96.2% 510.7 $56,963 Erie County 74,501 95.0% 93.1% 88.6% 296.5 $38,158 Fairfield County 162,898 91.4% 94.7% 88.1% 323.0 $38,783 Fayette County 28,839 74.1% 75.9% 60.6% 71.0 $30,666 Franklin County 1,321,820 99.0% 100.0% 99.0% 2,482.7 $41,148 Fulton County 42,171 99.7% 82.2% 82.0% 104.0 $35,230 Gallia County 29,068 24.6% 58.8% 21.3% 62.3 $28,943 Geauga County 95,469 85.7% 97.7% 84.6% 238.5 $48,582 Greene County 168,456 91.5% 98.1% 90.3% 407.3 $42,862 Guernsey County 38,098 71.4% 57.4% 46.1% 72.9 $29,642 Hamilton County 825,037 98.9% 99.0% 97.9% 2,035.1 $42,555 Hancock County 74,861 99.7% 76.9% 76.7% 140.9 $37,479 Hardin County 30,416 97.2% 65.2% 64.1% 64.7 $27,566 Harrison County 14,378 50.9% 17.8% 12.7% 35.7 $30,163 Henry County 27,512 99.5% 54.6% 54.4% 66.1 $36,504 Highland County 43,391 58.3% 67.2% 47.9% 78.5 $27,971 Hocking County 27,858 58.7% 49.6% 41.8% 66.1 $29,490 Holmes County 44,390 34.5% 69.5% 25.7% 105.0 $29,238 Huron County 58,218 80.4% 87.1% 74.3% 118.3 $30,792 Jackson County 32,586 64.6% 61.5% 49.6% 77.5 $28,570 Jefferson County 64,330 85.9% 70.3% 66.0% 157.6 $30,501 Knox County 63,183 63.7% 89.8% 62.4% 120.2 $32,543 Lake County 231,842 97.8% 99.7% 97.6% 1,011.2 $41,195 Lawrence County 56,653 83.2% 70.9% 66.6% 125.0 $29,226 Licking County 181,359 89.5% 92.9% 86.4% 265.8 $39,760 Logan County 46,040 89.8% 59.5% 56.4% 100.4 $36,215 Lorain County 316,268 93.5% 99.1% 92.7% 644.7 $37,171 Lucas County 426,643 99.5% 97.8% 97.3% 1,256.1 $34,399 Madison County 43,540 72.5% 98.0% 71.1% 93.5 $33,512 Mahoning County 225,636 96.1% 99.4% 95.7% 548.3 $32,591 Marion County 64,642 95.0% 77.6% 75.1% 160.1 $29,257 Medina County 183,512 96.4% 99.8% 96.2% 435.4 $45,038 Meigs County 21,969 39.3% 34.0% 16.2% 51.1 $26,103 Mercer County 42,348 89.1% 48.4% 46.1% 91.6 $33,892 Miami County 110,247 90.9% 97.6% 89.6% 271.2 $37,701 Monroe County 13,234 21.3% 35.3% 7.1% 29.0 $33,127 Montgomery County 533,892 96.8% 99.6% 96.7% 1,157.2 $35,767 Morgan County 13,668 35.4% 29.8% 20.8% 32.8 $25,973 Morrow County 35,339 80.7% 87.3% 71.5% 87.0 $32,987 Muskingum County 86,113 80.8% 72.3% 63.8% 129.6 $31,436 Noble County 14,335 36.0% 55.0% 26.1% 36.0 $28,676 Ottawa County 39,978 83.2% 80.4% 68.6% 157.0 $44,479 Paulding County 18,757 95.3% 41.7% 41.6% 45.0 $34,050 Perry County 35,480 56.1% 57.1% 38.8% 87.0 $29,675 Pickaway County 60,023 77.8% 87.9% 69.0% 119.8 $32,689 Pike County 27,005 63.1% 46.0% 34.8% 61.3 $29,273 Portage County 161,745 95.2% 98.2% 93.5% 331.8 $37,771 Preble County 40,596 77.0% 80.4% 65.8% 95.7 $33,627 Putnam County 34,334 98.3% 40.0% 39.7% 71.2 $36,877 Richland County 125,319 88.5% 93.5% 83.2% 253.1 $29,570 Ross County 76,606 77.4% 70.0% 58.0% 111.2 $29,718 Sandusky County 58,667 86.0% 86.3% 75.2% 143.7 $32,788 Scioto County 72,194 80.0% 64.4% 56.0% 118.3 $25,279 Seneca County 54,632 91.2% 70.6% 67.6% 99.1 $31,770 Shelby County 47,671 79.5% 67.0% 59.6% 116.9 $35,363 Stark County 372,657 90.0% 99.3% 89.5% 647.8 $34,652 Summit County 535,882 98.5% 100.0% 98.5% 1,298.2 $40,786 Trumbull County 200,643 91.4% 98.0% 90.9% 324.6 $30,294 Tuscarawas County 91,937 79.2% 81.6% 70.7% 162.0 $31,736 Union County 66,898 95.1% 84.2% 80.3% 154.9 $48,025 Van Wert County 28,769 99.3% 63.0% 62.6% 70.3 $31,831 Vinton County 12,565 32.4% 30.1% 20.8% 30.5 $27,587 Warren County 249,778 95.2% 97.2% 92.6% 622.2 $49,360 Washington County 58,901 67.9% 60.5% 49.3% 93.2 $33,987 Wayne County 116,559 76.4% 94.4% 73.0% 210.1 $32,908 Williams County 36,652 99.1% 42.3% 42.1% 87.1 $31,189 Wood County 131,592 97.4% 87.9% 85.5% 213.2 $39,771 Wyandot County 21,567 98.9% 62.5% 62.2% 53.0 $33,994 Oklahoma 4,019,800 88.9% 89.8% 82.8% 58.6 $33,630 Adair County 19,576 99.8% 56.6% 56.6% 34.1 $20,710 Alfalfa County 5,637 55.1% 61.9% 27.7% 6.5 $28,976 Atoka County 14,262 79.6% 63.9% 54.7% 14.6 $25,353 Beaver County 5,016 88.1% 42.5% 41.4% 2.8 $29,533 Beckham County 22,009 99.0% 88.1% 87.7% 24.4 $26,231 Blaine County 8,409 88.3% 49.2% 46.8% 9.1 $30,442 Bryan County 48,182 91.6% 73.1% 70.7% 53.3 $29,516 Caddo County 26,198 71.1% 78.4% 55.9% 20.5 $25,559 Canadian County 169,149 98.6% 98.2% 97.4% 188.7 $36,884 Carter County 48,510 95.9% 77.9% 76.1% 59.0 $31,036 Cherokee County 48,098 94.2% 72.9% 69.6% 64.2 $28,178 Choctaw County 14,358 44.9% 38.1% 20.6% 18.6 $25,283 Cimarron County 2,252 80.7% 61.1% 57.6% 1.2 $33,925 Cleveland County 299,587 98.4% 98.1% 96.9% 555.9 $36,913 Coal County 5,313 63.1% 63.6% 49.1% 10.3 $26,899 Comanche County 123,046 96.2% 96.7% 93.4% 115.1 $29,980 Cotton County 5,477 93.2% 84.3% 81.4% 8.7 $31,989 Craig County 14,123 68.4% 72.3% 60.4% 18.6 $24,199 Creek County 72,699 71.4% 84.5% 66.2% 76.5 $31,222 Custer County 27,886 98.5% 85.6% 85.5% 28.2 $30,880 Delaware County 41,413 73.2% 63.1% 52.4% 56.1 $34,489 Dewey County 4,401 77.1% 65.0% 58.2% 4.4 $31,951 Ellis County 3,657 25.1% 49.2% 14.6% 3.0 $31,331 Garfield County 61,920 99.1% 89.5% 89.2% 58.5 $32,579 Garvin County 25,713 56.7% 78.9% 49.1% 32.1 $29,270 Grady County 56,658 77.7% 88.9% 69.0% 51.5 $34,607 Grant County 4,124 75.9% 53.4% 46.9% 4.1 $33,685 Greer County 5,547 91.7% 87.3% 86.1% 8.7 $22,721 Harmon County 2,428 1.2% 74.2% 1.2% 4.5 $31,814 Harper County 3,129 52.0% 74.5% 38.8% 3.0 $26,279 Haskell County 11,641 56.1% 54.3% 42.5% 20.2 $25,234 Hughes County 13,407 34.5% 60.7% 22.3% 16.7 $22,887 Jackson County 24,556 99.4% 80.2% 80.2% 30.6 $31,421 Jefferson County 5,389 91.3% 70.8% 67.1% 7.1 $30,099 Johnston County 10,406 60.0% 64.5% 46.6% 16.2 $24,457 Kay County 43,668 98.5% 94.6% 94.3% 47.5 $29,800 Kingfisher County 15,293 87.7% 80.7% 77.0% 17.0 $35,098 Kiowa County 8,345 96.0% 80.0% 79.1% 8.2 $23,548 Latimer County 9,630 42.6% 58.1% 35.8% 13.3 $25,189 Le Flore County 48,907 51.8% 83.1% 48.5% 30.8 $23,718 Lincoln County 34,188 66.2% 72.9% 50.2% 35.9 $30,408 Logan County 51,933 84.9% 91.8% 78.5% 69.8 $39,571 Love County 10,218 90.6% 76.6% 74.1% 19.9 $28,560 Major County 7,502 89.7% 48.5% 45.7% 7.9 $33,480 Marshall County 15,882 81.1% 70.4% 64.5% 42.8 $27,997 Mayes County 39,589 73.0% 80.3% 64.0% 60.4 $29,607 McClain County 45,306 86.8% 93.8% 84.3% 79.4 $39,921 McCurtain County 30,931 79.7% 39.9% 38.3% 16.7 $24,635 McIntosh County 19,451 83.3% 75.1% 63.0% 31.5 $24,967 Murray County 13,672 90.3% 80.9% 77.6% 32.8 $32,488 Muskogee County 66,354 78.3% 89.8% 70.5% 81.9 $26,684 Noble County 10,896 97.0% 76.0% 74.8% 14.9 $31,946 Nowata County 9,483 68.0% 61.6% 51.2% 16.8 $29,851 Okfuskee County 11,134 54.7% 60.6% 37.9% 18.0 $23,052 Oklahoma County 802,559 98.8% 99.8% 98.6% 1,132.1 $36,987 Okmulgee County 36,990 78.9% 77.1% 58.8% 53.0 $27,821 Osage County 45,839 43.7% 77.6% 39.3% 20.4 $29,906 Ottawa County 30,338 86.3% 78.0% 68.5% 64.4 $24,354 Pawnee County 15,757 58.2% 77.0% 48.6% 27.7 $28,327 Payne County 82,794 83.8% 97.1% 82.1% 120.9 $26,916 Pittsburg County 43,613 71.5% 78.9% 65.4% 33.4 $28,257 Pontotoc County 38,141 76.3% 75.5% 64.2% 52.9 $30,774 Pottawatomie County 73,533 87.4% 90.9% 82.5% 93.3 $28,106 Pushmataha County 10,769 58.3% 39.9% 32.1% 7.7 $23,393 Roger Mills County 3,320 36.4% 38.1% 4.7% 2.9 $43,603 Rogers County 98,836 70.2% 91.6% 67.7% 146.3 $36,885 Seminole County 23,351 47.1% 73.4% 43.8% 36.9 $23,137 Sequoyah County 39,667 79.7% 67.7% 57.1% 58.9 $24,708 Stephens County 43,710 74.0% 78.3% 69.4% 50.2 $31,501 Texas County 20,495 96.9% 73.7% 73.1% 10.0 $23,855 Tillman County 6,977 89.4% 73.1% 71.4% 8.0 $23,729 Tulsa County 677,358 97.7% 99.3% 97.3% 1,187.9 $38,496 Wagoner County 86,644 91.3% 92.5% 85.2% 154.2 $35,675 Washington County 53,242 82.9% 92.4% 81.3% 128.1 $34,243 Washita County 10,732 94.6% 70.7% 67.5% 10.7 $31,421 Woods County 8,587 83.0% 76.1% 63.1% 6.7 $29,914 Woodward County 19,990 85.3% 70.6% 62.5% 16.1 $31,995 Oregon 4,240,137 91.7% 90.5% 85.9% 44.2 $41,805 Baker County 16,938 69.1% 56.3% 44.6% 5.5 $32,672 Benton County 97,630 92.8% 88.2% 85.1% 144.6 $39,940 Clackamas County 423,177 93.9% 95.4% 90.9% 226.2 $49,340 Clatsop County 41,695 81.7% 68.1% 57.8% 50.3 $37,166 Columbia County 53,588 77.0% 78.1% 68.8% 81.4 $37,986 Coos County 64,990 84.8% 70.9% 66.6% 40.7 $33,572 Crook County 26,375 62.4% 87.3% 58.2% 8.9 $38,484 Curry County 23,598 89.7% 57.4% 56.8% 14.5 $38,214 Deschutes County 206,549 92.2% 79.5% 75.9% 68.4 $46,765 Douglas County 112,297 93.8% 76.2% 74.0% 22.3 $31,241 Gilliam County 2,018 27.1% 78.3% 27.1% 1.7 $34,042 Grant County 7,218 29.1% 0.0% 0.0% 1.6 $33,409 Harney County 7,515 64.3% 72.1% 56.4% 0.7 $26,910 Hood River County 24,048 72.8% 93.2% 69.5% 46.1 $43,333 Jackson County 221,644 94.5% 88.7% 85.4% 79.6 $36,538 Jefferson County 25,330 66.3% 87.4% 63.2% 14.2 $30,917 Josephine County 87,730 69.2% 85.5% 66.1% 53.5 $32,159 Klamath County 70,212 89.0% 86.5% 82.0% 11.8 $31,260 Lake County 8,385 58.8% 67.7% 52.7% 1.0 $29,400 Lane County 382,353 91.5% 86.3% 83.1% 84.0 $36,776 Lincoln County 50,813 88.6% 75.2% 71.2% 51.8 $35,295 Linn County 130,467 89.3% 86.3% 81.2% 57.0 $32,501 Malheur County 31,879 83.0% 81.0% 74.9% 3.2 $22,145 Marion County 346,703 94.9% 96.6% 92.6% 293.5 $33,545 Morrow County 12,300 49.2% 59.1% 33.0% 6.1 $29,975 Multnomah County 795,083 99.0% 99.4% 98.6% 1,844.1 $49,713 Polk County 89,614 88.7% 93.0% 86.3% 120.9 $38,920 Sherman County 1,955 60.3% 64.8% 40.8% 2.4 $33,206 Tillamook County 27,574 86.6% 63.0% 58.4% 25.0 $35,433 Umatilla County 80,215 82.3% 85.0% 70.5% 24.9 $30,263 Union County 26,177 79.6% 76.4% 68.8% 12.9 $31,640 Wallowa County 7,659 49.7% 16.3% 9.8% 2.4 $37,378 Wasco County 26,561 74.9% 83.1% 70.5% 11.2 $35,869 Washington County 600,176 96.8% 98.5% 96.4% 828.7 $49,553 Wheeler County 1,445 44.4% 34.2% 28.5% 0.8 $27,847 Yamhill County 108,226 82.9% 92.3% 82.0% 151.2 $38,002 Pennsylvania 12,972,008 95.1% 91.8% 89.1% 289.9 $41,234 Adams County 106,027 87.9% 94.3% 85.4% 204.4 $37,349 Allegheny County 1,233,253 99.7% 97.1% 96.9% 1,689.5 $45,939 Armstrong County 64,747 85.6% 66.0% 60.7% 99.1 $33,390 Beaver County 165,677 96.1% 92.8% 90.2% 381.1 $37,649 Bedford County 47,418 73.4% 48.9% 43.2% 46.8 $31,269 Berks County 430,449 100.0% 97.5% 97.5% 502.6 $37,776 Blair County 121,032 95.4% 87.3% 85.7% 230.4 $33,585 Bradford County 59,866 62.5% 51.7% 41.6% 52.2 $32,440 Bucks County 645,054 99.2% 96.6% 95.9% 1,067.3 $54,930 Butler County 197,300 96.5% 83.6% 81.8% 249.9 $45,389 Cambria County 131,441 90.2% 81.2% 76.2% 191.2 $31,532 Cameron County 4,418 88.2% 65.4% 63.3% 11.1 $27,426 Carbon County 65,460 97.9% 76.8% 75.8% 171.7 $34,375 Centre County 158,425 90.5% 91.6% 85.4% 142.9 $37,262 Chester County 545,823 98.3% 93.2% 91.7% 727.2 $60,599 Clarion County 37,346 70.2% 52.3% 43.4% 62.2 $30,444 Clearfield County 77,904 79.0% 69.2% 59.7% 68.0 $29,950 Clinton County 37,931 89.8% 66.4% 62.9% 42.7 $30,723 Columbia County 64,926 79.5% 85.3% 73.3% 134.4 $31,238 Crawford County 82,670 73.6% 69.2% 56.4% 81.7 $30,989 Cumberland County 268,579 96.4% 98.1% 94.7% 492.4 $43,535 Dauphin County 288,800 98.1% 98.5% 96.8% 550.2 $39,709 Delaware County 575,182 99.9% 98.3% 98.2% 3,129.1 $46,926 Elk County 30,477 89.2% 79.5% 75.0% 36.9 $34,222 Erie County 267,689 92.8% 90.7% 85.2% 335.1 $32,858 Fayette County 125,755 86.2% 74.3% 66.1% 159.0 $31,498 Forest County 6,626 37.6% 64.4% 27.4% 15.5 $18,857 Franklin County 156,902 91.1% 93.4% 86.4% 203.2 $37,520 Fulton County 14,533 40.7% 64.0% 33.6% 33.2 $33,601 Greene County 34,663 73.3% 47.4% 40.7% 60.2 $32,272 Huntingdon County 43,281 80.4% 58.1% 54.0% 49.5 $30,392 Indiana County 82,957 73.3% 68.9% 56.8% 100.3 $30,494 Jefferson County 43,794 79.7% 67.6% 59.6% 67.1 $30,280 Juniata County 23,339 56.3% 60.7% 42.3% 59.6 $31,251 Lackawanna County 215,615 98.0% 96.1% 94.8% 469.7 $35,296 Lancaster County 556,629 96.4% 98.2% 95.1% 589.7 $39,872 Lawrence County 84,849 93.7% 90.0% 85.0% 237.4 $32,319 Lebanon County 144,011 96.7% 99.0% 95.9% 398.0 $35,604 Lehigh County 376,317 99.1% 99.2% 98.4% 1,089.7 $39,856 Luzerne County 326,369 94.6% 93.8% 89.9% 366.8 $33,535 Lycoming County 113,104 90.6% 85.3% 81.8% 92.0 $32,968 McKean County 39,866 85.0% 66.2% 62.8% 40.7 $30,278 Mercer County 109,220 85.3% 85.5% 75.6% 162.4 $32,081 Mifflin County 45,988 87.1% 64.3% 60.3% 111.9 $28,979 Monroe County 167,198 96.7% 79.1% 76.8% 274.8 $36,277 Montgomery County 864,683 99.1% 98.1% 97.2% 1,790.3 $57,945 Montour County 18,091 82.2% 92.6% 78.4% 138.9 $43,700 Northampton County 318,526 99.4% 98.5% 98.0% 861.4 $42,643 Northumberland County 90,133 90.3% 86.5% 80.6% 196.9 $31,240 Perry County 46,114 73.6% 74.0% 59.5% 83.6 $37,018 Philadelphia County 1,567,258 99.7% 99.9% 99.6% 11,664.9 $35,553 Pike County 60,558 95.1% 52.8% 50.7% 111.1 $41,139 Potter County 16,220 93.6% 32.4% 31.3% 15.0 $29,629 Schuylkill County 143,104 87.6% 82.6% 74.6% 183.8 $32,316 Snyder County 39,652 76.5% 72.1% 62.0% 120.6 $31,776 Somerset County 72,710 77.5% 64.3% 53.9% 67.6 $31,627 Sullivan County 5,855 46.7% 20.9% 12.6% 13.0 $35,618 Susquehanna County 38,074 67.5% 58.4% 42.9% 46.2 $37,532 Tioga County 41,106 80.7% 38.3% 36.1% 36.3 $31,131 Union County 42,744 84.8% 73.1% 65.6% 135.3 $33,566 Venango County 49,777 80.8% 68.4% 61.8% 73.8 $31,667 Warren County 37,808 69.8% 69.3% 58.5% 42.8 $32,319 Washington County 210,383 92.2% 88.3% 83.8% 245.5 $42,859 Wayne County 51,173 84.0% 54.5% 47.9% 70.5 $32,207 Westmoreland County 352,057 96.8% 90.7% 88.4% 342.6 $40,193 Wyoming County 26,014 74.1% 58.5% 47.5% 65.5 $36,533 York County 461,058 95.0% 98.3% 93.9% 509.8 $38,926 Puerto Rico 3,221,789 97.0% 98.0% 95.5% 940.9 $15,637 Adjuntas Municipio 17,200 97.0% 92.4% 89.9% 257.9 $8,705 Aguada Municipio 36,578 97.7% 89.2% 87.5% 1,185.3 $11,364 Aguadilla Municipio 54,090 99.9% 99.6% 99.5% 1,480.6 $12,887 Aguas Buenas Municipio 23,092 92.5% 98.6% 91.3% 767.6 $14,065 Aibonito Municipio 23,742 100.0% 96.2% 96.2% 758.3 $13,395 Arecibo Municipio 85,840 94.7% 95.5% 92.5% 681.6 $12,995 Arroyo Municipio 16,094 99.7% 97.6% 97.3% 1,072.3 $12,921 Añasco Municipio 24,621 87.6% 97.2% 86.6% 626.7 $12,593 Barceloneta Municipio 22,627 98.2% 96.6% 94.9% 1,210.3 $13,368 Barranquitas Municipio 27,866 99.1% 96.2% 95.3% 813.5 $11,396 Bayamón Municipio 181,072 99.9% 99.8% 99.7% 4,080.5 $16,905 Cabo Rojo Municipio 47,458 97.9% 98.6% 96.5% 674.4 $14,453 Caguas Municipio 123,859 99.4% 99.8% 99.2% 2,113.5 $19,240 Camuy Municipio 31,732 87.4% 96.1% 86.5% 684.5 $13,429 Canóvanas Municipio 41,323 99.9% 98.9% 98.8% 1,257.2 $17,181 Carolina Municipio 153,140 99.7% 99.7% 99.5% 3,375.1 $19,220 Cataño Municipio 22,319 100.0% 98.7% 98.7% 4,618.7 $14,094 Cayey Municipio 40,933 100.0% 98.7% 98.7% 788.2 $16,510 Ceiba Municipio 11,486 93.2% 99.6% 93.1% 395.6 $14,198 Ciales Municipio 16,279 62.2% 97.3% 61.6% 244.7 $9,386 Cidra Municipio 37,849 98.1% 99.4% 97.5% 1,050.7 $14,451 Coamo Municipio 34,327 100.0% 96.5% 96.5% 440.0 $12,371 Comerío Municipio 18,028 88.3% 98.3% 87.4% 634.8 $9,825 Corozal Municipio 32,550 93.4% 99.6% 93.1% 764.7 $11,254 Culebra Municipio 1,858 95.9% 95.6% 92.4% 159.5 $17,226 Dorado Municipio 35,126 98.7% 99.9% 98.6% 1,519.6 $21,280 Fajardo Municipio 32,480 98.5% 99.5% 98.1% 1,086.2 $15,367 Florida Municipio 11,444 88.5% 97.8% 86.5% 752.4 $11,174 Guayama Municipio 36,986 98.9% 98.0% 96.9% 568.6 $12,626 Guayanilla Municipio 17,323 92.8% 91.0% 87.2% 409.8 $10,149 Guaynabo Municipio 89,274 99.8% 100.0% 99.8% 3,236.3 $28,637 Gurabo Municipio 39,987 98.9% 99.8% 98.6% 1,434.0 $25,112 Guánica Municipio 14,199 100.0% 93.9% 93.9% 383.2 $8,318 Hatillo Municipio 36,802 99.1% 98.7% 97.9% 880.9 $14,528 Hormigueros Municipio 15,326 98.8% 100.0% 98.8% 1,350.8 $14,338 Humacao Municipio 50,411 99.6% 99.1% 98.7% 1,127.3 $15,510 Isabela Municipio 42,240 97.8% 97.2% 95.4% 763.7 $12,242 Jayuya Municipio 14,100 65.9% 71.4% 53.7% 316.6 $8,747 Juana Díaz Municipio 45,867 100.0% 96.2% 96.2% 760.9 $11,915 Juncos Municipio 36,513 97.4% 100.0% 97.4% 1,378.4 $13,924 Lajas Municipio 22,750 100.0% 98.9% 98.9% 379.4 $10,169 Lares Municipio 26,776 88.3% 94.6% 86.9% 435.7 $10,348 Las Marías Municipio 8,451 55.3% 97.3% 55.2% 182.3 $8,514 Las Piedras Municipio 34,084 97.3% 98.8% 96.2% 1,006.0 $13,909 Loíza Municipio 23,351 95.4% 99.7% 95.3% 1,205.3 $11,835 Luquillo Municipio 18,010 96.7% 97.4% 94.6% 697.8 $13,578 Manatí Municipio 38,521 93.2% 97.6% 91.0% 853.4 $13,136 Maricao Municipio 4,527 60.3% 87.5% 59.5% 123.6 $9,522 Maunabo Municipio 10,425 99.7% 99.6% 99.4% 492.6 $10,593 Mayagüez Municipio 72,462 94.6% 98.6% 93.3% 932.9 $13,487 Moca Municipio 35,632 94.5% 97.2% 92.6% 707.8 $14,052 Morovis Municipio 27,325 90.0% 97.3% 88.2% 703.0 $12,329 Naguabo Municipio 23,121 90.4% 98.6% 89.0% 447.6 $10,940 Naranjito Municipio 27,464 97.4% 99.5% 97.0% 1,002.3 $11,370 Orocovis Municipio 20,385 86.8% 94.0% 82.4% 320.4 $9,952 Patillas Municipio 15,638 99.6% 81.3% 81.2% 335.6 $11,832 Peñuelas Municipio 19,967 99.8% 96.4% 96.2% 447.5 $11,405 Ponce Municipio 137,799 99.5% 95.9% 95.7% 1,198.9 $13,507 Quebradillas Municipio 22,682 94.6% 98.3% 93.2% 1,000.0 $11,617 Rincón Municipio 14,967 96.5% 94.5% 91.6% 1,047.5 $15,789 Río Grande Municipio 46,376 97.8% 99.6% 97.5% 765.0 $14,161 Sabana Grande Municipio 22,103 95.9% 93.7% 90.4% 608.7 $11,255 Salinas Municipio 26,299 99.9% 94.3% 94.2% 378.9 $11,477 San Germán Municipio 30,813 92.4% 90.8% 86.9% 565.4 $11,808 San Juan Municipio 343,264 100.0% 99.8% 99.8% 7,168.0 $22,553 San Lorenzo Municipio 35,750 95.9% 99.9% 95.8% 673.2 $12,220 San Sebastián Municipio 38,356 91.0% 99.1% 90.6% 544.7 $11,370 Santa Isabel Municipio 20,247 100.0% 98.8% 98.8% 594.9 $13,541 Toa Alta Municipio 64,871 99.3% 99.8% 99.2% 2,401.2 $16,887 Toa Baja Municipio 72,940 99.9% 99.9% 99.8% 3,138.0 $16,260 Trujillo Alto Municipio 66,027 99.6% 100.0% 99.6% 3,180.8 $19,492 Utuado Municipio 27,231 83.7% 88.4% 80.6% 239.9 $10,708 Vega Alta Municipio 33,891 92.5% 99.3% 92.0% 1,222.2 $16,582 Vega Baja Municipio 52,914 97.4% 99.5% 97.0% 1,154.1 $14,818 Vieques Municipio 8,241 91.1% 91.6% 83.7% 162.3 $9,193 Villalba Municipio 21,275 100.0% 97.5% 97.5% 597.0 $12,133 Yabucoa Municipio 29,476 97.7% 98.1% 96.2% 533.8 $11,720 Yauco Municipio 33,337 87.8% 96.1% 87.3% 492.3 $11,934 Rhode Island 1,093,734 99.5% 91.6% 91.2% 1,057.9 $43,324 Bristol County 50,360 99.9% 80.1% 80.0% 2,086.9 $56,739 Kent County 171,275 99.9% 86.9% 86.9% 1,016.1 $46,564 Newport County 84,481 99.3% 85.1% 84.7% 824.8 $58,280 Providence County 657,288 99.6% 96.8% 96.5% 1,605.2 $38,191 Washington County 130,330 98.5% 79.9% 78.8% 395.8 $50,008 South Carolina 5,282,634 90.4% 87.3% 81.1% 175.7 $36,072 Abbeville County 24,356 96.3% 51.4% 49.5% 49.6 $31,443 Aiken County 174,150 90.5% 94.9% 87.4% 162.7 $34,786 Allendale County 7,579 63.3% 69.3% 57.3% 18.6 $19,654 Anderson County 209,581 91.8% 94.2% 86.9% 293.6 $33,714 Bamberg County 12,908 70.8% 39.4% 30.3% 32.8 $21,991 Barnwell County 20,414 61.6% 47.5% 32.7% 37.2 $25,640 Beaufort County 196,371 99.0% 85.5% 85.1% 340.9 $48,132 Berkeley County 245,117 81.4% 91.4% 77.5% 222.1 $37,563 Calhoun County 14,179 89.2% 58.0% 53.6% 37.2 $30,898 Charleston County 419,279 96.5% 95.8% 93.3% 456.7 $51,480 Cherokee County 56,121 75.9% 80.5% 64.8% 142.8 $26,706 Chester County 31,931 56.1% 52.7% 36.6% 55.0 $26,349 Chesterfield County 43,683 76.9% 43.2% 35.8% 54.7 $26,435 Clarendon County 30,913 78.4% 48.0% 39.7% 50.9 $26,290 Colleton County 38,599 99.8% 58.1% 57.9% 36.5 $26,253 Darlington County 62,398 81.8% 64.0% 57.2% 111.3 $28,821 Dillon County 27,738 78.4% 58.4% 48.3% 68.5 $21,736 Dorchester County 166,133 92.2% 95.9% 90.3% 292.2 $36,543 Edgefield County 26,932 73.4% 62.5% 50.7% 53.8 $31,232 Fairfield County 20,455 61.7% 50.1% 35.9% 29.8 $29,269 Florence County 136,721 91.6% 83.3% 77.6% 170.8 $30,733 Georgetown County 64,722 94.9% 74.7% 71.5% 79.5 $39,403 Greenville County 547,950 93.6% 97.9% 92.5% 697.2 $40,427 Greenwood County 69,267 88.7% 79.0% 75.0% 152.0 $30,237 Hampton County 18,113 65.2% 32.9% 27.5% 32.3 $22,727 Horry County 383,101 96.1% 85.8% 82.6% 338.0 $34,147 Jasper County 32,039 90.8% 76.3% 72.4% 48.9 $31,228 Kershaw County 67,751 81.6% 75.0% 64.9% 93.2 $30,310 Lancaster County 104,577 94.8% 75.0% 72.4% 190.5 $39,172 Laurens County 67,965 86.4% 76.3% 67.7% 95.3 $27,221 Lee County 16,153 50.2% 48.8% 31.1% 39.4 $21,054 Lexington County 304,797 96.3% 97.3% 94.1% 436.0 $37,209 Marion County 28,450 90.5% 63.2% 58.1% 58.1 $21,952 Marlboro County 26,039 38.8% 51.6% 20.7% 54.3 $20,703 McCormick County 9,764 87.7% 22.9% 22.5% 27.2 $32,017 Newberry County 38,247 91.5% 70.2% 64.1% 60.7 $32,251 Oconee County 80,180 68.2% 81.6% 61.6% 128.0 $35,315 Orangeburg County 83,094 78.6% 68.0% 56.3% 75.1 $23,636 Pickens County 133,462 91.9% 93.0% 86.9% 268.6 $32,059 Richland County 421,566 95.2% 98.5% 93.8% 556.7 $35,720 Saluda County 18,938 74.9% 58.0% 45.0% 41.8 $27,912 Spartanburg County 345,831 87.6% 96.9% 86.5% 427.8 $32,039 Sumter County 104,012 90.8% 89.0% 83.1% 156.4 $28,319 Union County 26,752 70.2% 77.5% 63.3% 52.1 $26,111 Williamsburg County 30,058 79.2% 58.9% 49.0% 32.2 $22,946 York County 294,248 97.1% 87.0% 85.4% 432.1 $41,486 South Dakota 909,824 92.6% 84.7% 80.7% 12.0 $36,850 Aurora County 2,755 95.5% 54.3% 52.8% 3.9 $40,299 Beadle County 19,376 99.2% 89.2% 88.9% 15.4 $32,177 Bennett County 3,336 81.4% 51.9% 45.4% 2.8 $22,068 Bon Homme County 7,062 89.5% 75.8% 65.7% 12.5 $26,450 Brookings County 35,484 98.6% 89.4% 88.4% 44.8 $32,778 Brown County 37,972 90.0% 73.8% 71.8% 22.2 $38,035 Brule County 5,321 93.2% 73.1% 71.0% 6.5 $34,629 Buffalo County 1,861 92.3% 71.4% 66.8% 3.9 $13,731 Butte County 10,774 90.5% 82.7% 78.4% 4.8 $34,218 Campbell County 1,349 60.7% 22.0% 12.7% 1.8 $40,617 Charles Mix County 9,213 83.6% 66.5% 58.8% 8.4 $27,034 Clark County 3,912 96.2% 67.4% 65.4% 4.1 $35,573 Clay County 15,280 91.3% 89.5% 86.8% 37.1 $30,033 Codington County 28,721 99.3% 89.7% 89.5% 41.8 $36,016 Corson County 3,826 87.7% 49.0% 44.2% 1.5 $18,757 Custer County 9,006 70.0% 63.5% 47.8% 5.8 $43,745 Davison County 19,973 99.6% 93.0% 92.8% 45.8 $33,282 Day County 5,479 91.3% 68.6% 66.5% 5.3 $34,210 Deuel County 4,352 98.9% 61.7% 61.0% 7.0 $35,754 Dewey County 5,140 88.8% 72.2% 66.7% 2.2 $20,657 Douglas County 2,776 95.1% 57.5% 56.4% 6.4 $37,235 Edmunds County 4,065 75.2% 34.2% 32.8% 3.6 $40,159 Fall River County 7,370 78.9% 77.3% 69.3% 4.2 $33,745 Faulk County 2,126 97.4% 46.0% 46.0% 2.2 $31,533 Grant County 7,463 98.1% 71.6% 70.5% 11.0 $38,787 Gregory County 3,962 97.4% 50.2% 49.7% 3.9 $31,505 Haakon County 1,826 96.8% 77.5% 76.4% 1.0 $32,270 Hamlin County 6,352 98.7% 65.8% 65.1% 12.5 $31,643 Hand County 3,140 99.5% 56.1% 56.1% 2.2 $40,952 Hanson County 3,461 96.4% 55.2% 52.6% 8.0 $33,489 Harding County 1,330 99.4% 31.1% 30.5% 0.5 $44,603 Hughes County 17,692 96.8% 93.8% 90.6% 23.9 $37,645 Hutchinson County 7,368 93.2% 80.9% 77.0% 9.1 $35,631 Hyde County 1,184 100.0% 84.8% 84.8% 1.4 $36,319 Jackson County 2,821 74.2% 47.9% 40.9% 1.5 $15,792 Jerauld County 1,650 98.2% 82.8% 81.5% 3.1 $47,964 Jones County 884 69.7% 62.4% 49.3% 0.9 $30,962 Kingsbury County 5,294 93.3% 74.0% 71.1% 6.4 $36,484 Lake County 10,972 94.2% 91.1% 86.3% 19.5 $44,809 Lawrence County 27,214 84.5% 75.2% 69.5% 34.0 $41,086 Lincoln County 70,987 94.1% 96.0% 91.5% 123.0 $46,868 Lyman County 3,692 98.1% 60.6% 59.8% 2.2 $25,997 Marshall County 4,374 99.2% 64.7% 64.7% 5.2 $44,857 McCook County 5,778 86.4% 70.9% 61.5% 10.1 $34,242 McPherson County 2,395 67.1% 23.6% 17.7% 2.1 $41,144 Meade County 30,698 79.9% 69.6% 57.7% 8.8 $33,857 Mellette County 1,892 60.0% 29.8% 17.3% 1.4 $16,826 Miner County 2,304 94.4% 75.0% 71.4% 4.0 $32,033 Minnehaha County 203,971 98.7% 98.2% 96.9% 252.8 $39,289 Moody County 6,349 99.9% 77.7% 77.7% 12.2 $35,419 Oglala Lakota County 13,519 70.0% 78.1% 61.9% 6.5 $10,955 Pennington County 114,461 91.1% 92.8% 87.9% 41.2 $38,951 Perkins County 2,804 97.2% 60.4% 60.2% 1.0 $40,235 Potter County 2,438 100.0% 55.3% 55.3% 2.8 $34,335 Roberts County 10,163 97.7% 56.7% 54.7% 9.2 $28,613 Sanborn County 2,415 94.2% 71.2% 67.9% 4.2 $35,468 Spink County 6,235 91.2% 12.3% 11.6% 4.1 $37,138 Stanley County 2,999 85.8% 89.8% 79.3% 2.1 $46,652 Sully County 1,471 100.0% 77.6% 77.6% 1.5 $45,475 Todd County 9,220 44.2% 78.9% 41.3% 6.6 $12,562 Tripp County 5,565 90.6% 71.6% 66.3% 3.5 $29,463 Turner County 8,856 92.5% 74.7% 70.4% 14.4 $36,103 Union County 17,063 96.5% 92.8% 90.0% 37.0 $47,193 Walworth County 5,265 93.6% 85.1% 80.6% 7.4 $35,602 Yankton County 23,373 87.8% 85.5% 78.0% 44.8 $37,202 Ziebach County 2,395 94.0% 58.0% 55.7% 1.2 $23,657 Tennessee 7,051,339 92.2% 84.6% 80.8% 171.0 $36,040 Anderson County 78,913 94.9% 91.6% 88.2% 234.0 $32,803 Bedford County 51,950 76.6% 71.8% 60.4% 109.7 $28,520 Benton County 16,002 55.8% 44.7% 32.2% 40.6 $27,185 Bledsoe County 14,798 72.3% 41.5% 39.3% 36.4 $24,241 Blount County 139,958 93.2% 92.3% 87.4% 250.5 $36,376 Bradley County 110,616 90.2% 89.0% 83.2% 336.5 $31,121 Campbell County 39,584 74.8% 69.8% 59.2% 82.4 $26,791 Cannon County 14,788 66.6% 72.4% 52.6% 55.7 $30,234 Carroll County 28,458 62.8% 59.9% 46.8% 47.6 $26,818 Carter County 56,410 88.8% 75.2% 70.0% 165.3 $28,321 Cheatham County 41,830 86.5% 78.6% 70.9% 138.3 $35,852 Chester County 17,609 85.6% 56.7% 51.6% 61.6 $24,788 Claiborne County 32,431 95.3% 63.8% 62.1% 74.6 $25,408 Clay County 7,620 100.0% 37.8% 37.8% 32.2 $22,931 Cocke County 36,879 63.5% 63.6% 51.0% 84.6 $25,864 Coffee County 59,728 92.1% 55.8% 53.0% 139.2 $29,277 Crockett County 13,888 100.0% 59.0% 59.0% 52.3 $30,362 Cumberland County 63,522 73.7% 62.9% 50.8% 93.2 $30,952 Davidson County 708,144 99.3% 99.5% 98.9% 1,405.9 $45,951 DeKalb County 21,003 91.9% 57.5% 53.2% 69.0 $27,684 Decatur County 11,564 46.4% 35.5% 25.5% 34.6 $27,578 Dickson County 55,761 68.5% 82.1% 60.7% 113.8 $33,582 Dyer County 36,410 99.5% 78.3% 78.0% 71.1 $37,415 Fayette County 43,630 77.7% 65.0% 58.0% 61.9 $40,613 Fentress County 19,332 100.0% 29.1% 29.1% 38.8 $24,595 Franklin County 43,942 74.9% 53.4% 43.1% 79.2 $31,395 Gibson County 50,837 93.8% 69.4% 66.0% 84.3 $27,742 Giles County 30,554 48.5% 64.8% 43.3% 50.0 $31,852 Grainger County 24,277 79.5% 49.4% 42.7% 86.5 $26,545 Greene County 71,405 88.7% 63.6% 59.0% 114.8 $28,237 Grundy County 13,783 90.7% 42.7% 40.0% 38.2 $25,075 Hamblen County 65,168 98.4% 77.0% 76.3% 404.3 $27,845 Hamilton County 374,682 99.6% 97.3% 97.1% 691.1 $41,198 Hancock County 6,845 99.7% 1.6% 1.6% 30.8 $24,120 Hardeman County 25,529 76.7% 53.8% 46.6% 38.2 $22,098 Hardin County 27,077 60.0% 51.4% 36.6% 46.9 $26,068 Hawkins County 58,043 97.2% 77.9% 75.9% 119.2 $28,648 Haywood County 17,550 77.1% 69.7% 61.4% 32.9 $26,031 Henderson County 27,929 59.1% 53.5% 38.1% 53.7 $25,873 Henry County 32,379 83.0% 53.3% 45.8% 57.6 $28,098 Hickman County 25,455 86.3% 29.7% 26.7% 41.6 $27,764 Houston County 8,219 95.8% 24.4% 23.8% 41.0 $27,053 Humphreys County 19,106 100.0% 45.0% 45.0% 36.0 $29,561 Jackson County 11,989 99.8% 22.4% 22.4% 38.8 $25,534 Jefferson County 56,727 85.6% 76.7% 67.0% 206.2 $31,947 Johnson County 18,086 81.8% 41.9% 37.6% 60.6 $26,627 Knox County 494,574 98.5% 98.7% 97.3% 972.9 $39,608 Lake County 6,507 100.0% 23.5% 23.5% 39.2 $19,695 Lauderdale County 24,793 96.8% 50.7% 48.7% 52.5 $24,358 Lawrence County 45,415 75.4% 64.6% 53.2% 73.6 $26,865 Lewis County 12,957 97.9% 51.2% 50.7% 45.9 $26,873 Lincoln County 36,004 72.4% 64.6% 51.4% 63.1 $32,016 Loudon County 58,181 86.8% 90.8% 82.5% 253.8 $40,425 Macon County 26,229 100.0% 18.4% 18.4% 85.4 $24,979 Madison County 99,245 97.1% 84.8% 84.0% 178.1 $31,380 Marion County 29,094 99.3% 65.7% 65.4% 58.4 $29,314 Marshall County 35,878 77.4% 53.4% 45.2% 95.6 $32,225 Maury County 108,159 87.1% 87.2% 80.5% 176.4 $35,733 McMinn County 54,719 66.1% 55.5% 45.1% 127.2 $30,334 McNairy County 25,988 47.3% 45.0% 27.1% 46.2 $25,004 Meigs County 13,272 58.2% 47.6% 31.8% 68.0 $26,843 Monroe County 47,740 63.8% 38.8% 30.4% 75.1 $27,356 Montgomery County 235,201 98.2% 96.6% 95.1% 436.2 $31,438 Moore County 6,742 47.0% 34.0% 17.4% 52.2 $35,178 Morgan County 21,224 99.9% 42.7% 42.6% 40.6 $27,320 Obion County 30,394 97.5% 70.8% 68.3% 55.8 $28,782 Overton County 23,044 99.9% 53.6% 53.5% 53.2 $29,556 Perry County 8,685 99.8% 35.6% 35.6% 20.9 $30,870 Pickett County 5,107 99.9% 34.7% 34.7% 31.3 $27,259 Polk County 17,863 70.0% 25.7% 19.9% 41.1 $30,400 Putnam County 82,382 90.8% 82.7% 75.5% 205.4 $29,419 Rhea County 33,730 82.1% 69.6% 62.7% 106.9 $26,678 Roane County 55,082 86.0% 68.6% 64.6% 152.7 $36,579 Robertson County 75,470 86.3% 92.3% 82.4% 158.4 $35,093 Rutherford County 360,619 97.9% 98.6% 96.9% 582.3 $35,135 Scott County 22,035 100.0% 61.2% 61.2% 41.4 $22,273 Sequatchie County 16,909 87.1% 75.2% 68.1% 63.6 $25,954 Sevier County 98,789 85.1% 87.9% 78.2% 166.7 $31,603 Shelby County 916,371 98.2% 98.4% 97.1% 1,204.9 $36,230 Smith County 20,489 96.5% 55.8% 53.2% 65.2 $31,446 Stewart County 14,035 86.2% 36.5% 32.7% 30.5 $28,362 Sullivan County 160,820 96.4% 90.8% 87.7% 389.0 $33,934 Sumner County 203,858 96.7% 94.9% 92.5% 385.0 $40,419 Tipton County 61,656 92.1% 51.0% 48.6% 135.3 $31,909 Trousdale County 12,111 96.5% 32.0% 31.9% 105.9 $26,522 Unicoi County 17,674 97.2% 77.6% 76.8% 95.0 $27,930 Union County 20,452 70.9% 66.0% 49.6% 91.5 $28,174 Van Buren County 6,429 78.5% 38.3% 33.3% 23.5 $24,099 Warren County 42,026 87.5% 61.4% 54.3% 97.1 $27,059 Washington County 136,172 94.2% 89.4% 85.0% 417.1 $35,562 Wayne County 16,308 38.8% 36.0% 28.9% 22.2 $26,538 Weakley County 33,063 82.7% 61.8% 57.6% 57.0 $26,820 White County 28,064 91.7% 67.2% 62.7% 74.5 $26,213 Williamson County 260,815 95.0% 97.6% 93.5% 447.5 $61,451 Wilson County 158,555 93.6% 94.8% 89.1% 277.7 $42,978 Texas 30,029,572 92.8% 95.1% 89.7% 114.9 $37,514 Anderson County 58,064 42.2% 33.8% 26.3% 54.6 $23,548 Andrews County 18,334 95.5% 71.8% 71.4% 12.2 $39,749 Angelina County 87,101 65.8% 73.2% 54.6% 109.2 $27,460 Aransas County 24,944 99.7% 97.9% 97.7% 99.0 $40,890 Archer County 8,835 88.8% 63.4% 57.6% 9.8 $37,873 Armstrong County 1,850 99.0% 27.5% 27.3% 2.0 $31,823 Atascosa County 50,864 55.0% 85.3% 52.8% 41.7 $27,386 Austin County 31,097 94.5% 82.6% 79.5% 48.1 $36,399 Bailey County 6,779 99.9% 81.9% 81.9% 8.2 $29,674 Bandera County 22,115 89.8% 65.2% 59.8% 28.0 $39,162 Bastrop County 106,188 76.8% 80.5% 65.8% 119.6 $34,079 Baylor County 3,466 92.6% 72.2% 72.1% 4.0 $31,392 Bee County 30,394 96.7% 71.2% 69.5% 34.5 $22,347 Bell County 388,386 96.9% 95.4% 93.0% 368.5 $31,822 Bexar County 2,059,530 94.5% 99.9% 94.5% 1,660.5 $33,963 Blanco County 12,418 91.0% 77.6% 73.2% 17.5 $46,356 Borden County 585 54.9% 37.6% 33.0% 0.7 $39,276 Bosque County 18,697 61.8% 59.3% 37.5% 19.0 $32,990 Bowie County 92,035 84.0% 81.8% 74.1% 104.0 $30,103 Brazoria County 388,181 88.1% 98.3% 87.4% 284.7 $39,891 Brazos County 242,014 96.3% 98.2% 95.2% 412.9 $32,499 Brewster County 9,343 78.5% 84.1% 72.2% 1.5 $35,516 Briscoe County 1,431 96.4% 81.8% 81.7% 1.6 $29,721 Brooks County 6,906 93.4% 87.6% 85.8% 7.3 $20,308 Brown County 38,373 99.0% 83.8% 83.6% 40.6 $30,202 Burleson County 18,657 55.4% 69.1% 40.4% 28.3 $38,918 Burnet County 52,502 87.2% 81.2% 74.7% 52.8 $40,628 Caldwell County 47,848 83.4% 73.8% 64.7% 87.9 $28,742 Calhoun County 19,706 87.7% 93.1% 83.7% 38.9 $33,754 Callahan County 14,210 95.0% 67.9% 66.5% 15.8 $31,856 Cameron County 425,208 97.4% 99.4% 97.0% 476.8 $21,440 Camp County 12,716 94.1% 45.9% 45.7% 64.9 $28,004 Carson County 5,784 83.1% 76.7% 67.6% 6.3 $40,192 Cass County 28,539 41.2% 60.0% 36.9% 30.5 $28,608 Castro County 7,298 82.8% 80.2% 71.3% 8.2 $25,425 Chambers County 51,288 85.6% 95.9% 83.0% 85.9 $42,628 Cherokee County 51,645 42.2% 55.0% 32.6% 49.0 $26,790 Childress County 6,809 84.0% 69.8% 68.7% 9.8 $27,466 Clay County 10,486 94.4% 61.2% 60.2% 9.6 $35,847 Cochran County 2,526 83.4% 16.4% 9.0% 3.3 $23,748 Coke County 3,333 80.9% 71.3% 67.8% 3.7 $28,397 Coleman County 7,850 90.6% 73.3% 72.8% 6.2 $31,249 Collin County 1,158,696 96.1% 99.7% 95.8% 1,377.3 $52,654 Collingsworth County 2,568 85.7% 78.0% 75.6% 2.8 $33,436 Colorado County 20,754 70.5% 80.1% 65.3% 21.6 $35,002 Comal County 184,642 94.0% 96.6% 90.8% 330.0 $47,280 Comanche County 13,878 75.1% 74.0% 62.8% 14.8 $31,171 Concho County 3,340 95.2% 58.2% 57.7% 3.4 $24,207 Cooke County 43,050 89.3% 73.5% 69.5% 49.2 $36,275 Coryell County 85,057 88.7% 91.8% 85.1% 80.8 $26,699 Cottle County 1,307 96.5% 83.0% 82.5% 1.5 $26,081 Crane County 4,546 18.9% 98.7% 18.9% 5.8 $31,973 Crockett County 2,943 1.0% 89.1% 0.9% 1.0 $35,942 Crosby County 4,998 96.5% 88.4% 86.4% 5.6 $30,888 Culberson County 2,155 68.2% 94.9% 67.9% 0.6 $29,295 Dallam County 7,241 96.2% 67.8% 66.4% 4.8 $28,936 Dallas County 2,600,840 96.5% 100.0% 96.5% 2,979.0 $39,172 Dawson County 12,130 99.1% 92.4% 91.9% 13.5 $22,002 DeWitt County 19,772 51.1% 84.9% 49.9% 21.8 $29,359 Deaf Smith County 18,377 98.4% 82.4% 81.7% 12.3 $23,310 Delta County 5,406 93.6% 78.9% 76.3% 21.0 $34,345 Denton County 977,281 95.8% 99.8% 95.5% 1,112.4 $50,470 Dickens County 1,726 94.0% 81.8% 78.4% 1.9 $28,798 Dimmit County 8,387 78.2% 81.6% 67.5% 6.3 $19,505 Donley County 3,339 17.5% 84.2% 15.5% 3.6 $25,682 Duval County 9,888 93.6% 90.8% 88.2% 5.5 $21,606 Eastland County 17,944 89.6% 78.4% 73.9% 19.4 $31,197 Ector County 160,869 98.1% 99.3% 97.6% 179.2 $34,267 Edwards County 1,422 7.2% 78.3% 4.2% 0.7 $25,218 El Paso County 868,763 99.4% 99.9% 99.3% 857.4 $26,011 Ellis County 212,182 96.4% 97.9% 94.9% 226.8 $38,628 Erath County 43,895 84.3% 74.6% 68.6% 40.5 $32,181 Falls County 17,049 45.3% 63.8% 16.2% 22.3 $29,183 Fannin County 37,125 77.9% 67.0% 56.5% 41.7 $33,481 Fayette County 24,913 59.9% 80.8% 53.1% 26.2 $37,849 Fisher County 3,622 81.6% 64.9% 60.8% 4.0 $32,722 Floyd County 5,235 78.6% 73.5% 63.9% 5.3 $28,755 Foard County 1,057 92.3% 75.6% 75.6% 1.5 $27,262 Fort Bend County 889,146 97.1% 99.9% 97.0% 1,031.8 $45,172 Franklin County 10,618 88.1% 67.3% 60.5% 37.3 $39,246 Freestone County 19,950 87.1% 43.8% 41.5% 22.7 $28,201 Frio County 17,815 76.0% 71.2% 59.1% 15.7 $22,779 Gaines County 22,181 98.8% 76.4% 76.3% 14.8 $28,701 Galveston County 357,117 96.6% 99.7% 96.3% 941.6 $42,603 Garza County 6,262 86.6% 89.9% 81.8% 7.0 $22,188 Gillespie County 27,477 96.4% 70.9% 70.5% 26.0 $42,067 Glasscock County 1,164 81.9% 33.6% 30.7% 1.3 $50,449 Goliad County 7,131 63.8% 69.9% 50.9% 8.4 $36,114 Gonzales County 19,832 53.6% 62.9% 30.7% 18.6 $32,807 Gray County 21,015 98.9% 94.2% 93.8% 22.7 $30,303 Grayson County 143,131 95.9% 90.1% 87.6% 153.4 $34,643 Gregg County 125,443 93.7% 92.0% 88.3% 458.9 $32,236 Grimes County 30,754 76.6% 75.8% 60.6% 39.1 $28,792 Guadalupe County 182,760 93.0% 98.0% 91.6% 257.0 $37,184 Hale County 31,827 92.6% 85.7% 84.6% 31.7 $23,696 Hall County 2,810 87.2% 80.9% 72.8% 3.2 $26,847 Hamilton County 8,298 79.5% 70.8% 67.2% 9.9 $36,764 Hansford County 5,151 84.0% 58.1% 55.2% 5.6 $27,585 Hardeman County 3,516 97.6% 90.3% 89.8% 5.1 $29,783 Hardin County 57,811 81.4% 84.2% 72.9% 64.9 $33,700 Harris County 4,780,913 96.4% 100.0% 96.4% 2,800.8 $38,184 Harrison County 69,955 71.2% 67.8% 57.3% 77.7 $30,613 Hartley County 5,208 84.6% 77.3% 71.9% 3.6 $27,850 Haskell County 5,403 88.8% 70.7% 68.4% 6.0 $37,600 Hays County 269,225 96.7% 98.4% 95.5% 397.8 $38,909 Hemphill County 3,217 83.0% 39.0% 31.9% 3.5 $40,940 Henderson County 84,511 60.5% 53.9% 39.9% 96.7 $32,513 Hidalgo County 888,367 95.1% 99.9% 95.0% 565.5 $20,844 Hill County 37,329 78.9% 54.6% 48.3% 38.9 $30,730 Hockley County 21,161 96.4% 91.1% 89.8% 23.3 $28,809 Hood County 66,373 90.4% 92.7% 85.6% 157.8 $41,729 Hopkins County 37,804 95.5% 73.7% 72.3% 49.3 $32,100 Houston County 21,950 43.3% 60.0% 40.1% 17.8 $25,346 Howard County 33,672 96.7% 94.8% 92.6% 37.4 $32,431 Hudspeth County 3,432 7.2% 82.7% 7.2% 0.8 $16,368 Hunt County 108,282 95.0% 77.4% 75.0% 128.8 $31,362 Hutchinson County 20,215 93.1% 91.0% 87.1% 22.8 $30,038 Irion County 1,530 82.4% 74.5% 67.7% 1.5 $29,664 Jack County 8,922 82.5% 25.2% 19.3% 9.8 $28,626 Jackson County 15,142 87.7% 75.9% 70.1% 18.3 $29,684 Jasper County 32,484 35.9% 73.9% 31.2% 34.6 $31,251 Jeff Davis County 1,903 29.8% 52.0% 21.0% 0.8 $38,603 Jefferson County 250,830 92.3% 98.4% 90.9% 286.1 $30,770 Jim Hogg County 4,763 24.9% 97.8% 24.8% 4.2 $18,366 Jim Wells County 38,826 97.8% 86.8% 85.4% 44.9 $25,030 Johnson County 195,506 97.2% 97.2% 95.0% 269.7 $32,728 Jones County 19,935 91.1% 60.0% 58.0% 21.5 $21,173 Karnes County 14,836 52.1% 82.2% 47.8% 19.8 $25,910 Kaufman County 172,366 97.5% 90.2% 87.8% 220.8 $33,250 Kendall County 48,973 94.1% 82.6% 79.3% 73.9 $56,063 Kenedy County 358 22.9% 42.2% 10.9% 0.2 $21,822 Kent County 740 92.7% 75.4% 73.6% 0.8 $29,575 Kerr County 53,741 91.2% 73.9% 69.2% 48.7 $38,003 Kimble County 4,422 63.3% 74.4% 57.8% 3.5 $39,045 King County 233 84.5% 54.5% 53.6% 0.3 $26,408 Kinney County 3,128 0.0% 95.4% 0.0% 2.3 $29,833 Kleberg County 30,362 98.2% 97.5% 96.2% 34.5 $25,876 Knox County 3,273 95.3% 0.3% 0.1% 3.8 $24,892 La Salle County 6,604 67.5% 65.6% 51.6% 4.4 $15,492 Lamar County 50,484 81.4% 76.0% 67.9% 55.6 $29,888 Lamb County 12,724 94.7% 86.6% 84.8% 12.5 $26,687 Lampasas County 22,785 93.2% 74.3% 70.6% 32.0 $33,787 Lavaca County 20,589 58.2% 79.8% 53.9% 21.2 $34,591 Lee County 17,954 72.1% 69.1% 57.5% 28.5 $31,001 Leon County 16,209 35.4% 47.6% 24.4% 15.1 $34,519 Liberty County 101,992 54.0% 86.0% 48.8% 88.0 $25,667 Limestone County 22,253 90.4% 39.0% 36.9% 24.6 $26,479 Lipscomb County 2,854 62.3% 1.8% 0.5% 3.1 $33,236 Live Oak County 11,428 74.5% 62.3% 56.7% 11.0 $27,951 Llano County 22,540 87.9% 78.1% 71.2% 24.1 $48,116 Loving County 51 35.3% 64.7% 35.3% 0.1 $44,821 Lubbock County 317,561 97.5% 97.7% 95.5% 354.6 $33,700 Lynn County 5,724 94.9% 80.0% 76.1% 6.4 $31,000 Madison County 13,661 74.3% 65.6% 60.6% 29.3 $24,340 Marion County 9,560 29.1% 35.4% 25.5% 25.1 $27,263 Martin County 5,217 93.8% 83.3% 80.0% 5.7 $36,881 Mason County 3,982 82.4% 61.3% 57.5% 4.3 $36,235 Matagorda County 36,125 85.4% 89.5% 78.5% 33.1 $29,001 Maverick County 57,843 94.4% 95.8% 90.7% 45.2 $21,405 McCulloch County 7,497 97.3% 83.5% 82.9% 7.0 $29,514 McLennan County 266,836 94.0% 85.6% 81.9% 257.4 $31,036 McMullen County 576 74.8% 50.5% 43.9% 0.5 $27,029 Medina County 53,723 48.6% 80.2% 43.7% 40.5 $31,516 Menard County 1,968 91.4% 74.2% 73.2% 2.2 $31,983 Midland County 171,999 91.8% 97.6% 89.7% 191.0 $46,914 Milam County 25,628 90.8% 65.8% 62.6% 25.2 $31,984 Mills County 4,500 91.3% 68.0% 61.9% 6.0 $37,010 Mitchell County 8,943 75.8% 81.1% 70.2% 9.8 $24,591 Montague County 21,063 88.7% 71.8% 67.8% 22.6 $31,125 Montgomery County 678,490 84.8% 99.7% 84.6% 651.0 $48,161 Moore County 20,996 98.4% 95.1% 94.2% 23.3 $26,321 Morris County 12,083 53.0% 31.2% 16.1% 48.0 $26,199 Motley County 1,032 91.5% 84.9% 83.9% 1.0 $29,788 Nacogdoches County 64,862 59.4% 72.6% 53.7% 68.5 $27,584 Navarro County 54,636 95.3% 61.8% 60.9% 54.1 $26,910 Newton County 12,052 11.8% 47.8% 9.5% 12.9 $23,995 Nolan County 14,473 83.4% 82.5% 77.5% 15.9 $30,572 Nueces County 351,674 98.3% 99.2% 97.6% 419.1 $32,284 Ochiltree County 9,606 87.2% 28.9% 27.0% 10.5 $30,836 Oldham County 1,752 88.2% 69.3% 64.4% 1.2 $27,710 Orange County 84,934 86.7% 93.8% 84.1% 254.5 $35,301 Palo Pinto County 29,239 80.1% 77.5% 65.5% 30.7 $31,890 Panola County 22,677 43.7% 44.8% 33.1% 27.9 $32,024 Parker County 165,834 96.3% 91.6% 88.8% 183.5 $43,434 Parmer County 9,620 86.6% 86.0% 73.2% 10.9 $28,342 Pecos County 14,735 79.6% 82.8% 72.2% 3.1 $28,217 Polk County 53,255 56.7% 64.8% 40.3% 50.4 $27,922 Potter County 115,645 93.4% 94.6% 89.7% 127.3 $26,406 Presidio County 5,939 70.5% 71.6% 60.2% 1.5 $22,256 Rains County 12,823 99.6% 44.1% 44.1% 55.9 $36,069 Randall County 146,140 94.7% 94.2% 89.8% 160.1 $40,047 Reagan County 3,135 94.5% 96.3% 93.4% 2.7 $28,765 Real County 2,840 54.0% 47.1% 37.0% 4.1 $22,725 Red River County 11,542 49.6% 46.1% 35.2% 11.1 $25,057 Reeves County 12,905 86.7% 89.5% 82.6% 4.9 $26,180 Refugio County 6,632 87.2% 87.5% 77.5% 8.6 $27,103 Roberts County 803 37.7% 8.7% 1.5% 0.9 $32,250 Robertson County 17,153 86.6% 51.8% 48.0% 20.1 $30,568 Rockwall County 123,208 99.5% 99.7% 99.2% 968.6 $53,000 Runnels County 9,859 93.9% 69.4% 68.3% 9.4 $29,784 Rusk County 53,333 57.0% 55.4% 40.9% 57.7 $30,365 Sabine County 10,048 21.3% 25.6% 4.3% 20.4 $33,953 San Augustine County 7,857 22.1% 46.3% 18.1% 14.8 $24,673 San Jacinto County 28,348 37.0% 56.9% 21.8% 49.8 $28,124 San Patricio County 69,954 99.6% 95.1% 94.8% 100.9 $30,692 San Saba County 5,824 79.5% 74.5% 63.1% 5.1 $26,377 Schleicher County 2,357 90.4% 85.4% 83.6% 1.8 $28,084 Scurry County 16,686 85.4% 77.7% 73.9% 18.4 $28,549 Shackelford County 3,186 89.7% 84.1% 83.6% 3.5 $32,245 Shelby County 24,008 25.3% 46.9% 17.0% 30.2 $26,642 Sherman County 2,799 94.5% 86.6% 84.1% 3.0 $43,340 Smith County 241,922 65.2% 84.5% 60.4% 262.5 $33,903 Somervell County 9,757 54.4% 68.3% 43.2% 52.4 $39,037 Starr County 65,728 94.4% 94.9% 90.2% 53.7 $16,934 Stephens County 9,390 94.2% 78.1% 77.6% 10.5 $28,231 Sterling County 1,417 87.1% 2.7% 1.0% 1.5 $31,039 Stonewall County 1,182 86.8% 83.7% 79.1% 1.3 $26,733 Sutton County 3,217 86.2% 86.9% 83.8% 2.2 $22,836 Swisher County 6,881 99.0% 82.3% 82.1% 7.7 $21,371 Tarrant County 2,154,595 96.7% 100.0% 96.7% 2,490.0 $39,407 Taylor County 145,163 99.1% 88.6% 88.1% 158.6 $31,492 Terrell County 693 88.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.3 $36,144 Terry County 11,567 98.5% 92.4% 91.5% 13.0 $25,206 Throckmorton County 1,550 81.4% 48.2% 47.9% 1.7 $30,381 Titus County 31,208 82.6% 76.0% 70.3% 76.9 $25,058 Tom Green County 118,892 98.9% 93.3% 92.7% 78.1 $33,861 Travis County 1,326,436 95.6% 98.0% 93.9% 1,334.4 $54,870 Trinity County 13,996 18.5% 52.8% 13.0% 20.2 $30,911 Tyler County 20,030 33.0% 64.9% 20.7% 21.7 $29,594 Upshur County 42,488 62.5% 51.2% 34.0% 72.9 $30,236 Upton County 3,152 4.6% 24.9% 0.0% 2.5 $27,385 Uvalde County 24,940 84.2% 82.6% 74.3% 16.1 $26,141 Val Verde County 47,606 90.6% 92.0% 86.5% 15.1 $25,181 Van Zandt County 62,859 90.3% 52.5% 51.0% 74.6 $33,092 Victoria County 91,065 91.9% 93.5% 87.8% 103.2 $31,747 Walker County 78,870 60.0% 85.2% 52.3% 100.6 $23,220 Waller County 61,894 85.6% 96.5% 83.0% 120.6 $32,446 Ward County 10,964 96.4% 97.2% 94.1% 13.1 $30,854 Washington County 36,159 98.0% 82.5% 81.7% 59.8 $39,147 Webb County 267,780 95.3% 98.4% 93.8% 79.7 $23,446 Wharton County 41,824 81.2% 88.4% 77.3% 38.5 $29,061 Wheeler County 4,807 79.6% 42.9% 36.3% 5.3 $30,454 Wichita County 129,978 91.0% 96.9% 88.5% 207.1 $30,834 Wilbarger County 12,491 91.3% 20.8% 19.1% 12.9 $24,291 Willacy County 20,143 80.7% 95.0% 76.2% 34.1 $20,229 Williamson County 671,418 97.1% 96.5% 94.1% 601.7 $47,574 Wilson County 52,735 65.9% 79.7% 55.4% 65.6 $40,952 Winkler County 7,306 87.2% 87.4% 87.1% 8.7 $32,325 Wise County 74,895 99.8% 82.0% 81.9% 82.8 $36,614 Wood County 46,857 84.7% 51.8% 47.9% 72.6 $34,541 Yoakum County 7,451 89.3% 92.1% 85.5% 9.3 $34,168 Young County 17,962 95.4% 74.9% 74.8% 19.6 $35,039 Zapata County 13,849 92.5% 76.3% 71.5% 13.9 $19,139 Zavala County 9,377 78.9% 94.7% 78.5% 7.2 $20,409 U.S. Virgin Isl. 105,413 99.4% 89.9% 89.5% 784.5 NA St. Croix Island 51,166 99.8% 86.7% 86.5% 613.8 NA St. John Island 5,051 98.9% 64.3% 64.0% 256.5 NA St. Thomas Island 49,196 99.1% 95.8% 95.1% 1,570.9 NA Utah 3,380,800 97.1% 98.5% 96.2% 41.0 $37,023 Beaver County 7,327 94.2% 95.4% 91.0% 2.8 $28,176 Box Elder County 61,498 90.5% 96.0% 87.1% 10.7 $30,762 Cache County 140,173 98.6% 99.6% 98.4% 120.3 $29,298 Carbon County 20,571 99.0% 92.2% 91.6% 13.9 $26,450 Daggett County 1,014 42.6% 93.4% 42.6% 1.5 $27,261 Davis County 369,948 99.5% 100.0% 99.5% 1,237.0 $39,218 Duchesne County 20,161 57.1% 77.9% 52.4% 6.2 $28,650 Emery County 10,099 98.5% 93.9% 93.1% 2.3 $27,771 Garfield County 5,281 72.3% 83.3% 65.7% 1.0 $29,240 Grand County 9,769 98.3% 88.8% 88.2% 2.7 $37,510 Iron County 62,429 98.2% 98.0% 97.0% 18.9 $26,650 Juab County 12,567 88.4% 99.0% 87.6% 3.7 $31,545 Kane County 8,227 70.2% 83.1% 64.0% 2.1 $36,941 Millard County 13,330 78.4% 82.5% 70.5% 2.0 $27,757 Morgan County 12,832 94.3% 90.0% 86.6% 21.1 $40,485 Piute County 1,487 58.8% 90.8% 58.8% 2.0 $19,919 Rich County 2,628 64.5% 62.0% 43.6% 2.6 $26,796 Salt Lake County 1,186,257 98.7% 100.0% 98.7% 1,598.6 $40,969 San Juan County 14,359 49.6% 42.5% 33.1% 1.8 $25,591 Sanpete County 29,724 91.8% 88.4% 82.1% 18.7 $25,257 Sevier County 22,069 95.7% 62.0% 59.5% 11.6 $28,859 Summit County 43,036 89.1% 97.7% 88.4% 23.0 $67,602 Tooele County 79,934 98.8% 99.8% 98.7% 11.5 $34,733 Uintah County 37,141 78.9% 91.1% 76.6% 8.3 $27,977 Utah County 702,434 97.5% 99.9% 97.5% 350.5 $33,251 Wasatch County 36,619 92.3% 97.0% 90.8% 31.1 $51,178 Washington County 197,680 99.0% 97.6% 96.9% 81.4 $36,047 Wayne County 2,645 68.4% 88.8% 66.0% 1.1 $32,605 Weber County 269,561 99.3% 99.9% 99.3% 467.8 $34,778 Vermont 647,064 82.3% 53.0% 48.0% 70.2 $41,680 Addison County 37,578 66.1% 49.7% 43.0% 49.1 $42,271 Bennington County 37,392 88.6% 41.9% 39.2% 55.4 $39,717 Caledonia County 30,579 63.1% 56.0% 43.8% 47.1 $36,604 Chittenden County 169,301 95.0% 68.2% 65.9% 315.1 $47,458 Essex County 5,994 40.0% 40.4% 26.0% 9.0 $31,891 Franklin County 50,731 76.8% 41.4% 37.2% 80.4 $35,531 Grand Isle County 7,489 59.7% 13.2% 10.6% 91.6 $48,551 Lamoille County 26,090 65.1% 45.0% 37.4% 56.4 $42,778 Orange County 29,846 76.0% 26.2% 19.5% 43.4 $38,709 Orleans County 27,666 63.9% 30.8% 23.5% 39.8 $34,365 Rutland County 60,366 91.9% 64.8% 62.8% 64.9 $36,845 Washington County 60,048 71.0% 68.2% 53.5% 87.5 $43,002 Windham County 45,842 81.0% 32.3% 29.9% 58.4 $40,284 Windsor County 58,142 96.0% 49.1% 48.0% 60.0 $43,180 Virginia 8,683,619 92.3% 86.0% 82.1% 219.9 $47,210 Accomack County 33,191 80.6% 47.8% 41.2% 73.9 $31,570 Albemarle County 114,534 96.8% 68.4% 67.7% 159.0 $55,347 Alexandria city 155,525 99.8% 100.0% 99.8% 10,413.2 $75,884 Alleghany County 14,835 79.8% 57.4% 53.7% 33.2 $30,143 Amelia County 13,455 71.6% 28.4% 23.2% 37.9 $34,122 Amherst County 31,589 98.6% 37.3% 37.3% 66.6 $34,137 Appomattox County 16,748 98.9% 31.1% 31.0% 50.1 $31,654 Arlington County 234,000 100.0% 99.8% 99.7% 9,000.9 $85,221 Augusta County 78,064 71.4% 73.5% 60.0% 80.7 $35,582 Bath County 4,049 45.0% 12.4% 6.3% 7.7 $33,856 Bedford County 80,848 98.8% 49.2% 49.1% 106.4 $40,552 Bland County 6,148 49.1% 34.0% 21.6% 17.2 $27,904 Botetourt County 34,135 81.2% 70.8% 59.1% 63.1 $40,289 Bristol city 16,975 100.0% 97.4% 97.4% 1,318.8 $30,419 Brunswick County 15,921 38.5% 32.6% 8.4% 28.1 $26,491 Buchanan County 19,352 91.0% 1.8% 1.8% 38.5 $24,126 Buckingham County 16,982 70.2% 22.7% 17.0% 29.3 $27,139 Buena Vista city 6,591 98.4% 98.6% 97.5% 1,023.7 $32,925 Campbell County 55,141 99.4% 65.9% 65.8% 109.6 $31,877 Caroline County 31,957 53.4% 41.5% 22.1% 60.6 $38,432 Carroll County 29,147 45.6% 33.3% 17.6% 61.4 $27,972 Charles City County 6,605 66.9% 50.3% 33.9% 36.1 $38,351 Charlotte County 11,475 83.6% 34.9% 30.0% 24.1 $27,159 Charlottesville city 45,373 99.2% 97.8% 97.0% 4,428.8 $45,625 Chesapeake city 252,488 97.9% 99.4% 97.5% 746.0 $42,753 Chesterfield County 378,408 98.3% 98.1% 96.6% 893.5 $45,041 Clarke County 15,266 57.3% 69.2% 43.0% 86.8 $50,751 Colonial Heights city 18,294 99.8% 100.0% 99.8% 2,432.9 $37,039 Covington city 5,679 98.1% 98.8% 97.0% 1,038.5 $24,657 Craig County 4,847 24.2% 40.5% 21.7% 14.8 $32,020 Culpeper County 54,381 85.5% 66.0% 60.0% 143.4 $39,062 Cumberland County 9,746 89.1% 47.7% 45.4% 32.8 $38,099 Danville city 42,229 98.7% 96.9% 95.7% 986.7 $26,453 Dickenson County 13,725 71.7% 22.0% 20.8% 41.5 $25,003 Dinwiddie County 28,161 50.4% 58.3% 43.6% 55.9 $35,506 Emporia city 5,481 98.8% 90.1% 89.2% 793.9 $24,915 Essex County 10,630 57.9% 53.9% 39.4% 41.3 $29,021 Fairfax County 1,138,331 99.6% 95.7% 95.3% 2,911.2 $67,598 Fairfax city 24,835 100.0% 99.0% 98.9% 3,979.7 $59,688 Falls Church city 14,586 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 7,127.5 $83,001 Fauquier County 74,664 70.0% 63.9% 53.5% 115.2 $54,878 Floyd County 15,619 63.9% 39.3% 28.1% 41.0 $31,788 Fluvanna County 28,159 99.3% 53.5% 53.3% 98.1 $48,426 Franklin County 55,074 94.2% 52.1% 51.3% 79.7 $37,329 Franklin city 8,247 93.1% 99.9% 93.1% 996.3 $29,683 Frederick County 95,051 80.3% 70.0% 59.8% 230.1 $43,375 Fredericksburg city 28,757 99.1% 99.7% 98.9% 2,751.8 $43,063 Galax city 6,730 96.5% 93.6% 90.4% 817.1 $29,802 Giles County 16,453 73.5% 71.8% 58.1% 46.1 $31,917 Gloucester County 39,493 84.3% 86.0% 76.2% 181.3 $39,450 Goochland County 26,109 66.4% 62.5% 44.6% 92.6 $63,645 Grayson County 15,343 45.2% 34.3% 20.6% 34.7 $26,270 Greene County 21,107 84.0% 49.5% 42.0% 135.3 $39,180 Greensville County 11,226 33.7% 45.4% 11.3% 38.0 $22,437 Halifax County 33,644 91.6% 50.1% 48.1% 41.1 $26,440 Hampton city 138,037 98.5% 99.9% 98.4% 2,682.4 $35,002 Hanover County 112,938 78.8% 93.2% 76.1% 241.5 $49,110 Harrisonburg city 51,158 94.1% 97.2% 91.7% 2,950.4 $25,881 Henrico County 333,962 99.0% 98.9% 98.1% 1,429.2 $47,865 Henry County 49,906 89.7% 60.3% 56.7% 130.5 $26,097 Highland County 2,301 71.3% 24.8% 22.7% 5.5 $32,704 Hopewell city 22,962 99.7% 100.0% 99.7% 2,217.6 $25,664 Isle of Wight County 40,151 77.4% 83.3% 68.9% 127.2 $45,230 James City County 81,199 97.9% 97.4% 95.5% 570.6 $50,984 King George County 27,856 69.2% 69.4% 53.1% 155.1 $44,551 King William County 18,492 54.8% 52.7% 31.8% 67.5 $36,145 King and Queen County 6,718 45.6% 46.2% 24.5% 21.3 $38,904 Lancaster County 10,750 74.4% 19.1% 14.7% 80.6 $46,405 Lee County 21,982 96.8% 48.4% 47.6% 50.5 $23,257 Lexington city 7,457 99.5% 100.0% 99.5% 2,983.7 $29,117 Loudoun County 432,085 90.7% 94.9% 86.9% 837.8 $67,251 Louisa County 40,116 45.3% 41.4% 25.3% 81.0 $40,803 Lunenburg County 12,031 60.9% 26.2% 22.3% 27.9 $26,486 Lynchburg city 79,287 94.3% 81.8% 77.4% 1,618.9 $28,478 Madison County 14,000 55.5% 50.7% 34.8% 43.7 $35,772 Manassas Park city 16,703 99.9% 100.0% 99.9% 5,505.6 $41,595 Manassas city 42,642 99.8% 100.0% 99.7% 4,332.2 $42,958 Martinsville city 13,725 99.1% 86.2% 85.7% 1,252.8 $27,052 Mathews County 8,490 80.0% 68.3% 55.2% 98.8 $48,173 Mecklenburg County 30,508 55.8% 43.6% 32.9% 48.8 $31,010 Middlesex County 10,943 65.2% 41.5% 24.3% 84.0 $39,111 Montgomery County 98,915 92.2% 82.0% 79.1% 255.7 $32,776 Nelson County 14,652 96.3% 33.4% 33.1% 31.1 $42,837 New Kent County 24,986 69.6% 84.6% 64.5% 119.0 $49,666 Newport News city 184,306 99.7% 99.8% 99.6% 2,671.5 $36,135 Norfolk city 232,995 92.2% 99.8% 92.0% 4,373.4 $35,761 Northampton County 11,900 80.2% 56.6% 49.2% 56.2 $37,321 Northumberland County 12,302 70.4% 27.2% 18.9% 64.3 $45,156 Norton city 3,609 100.0% 94.8% 94.8% 482.7 $27,666 Nottoway County 15,559 78.8% 67.3% 57.0% 49.5 $27,223 Orange County 37,991 91.1% 68.8% 64.6% 111.4 $41,650 Page County 23,750 61.7% 67.7% 50.3% 76.6 $30,146 Patrick County 17,643 25.9% 38.1% 15.0% 36.5 $32,883 Petersburg city 33,394 96.4% 99.4% 95.8% 1,469.8 $28,146 Pittsylvania County 59,952 96.9% 60.8% 59.9% 61.9 $28,428 Poquoson city 12,582 99.8% 99.8% 99.6% 819.3 $47,329 Portsmouth city 97,029 98.4% 100.0% 98.4% 2,913.7 $31,457 Powhatan County 31,489 90.5% 70.0% 63.7% 121.0 $47,268 Prince Edward County 21,927 99.4% 52.0% 51.8% 62.7 $25,205 Prince George County 43,134 92.7% 82.8% 76.9% 162.6 $31,801 Prince William County 486,943 97.8% 95.1% 93.1% 1,452.4 $48,958 Pulaski County 33,706 79.4% 71.1% 62.0% 105.4 $34,870 Radford city 16,738 98.1% 90.0% 88.7% 1,729.8 $24,835 Rappahannock County 7,502 43.8% 45.9% 33.9% 28.2 $54,654 Richmond County 9,080 61.9% 34.2% 26.9% 47.4 $27,620 Richmond city 229,395 99.6% 100.0% 99.6% 3,828.0 $42,132 Roanoke County 96,914 98.3% 79.5% 79.2% 386.8 $43,125 Roanoke city 97,847 99.6% 94.6% 94.3% 2,301.1 $33,206 Rockbridge County 22,593 77.3% 52.8% 45.3% 37.9 $37,087 Rockingham County 85,397 72.3% 80.1% 61.1% 100.5 $37,180 Russell County 25,448 91.5% 62.0% 58.3% 53.7 $25,939 Salem city 25,523 99.7% 95.6% 95.3% 1,758.4 $37,991 Scott County 21,476 80.8% 54.9% 48.6% 40.1 $26,681 Shenandoah County 44,968 77.9% 72.4% 63.1% 88.5 $34,170 Smyth County 29,449 94.9% 50.2% 48.6% 65.2 $26,660 Southampton County 17,932 41.9% 63.8% 31.7% 29.9 $32,218 Spotsylvania County 146,688 91.8% 77.1% 74.4% 365.4 $44,881 Stafford County 163,380 96.6% 88.9% 86.3% 606.9 $48,971 Staunton city 25,904 98.1% 94.7% 92.7% 1,300.4 $34,581 Suffolk city 98,537 88.6% 96.5% 86.9% 246.9 $44,004 Surry County 6,527 92.7% 65.7% 61.8% 23.4 $36,497 Sussex County 10,680 64.7% 48.7% 38.5% 21.8 $28,788 Tazewell County 39,821 92.0% 60.9% 59.7% 76.8 $27,327 Virginia Beach city 455,618 99.0% 99.6% 98.6% 1,861.8 $45,320 Warren County 41,440 83.7% 53.1% 45.7% 193.1 $37,706 Washington County 53,958 90.3% 63.9% 61.4% 96.1 $33,900 Waynesboro city 22,808 98.4% 99.4% 97.8% 1,523.6 $30,380 Westmoreland County 18,712 73.0% 52.8% 38.6% 81.6 $35,850 Williamsburg city 15,909 98.7% 99.2% 98.0% 1,779.9 $35,264 Winchester city 27,936 99.6% 98.5% 98.2% 3,038.9 $36,012 Wise County 35,421 95.2% 54.4% 53.5% 87.8 $23,702 Wythe County 28,111 60.2% 58.0% 42.6% 60.9 $31,810 York County 71,341 98.6% 98.7% 97.4% 681.3 $47,722 Washington 7,785,786 91.5% 91.7% 86.5% 117.2 $48,685 Adams County 20,961 55.4% 82.0% 50.7% 10.9 $24,609 Asotin County 22,508 95.0% 91.8% 90.9% 35.4 $36,800 Benton County 212,791 97.6% 93.5% 91.6% 125.2 $39,668 Chelan County 79,926 91.5% 87.5% 83.9% 27.4 $39,746 Clallam County 77,805 66.1% 74.2% 55.8% 44.7 $38,181 Clark County 516,779 90.8% 94.1% 89.8% 822.2 $43,872 Columbia County 4,026 66.2% 74.7% 65.8% 4.6 $40,774 Cowlitz County 111,956 83.6% 76.2% 71.4% 98.1 $35,526 Douglas County 44,192 92.9% 93.2% 88.6% 24.3 $39,867 Ferry County 7,448 24.3% 40.3% 17.6% 3.4 $31,355 Franklin County 98,678 88.4% 73.8% 64.0% 79.5 $31,346 Garfield County 2,363 64.4% 63.9% 57.9% 3.3 $31,187 Grant County 101,311 85.1% 85.3% 74.5% 37.8 $29,655 Grays Harbor County 77,038 87.5% 78.9% 72.2% 40.5 $31,703 Island County 86,625 85.2% 59.7% 51.7% 415.5 $44,217 Jefferson County 33,589 72.4% 55.2% 43.7% 18.6 $44,289 King County 2,266,789 98.4% 98.5% 97.2% 1,071.7 $66,811 Kitsap County 277,673 93.5% 87.1% 82.6% 702.8 $47,713 Kittitas County 45,189 97.2% 94.3% 92.8% 19.7 $39,399 Klickitat County 23,271 41.6% 69.4% 39.3% 12.4 $38,760 Lewis County 85,370 54.1% 79.7% 48.3% 35.5 $32,800 Lincoln County 11,601 7.0% 65.8% 6.2% 5.0 $36,741 Mason County 68,166 83.0% 44.0% 38.4% 71.0 $37,088 Okanogan County 43,127 32.9% 66.7% 26.8% 8.2 $29,777 Pacific County 24,113 79.9% 68.1% 57.0% 25.8 $36,899 Pend Oreille County 14,179 53.5% 61.1% 31.9% 10.1 $33,981 Pierce County 927,380 94.8% 95.6% 92.0% 556.0 $43,575 San Juan County 18,662 69.8% 47.4% 39.3% 107.3 $59,650 Skagit County 131,179 87.5% 83.7% 76.0% 75.8 $41,191 Skamania County 12,460 33.7% 66.3% 30.9% 7.5 $42,162 Snohomish County 840,079 93.9% 96.4% 91.9% 402.6 $49,215 Spokane County 549,690 88.3% 97.7% 88.0% 311.6 $38,052 Stevens County 48,229 34.7% 61.6% 31.1% 19.5 $32,904 Thurston County 298,758 91.0% 86.1% 81.8% 413.5 $42,306 Wahkiakum County 4,688 68.1% 56.5% 46.8% 17.8 $31,643 Walla Walla County 61,890 88.6% 80.4% 73.4% 48.7 $34,476 Whatcom County 230,677 88.9% 83.7% 77.4% 109.4 $40,916 Whitman County 47,619 80.5% 79.3% 70.1% 22.1 $30,287 Yakima County 257,001 94.9% 94.8% 90.9% 59.8 $27,448 West Virginia 1,775,156 70.5% 66.4% 54.8% 73.8 $31,462 Barbour County 15,414 7.8% 44.2% 4.4% 45.2 $24,947 Berkeley County 129,490 88.5% 87.6% 80.7% 403.2 $35,909 Boone County 20,968 68.5% 32.7% 22.2% 41.8 $26,242 Braxton County 12,185 36.5% 43.4% 30.3% 23.9 $21,948 Brooke County 21,733 89.2% 67.0% 63.5% 243.7 $30,400 Cabell County 92,730 89.0% 88.6% 82.9% 330.0 $30,068 Calhoun County 6,068 3.1% 13.1% 0.9% 21.7 $22,982 Clay County 7,814 12.3% 14.4% 1.3% 22.9 $23,264 Doddridge County 7,698 44.1% 33.0% 26.1% 24.1 $29,652 Fayette County 39,487 55.6% 53.7% 34.1% 59.7 $24,818 Gilmer County 7,325 29.9% 49.1% 23.9% 21.6 $20,653 Grant County 10,968 39.4% 43.1% 26.5% 23.0 $28,274 Greenbrier County 32,435 41.3% 53.8% 26.5% 31.8 $29,992 Hampshire County 23,468 24.1% 44.4% 17.1% 36.6 $28,713 Hancock County 28,172 90.2% 86.2% 82.1% 341.0 $34,257 Hardy County 14,192 82.7% 51.4% 45.9% 24.4 $30,667 Harrison County 64,915 76.3% 75.8% 66.6% 156.0 $32,658 Jackson County 27,716 53.1% 68.2% 46.7% 59.7 $34,014 Jefferson County 58,979 90.7% 69.4% 64.0% 281.8 $42,359 Kanawha County 175,515 75.9% 81.4% 66.3% 194.7 $34,976 Lewis County 16,767 61.7% 52.8% 45.0% 43.3 $31,444 Lincoln County 19,901 48.4% 23.7% 15.2% 45.5 $26,713 Logan County 31,316 50.2% 24.0% 13.4% 69.0 $26,111 Marion County 55,952 80.6% 79.5% 70.5% 181.2 $31,740 Marshall County 29,752 76.2% 48.0% 42.3% 97.4 $33,673 Mason County 25,000 44.5% 54.0% 32.9% 58.0 $31,085 McDowell County 17,850 82.3% 16.7% 10.9% 33.5 $15,353 Mercer County 58,700 74.2% 71.5% 58.0% 140.1 $27,245 Mineral County 26,855 76.6% 74.4% 62.5% 81.9 $33,580 Mingo County 22,573 60.9% 2.5% 2.1% 53.3 $21,342 Monongalia County 106,869 91.8% 86.5% 82.8% 296.8 $38,757 Monroe County 12,296 46.9% 20.1% 12.8% 26.0 $26,120 Morgan County 17,430 46.6% 57.1% 34.3% 76.1 $33,029 Nicholas County 24,335 44.2% 52.1% 27.2% 37.6 $27,744 Ohio County 41,447 93.4% 88.0% 85.0% 391.6 $36,191 Pendleton County 6,011 62.9% 28.6% 21.7% 8.6 $27,513 Pleasants County 7,586 54.7% 46.6% 33.7% 58.3 $39,138 Pocahontas County 7,819 17.8% 14.7% 0.7% 8.3 $23,736 Preston County 34,172 66.3% 58.7% 45.5% 52.7 $27,848 Putnam County 57,015 76.9% 74.0% 64.1% 164.9 $38,589 Raleigh County 72,882 74.8% 71.7% 57.5% 120.4 $27,724 Randolph County 27,600 37.4% 54.6% 26.1% 26.5 $26,289 Ritchie County 8,207 82.6% 40.2% 37.8% 18.2 $27,997 Roane County 13,834 26.3% 42.6% 22.8% 28.6 $24,849 Summers County 11,762 27.3% 62.9% 23.5% 32.6 $24,507 Taylor County 16,342 71.7% 73.1% 59.6% 94.6 $30,095 Tucker County 6,568 63.7% 58.9% 52.6% 15.7 $32,590 Tyler County 8,183 24.7% 49.2% 20.7% 31.9 $29,891 Upshur County 23,712 43.3% 37.2% 23.5% 66.9 $28,855 Wayne County 37,998 62.5% 61.6% 50.2% 75.1 $29,774 Webster County 8,167 56.0% 51.5% 43.9% 14.8 $23,494 Wetzel County 14,025 48.5% 43.2% 33.7% 39.2 $27,174 Wirt County 5,091 25.6% 44.1% 13.5% 21.9 $26,966 Wood County 83,340 84.5% 83.9% 75.6% 227.4 $31,932 Wyoming County 20,527 85.1% 23.2% 21.7% 41.1 $22,818 Wisconsin 5,892,539 89.1% 83.0% 78.4% 108.8 $40,130 Adams County 21,226 69.8% 29.8% 19.8% 32.9 $32,223 Ashland County 16,039 69.3% 42.7% 35.8% 15.3 $31,563 Barron County 46,843 78.7% 65.8% 57.2% 54.3 $34,146 Bayfield County 16,608 85.2% 27.7% 23.7% 11.2 $39,449 Brown County 270,036 99.0% 97.0% 96.2% 509.4 $39,091 Buffalo County 13,391 79.8% 9.5% 8.3% 19.8 $34,866 Burnett County 17,036 69.6% 37.2% 32.5% 20.7 $36,322 Calumet County 52,718 99.7% 88.0% 87.7% 165.6 $42,110 Chippewa County 66,807 81.6% 76.9% 65.5% 66.3 $36,180 Clark County 34,691 37.0% 48.6% 28.6% 28.7 $29,589 Columbia County 58,193 83.5% 70.6% 62.7% 76.0 $40,144 Crawford County 16,007 60.8% 47.5% 43.7% 28.1 $32,129 Dane County 568,203 94.5% 96.5% 92.2% 474.9 $49,280 Dodge County 88,282 99.4% 78.8% 78.5% 100.8 $35,949 Door County 30,526 64.2% 64.7% 45.9% 63.3 $45,367 Douglas County 44,144 69.8% 77.7% 65.4% 33.8 $35,646 Dunn County 45,651 78.4% 62.8% 53.6% 53.7 $34,615 Eau Claire County 106,837 88.9% 90.2% 83.4% 167.5 $38,529 Florence County 4,688 38.9% 29.6% 21.7% 9.6 $36,746 Fond du Lac County 103,836 98.9% 97.4% 96.4% 144.3 $36,824 Forest County 9,381 50.0% 15.1% 10.1% 9.2 $30,310 Grant County 51,276 64.8% 42.4% 30.7% 44.7 $32,097 Green County 36,816 58.8% 73.6% 55.6% 63.0 $40,954 Green Lake County 19,220 68.7% 66.3% 49.5% 55.0 $35,222 Iowa County 23,865 56.5% 41.9% 28.8% 31.3 $39,330 Iron County 6,224 40.5% 36.2% 19.8% 8.2 $34,669 Jackson County 20,836 41.4% 46.2% 30.4% 21.1 $32,659 Jefferson County 85,784 98.3% 88.0% 87.0% 154.2 $39,035 Juneau County 26,866 57.1% 52.6% 37.5% 35.0 $31,211 Kenosha County 167,817 94.4% 94.4% 89.7% 617.3 $38,720 Kewaunee County 20,623 91.5% 95.7% 88.0% 60.2 $38,012 La Crosse County 120,294 91.5% 80.8% 76.7% 266.3 $39,498 Lafayette County 16,877 43.6% 44.3% 22.6% 26.6 $33,484 Langlade County 19,559 84.3% 48.9% 45.3% 22.5 $32,989 Lincoln County 28,376 53.2% 39.9% 30.0% 32.3 $35,558 Manitowoc County 81,172 97.3% 89.5% 88.2% 137.7 $35,854 Marathon County 137,958 75.1% 55.8% 48.5% 89.3 $38,886 Marinette County 41,988 60.6% 41.3% 34.1% 30.0 $33,952 Marquette County 15,779 66.0% 41.0% 31.2% 34.6 $33,291 Menominee County 4,197 90.8% 24.4% 23.0% 11.7 $24,004 Milwaukee County 918,661 99.6% 99.5% 99.2% 3,804.3 $35,039 Monroe County 46,109 60.5% 61.9% 46.4% 51.2 $33,256 Oconto County 39,633 85.4% 49.0% 46.7% 39.7 $37,124 Oneida County 38,212 63.6% 21.4% 18.4% 34.3 $40,086 Outagamie County 192,127 97.8% 91.3% 89.8% 301.3 $42,923 Ozaukee County 93,009 98.3% 95.5% 94.0% 399.1 $55,948 Pepin County 7,410 81.4% 40.2% 33.1% 31.9 $38,730 Pierce County 42,532 87.9% 74.3% 69.5% 74.1 $39,439 Polk County 45,709 72.9% 51.6% 40.0% 50.0 $37,674 Portage County 70,718 92.3% 71.1% 67.7% 88.3 $37,990 Price County 14,179 57.8% 25.6% 20.4% 11.3 $33,468 Racine County 195,846 93.5% 92.4% 86.8% 588.8 $38,288 Richland County 17,090 73.9% 33.8% 28.5% 29.2 $33,382 Rock County 164,060 91.0% 92.1% 85.7% 228.4 $35,594 Rusk County 14,186 53.5% 12.9% 9.1% 15.5 $31,329 Sauk County 65,777 78.1% 55.4% 48.2% 79.1 $37,431 Sawyer County 18,559 46.5% 34.1% 21.7% 14.8 $36,167 Shawano County 40,886 89.2% 73.3% 70.4% 45.8 $34,825 Sheboygan County 117,841 97.4% 89.2% 87.8% 230.4 $37,454 St. Croix County 96,017 74.4% 93.4% 70.7% 133.0 $45,810 Taylor County 19,975 32.2% 26.6% 22.9% 20.5 $32,874 Trempealeau County 30,899 78.1% 27.1% 22.5% 42.2 $34,694 Vernon County 31,060 93.4% 41.7% 39.2% 39.2 $32,297 Vilas County 23,763 40.9% 14.1% 4.4% 27.7 $40,136 Walworth County 105,380 87.4% 79.3% 70.5% 189.7 $40,386 Washburn County 16,911 37.3% 42.8% 26.2% 21.2 $34,396 Washington County 137,688 99.3% 94.0% 93.5% 319.7 $45,821 Waukesha County 410,434 98.7% 95.6% 94.4% 746.6 $55,573 Waupaca County 51,488 69.2% 70.8% 56.3% 68.9 $39,147 Waushara County 24,999 43.7% 56.4% 27.8% 39.9 $37,927 Winnebago County 170,718 96.4% 95.3% 93.5% 392.7 $37,983 Wood County 73,993 82.2% 64.4% 58.3% 93.3 $36,712 Wyoming 581,381 87.7% 70.3% 66.2% 6.0 $39,547 Albany County 38,031 97.5% 45.1% 44.8% 8.9 $34,969 Big Horn County 11,855 47.8% 60.4% 38.7% 3.8 $29,746 Campbell County 47,058 91.7% 81.5% 79.1% 9.8 $39,781 Carbon County 14,542 84.1% 68.0% 58.7% 1.8 $33,905 Converse County 13,786 90.3% 66.1% 63.3% 3.2 $37,976 Crook County 7,448 49.0% 50.4% 33.9% 2.6 $33,386 Fremont County 39,472 88.4% 55.3% 53.6% 4.3 $30,414 Goshen County 12,562 95.2% 65.2% 64.5% 5.6 $32,693 Hot Springs County 4,588 75.0% 82.4% 72.2% 2.3 $33,128 Johnson County 8,730 81.1% 32.8% 25.6% 2.1 $37,691 Laramie County 100,723 95.3% 93.1% 90.3% 37.5 $41,104 Lincoln County 20,660 72.0% 51.8% 39.7% 5.1 $38,245 Natrona County 79,601 98.1% 96.3% 95.4% 14.9 $40,346 Niobrara County 2,380 86.9% 72.5% 70.3% 0.9 $29,442 Park County 30,518 63.0% 65.6% 52.4% 4.4 $37,544 Platte County 8,645 92.7% 74.1% 72.2% 4.2 $37,756 Sheridan County 32,096 94.3% 64.5% 62.9% 12.7 $39,656 Sublette County 8,763 74.9% 51.9% 51.1% 1.8 $54,704 Sweetwater County 41,345 93.4% 41.6% 38.6% 4.0 $40,268 Teton County 23,287 89.2% 80.3% 76.7% 5.8 $76,296 Uinta County 20,712 56.6% 27.3% 19.4% 9.9 $32,955 Washakie County 7,719 81.4% 73.6% 67.3% 3.4 $32,979 Weston County 6,860 82.7% 71.5% 67.7% 2.9 $37,067 Source: FCC BDC data; Staff Block Estimates; 2020 Census; ACS Five-Year Estimates for 2018-2022. APPX. B-13 Service Availability (Millions) of Fixed Terrestrial Services at 100/20 Mbps and Mobile 5G-NR with a Minimum Speed of 35/3 Mbps Services By State and County Segmented by Urban and Rural Areas, Including U.S. Territories (December 31, 2022) Urban Areas Rural Areas State, Territory, County or County Equivalent Pop. Evaluated % of Pop. with Fixed 100/ 20 Mbps % of Pop. with Mobile 5G-NR 35/3 Mbps % of Pop. with Fixed & Mobile Pop. Evaluated % of Pop. with Fixed 100/ 20 Mbps % of Pop. with Mobile 5G-NR 35/3 Mbps % of Pop. with Fixed & Mobile Alabama 2,919,221 96.0% 97.8% 93.9% 2,155,075 64.9% 67.7% 49.2% Autauga County 35,416 97.3% 99.8% 97.2% 24,343 91.3% 77.9% 71.6% Baldwin County 152,954 85.8% 96.1% 82.1% 93,481 49.5% 83.6% 44.7% Barbour County 8,412 92.7% 82.4% 77.6% 16,294 45.0% 44.2% 24.5% Bibb County 22,005 14.8% 49.8% 11.3% Blount County 5,648 27.7% 97.5% 27.6% 53,864 35.4% 66.0% 27.1% Bullock County 10,202 85.0% 5.1% 3.4% Butler County 5,699 96.8% 93.6% 90.5% 12,951 47.8% 39.1% 21.6% Calhoun County 72,872 99.9% 99.9% 99.9% 42,916 78.8% 86.9% 72.7% Chambers County 16,688 97.2% 95.3% 92.7% 17,400 66.3% 58.7% 49.9% Cherokee County 25,302 31.7% 49.3% 26.1% Chilton County 6,719 17.8% 96.6% 17.8% 39,165 53.4% 38.8% 16.5% Choctaw County 12,439 21.5% 32.0% 7.6% Clarke County 22,515 40.9% 55.2% 34.3% Clay County 14,198 30.1% 39.0% 20.8% Cleburne County 15,346 13.7% 33.0% 4.7% Coffee County 29,037 95.4% 64.8% 61.0% 25,768 66.2% 39.2% 27.9% Colbert County 34,665 98.8% 98.9% 97.8% 23,368 49.2% 58.9% 31.6% Conecuh County 11,206 33.9% 44.5% 25.6% Coosa County 10,166 73.8% 41.0% 35.9% Covington County 11,776 99.6% 94.1% 93.7% 25,826 85.7% 46.9% 44.4% Crenshaw County 13,025 53.7% 51.7% 31.9% Cullman County 21,983 94.7% 92.4% 87.3% 68,682 68.8% 59.0% 42.8% Dale County 20,810 71.6% 74.9% 55.5% 28,734 62.1% 55.2% 39.7% Dallas County 20,115 90.9% 74.8% 69.9% 16,652 49.7% 23.9% 12.4% DeKalb County 7,813 98.3% 99.7% 98.0% 64,185 83.3% 59.5% 50.8% Elmore County 25,144 95.7% 99.7% 95.5% 64,419 82.9% 81.5% 67.7% Escambia County 12,886 99.8% 96.2% 96.2% 23,780 34.1% 48.3% 20.1% Etowah County 59,102 99.1% 99.4% 98.6% 43,986 74.3% 69.0% 56.1% Fayette County 16,118 50.1% 45.9% 27.8% Franklin County 9,697 87.7% 95.2% 83.0% 22,235 44.9% 60.4% 36.3% Geneva County 152 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 26,631 58.6% 53.3% 39.8% Greene County 7,422 21.1% 57.5% 21.1% Hale County 14,595 47.0% 54.7% 36.7% Henry County 17,655 47.4% 55.0% 40.7% Houston County 70,573 99.1% 96.2% 95.5% 37,506 62.0% 64.4% 46.8% Jackson County 13,013 98.2% 59.4% 59.0% 39,878 89.1% 44.3% 39.6% Jefferson County 585,180 96.7% 99.2% 96.0% 80,229 79.4% 89.7% 72.9% Lamar County 13,705 96.5% 44.4% 42.7% Lauderdale County 45,274 99.2% 98.9% 98.2% 50,604 65.6% 80.5% 56.6% Lawrence County 2 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 33,212 92.3% 63.4% 58.4% Lee County 129,792 97.7% 96.3% 94.1% 50,981 85.5% 69.9% 62.0% Limestone County 54,344 96.3% 99.7% 96.1% 56,556 77.6% 95.3% 76.3% Lowndes County 9,777 26.7% 19.5% 8.6% Macon County 8,237 96.1% 80.3% 76.5% 10,279 38.7% 29.5% 15.3% Madison County 333,497 99.3% 99.8% 99.1% 70,068 93.3% 92.1% 86.7% Marengo County 5,907 97.9% 100.0% 97.9% 12,838 57.3% 49.1% 31.6% Marion County 29,156 99.6% 65.3% 65.2% Marshall County 46,056 98.7% 99.0% 97.7% 53,367 87.8% 84.9% 76.4% Mobile County 318,856 98.6% 98.6% 97.3% 92,555 60.4% 82.7% 52.4% Monroe County 4,105 96.7% 83.2% 80.1% 15,299 41.3% 33.6% 17.7% Montgomery County 198,802 94.2% 99.9% 94.1% 27,559 76.0% 75.1% 58.1% Morgan County 76,203 95.4% 96.9% 92.5% 48,008 69.2% 65.5% 49.6% Perry County 8,035 21.4% 35.8% 20.2% Pickens County 18,697 48.7% 59.4% 40.7% Pike County 14,248 61.0% 96.2% 58.6% 18,766 53.2% 50.1% 28.9% Randolph County 22,479 33.9% 47.1% 25.2% Russell County 34,555 91.0% 100.0% 91.0% 24,000 77.5% 87.2% 73.4% Shelby County 174,036 96.7% 99.6% 96.3% 56,079 60.5% 91.6% 57.0% St. Clair County 31,014 98.1% 98.8% 97.1% 62,918 79.5% 90.7% 74.5% Sumter County 11,853 43.2% 62.2% 39.1% Talladega County 32,456 94.4% 99.2% 93.7% 48,248 69.4% 91.5% 64.7% Tallapoosa County 8,616 93.7% 83.5% 78.8% 32,361 79.9% 41.8% 36.7% Tuscaloosa County 163,766 97.6% 99.9% 97.5% 73,014 70.9% 85.8% 65.4% Walker County 13,101 92.9% 99.8% 92.8% 51,238 56.8% 88.1% 53.4% Washington County 15,122 19.6% 28.1% 11.3% Wilcox County 10,059 34.7% 18.5% 9.1% Winston County 23,755 45.8% 51.2% 30.5% Alaska 466,216 97.1% 81.2% 79.9% 267,383 46.5% 31.7% 22.4% Aleutians East Borough 3,398 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Aleutians West Census Area 5,122 3.5% 0.0% 0.0% Anchorage Municipality 270,072 99.0% 86.5% 85.7% 17,073 64.4% 48.8% 43.8% Bethel Census Area 5,318 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 12,939 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Bristol Bay Borough 865 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Chugach Census Area 6,874 49.1% 42.0% 38.3% Copper River Census Area 2,589 69.3% 0.0% 0.0% Denali Borough 1,585 2.6% 13.9% 0.1% Dillingham Census Area 4,723 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Fairbanks North Star Borough 69,275 97.2% 78.0% 76.3% 26,081 66.9% 46.6% 32.6% Haines Borough 2,056 39.0% 0.2% 0.0% Hoonah-Angoon Census Area 2,287 39.0% 18.1% 17.6% Juneau City and Borough 24,275 99.7% 78.3% 78.0% 7,410 92.9% 69.5% 68.5% Kenai Peninsula Borough 13,548 98.3% 65.9% 65.6% 47,142 74.6% 46.8% 39.0% Ketchikan Gateway Borough 11,766 99.6% 60.4% 60.4% 1,975 91.3% 36.4% 33.1% Kodiak Island Borough 9,539 99.7% 70.4% 70.2% 3,181 31.3% 42.8% 26.1% Kusilvak Census Area 8,278 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Lake and Peninsula Borough 1,381 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Matanuska-Susitna Borough 54,824 94.0% 89.7% 84.7% 58,501 42.1% 48.7% 26.0% Nome Census Area 9,835 40.0% 0.0% 0.0% North Slope Borough 10,805 52.7% 0.0% 0.0% Northwest Arctic Borough 7,423 39.5% 0.0% 0.0% Petersburg Borough 3,360 93.0% 0.0% 0.0% Prince of Wales-Hyder Census Area 5,666 3.9% 0.1% 0.0% Sitka City and Borough 7,599 99.2% 0.0% 0.0% 783 75.2% 0.0% 0.0% Skagway Municipality 1,081 55.6% 84.6% 54.5% Southeast Fairbanks Census Area 7,021 5.4% 21.6% 4.3% Wrangell City and Borough 2,070 85.7% 0.0% 0.0% Yakutat City and Borough 700 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Yukon-Koyukuk Census Area 5,179 0.0% 8.8% 0.0% American Samoa 34,472 27.2% 0.0% 0.0% 10,971 5.8% 0.0% 0.0% Eastern District 8,551 44.5% 0.0% 0.0% 6,483 7.8% 0.0% 0.0% Manu'a District 777 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Western District 25,921 21.5% 0.0% 0.0% 3,711 3.6% 0.0% 0.0% Arizona ,566,249 7.5% 9.4% 7.0% 92,948 5.0% 72.2% 47.9% Apache County 65,432 2.4% 17.5% 0.9% Cochise County 76,712 47.0% 99.7% 46.8% 48,951 34.0% 70.8% 22.6% Coconino County 95,562 86.6% 99.8% 86.5% 48,498 37.2% 62.9% 33.0% Gila County 29,922 74.7% 99.9% 74.7% 24,000 28.8% 79.9% 26.2% Graham County 18,571 99.9% 47.0% 46.9% 20,208 71.1% 61.5% 48.5% Greenlee County 9,302 68.5% 85.0% 57.8% La Paz County 9,357 0.8% 80.3% 0.8% 7,149 1.2% 61.1% 1.2% Maricopa County 4,447,844 99.1% 99.8% 99.0% 103,680 82.0% 94.3% 77.7% Mohave County 167,967 93.6% 100.0% 93.6% 52,849 32.6% 81.0% 32.6% Navajo County 42,170 89.6% 76.9% 76.8% 66,480 26.0% 29.1% 17.4% Pima County 959,343 99.9% 99.7% 99.7% 98,254 91.7% 90.2% 84.9% Pinal County 356,684 97.7% 99.3% 97.1% 107,470 71.5% 87.8% 65.4% Santa Cruz County 19,193 99.0% 99.2% 98.3% 29,566 92.9% 65.0% 62.3% Yavapai County 166,339 83.3% 97.1% 80.9% 79,852 45.5% 75.3% 34.5% Yuma County 176,585 97.1% 99.9% 97.0% 31,257 70.2% 96.5% 69.7% Arkansas 1,686,298 96.0% 97.8% 94.0% 1,359,339 62.4% 61.9% 42.0% Arkansas County 7,791 89.7% 100.0% 89.7% 8,721 2.0% 57.7% 2.0% Ashley County 7,101 95.6% 26.5% 22.7% 11,253 42.4% 39.3% 25.0% Baxter County 18,030 97.7% 99.0% 96.8% 24,405 98.0% 51.1% 50.1% Benton County 227,049 99.7% 99.3% 99.0% 75,814 55.1% 83.0% 52.6% Boone County 14,081 99.6% 95.0% 94.6% 24,203 41.7% 63.0% 28.0% Bradley County 5,129 99.1% 63.9% 63.8% 5,006 56.4% 31.7% 22.4% Calhoun County 4,695 84.5% 18.2% 14.3% Carroll County 5,142 99.0% 96.2% 95.3% 23,600 45.6% 69.1% 40.3% Chicot County 9,873 70.7% 67.3% 56.7% Clark County 9,725 92.0% 98.1% 90.2% 11,525 89.4% 40.2% 36.2% Clay County 14,265 86.9% 37.0% 34.8% Cleburne County 6,979 89.2% 98.1% 87.5% 18,305 31.8% 51.0% 20.0% Cleveland County 7,467 0.4% 30.9% 0.1% Columbia County 10,214 89.2% 77.7% 70.8% 12,002 42.4% 48.7% 20.4% Conway County 6,491 87.4% 94.3% 82.8% 14,555 52.2% 64.4% 34.6% Craighead County 74,487 92.0% 94.5% 86.8% 38,530 95.1% 66.6% 62.8% Crawford County 31,132 99.9% 99.9% 99.9% 29,943 95.7% 72.9% 69.9% Crittenden County 38,302 99.3% 97.9% 97.3% 8,759 57.7% 71.4% 46.2% Cross County 7,595 100.0% 95.8% 95.8% 9,006 51.7% 30.3% 18.5% Dallas County 6,191 60.7% 66.3% 50.7% Desha County 4,082 99.8% 100.0% 99.8% 6,689 82.1% 60.0% 55.2% Drew County 7,569 99.7% 71.6% 71.4% 9,342 44.6% 22.7% 10.9% Faulkner County 67,612 98.8% 99.9% 98.8% 60,053 58.9% 88.3% 54.3% Franklin County 17,271 57.5% 61.9% 35.0% Fulton County 12,382 98.1% 45.2% 44.6% Garland County 66,736 99.1% 93.6% 93.1% 33,353 60.0% 70.8% 48.7% Grant County 4,825 87.8% 95.4% 83.6% 13,335 61.3% 30.5% 17.6% Greene County 24,184 100.0% 96.5% 96.5% 22,264 99.7% 52.7% 52.6% Hempstead County 8,743 99.9% 99.9% 99.8% 10,710 49.3% 36.0% 26.7% Hot Spring County 8,866 94.1% 92.4% 87.1% 24,337 53.6% 32.4% 20.3% Howard County 12,557 71.2% 58.9% 47.1% Independence County 10,890 91.8% 98.0% 89.9% 27,055 40.9% 62.7% 33.0% Izard County 14,048 87.5% 32.8% 31.3% Jackson County 6,149 93.4% 100.0% 93.4% 10,475 42.6% 47.4% 29.5% Jefferson County 44,166 84.8% 99.8% 84.7% 20,080 13.1% 76.6% 12.0% Johnson County 7,840 99.4% 100.0% 99.4% 18,161 84.0% 61.0% 53.1% Lafayette County 6,101 40.6% 33.3% 20.7% Lawrence County 6,639 89.0% 94.9% 84.2% 9,566 93.6% 39.3% 36.5% Lee County 8,364 43.2% 50.7% 39.8% Lincoln County 12,916 36.7% 27.4% 16.0% Little River County 11,821 57.2% 53.0% 37.3% Logan County 21,253 27.7% 62.8% 21.6% Lonoke County 35,760 55.3% 100.0% 55.3% 39,465 65.1% 94.7% 61.8% Madison County 17,486 83.1% 42.1% 37.4% Marion County 17,254 46.1% 56.3% 30.8% Miller County 25,313 99.8% 98.1% 98.0% 17,239 95.3% 55.6% 53.0% Mississippi County 21,139 92.2% 97.8% 90.1% 17,757 85.7% 44.9% 37.2% Monroe County 6,564 0.2% 33.6% 0.2% Montgomery County 8,556 33.0% 41.7% 21.9% Nevada County 8,181 65.2% 35.9% 28.0% Newton County 7,078 2.5% 40.4% 0.4% Ouachita County 9,618 99.1% 99.7% 98.9% 12,431 66.8% 57.7% 45.7% Perry County 10,063 91.0% 60.9% 57.2% Phillips County 8,056 92.3% 97.6% 90.4% 7,248 47.7% 59.8% 35.4% Pike County 10,179 97.0% 42.4% 41.6% Poinsett County 7,657 100.0% 98.4% 98.4% 14,838 77.6% 46.1% 28.7% Polk County 5,614 99.9% 58.0% 57.9% 13,723 32.5% 31.9% 11.8% Pope County 27,276 94.8% 99.7% 94.5% 36,789 57.1% 75.4% 44.5% Prairie County 8,069 71.3% 76.7% 58.0% Pulaski County 353,301 98.9% 99.8% 98.7% 45,844 63.8% 93.5% 61.8% Randolph County 7,360 94.4% 88.0% 82.7% 11,477 84.0% 28.7% 26.5% Saline County 80,237 98.5% 99.5% 98.1% 47,120 81.6% 89.7% 74.4% Scott County 9,805 29.0% 60.4% 26.7% Searcy County 7,918 23.7% 54.4% 21.0% Sebastian County 103,362 99.9% 99.8% 99.8% 25,697 90.1% 77.3% 69.4% Sevier County 5,828 98.8% 92.9% 92.4% 9,858 62.6% 32.4% 23.8% Sharp County 17,810 82.9% 32.0% 26.3% St. Francis County 8,041 96.9% 82.0% 80.4% 14,410 25.0% 41.1% 18.9% Stone County 12,575 12.7% 39.2% 3.3% Union County 18,255 89.7% 91.1% 81.9% 19,497 42.3% 42.8% 20.5% Van Buren County 16,102 58.2% 48.3% 28.0% Washington County 194,804 99.9% 99.5% 99.5% 61,250 99.6% 77.0% 76.8% White County 33,915 54.8% 99.3% 54.8% 43,840 36.2% 71.1% 28.1% Woodruff County 6,049 53.1% 85.2% 52.3% Yell County 3,213 86.0% 95.9% 83.0% 16,916 58.6% 55.8% 34.3% California 6,734,588 98.1% 99.1% 97.3% 2,294,754 65.9% 79.4% 55.4% Alameda County 1,621,032 99.8% 99.4% 99.2% 7,965 66.7% 82.0% 59.8% Alpine County 1,190 10.1% 41.0% 10.0% Amador County 12,652 97.6% 96.9% 94.8% 28,760 29.6% 47.2% 19.2% Butte County 163,475 99.5% 98.6% 98.2% 43,828 76.7% 73.3% 63.8% Calaveras County 8,308 99.1% 43.8% 43.6% 38,255 75.8% 54.5% 45.6% Colusa County 12,522 99.3% 92.5% 91.9% 9,392 92.4% 84.5% 79.9% Contra Costa County 1,145,356 99.6% 99.1% 98.7% 11,610 59.3% 84.7% 54.9% Del Norte County 15,642 92.9% 94.8% 88.3% 11,440 65.9% 70.8% 49.2% El Dorado County 120,859 97.1% 99.3% 96.5% 71,787 66.4% 80.8% 56.0% Fresno County 901,646 99.5% 99.9% 99.5% 113,544 56.1% 92.9% 54.0% Glenn County 16,412 99.7% 99.8% 99.6% 11,927 92.7% 88.8% 85.9% Humboldt County 92,403 99.9% 95.4% 95.4% 42,607 83.4% 61.9% 52.1% Imperial County 145,905 95.2% 99.6% 94.9% 32,808 51.7% 74.0% 40.6% Inyo County 10,854 25.4% 97.6% 23.8% 7,864 20.0% 57.4% 16.9% Kern County 797,010 98.1% 99.3% 97.5% 119,098 59.5% 83.8% 51.5% Kings County 134,503 89.9% 98.3% 89.9% 18,478 47.1% 99.6% 47.1% Lake County 40,648 98.7% 73.9% 73.0% 27,543 69.8% 66.4% 51.6% Lassen County 8,655 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 21,249 70.5% 86.4% 67.5% Los Angeles County 9,632,013 97.0% 99.4% 96.5% 89,125 73.9% 81.3% 61.3% Madera County 96,671 98.6% 99.7% 98.4% 63,585 46.1% 87.8% 40.0% Marin County 240,778 98.9% 86.8% 86.0% 15,240 76.8% 62.4% 51.9% Mariposa County 17,020 2.0% 50.2% 1.8% Mendocino County 45,720 99.2% 84.6% 84.5% 44,063 63.9% 39.1% 27.1% Merced County 240,725 98.9% 99.8% 98.8% 49,289 86.4% 96.8% 84.4% Modoc County 8,511 41.2% 54.9% 31.3% Mono County 7,147 93.0% 99.7% 92.8% 5,831 38.7% 61.2% 24.9% Monterey County 367,045 99.8% 95.6% 95.5% 65,813 93.2% 84.4% 81.6% Napa County 114,243 98.8% 99.4% 98.3% 20,057 82.7% 76.7% 63.7% Nevada County 53,034 91.9% 94.5% 87.9% 49,259 63.9% 56.4% 39.5% Orange County 3,142,650 97.8% 99.7% 97.5% 8,534 91.6% 59.8% 55.5% Placer County 355,611 97.6% 99.1% 96.9% 62,161 62.8% 82.8% 53.0% Plumas County 19,351 53.6% 77.0% 49.3% Riverside County 2,338,131 97.2% 99.6% 96.9% 135,771 60.5% 88.1% 55.1% Sacramento County 1,545,550 99.3% 99.9% 99.3% 38,619 63.4% 94.4% 60.0% San Benito County 52,175 100.0% 88.9% 88.9% 15,404 94.0% 84.0% 82.3% San Bernardino County 2,072,759 95.8% 99.5% 95.4% 120,897 55.1% 92.4% 51.8% San Diego County 3,137,183 99.5% 98.8% 98.4% 139,025 74.0% 82.5% 65.9% San Francisco County 808,436 99.5% 99.9% 99.4% 1 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% San Joaquin County 731,129 99.6% 100.0% 99.6% 62,100 82.2% 94.5% 77.9% San Luis Obispo County 225,244 99.4% 96.5% 96.0% 56,769 82.5% 80.8% 70.7% San Mateo County 716,943 99.5% 99.1% 98.7% 12,238 73.7% 60.0% 51.9% Santa Barbara County 418,183 98.3% 97.6% 96.1% 25,654 38.8% 62.0% 31.9% Santa Clara County 1,845,662 99.8% 99.7% 99.6% 25,283 93.8% 85.3% 82.9% Santa Cruz County 229,323 99.4% 87.8% 87.4% 35,047 90.4% 46.4% 44.1% Shasta County 118,618 93.7% 94.5% 88.7% 62,312 41.2% 61.0% 32.6% Sierra County 42 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 3,175 30.2% 34.1% 16.3% Siskiyou County 12,824 95.3% 98.2% 93.6% 30,836 62.8% 72.0% 48.9% Solano County 427,929 99.4% 99.1% 98.6% 20,818 88.6% 94.1% 84.1% Sonoma County 415,511 98.8% 98.6% 97.5% 67,139 71.3% 75.7% 56.2% Stanislaus County 506,149 99.9% 100.0% 99.9% 45,126 91.6% 97.0% 90.3% Sutter County 83,648 99.9% 99.3% 99.3% 14,855 98.2% 87.5% 86.0% Tehama County 27,693 99.4% 96.1% 95.6% 37,552 69.9% 67.0% 47.9% Trinity County 15,781 6.0% 39.5% 0.3% Tulare County 382,341 98.9% 100.0% 98.9% 95,203 53.7% 93.3% 51.3% Tuolumne County 29,115 95.9% 81.8% 79.2% 25,416 44.2% 68.6% 34.6% Ventura County 804,660 97.4% 98.7% 96.2% 27,945 61.5% 80.0% 49.0% Yolo County 202,970 99.5% 100.0% 99.5% 19,145 66.8% 93.6% 64.3% Yuba County 58,851 99.8% 100.0% 99.8% 25,459 81.8% 82.0% 75.2% Colorado 5,015,417 99.3% 98.5% 97.9% 824,509 63.1% 62.8% 45.2% Adams County 504,822 99.3% 99.7% 99.0% 22,753 67.1% 77.3% 52.4% Alamosa County 10,944 98.0% 98.0% 96.0% 5,648 61.3% 30.4% 22.6% Arapahoe County 641,656 99.6% 99.5% 99.2% 14,152 79.4% 82.4% 67.3% Archuleta County 5,871 99.8% 97.4% 97.3% 8,132 67.2% 41.6% 35.4% Baca County 3,432 29.6% 51.8% 26.9% Bent County 5,399 66.2% 6.1% 0.0% Boulder County 295,105 99.9% 97.7% 97.6% 32,363 65.2% 69.2% 56.8% Broomfield County 75,582 99.5% 99.8% 99.4% 539 57.6% 100.0% 57.6% Chaffee County 11,035 95.8% 94.0% 90.3% 9,188 28.3% 58.9% 23.3% Cheyenne County 1,732 18.1% 33.3% 13.1% Clear Creek County 9,355 49.3% 61.4% 38.3% Conejos County 7,579 69.2% 43.6% 32.3% Costilla County 3,603 64.1% 39.6% 36.2% Crowley County 5,614 4.1% 27.0% 3.1% Custer County 5,335 0.5% 39.1% 0.2% Delta County 8,242 99.8% 100.0% 99.8% 23,360 78.6% 77.1% 64.7% Denver County 713,055 99.8% 99.1% 99.0% 197 73.0% 100.0% 73.0% Dolores County 2,455 4.6% 51.0% 0.0% Douglas County 340,255 99.6% 97.6% 97.3% 35,733 85.8% 73.9% 65.7% Eagle County 45,639 98.2% 97.8% 96.6% 9,646 69.0% 64.7% 55.3% El Paso County 670,270 99.2% 99.4% 98.7% 70,297 69.0% 79.9% 60.4% Elbert County 27,799 71.2% 30.0% 23.3% Fremont County 25,006 92.3% 96.9% 89.4% 24,615 39.6% 75.1% 35.6% Garfield County 42,168 97.6% 99.6% 97.3% 20,103 53.3% 60.9% 35.0% Gilpin County 5,891 47.2% 79.5% 45.2% Grand County 5,205 95.0% 63.5% 63.4% 10,564 67.8% 58.2% 46.0% Gunnison County 7,038 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 10,229 78.5% 31.2% 29.3% Hinsdale County 775 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% Huerfano County 7,082 53.6% 54.7% 43.9% Jackson County 1,302 82.1% 65.0% 63.2% Jefferson County 533,642 99.3% 99.0% 98.4% 42,501 51.7% 70.3% 44.4% Kiowa County 1,424 57.2% 0.6% 0.0% Kit Carson County 6,961 73.5% 60.0% 54.2% La Plata County 19,573 91.7% 96.0% 87.8% 37,034 76.1% 61.6% 52.6% Lake County 4,472 94.7% 99.9% 94.7% 2,855 58.7% 74.7% 45.9% Larimer County 328,007 99.9% 98.7% 98.7% 38,771 67.0% 58.6% 45.9% Las Animas County 8,303 99.2% 95.0% 94.3% 6,024 15.7% 55.7% 15.5% Lincoln County 5,510 36.5% 43.7% 31.4% Logan County 12,112 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 8,711 79.3% 1.3% 0.9% Mesa County 138,280 96.5% 99.4% 96.0% 20,356 36.8% 80.9% 34.9% Mineral County 931 51.1% 1.6% 0.5% Moffat County 9,552 100.0% 78.4% 78.4% 3,625 65.9% 19.1% 12.3% Montezuma County 8,665 99.4% 94.7% 94.1% 17,803 57.9% 60.0% 41.2% Montrose County 25,147 99.9% 99.9% 99.9% 18,664 58.7% 78.5% 51.9% Morgan County 19,145 100.0% 98.5% 98.5% 10,094 86.2% 52.6% 50.1% Otero County 7,571 97.1% 92.4% 89.8% 10,732 68.2% 67.6% 50.7% Ouray County 5,100 51.9% 32.4% 21.3% Park County 17,939 39.6% 40.0% 20.1% Phillips County 4,449 90.0% 5.3% 4.8% Pitkin County 11,310 98.7% 99.7% 98.4% 5,566 60.5% 59.9% 49.4% Prowers County 7,408 96.0% 100.0% 96.0% 4,446 24.1% 59.2% 23.4% Pueblo County 148,235 98.7% 97.4% 96.2% 21,309 66.0% 72.2% 47.5% Rio Blanco County 6,569 66.2% 37.6% 32.8% Rio Grande County 11,325 65.6% 64.5% 51.0% Routt County 14,546 99.9% 99.8% 99.8% 10,461 77.7% 37.5% 35.9% Saguache County 6,623 57.7% 20.7% 7.9% San Juan County 803 82.0% 87.5% 81.5% San Miguel County 4,496 70.7% 95.2% 66.8% 3,507 36.9% 43.9% 29.5% Sedgwick County 2,295 76.6% 65.0% 62.1% Summit County 25,696 97.9% 99.4% 97.4% 4,869 68.3% 87.5% 62.5% Teller County 9,912 99.9% 99.9% 99.8% 14,945 27.8% 45.8% 23.8% Washington County 4,812 78.0% 12.0% 11.8% Weld County 277,452 99.0% 97.5% 96.6% 72,724 75.5% 87.0% 66.9% Yuma County 9,899 90.3% 55.6% 55.5% Connecticut 3,119,066 98.4% 93.4% 91.9% 507,139 96.2% 63.5% 61.4% Capitol Planning Region 854,933 99.5% 97.9% 97.5% 119,584 98.6% 80.3% 79.1% Greater Bridgeport Planning Region 319,513 95.7% 96.1% 91.8% 9,471 96.0% 64.6% 61.9% Lower Connecticut River Valley Planning Region 122,458 99.6% 93.9% 93.6% 56,145 97.9% 72.5% 71.2% Naugatuck Valley Planning Region 415,161 99.4% 93.2% 92.8% 42,018 98.2% 68.6% 67.6% Northeastern Connecticut Planning Region 35,503 95.9% 80.3% 77.0% 60,620 90.1% 50.6% 45.2% Northwest Hills Planning Region 45,539 94.4% 95.2% 90.0% 69,208 93.1% 47.2% 44.4% South Central Connecticut Planning Region 550,627 99.5% 94.5% 94.1% 21,655 98.8% 69.4% 68.5% Southeastern Connecticut Planning Region 208,880 98.4% 91.8% 90.3% 75,064 96.6% 57.3% 55.4% Western Connecticut Planning Region 566,452 96.6% 85.2% 82.2% 53,374 97.1% 54.5% 52.8% Delaware 837,346 99.2% 97.8% 97.1% 181,050 82.8% 79.6% 67.3% Kent County 136,064 97.4% 99.3% 96.8% 50,882 80.8% 83.6% 68.3% New Castle County 539,860 99.6% 98.5% 98.2% 35,634 88.4% 83.8% 74.8% Sussex County 161,422 99.4% 94.4% 93.8% 94,534 81.7% 75.9% 64.0% District of Columbia 671,803 99.7% 99.9% 99.7% District of Columbia 671,803 99.7% 99.9% 99.7% Florida 0,334,773 97.6% 97.5% 95.3% 1,910,053 59.8% 71.4% 46.8% Alachua County 213,788 98.6% 93.4% 92.0% 70,242 55.4% 83.4% 50.0% Baker County 10,818 98.7% 84.4% 83.8% 16,985 58.5% 39.3% 25.8% Bay County 159,249 99.7% 96.5% 96.3% 25,885 67.3% 70.0% 44.4% Bradford County 7,956 91.5% 99.8% 91.5% 19,357 18.6% 89.3% 16.7% Brevard County 605,650 96.5% 99.7% 96.2% 25,043 89.7% 92.1% 83.0% Broward County 1,946,859 97.8% 99.0% 96.9% 167 76.0% 97.6% 74.8% Calhoun County 13,464 30.5% 40.6% 24.9% Charlotte County 189,361 94.6% 91.3% 86.1% 13,300 54.8% 75.2% 40.9% Citrus County 121,600 97.1% 87.3% 84.7% 40,929 65.9% 74.9% 49.9% Clay County 193,746 97.1% 97.2% 94.4% 32,843 54.1% 72.0% 41.4% Collier County 352,027 98.9% 97.6% 96.6% 45,967 92.7% 54.9% 49.9% Columbia County 26,132 97.0% 88.3% 85.6% 45,776 40.4% 49.8% 21.2% DeSoto County 17,924 41.1% 98.5% 40.3% 17,388 32.2% 76.1% 23.9% Dixie County 17,124 1.6% 44.3% 0.9% Duval County 989,688 98.7% 98.2% 97.0% 26,848 97.1% 73.4% 71.3% Escambia County 299,579 99.7% 98.6% 98.3% 25,299 71.6% 67.7% 49.8% Flagler County 117,000 97.9% 90.7% 88.7% 9,705 77.1% 68.1% 52.1% Franklin County 12,498 86.7% 67.2% 62.6% Gadsden County 7,986 98.9% 93.2% 92.2% 35,417 65.9% 53.3% 42.0% Gilchrist County 18,992 14.3% 68.5% 11.9% Glades County 2,301 84.2% 96.0% 80.2% 10,153 33.8% 72.1% 30.5% Gulf County 15,314 70.7% 59.5% 52.9% Hamilton County 13,217 30.4% 51.5% 16.5% Hardee County 10,046 98.9% 100.0% 98.9% 15,599 45.5% 81.6% 43.4% Hendry County 26,227 95.8% 98.3% 94.2% 15,112 32.7% 66.3% 24.9% Hernando County 165,413 97.3% 99.4% 96.7% 41,483 88.9% 81.2% 72.1% Highlands County 84,508 93.3% 88.1% 83.0% 21,110 52.3% 68.0% 39.4% Hillsborough County 1,456,868 96.3% 99.3% 95.7% 56,433 82.4% 90.4% 75.4% Holmes County 19,651 20.1% 48.5% 19.9% Indian River County 155,765 99.5% 91.6% 91.2% 11,587 71.1% 94.6% 68.6% Jackson County 5,846 99.4% 100.0% 99.4% 42,365 37.7% 48.7% 24.7% Jefferson County 15,042 4.1% 53.8% 3.9% Lafayette County 7,786 27.7% 72.8% 23.9% Lake County 336,788 96.3% 97.3% 93.7% 73,351 52.3% 83.9% 49.1% Lee County 790,210 95.8% 97.5% 93.9% 32,243 57.8% 86.2% 51.7% Leon County 257,531 99.1% 97.3% 96.5% 39,838 73.2% 79.8% 66.3% Levy County 45,260 15.2% 63.6% 11.1% Liberty County 7,603 28.7% 33.4% 21.8% Madison County 18,198 40.2% 58.6% 33.7% Manatee County 408,658 97.3% 98.1% 95.4% 20,467 88.3% 73.9% 65.2% Marion County 280,613 95.3% 96.6% 92.2% 115,802 53.7% 71.8% 39.4% Martin County 150,041 99.4% 95.1% 94.5% 11,965 69.9% 81.7% 58.3% Miami-Dade County 2,650,240 99.1% 98.2% 97.5% 23,597 56.7% 76.2% 47.3% Monroe County 70,605 99.7% 83.2% 83.1% 11,106 94.8% 73.1% 70.1% Nassau County 55,340 99.5% 88.1% 87.8% 42,559 76.5% 62.4% 50.6% Okaloosa County 193,366 98.0% 90.2% 88.4% 23,116 50.2% 43.1% 19.9% Okeechobee County 26,561 98.1% 93.2% 91.5% 13,851 26.6% 58.9% 24.9% Orange County 1,419,271 96.8% 99.8% 96.7% 33,455 82.6% 92.3% 76.7% Osceola County 394,680 97.6% 98.9% 96.5% 27,865 78.5% 85.6% 66.9% Palm Beach County 1,505,687 99.2% 97.8% 97.0% 12,790 76.1% 92.8% 72.2% Pasco County 563,872 95.9% 94.8% 90.8% 44,922 74.9% 81.9% 62.7% Pinellas County 959,921 96.8% 96.7% 93.6% 1,818 96.7% 92.4% 89.6% Polk County 700,763 97.2% 96.5% 93.8% 86,641 66.0% 83.1% 58.1% Putnam County 20,014 92.6% 90.5% 83.6% 54,717 58.0% 69.2% 46.5% Santa Rosa County 158,410 98.3% 94.4% 92.8% 39,858 55.0% 70.9% 46.1% Sarasota County 451,033 99.1% 97.1% 96.2% 11,253 83.0% 62.9% 50.7% Seminole County 462,654 97.2% 99.2% 96.5% 16,118 74.6% 85.0% 63.5% St. Johns County 260,302 99.6% 95.8% 95.4% 46,539 82.4% 88.0% 77.9% St. Lucie County 345,512 98.9% 97.8% 96.8% 13,192 63.3% 94.9% 62.1% Sumter County 114,497 94.9% 99.7% 94.6% 30,473 48.9% 85.2% 40.3% Suwannee County 7,007 91.7% 83.1% 76.9% 38,404 27.3% 45.4% 14.5% Taylor County 6,235 98.8% 94.3% 93.1% 15,048 48.5% 53.4% 30.7% Union County 15,460 42.3% 72.1% 29.1% Volusia County 529,584 96.4% 98.5% 95.1% 49,608 72.9% 89.1% 69.6% Wakulla County 10,467 95.2% 91.4% 86.8% 24,711 60.0% 63.6% 46.3% Walton County 38,574 99.6% 75.7% 75.4% 44,730 87.3% 51.7% 46.7% Washington County 25,414 64.4% 50.6% 36.5% Georgia 8,032,887 98.3% 96.7% 95.2% 2,879,989 71.0% 61.0% 47.3% Appling County 5,443 99.3% 76.5% 75.9% 12,985 67.3% 40.3% 31.8% Atkinson County 8,183 97.7% 60.6% 59.4% Bacon County 11,191 86.6% 41.9% 40.5% Baker County 2,788 3.5% 27.5% 3.5% Baldwin County 21,390 94.9% 87.3% 85.1% 22,245 84.2% 51.4% 46.3% Banks County 901 90.8% 61.3% 57.9% 18,427 34.7% 41.9% 17.2% Barrow County 59,663 98.2% 91.4% 89.9% 29,636 86.9% 86.7% 75.4% Bartow County 67,979 98.7% 96.1% 95.0% 44,837 74.9% 67.4% 56.1% Ben Hill County 11,099 99.9% 73.1% 73.1% 5,970 44.1% 36.5% 18.2% Berrien County 4,903 99.4% 96.7% 96.2% 13,311 42.4% 43.9% 24.0% Bibb County 133,788 99.9% 99.6% 99.6% 22,409 95.3% 93.9% 89.7% Bleckley County 5,935 100.0% 68.6% 68.6% 6,322 57.0% 56.0% 33.7% Brantley County 120 88.3% 10.8% 10.8% 18,063 99.4% 42.1% 41.8% Brooks County 16,253 59.0% 55.6% 41.2% Bryan County 25,256 95.0% 75.3% 71.7% 22,969 94.4% 41.3% 39.9% Bulloch County 41,964 100.0% 91.5% 91.5% 41,095 99.9% 37.4% 37.4% Burke County 6,108 99.0% 94.5% 93.6% 18,280 47.8% 46.9% 24.0% Butts County 5,934 95.8% 99.5% 95.4% 20,715 78.4% 82.5% 63.4% Calhoun County 5,469 16.7% 70.6% 14.2% Camden County 41,098 99.8% 80.4% 80.3% 15,915 69.6% 41.2% 31.3% Candler County 11,000 99.7% 52.4% 52.4% Carroll County 54,564 93.4% 90.3% 83.9% 70,028 73.4% 61.5% 48.0% Catoosa County 52,361 98.5% 99.7% 98.2% 16,465 85.3% 65.4% 57.7% Charlton County 12,781 68.9% 45.3% 39.1% Chatham County 291,908 97.3% 93.0% 90.5% 9,199 91.1% 63.6% 57.3% Chattahoochee County 2,298 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 6,521 0.0% 94.1% 0.0% Chattooga County 10,090 96.3% 96.0% 92.4% 14,846 59.5% 37.4% 29.7% Cherokee County 229,485 99.1% 98.5% 97.6% 51,793 86.0% 81.4% 73.2% Clarke County 121,600 94.9% 95.8% 90.8% 8,275 75.8% 75.6% 58.7% Clay County 2,845 26.2% 28.8% 5.6% Clayton County 294,969 99.3% 99.2% 98.6% 1,595 87.9% 93.4% 82.2% Clinch County 6,662 30.9% 66.1% 26.3% Cobb County 771,912 99.0% 98.9% 98.0% 40 62.5% 100.0% 62.5% Coffee County 14,197 97.1% 93.6% 91.3% 28,975 69.1% 57.8% 45.4% Colquitt County 19,062 98.0% 64.5% 62.9% 26,700 48.3% 45.6% 24.3% Columbia County 138,185 99.5% 99.3% 98.9% 24,234 90.0% 91.8% 83.3% Cook County 7,065 99.2% 47.9% 47.6% 10,339 47.7% 49.1% 31.8% Coweta County 82,832 98.2% 96.3% 94.6% 70,050 84.9% 72.9% 63.3% Crawford County 12,140 88.7% 56.4% 51.5% Crisp County 10,679 98.2% 94.1% 92.4% 9,029 48.8% 52.3% 31.9% Dade County 504 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 15,577 95.4% 81.2% 77.3% Dawson County 9,179 96.9% 93.3% 90.8% 20,959 63.0% 59.9% 47.4% DeKalb County 761,590 99.1% 98.4% 97.6% 1,230 94.8% 95.5% 90.8% Decatur County 13,535 98.4% 69.6% 68.3% 15,447 22.4% 39.3% 11.4% Dodge County 6,267 99.2% 95.6% 94.9% 13,535 46.9% 59.9% 34.8% Dooly County 10,572 90.7% 73.4% 70.8% Dougherty County 70,562 98.3% 90.4% 88.8% 12,404 84.3% 47.9% 42.7% Douglas County 124,308 99.1% 97.3% 96.6% 23,008 82.7% 96.1% 80.6% Early County 10,574 13.8% 56.9% 10.5% Echols County 3,686 0.1% 44.5% 0.1% Effingham County 17,225 99.3% 67.4% 67.1% 51,816 86.9% 32.1% 30.5% Elbert County 5,595 100.0% 94.8% 94.8% 14,219 91.8% 49.8% 47.1% Emanuel County 7,241 99.9% 83.9% 83.9% 15,688 98.5% 42.9% 42.5% Evans County 10,695 83.8% 63.4% 59.0% Fannin County 25,737 65.4% 35.3% 28.6% Fayette County 100,215 99.3% 98.1% 97.5% 21,815 84.1% 96.2% 80.9% Floyd County 60,631 98.6% 99.0% 97.7% 38,812 70.8% 69.7% 57.4% Forsyth County 246,721 98.2% 98.5% 96.7% 20,516 92.0% 93.0% 85.7% Franklin County 24,128 62.2% 51.7% 34.1% Fulton County 1,067,477 98.2% 99.1% 97.4% 7,157 61.1% 88.8% 58.5% Gilmer County 6,891 88.6% 66.7% 63.9% 25,516 78.8% 33.3% 30.3% Glascock County 2,939 10.3% 33.9% 6.6% Glynn County 69,055 99.4% 86.5% 86.0% 16,024 92.7% 52.3% 49.5% Gordon County 23,549 97.8% 87.7% 85.7% 35,405 60.7% 48.6% 34.1% Grady County 10,237 98.6% 76.3% 75.3% 15,771 32.2% 42.0% 19.9% Greene County 20,139 69.0% 48.6% 37.1% Gwinnett County 970,513 98.4% 99.0% 97.5% 4,840 87.9% 82.5% 72.8% Habersham County 18,782 95.1% 67.0% 64.6% 28,693 89.0% 67.3% 62.7% Hall County 156,327 97.2% 97.7% 95.0% 56,365 81.8% 79.9% 67.1% Hancock County 8,387 13.4% 32.9% 9.7% Haralson County 7,649 95.7% 37.3% 35.5% 23,688 57.7% 48.7% 30.6% Harris County 1,033 99.5% 80.2% 80.2% 35,243 76.1% 51.0% 38.4% Hart County 6,185 100.0% 84.5% 84.5% 20,724 86.2% 42.8% 37.4% Heard County 11,725 54.8% 16.8% 12.0% Henry County 201,266 98.1% 98.9% 97.1% 47,098 91.6% 95.9% 87.7% Houston County 154,179 99.7% 99.6% 99.4% 15,452 78.6% 87.0% 70.4% Irwin County 9,126 75.9% 24.3% 19.2% Jackson County 31,057 93.8% 92.0% 86.5% 52,879 62.7% 84.4% 54.8% Jasper County 15,951 31.6% 52.3% 20.1% Jeff Davis County 5,039 99.5% 93.2% 92.8% 9,850 81.3% 47.1% 36.4% Jefferson County 15,314 67.5% 72.0% 52.2% Jenkins County 8,689 52.2% 51.1% 41.4% Johnson County 9,242 62.1% 46.7% 29.6% Jones County 4,740 99.8% 89.8% 89.7% 23,732 88.9% 82.4% 73.1% Lamar County 6,933 95.0% 91.9% 87.6% 12,534 70.8% 31.2% 23.9% Lanier County 10,171 67.8% 20.7% 14.7% Laurens County 20,628 92.9% 92.2% 85.6% 29,032 70.3% 44.7% 32.9% Lee County 12,756 94.1% 76.8% 71.8% 20,886 71.2% 70.9% 57.7% Liberty County 49,931 99.2% 89.0% 88.3% 18,099 74.5% 55.4% 42.3% Lincoln County 7,841 99.8% 55.8% 55.8% Long County 3,680 97.7% 51.1% 49.7% 14,668 69.8% 49.6% 38.7% Lowndes County 77,178 97.3% 97.9% 95.4% 42,561 42.6% 78.4% 35.3% Lumpkin County 4,872 94.0% 93.8% 88.2% 29,924 59.4% 58.7% 40.1% Macon County 11,765 50.7% 65.6% 34.9% Madison County 2,930 96.5% 87.4% 85.1% 28,543 51.3% 56.1% 35.4% Marion County 7,449 47.6% 10.1% 7.1% McDuffie County 8,646 98.2% 100.0% 98.2% 13,067 52.3% 76.4% 50.0% McIntosh County 11,180 100.0% 46.7% 46.7% Meriwether County 20,845 41.6% 40.1% 23.6% Miller County 5,807 40.0% 42.4% 33.5% Mitchell County 5,106 93.2% 65.6% 60.3% 16,010 36.9% 38.4% 23.2% Monroe County 5,276 100.0% 89.2% 89.2% 24,151 96.7% 43.1% 41.7% Montgomery County 103 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 8,552 44.5% 63.5% 36.1% Morgan County 4,792 91.1% 61.6% 55.9% 16,239 47.4% 42.8% 21.7% Murray County 12,914 96.3% 96.5% 92.9% 27,558 82.3% 56.4% 47.4% Muscogee County 189,766 98.6% 99.3% 98.0% 12,850 58.8% 93.0% 54.1% Newton County 77,291 97.6% 99.6% 97.3% 40,330 82.1% 86.8% 70.4% Oconee County 19,551 95.2% 92.5% 87.8% 24,037 68.3% 58.2% 43.9% Oglethorpe County 15,469 43.4% 37.0% 21.6% Paulding County 141,450 97.8% 97.4% 95.3% 36,971 80.0% 89.1% 73.3% Peach County 17,028 99.4% 100.0% 99.4% 11,534 60.0% 93.6% 57.0% Pickens County 6,527 99.9% 60.4% 60.4% 28,299 74.4% 49.6% 41.7% Pierce County 250 100.0% 95.6% 95.6% 19,918 74.7% 51.8% 43.1% Pike County 60 96.6% 100.0% 96.6% 19,930 42.8% 44.9% 18.5% Polk County 20,861 93.9% 93.1% 87.1% 22,848 72.8% 53.5% 43.8% Pulaski County 9,984 85.3% 79.2% 74.1% Putnam County 22,984 77.3% 52.2% 43.8% Quitman County 598 94.1% 34.9% 33.6% 1,651 18.4% 34.3% 4.1% Rabun County 17,206 62.6% 50.0% 35.4% Randolph County 6,116 71.4% 41.6% 36.9% Richmond County 189,025 99.4% 99.8% 99.3% 17,615 94.5% 83.3% 79.0% Rockdale County 81,883 99.1% 98.6% 97.7% 13,101 93.8% 96.0% 90.0% Schley County 4,496 47.3% 51.3% 36.9% Screven County 13,977 86.4% 46.4% 40.3% Seminole County 9,127 49.1% 43.4% 29.5% Spalding County 40,055 98.6% 98.9% 97.6% 28,864 77.3% 81.0% 61.7% Stephens County 11,541 94.1% 89.5% 84.8% 15,226 72.0% 59.3% 43.5% Stewart County 4,648 9.9% 81.5% 9.9% Sumter County 16,865 94.8% 93.2% 88.1% 12,012 40.3% 51.0% 24.9% Talbot County 5,747 53.3% 41.2% 29.7% Taliaferro County 1,600 98.6% 28.7% 28.7% Tattnall County 24,064 71.4% 47.7% 38.5% Taylor County 7,737 77.5% 39.8% 34.7% Telfair County 12,354 50.9% 75.6% 46.7% Terrell County 8,754 63.5% 68.1% 56.1% Thomas County 24,929 96.6% 85.6% 82.7% 20,632 49.0% 55.6% 33.1% Tift County 24,522 97.3% 75.5% 73.5% 16,890 63.9% 56.1% 40.1% Toombs County 13,635 99.5% 79.1% 79.0% 13,202 31.4% 43.5% 19.8% Towns County 12,972 86.9% 62.2% 57.5% Treutlen County 6,365 67.3% 67.9% 37.5% Troup County 38,005 94.5% 84.5% 80.0% 32,186 77.1% 67.5% 52.6% Turner County 4,603 98.7% 76.2% 75.1% 4,239 31.7% 48.1% 24.0% Twiggs County 7,680 39.5% 91.4% 34.7% Union County 26,388 67.3% 42.4% 32.2% Upson County 14,724 98.5% 87.3% 86.1% 13,362 74.4% 26.5% 22.9% Walker County 33,646 99.4% 99.5% 99.0% 35,269 81.5% 78.2% 68.0% Walton County 42,948 84.8% 98.0% 83.3% 60,117 82.0% 92.6% 77.5% Ware County 24,192 93.2% 94.3% 87.7% 11,422 54.5% 59.5% 33.9% Warren County 5,155 0.7% 6.6% 0.6% Washington County 6,959 95.3% 84.2% 80.6% 12,779 71.8% 36.4% 32.5% Wayne County 12,990 95.8% 86.1% 84.5% 17,906 54.3% 57.0% 38.3% Webster County 2,328 24.8% 59.4% 22.1% Wheeler County 7,314 31.8% 50.7% 26.0% White County 28,806 90.7% 67.3% 62.2% Whitfield County 66,976 99.6% 96.1% 95.8% 36,156 85.1% 62.4% 55.5% Wilcox County 8,761 43.6% 66.6% 38.1% Wilkes County 9,599 99.7% 52.0% 52.0% Wilkinson County 8,681 62.0% 58.4% 41.2% Worth County 5,922 99.2% 94.0% 93.5% 14,502 61.8% 45.2% 31.6% Guam 148,844 93.3% 50.2% 47.4% 20,242 30.8% 7.1% 5.3% Guam 148,844 93.3% 50.2% 47.4% 20,242 30.8% 7.1% 5.3% Hawaii 1,229,914 97.1% 97.4% 94.6% 210,282 84.6% 70.4% 61.9% Hawaii County 83,843 97.7% 89.8% 87.7% 122,472 82.5% 64.8% 55.6% Honolulu County 974,503 96.9% 98.6% 95.6% 21,135 82.6% 83.9% 70.5% Kalawao County 82 76.8% 0.0% 0.0% Kauai County 42,419 97.8% 92.1% 90.0% 31,391 94.3% 82.4% 78.2% Maui County 129,149 98.0% 95.3% 93.4% 35,202 84.1% 71.5% 64.5% Idaho 1,335,245 99.8% 96.9% 96.8% 603,788 63.3% 65.5% 48.1% Ada County 491,666 99.9% 99.9% 99.9% 27,241 87.3% 94.3% 82.3% Adams County 4,817 21.7% 63.2% 17.6% Bannock County 74,514 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 15,003 73.3% 88.5% 70.0% Bear Lake County 6,722 67.3% 80.6% 61.1% Benewah County 10,370 9.5% 49.8% 7.8% Bingham County 19,988 99.9% 97.5% 97.5% 29,935 86.4% 63.9% 55.8% Blaine County 18,743 99.9% 97.5% 97.4% 6,123 63.9% 61.9% 52.4% Boise County 8,333 18.9% 42.8% 16.5% Bonner County 13,658 96.0% 91.2% 88.9% 37,756 18.8% 45.0% 14.0% Bonneville County 109,372 99.9% 99.2% 99.1% 20,124 90.6% 86.5% 80.4% Boundary County 13,345 26.6% 75.7% 26.1% Butte County 2,684 45.7% 63.2% 31.1% Camas County 1,153 5.7% 19.9% 0.0% Canyon County 203,366 99.9% 99.9% 99.8% 47,699 73.0% 89.4% 67.6% Caribou County 7,190 15.2% 55.3% 10.7% Cassia County 12,704 100.0% 75.9% 75.9% 12,951 95.7% 62.8% 61.9% Clark County 806 59.5% 64.5% 57.6% Clearwater County 9,015 49.7% 43.3% 28.8% Custer County 4,506 59.4% 65.3% 50.6% Elmore County 18,176 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 11,227 74.4% 87.1% 69.4% Franklin County 15,189 88.8% 71.8% 68.3% Fremont County 13,978 70.6% 92.0% 66.5% Gem County 10,518 100.0% 92.6% 92.6% 9,900 84.7% 83.2% 72.9% Gooding County 15,715 99.2% 79.1% 78.8% Idaho County 17,593 9.6% 45.1% 7.4% Jefferson County 10,988 100.0% 84.7% 84.7% 22,440 90.8% 75.6% 71.8% Jerome County 12,592 100.0% 99.7% 99.7% 12,719 97.2% 28.7% 26.9% Kootenai County 138,451 99.5% 87.5% 87.1% 45,127 31.5% 43.1% 19.9% Latah County 26,252 98.2% 74.7% 73.0% 14,726 42.8% 58.0% 31.7% Lemhi County 8,240 44.5% 67.2% 41.4% Lewis County 3,763 0.0% 62.5% 0.0% Lincoln County 5,329 64.3% 52.4% 44.1% Madison County 41,006 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 13,970 91.3% 95.7% 87.6% Minidoka County 12,222 100.0% 85.8% 85.8% 9,972 99.2% 57.2% 57.2% Nez Perce County 34,696 99.7% 99.9% 99.7% 8,308 44.8% 47.7% 27.7% Oneida County 4,712 94.5% 51.6% 47.7% Owyhee County 12,613 53.5% 62.1% 41.6% Payette County 15,607 100.0% 96.9% 96.9% 11,349 98.5% 76.8% 76.2% Power County 8,068 87.5% 85.6% 80.8% Shoshone County 14,012 35.0% 46.5% 29.4% Teton County 12,544 71.1% 72.0% 50.3% Twin Falls County 60,983 100.0% 91.4% 91.4% 32,713 98.7% 47.7% 46.8% Valley County 3,973 96.5% 96.7% 94.6% 8,491 32.3% 34.0% 18.7% Washington County 5,770 98.9% 98.6% 97.6% 5,317 20.8% 61.0% 14.7% Illinois 0,913,310 99.3% 99.0% 98.3% 1,668,722 69.2% 65.1% 48.7% Adams County 42,627 99.8% 97.8% 97.7% 22,098 77.2% 44.1% 36.8% Alexander County 154 2.5% 100.0% 2.5% 4,704 45.5% 75.8% 45.1% Bond County 6,283 99.6% 100.0% 99.6% 10,283 35.8% 63.4% 20.9% Boone County 37,221 99.9% 99.7% 99.6% 15,933 78.6% 97.6% 77.7% Brown County 6,330 72.4% 67.3% 54.6% Bureau County 14,919 99.7% 89.8% 89.7% 17,909 67.9% 32.1% 25.9% Calhoun County 4,360 38.3% 41.6% 16.8% Carroll County 15,529 66.9% 41.7% 29.8% Cass County 6,023 100.0% 32.6% 32.6% 6,634 69.3% 44.5% 31.6% Champaign County 171,628 96.6% 99.0% 95.6% 34,914 69.1% 85.0% 59.0% Christian County 16,825 99.7% 91.5% 91.5% 16,611 57.3% 55.8% 40.2% Clark County 15,229 56.5% 57.6% 42.3% Clay County 4,761 100.0% 99.9% 99.9% 8,286 94.9% 38.1% 38.0% Clinton County 7,623 96.8% 99.3% 96.2% 29,286 66.3% 93.1% 65.5% Coles County 33,925 98.5% 99.0% 97.6% 12,409 33.6% 47.3% 22.0% Cook County 5,106,440 99.6% 99.8% 99.5% 2,852 80.7% 94.1% 75.9% Crawford County 6,102 99.7% 95.6% 95.3% 12,434 56.2% 55.4% 41.7% Cumberland County 10,324 49.3% 48.7% 33.3% De Witt County 7,192 98.8% 97.2% 96.1% 8,118 60.7% 71.0% 47.0% DeKalb County 81,432 99.6% 99.6% 99.3% 18,800 82.2% 89.4% 74.9% Douglas County 4,972 99.9% 100.0% 99.9% 14,783 71.0% 49.1% 38.8% DuPage County 919,133 99.6% 100.0% 99.6% 1,768 76.9% 100.0% 76.9% Edgar County 8,159 99.8% 51.5% 51.4% 8,274 28.5% 22.9% 12.5% Edwards County 6,071 97.9% 66.5% 66.1% Effingham County 13,673 99.5% 91.2% 90.8% 20,652 85.4% 55.2% 49.1% Fayette County 7,798 99.9% 91.9% 91.9% 13,507 59.4% 50.7% 42.3% Ford County 4,361 99.6% 92.8% 92.5% 8,888 65.4% 57.0% 45.6% Franklin County 15,166 98.4% 94.7% 93.3% 22,076 72.4% 78.5% 62.8% Fulton County 12,977 87.4% 84.0% 71.5% 20,044 87.1% 40.9% 37.0% Gallatin County 4,855 86.1% 51.8% 48.2% Greene County 11,651 89.1% 60.0% 57.6% Grundy County 39,515 97.7% 98.2% 96.2% 13,526 54.9% 86.7% 50.7% Hamilton County 7,984 65.0% 56.0% 45.7% Hancock County 2,783 95.0% 95.5% 90.9% 14,461 73.2% 35.4% 30.8% Hardin County 3,597 75.2% 16.1% 13.2% Henderson County 29 0.0% 37.9% 0.0% 6,122 67.9% 38.1% 29.6% Henry County 24,140 99.9% 99.2% 99.1% 24,279 94.7% 59.6% 58.0% Iroquois County 4,459 99.4% 75.5% 75.3% 22,014 52.8% 49.1% 27.7% Jackson County 30,173 98.2% 99.9% 98.2% 22,444 77.8% 79.4% 65.3% Jasper County 9,212 57.1% 55.0% 39.9% Jefferson County 15,218 98.9% 99.3% 98.2% 21,182 67.0% 64.1% 47.1% Jersey County 8,603 99.9% 100.0% 99.9% 12,643 73.3% 59.5% 45.5% Jo Daviess County 2,507 97.5% 31.9% 31.7% 19,251 67.8% 57.3% 44.9% Johnson County 13,381 69.8% 70.9% 56.6% Kane County 493,101 99.4% 99.9% 99.4% 21,081 66.0% 99.6% 65.9% Kankakee County 75,409 99.3% 99.8% 99.2% 30,665 66.6% 85.9% 61.3% Kendall County 121,340 99.6% 99.9% 99.6% 15,914 79.7% 96.9% 77.1% Knox County 31,551 99.9% 87.8% 87.7% 17,089 87.1% 33.2% 29.4% LaSalle County 73,968 99.7% 96.8% 96.6% 34,110 51.5% 68.2% 38.3% Lake County 698,751 99.2% 99.8% 99.0% 10,399 75.5% 99.4% 75.0% Lawrence County 4,472 100.0% 92.3% 92.3% 10,442 97.2% 22.4% 21.6% Lee County 14,668 99.6% 54.4% 54.2% 19,180 50.1% 38.5% 23.4% Livingston County 12,512 93.2% 86.9% 80.1% 23,009 61.9% 67.8% 48.4% Logan County 13,949 100.0% 96.9% 96.9% 13,642 85.8% 57.4% 51.8% Macon County 84,037 99.6% 89.6% 89.3% 17,446 67.8% 51.0% 37.3% Macoupin County 15,347 99.5% 85.9% 85.4% 28,898 68.4% 62.3% 49.7% Madison County 220,121 97.5% 99.9% 97.5% 43,743 82.6% 87.2% 72.4% Marion County 19,212 99.6% 98.0% 97.8% 17,702 52.4% 62.0% 38.9% Marshall County 11,678 81.3% 41.7% 36.7% Mason County 12,748 76.5% 66.9% 59.9% Massac County 6,537 99.2% 99.5% 98.8% 7,359 23.4% 67.6% 21.5% McDonough County 14,613 99.8% 80.8% 80.7% 12,248 88.4% 33.6% 30.9% McHenry County 267,102 99.6% 99.9% 99.6% 44,645 75.9% 96.7% 73.9% McLean County 133,195 99.8% 97.9% 97.8% 37,946 70.0% 74.4% 56.6% Menard County 12,121 70.6% 62.8% 52.6% Mercer County 15,504 91.8% 51.4% 49.0% Monroe County 20,288 98.9% 99.7% 98.7% 14,745 42.3% 81.8% 39.4% Montgomery County 12,899 92.9% 89.8% 88.6% 15,121 49.0% 48.0% 29.5% Morgan County 20,544 99.7% 92.5% 92.2% 11,665 60.4% 50.5% 37.0% Moultrie County 4,320 99.5% 100.0% 99.5% 10,003 56.4% 28.6% 17.3% Ogle County 16,677 98.9% 99.6% 98.6% 34,674 62.9% 71.1% 45.2% Peoria County 147,087 98.8% 90.3% 89.2% 31,296 92.0% 47.6% 45.5% Perry County 5,871 99.1% 100.0% 99.1% 14,717 63.9% 83.0% 59.8% Piatt County 5,933 99.9% 100.0% 99.9% 10,790 76.0% 46.1% 36.9% Pike County 14,484 59.4% 56.7% 45.2% Pope County 3,770 48.1% 34.9% 23.7% Pulaski County 4,991 61.1% 74.3% 47.9% Putnam County 5,572 51.4% 38.5% 28.8% Randolph County 6,002 66.8% 99.1% 66.1% 24,066 59.6% 80.6% 53.2% Richland County 8,394 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 7,041 95.6% 37.5% 37.1% Rock Island County 125,220 99.8% 99.4% 99.2% 16,307 87.8% 72.0% 62.8% Saline County 8,074 99.2% 85.3% 84.6% 15,013 77.2% 27.6% 22.6% Sangamon County 157,623 99.6% 99.8% 99.5% 36,911 72.8% 81.4% 61.3% Schuyler County 6,746 63.8% 61.0% 52.2% Scott County 4,790 87.7% 52.0% 50.7% Shelby County 4,842 99.2% 92.8% 92.2% 15,919 37.5% 42.4% 25.8% St. Clair County 214,745 96.4% 99.9% 96.4% 37,926 66.0% 98.4% 65.8% Stark County 5,345 96.3% 9.0% 9.0% Stephenson County 23,445 99.7% 96.5% 96.3% 20,182 54.3% 42.3% 27.4% Tazewell County 101,307 99.2% 94.8% 94.1% 28,604 69.2% 48.0% 34.2% Union County 5,906 99.9% 99.9% 99.9% 10,861 57.4% 68.8% 46.5% Vermilion County 43,260 97.1% 94.1% 91.3% 29,077 58.1% 62.5% 40.0% Wabash County 6,764 97.0% 13.2% 11.9% 4,323 52.0% 14.7% 7.5% Warren County 8,942 100.0% 94.2% 94.2% 7,412 83.4% 13.9% 11.5% Washington County 96 98.9% 87.5% 86.4% 13,547 56.3% 80.4% 48.4% Wayne County 4,661 100.0% 94.5% 94.5% 11,211 90.6% 32.1% 28.6% White County 4,969 100.0% 71.5% 71.5% 8,645 90.5% 37.2% 35.1% Whiteside County 30,888 99.9% 94.6% 94.6% 23,770 68.0% 60.2% 47.4% Will County 662,766 99.2% 99.9% 99.1% 33,991 81.5% 98.7% 80.9% Williamson County 39,139 99.4% 98.8% 98.2% 27,556 67.6% 78.8% 61.5% Winnebago County 254,649 99.3% 99.7% 99.0% 27,539 70.6% 96.6% 68.6% Woodford County 11,293 99.2% 74.2% 73.5% 26,835 75.2% 69.4% 57.4% Indiana 4,849,117 98.8% 98.3% 97.2% 1,983,920 69.8% 65.1% 49.1% Adams County 10,613 99.9% 99.9% 99.9% 25,455 56.6% 74.8% 46.0% Allen County 340,436 99.0% 99.9% 99.0% 51,013 92.7% 93.2% 86.4% Bartholomew County 57,332 99.3% 99.4% 98.7% 26,208 74.4% 63.6% 48.8% Benton County 8,719 67.3% 39.6% 28.4% Blackford County 5,961 99.7% 100.0% 99.7% 5,958 13.5% 80.6% 9.5% Boone County 53,690 99.4% 100.0% 99.4% 20,474 37.2% 92.7% 37.0% Brown County 15,570 88.4% 44.8% 40.6% Carroll County 1,058 100.0% 31.7% 31.7% 19,497 53.6% 65.0% 42.0% Cass County 20,020 99.2% 99.6% 98.8% 17,520 45.3% 61.6% 38.1% Clark County 97,351 97.1% 100.0% 97.1% 26,886 68.0% 79.3% 59.0% Clay County 10,512 99.4% 99.3% 98.8% 15,867 48.9% 55.4% 28.9% Clinton County 16,410 99.5% 97.1% 96.7% 16,433 48.5% 70.0% 41.5% Crawford County 10,536 28.8% 35.4% 16.0% Daviess County 12,957 99.9% 97.5% 97.5% 20,461 46.0% 42.9% 22.8% DeKalb County 20,559 100.0% 99.6% 99.6% 23,172 98.5% 78.7% 77.7% Dearborn County 20,367 98.8% 90.3% 89.4% 30,771 88.5% 61.2% 54.9% Decatur County 12,330 98.9% 99.8% 98.8% 14,086 26.9% 63.4% 21.5% Delaware County 85,610 99.4% 99.9% 99.3% 26,421 60.2% 94.2% 58.7% Dubois County 22,883 99.5% 82.6% 82.2% 20,749 69.8% 26.8% 20.2% Elkhart County 158,198 98.5% 95.6% 94.2% 48,692 93.6% 63.4% 59.1% Fayette County 14,331 99.1% 93.7% 92.8% 9,018 37.2% 38.1% 19.5% Floyd County 52,977 97.2% 100.0% 97.2% 27,737 93.2% 96.1% 89.9% Fountain County 16,574 74.5% 71.0% 56.5% Franklin County 2,529 98.1% 76.0% 74.2% 20,499 33.3% 39.0% 20.2% Fulton County 7,251 99.7% 99.7% 99.6% 13,076 50.5% 50.5% 31.0% Gibson County 8,233 96.0% 91.6% 87.9% 24,760 62.2% 73.2% 54.4% Grant County 40,371 96.2% 99.3% 95.6% 25,651 57.6% 83.1% 50.4% Greene County 5,473 99.8% 100.0% 99.8% 25,533 53.4% 52.7% 39.2% Hamilton County 343,370 99.6% 99.9% 99.6% 21,551 61.7% 99.0% 61.4% Hancock County 59,725 99.6% 99.7% 99.4% 23,345 92.4% 91.5% 85.0% Harrison County 5,598 91.7% 71.8% 66.1% 34,253 74.9% 44.8% 36.1% Hendricks County 154,006 98.7% 100.0% 98.7% 28,528 76.7% 97.9% 75.4% Henry County 18,499 99.8% 84.8% 84.7% 30,416 69.6% 60.3% 46.1% Howard County 61,866 99.6% 98.7% 98.4% 21,708 66.4% 82.9% 57.0% Huntington County 17,625 99.8% 96.1% 96.0% 19,209 85.3% 73.8% 66.5% Jackson County 23,877 99.6% 94.4% 94.1% 22,423 94.0% 56.7% 53.8% Jasper County 5,450 99.7% 77.6% 77.4% 27,831 56.7% 57.4% 43.4% Jay County 6,309 99.6% 97.4% 97.1% 13,889 42.2% 59.2% 26.6% Jefferson County 17,342 99.1% 85.5% 84.9% 15,604 47.0% 39.5% 22.0% Jennings County 6,909 99.6% 85.8% 85.5% 20,627 79.1% 49.6% 42.8% Johnson County 144,369 99.6% 100.0% 99.6% 21,413 85.6% 91.1% 79.8% Knox County 19,261 100.0% 90.4% 90.4% 16,528 67.0% 55.7% 38.6% Kosciusko County 41,315 99.8% 82.1% 82.0% 39,511 90.7% 57.2% 52.6% LaGrange County 40,866 85.6% 53.6% 47.2% LaPorte County 70,468 94.1% 93.4% 87.6% 41,207 69.3% 83.3% 57.8% Lake County 477,024 99.4% 99.9% 99.4% 22,665 68.0% 95.4% 65.4% Lawrence County 14,556 99.4% 95.8% 95.3% 30,666 77.6% 53.3% 46.9% Madison County 98,482 98.1% 99.9% 98.0% 33,262 60.4% 97.9% 60.0% Marion County 960,821 99.1% 100.0% 99.1% 8,645 94.9% 100.0% 94.9% Marshall County 12,166 98.8% 92.4% 91.4% 34,166 70.4% 58.5% 47.5% Martin County 9,803 61.5% 59.0% 47.9% Miami County 18,005 95.7% 90.1% 85.9% 17,669 36.2% 51.0% 21.7% Monroe County 109,245 99.1% 96.2% 95.3% 30,500 85.7% 60.2% 53.4% Montgomery County 17,879 99.8% 95.7% 95.6% 20,394 47.5% 43.9% 24.9% Morgan County 33,061 89.3% 99.9% 89.2% 39,175 88.7% 77.4% 67.7% Newton County 13,823 72.1% 46.5% 35.1% Noble County 10,400 99.9% 94.9% 94.8% 36,967 96.8% 57.1% 56.5% Ohio County 6,114 57.9% 50.1% 44.8% Orange County 19,623 98.5% 56.0% 55.6% Owen County 21,482 62.8% 32.4% 24.7% Parke County 110 100.0% 0.9% 0.9% 16,259 50.9% 46.5% 28.7% Perry County 8,802 99.6% 74.1% 73.8% 10,381 82.9% 38.6% 35.1% Pike County 12,168 49.5% 42.7% 29.7% Porter County 132,955 99.3% 99.6% 99.0% 41,836 81.4% 96.5% 79.7% Posey County 7,428 90.1% 99.9% 90.1% 17,635 54.9% 74.4% 40.8% Pulaski County 12,485 44.6% 39.7% 24.6% Putnam County 10,775 100.0% 69.3% 69.3% 26,526 57.8% 52.9% 34.0% Randolph County 8,096 97.7% 96.5% 94.3% 16,341 44.5% 53.0% 33.0% Ripley County 5,390 97.3% 100.0% 97.3% 23,697 78.3% 53.4% 45.1% Rush County 6,402 98.8% 99.6% 98.5% 10,271 25.9% 43.3% 12.6% Scott County 7,577 100.0% 73.1% 73.1% 17,011 80.5% 40.2% 29.6% Shelby County 21,071 99.8% 90.1% 89.9% 23,920 79.5% 73.4% 61.1% Spencer County 19,967 83.9% 49.7% 41.7% St. Joseph County 244,642 98.4% 99.1% 97.5% 27,592 75.2% 76.5% 61.3% Starke County 23,258 50.4% 48.7% 31.4% Steuben County 12,016 99.8% 85.0% 85.0% 22,709 97.9% 57.7% 56.7% Sullivan County 4,854 99.0% 100.0% 99.0% 15,816 40.8% 55.2% 24.4% Switzerland County 10,006 50.1% 40.9% 25.0% Tippecanoe County 157,861 98.7% 99.7% 98.5% 30,856 78.3% 68.0% 55.5% Tipton County 5,829 99.2% 100.0% 99.2% 9,532 47.4% 82.9% 38.7% Union County 6,952 14.4% 57.2% 11.0% Vanderburgh County 164,669 99.4% 98.7% 98.1% 15,075 84.1% 87.1% 72.5% Vermillion County 6,360 99.9% 83.4% 83.4% 9,091 54.6% 30.9% 16.1% Vigo County 78,656 95.0% 98.3% 93.3% 27,350 65.6% 67.4% 50.2% Wabash County 15,132 99.6% 99.2% 98.9% 15,696 49.5% 52.3% 30.2% Warren County 8,461 24.7% 48.5% 22.4% Warrick County 47,713 99.5% 97.7% 97.3% 17,472 47.7% 74.7% 41.0% Washington County 6,632 95.4% 81.7% 77.6% 21,592 91.6% 41.3% 37.5% Wayne County 41,014 99.4% 86.2% 85.8% 25,259 52.3% 46.8% 27.0% Wells County 9,986 99.9% 99.2% 99.1% 18,349 83.2% 72.0% 60.6% White County 9,528 99.6% 87.7% 87.4% 15,070 73.6% 61.9% 49.2% Whitley County 10,539 99.8% 97.9% 97.8% 24,088 85.7% 76.8% 67.6% Iowa 2,017,794 99.4% 95.9% 95.4% 1,182,723 85.2% 58.2% 50.8% Adair County 7,494 94.2% 57.0% 56.7% Adams County 3,611 63.4% 8.5% 4.4% Allamakee County 13,960 88.0% 48.3% 47.6% Appanoose County 5,161 99.9% 99.3% 99.3% 6,933 68.0% 64.0% 50.5% Audubon County 5,598 96.3% 32.0% 31.6% Benton County 4,768 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 20,943 84.4% 65.9% 59.8% Black Hawk County 113,294 99.8% 93.8% 93.7% 16,980 90.0% 69.7% 64.5% Boone County 12,373 99.4% 90.3% 89.8% 14,236 73.7% 72.4% 56.1% Bremer County 9,120 100.0% 99.8% 99.8% 16,139 93.6% 53.0% 51.0% Buchanan County 6,824 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 13,890 87.7% 58.5% 53.4% Buena Vista County 11,590 100.0% 85.1% 85.1% 9,010 99.1% 52.2% 52.2% Butler County 14,269 91.6% 50.7% 47.4% Calhoun County 9,725 94.8% 41.6% 40.1% Carroll County 10,073 99.7% 94.1% 93.8% 10,494 90.0% 17.2% 16.6% Cass County 6,598 100.0% 57.3% 57.3% 6,506 95.9% 18.6% 18.3% Cedar County 18,399 88.4% 79.7% 73.6% Cerro Gordo County 33,697 99.9% 81.9% 81.8% 8,712 93.0% 29.0% 27.7% Cherokee County 4,666 96.3% 66.9% 66.7% 6,825 86.5% 32.7% 30.6% Chickasaw County 11,716 96.9% 60.8% 59.4% Clarke County 5,259 98.8% 100.0% 98.8% 4,433 50.1% 61.4% 30.2% Clay County 10,946 100.0% 99.2% 99.2% 5,529 97.2% 22.7% 22.4% Clayton County 166 100.0% 74.0% 74.0% 16,861 88.8% 50.7% 49.0% Clinton County 32,390 99.9% 98.2% 98.2% 13,954 93.9% 46.1% 43.3% Crawford County 8,013 99.6% 62.2% 62.0% 8,110 86.7% 10.0% 8.7% Dallas County 83,659 99.3% 100.0% 99.3% 24,357 76.3% 87.6% 67.1% Davis County 9,130 96.8% 50.1% 49.7% Decatur County 7,683 97.3% 67.4% 66.7% Delaware County 4,906 100.0% 93.3% 93.3% 12,662 95.4% 56.4% 53.9% Des Moines County 27,759 98.8% 92.5% 91.5% 10,534 84.9% 59.8% 51.2% Dickinson County 13,158 99.7% 72.9% 72.7% 4,870 95.5% 53.4% 50.4% Dubuque County 67,471 99.8% 94.1% 94.0% 31,206 95.9% 59.2% 57.5% Emmet County 5,654 100.0% 99.0% 99.0% 3,522 98.9% 39.0% 38.7% Fayette County 5,835 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 13,459 90.2% 47.8% 46.8% Floyd County 7,096 99.6% 86.2% 86.0% 8,241 86.7% 29.6% 26.1% Franklin County 9,916 88.1% 57.5% 54.4% Fremont County 14 100.0% 64.2% 64.2% 6,450 92.9% 16.8% 13.4% Greene County 8,741 88.3% 68.9% 63.2% Grundy County 12,356 94.0% 43.6% 41.4% Guthrie County 10,647 93.6% 53.3% 50.9% Hamilton County 7,501 99.9% 100.0% 99.9% 7,319 80.1% 48.3% 38.3% Hancock County 10,685 96.8% 66.3% 65.4% Hardin County 4,994 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 11,573 96.2% 59.5% 57.8% Harrison County 14,658 87.9% 56.5% 50.8% Henry County 9,104 100.0% 99.9% 99.9% 11,092 89.1% 67.6% 65.2% Howard County 9,533 92.9% 61.1% 59.6% Humboldt County 5,336 100.0% 99.6% 99.6% 4,236 95.6% 57.8% 57.3% Ida County 6,888 65.4% 37.1% 26.5% Iowa County 16,475 83.8% 76.4% 67.2% Jackson County 6,084 100.0% 99.0% 99.0% 13,240 93.4% 46.3% 42.8% Jasper County 15,923 99.9% 95.8% 95.7% 22,015 84.9% 69.4% 59.0% Jefferson County 9,106 98.4% 96.4% 94.9% 6,592 41.1% 61.2% 33.2% Johnson County 129,440 99.0% 97.6% 96.6% 26,980 85.6% 67.7% 59.5% Jones County 5,471 100.0% 99.9% 99.9% 15,377 97.9% 52.3% 51.6% Keokuk County 9,904 98.3% 61.4% 61.2% Kossuth County 5,289 99.6% 99.9% 99.6% 9,186 85.0% 27.6% 21.3% Lee County 19,499 99.7% 79.6% 79.5% 13,341 41.1% 48.5% 29.2% Linn County 196,627 99.5% 98.6% 98.2% 32,406 79.0% 74.0% 61.1% Louisa County 10,677 80.5% 77.8% 68.1% Lucas County 8,689 70.4% 76.4% 64.4% Lyon County 12,179 97.5% 54.4% 53.4% Madison County 5,204 99.9% 100.0% 99.9% 11,832 51.0% 70.0% 39.1% Mahaska County 12,449 99.9% 81.0% 80.9% 9,497 74.1% 51.0% 41.3% Marion County 17,747 100.0% 96.6% 96.6% 15,895 80.8% 55.3% 47.2% Marshall County 27,210 99.9% 99.3% 99.2% 12,669 92.7% 57.7% 54.2% Mills County 5,034 98.0% 57.0% 55.1% 9,519 71.5% 37.1% 22.8% Mitchell County 10,532 90.9% 58.1% 57.4% Monona County 8,486 75.6% 42.1% 30.6% Monroe County 7,550 72.5% 52.6% 42.8% Montgomery County 5,495 100.0% 70.3% 70.3% 4,710 100.0% 11.0% 11.0% Muscatine County 24,604 97.3% 98.0% 95.4% 17,773 83.7% 66.6% 59.7% O'Brien County 5,120 100.0% 79.4% 79.4% 8,940 83.0% 41.9% 38.7% Osceola County 6,036 85.4% 68.7% 62.6% Page County 9,097 100.0% 81.4% 81.4% 6,046 98.4% 31.6% 31.6% Palo Alto County 8,764 84.8% 66.7% 59.5% Plymouth County 9,871 99.9% 95.1% 95.0% 15,810 78.9% 60.9% 54.6% Pocahontas County 7,053 97.5% 32.5% 32.4% Polk County 478,262 99.3% 99.8% 99.1% 22,827 62.8% 91.9% 59.1% Pottawattamie County 68,168 99.9% 99.8% 99.8% 25,005 96.7% 60.2% 58.4% Poweshiek County 9,207 100.0% 99.6% 99.6% 9,260 64.2% 73.6% 48.6% Ringgold County 4,670 97.0% 37.8% 37.5% Sac County 9,673 85.0% 36.7% 33.4% Scott County 150,733 99.8% 99.7% 99.6% 23,191 86.6% 80.0% 70.2% Shelby County 4,717 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 6,928 92.2% 2.2% 2.2% Sioux County 15,605 99.8% 68.8% 68.7% 20,445 89.7% 68.3% 59.8% Story County 71,024 98.4% 96.9% 95.3% 28,649 80.7% 51.5% 41.6% Tama County 5,209 100.0% 81.9% 81.9% 11,694 90.8% 60.4% 58.7% Taylor County 5,858 90.8% 21.4% 20.2% Union County 7,366 99.9% 100.0% 99.9% 4,521 76.6% 65.8% 50.3% Van Buren County 7,256 80.7% 53.9% 42.2% Wapello County 24,691 99.1% 99.3% 98.5% 10,352 64.9% 66.1% 46.7% Warren County 28,541 99.8% 99.7% 99.6% 25,786 54.8% 82.6% 48.5% Washington County 6,868 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 15,703 96.3% 68.9% 67.1% Wayne County 6,467 80.5% 39.7% 35.4% Webster County 24,517 92.9% 99.8% 92.7% 12,109 93.5% 52.7% 49.2% Winnebago County 10,617 99.9% 70.8% 70.8% Winneshiek County 7,549 99.7% 38.3% 38.0% 12,425 88.5% 36.2% 34.5% Woodbury County 88,642 99.9% 93.2% 93.1% 17,029 79.5% 70.9% 60.5% Worth County 7,319 99.6% 68.5% 68.3% Wright County 12,681 96.6% 73.4% 71.6% Kansas 2,111,557 98.3% 97.3% 95.8% 825,593 75.1% 65.8% 52.7% Allen County 5,865 99.9% 100.0% 99.9% 6,714 62.6% 77.8% 52.0% Anderson County 7,776 56.6% 63.8% 48.1% Atchison County 10,687 100.0% 97.9% 97.9% 5,421 85.5% 59.8% 54.1% Barber County 4,122 92.4% 73.7% 72.8% Barton County 14,514 100.0% 84.2% 84.2% 10,566 99.1% 32.5% 32.5% Bourbon County 7,673 100.0% 99.1% 99.1% 6,820 40.6% 58.2% 34.1% Brown County 9,364 90.3% 79.9% 75.6% Butler County 36,802 99.8% 100.0% 99.8% 31,438 80.8% 90.8% 76.7% Chase County 2,548 59.2% 13.0% 7.4% Chautauqua County 3,415 16.9% 61.3% 13.4% Cherokee County 19,088 70.8% 70.6% 59.1% Cheyenne County 2,583 53.8% 0.0% 0.0% Clark County 1,933 92.3% 84.6% 82.1% Clay County 4,071 100.0% 94.5% 94.5% 3,972 78.0% 48.2% 40.1% Cloud County 4,967 100.0% 88.7% 88.7% 3,979 91.8% 57.7% 52.8% Coffey County 8,280 70.0% 64.8% 54.4% Comanche County 1,681 71.9% 47.8% 39.7% Cowley County 23,210 100.0% 85.9% 85.9% 11,243 89.1% 39.5% 36.7% Crawford County 23,126 100.0% 98.5% 98.5% 15,952 91.3% 66.8% 65.1% Decatur County 2,689 79.5% 8.5% 6.6% Dickinson County 6,670 99.3% 100.0% 99.3% 11,760 78.1% 68.8% 51.5% Doniphan County 2,108 99.6% 95.2% 94.9% 5,332 83.1% 79.0% 69.7% Douglas County 101,337 99.0% 97.8% 96.9% 18,627 68.4% 71.5% 47.0% Edwards County 2,739 78.5% 27.4% 20.5% Elk County 2,441 60.2% 27.4% 24.7% Ellis County 21,623 100.0% 95.1% 95.1% 7,318 99.2% 48.1% 48.1% Ellsworth County 6,355 89.7% 84.3% 78.7% Finney County 30,109 99.7% 97.3% 97.0% 7,541 63.1% 88.5% 58.6% Ford County 27,326 99.8% 97.1% 96.9% 6,522 55.6% 79.2% 48.0% Franklin County 12,427 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 13,565 38.9% 51.8% 26.0% Geary County 26,054 99.8% 84.4% 84.3% 9,637 22.4% 43.9% 4.2% Gove County 2,717 78.3% 15.8% 13.4% Graham County 2,411 99.9% 53.5% 53.4% Grant County 5,764 99.7% 31.6% 31.5% 1,433 31.4% 19.5% 9.4% Gray County 5,729 98.7% 48.9% 48.5% Greeley County 1,223 68.5% 90.6% 68.5% Greenwood County 5,939 22.7% 60.3% 17.5% Hamilton County 2,430 78.3% 88.1% 78.3% Harper County 5,323 97.3% 70.5% 70.3% Harvey County 20,268 99.9% 98.6% 98.6% 13,533 93.3% 53.9% 50.4% Haskell County 3,576 76.1% 47.9% 39.1% Hodgeman County 1,755 68.8% 50.5% 46.0% Jackson County 13,286 79.2% 69.3% 59.7% Jefferson County 155 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 18,189 82.2% 75.7% 64.2% Jewell County 2,898 93.6% 6.9% 6.4% Johnson County 593,903 98.5% 99.9% 98.4% 25,292 68.6% 97.6% 67.6% Kearny County 3,855 61.7% 80.3% 54.9% Kingman County 7,193 93.0% 69.3% 67.5% Kiowa County 2,404 66.8% 19.4% 10.4% Labette County 9,289 99.9% 95.6% 95.5% 10,468 41.2% 63.5% 24.4% Lane County 1,556 95.3% 92.2% 89.7% Leavenworth County 50,302 91.5% 100.0% 91.5% 32,590 83.1% 90.9% 75.9% Lincoln County 2,899 77.0% 7.4% 3.7% Linn County 9,796 61.2% 50.6% 41.6% Logan County 2,705 86.7% 11.6% 10.8% Lyon County 23,726 100.0% 99.6% 99.6% 8,172 68.4% 40.3% 35.1% Marion County 11,868 69.2% 67.6% 55.3% Marshall County 9,982 72.9% 55.0% 43.2% McPherson County 13,900 99.9% 82.0% 81.9% 16,112 85.6% 58.5% 49.3% Meade County 3,897 78.8% 67.8% 62.2% Miami County 8,435 8.0% 100.0% 8.0% 26,432 38.0% 84.4% 37.1% Mitchell County 5,738 95.3% 69.3% 68.7% Montgomery County 17,013 99.9% 62.0% 61.9% 13,983 51.6% 56.5% 38.6% Morris County 5,349 96.8% 66.9% 64.8% Morton County 2,599 76.1% 91.4% 73.6% Nemaha County 10,115 77.1% 59.5% 51.9% Neosho County 8,624 99.8% 93.3% 93.2% 6,982 45.0% 34.8% 13.5% Ness County 2,645 95.2% 75.5% 72.8% Norton County 5,301 83.2% 63.1% 59.0% Osage County 15,654 64.2% 78.1% 56.0% Osborne County 3,490 99.9% 61.1% 61.1% Ottawa County 5,795 84.7% 69.7% 61.2% Pawnee County 3,687 100.0% 22.0% 22.0% 2,492 91.6% 11.6% 11.5% Phillips County 4,809 81.3% 56.2% 51.6% Pottawatomie County 9,023 99.8% 69.0% 68.9% 17,250 92.8% 71.8% 65.7% Pratt County 6,498 100.0% 99.5% 99.5% 2,569 79.7% 38.7% 35.2% Rawlins County 2,528 54.0% 8.1% 3.4% Reno County 41,943 97.9% 79.5% 77.7% 19,573 70.5% 33.6% 27.9% Republic County 4,642 81.1% 69.9% 60.9% Rice County 9,407 88.9% 46.7% 43.1% Riley County 63,599 99.9% 92.9% 92.8% 7,509 74.5% 70.9% 58.5% Rooks County 4,813 88.3% 78.7% 72.4% Rush County 2,927 90.5% 8.1% 7.6% Russell County 4,059 100.0% 60.3% 60.3% 2,580 99.7% 33.9% 33.8% Saline County 45,890 99.9% 100.0% 99.9% 7,706 97.0% 53.5% 52.5% Scott County 5,014 80.1% 94.7% 80.1% Sedgwick County 485,427 99.8% 99.9% 99.8% 40,098 91.0% 94.8% 86.1% Seward County 19,263 98.9% 99.0% 97.9% 2,095 38.5% 72.1% 33.2% Shawnee County 147,314 99.8% 99.8% 99.7% 30,166 91.7% 82.4% 75.7% Sheridan County 2,425 79.5% 57.7% 55.1% Sherman County 4,347 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 1,483 41.6% 49.3% 32.6% Smith County 3,533 93.0% 57.4% 53.3% Stafford County 3,993 94.6% 7.4% 7.1% Stanton County 1,963 76.5% 28.6% 24.6% Stevens County 5,175 72.5% 84.4% 72.5% Sumner County 8,213 17.6% 61.7% 17.6% 14,260 67.9% 42.0% 28.2% Thomas County 5,426 100.0% 93.5% 93.5% 2,467 67.0% 45.2% 32.1% Trego County 2,752 99.4% 30.5% 30.5% Wabaunsee County 7,019 89.2% 64.5% 59.8% Wallace County 1,488 51.2% 5.3% 0.0% Washington County 5,501 39.9% 43.3% 14.6% Wichita County 2,064 72.9% 10.7% 6.5% Wilson County 8,622 60.9% 67.8% 55.4% Woodson County 3,109 43.1% 57.0% 43.1% Wyandotte County 156,920 97.0% 99.8% 96.8% 8,826 92.4% 94.9% 87.7% Kentucky 2,639,493 97.4% 95.6% 93.3% 1,872,817 67.9% 46.5% 34.0% Adair County 5,133 99.9% 99.9% 99.8% 13,934 38.9% 29.8% 19.4% Allen County 4,797 99.4% 84.9% 84.4% 16,478 98.6% 37.3% 37.0% Anderson County 13,761 97.5% 97.1% 94.8% 10,463 36.0% 53.8% 28.0% Ballard County 7,650 100.0% 38.3% 38.3% Barren County 16,895 92.9% 80.7% 74.7% 27,959 77.3% 31.1% 23.2% Bath County 12,829 67.9% 49.8% 39.1% Bell County 10,373 94.9% 98.2% 93.1% 13,195 87.2% 38.1% 35.1% Boone County 122,839 98.6% 98.0% 96.6% 16,254 95.5% 78.3% 75.2% Bourbon County 11,196 97.7% 100.0% 97.7% 8,897 32.2% 74.9% 29.1% Boyd County 36,575 99.2% 73.5% 73.0% 11,535 74.9% 49.7% 43.6% Boyle County 20,059 95.9% 87.1% 83.3% 10,845 37.1% 51.8% 27.7% Bracken County 8,452 44.1% 73.6% 41.4% Breathitt County 13,351 65.9% 29.5% 28.3% Breckinridge County 20,943 53.2% 53.1% 26.1% Bullitt County 58,944 98.1% 99.9% 98.1% 24,892 80.5% 81.2% 67.4% Butler County 12,295 36.9% 48.0% 27.5% Caldwell County 6,030 99.6% 99.2% 98.8% 6,540 33.4% 31.1% 12.6% Calloway County 19,247 93.8% 96.3% 90.3% 18,438 77.6% 32.4% 23.3% Campbell County 77,289 99.3% 98.0% 97.4% 16,011 97.1% 80.0% 77.7% Carlisle County 4,720 70.2% 18.8% 10.7% Carroll County 5,530 92.5% 100.0% 92.5% 5,408 44.5% 66.9% 37.0% Carter County 5,521 90.7% 96.8% 88.0% 20,874 50.7% 44.8% 30.4% Casey County 15,920 50.2% 23.7% 19.4% Christian County 48,685 96.8% 97.9% 94.7% 24,352 66.4% 67.2% 48.5% Clark County 26,302 97.6% 95.8% 93.5% 10,759 36.4% 71.0% 29.6% Clay County 19,913 85.8% 21.7% 21.0% Clinton County 9,123 62.2% 51.6% 37.4% Crittenden County 8,981 41.8% 49.6% 37.1% Cumberland County 5,946 44.1% 42.1% 31.1% Daviess County 78,142 97.2% 94.5% 92.1% 25,080 52.6% 63.6% 36.8% Edmonson County 12,269 48.7% 28.6% 14.9% Elliott County 7,293 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% Estill County 3,996 98.6% 39.4% 38.7% 10,048 67.5% 31.3% 26.3% Fayette County 310,737 99.2% 100.0% 99.2% 9,610 64.0% 95.1% 62.8% Fleming County 15,288 55.6% 53.1% 37.0% Floyd County 7,828 86.2% 26.0% 21.7% 27,150 91.2% 7.7% 6.9% Franklin County 37,638 71.5% 95.8% 67.8% 13,969 20.9% 67.2% 17.4% Fulton County 2,361 94.7% 82.8% 78.6% 4,021 61.3% 59.8% 47.5% Gallatin County 8,763 81.4% 91.2% 75.8% Garrard County 17,589 58.6% 58.3% 42.7% Grant County 25,502 90.9% 78.8% 73.1% Graves County 12,218 98.4% 81.1% 79.9% 24,194 90.6% 44.5% 41.1% Grayson County 6,560 97.5% 46.8% 46.1% 20,071 75.2% 31.3% 24.5% Green County 11,365 39.4% 27.0% 17.3% Greenup County 20,393 99.3% 93.7% 93.1% 15,010 60.6% 45.4% 35.0% Hancock County 779 86.6% 0.1% 0.1% 8,242 14.7% 33.8% 9.0% Hardin County 70,020 99.8% 99.8% 99.6% 41,842 73.1% 68.5% 52.4% Harlan County 5,920 82.1% 43.1% 35.7% 19,742 65.3% 22.9% 15.7% Harrison County 6,601 97.9% 97.2% 95.1% 12,502 14.2% 59.5% 12.0% Hart County 2,262 98.8% 47.5% 46.6% 17,338 63.7% 21.1% 16.7% Henderson County 27,865 94.5% 97.8% 92.4% 16,181 51.5% 59.2% 28.5% Henry County 15,771 54.9% 73.6% 46.8% Hickman County 4,422 42.8% 57.6% 34.3% Hopkins County 21,114 95.9% 92.2% 88.2% 23,698 58.5% 65.8% 42.8% Jackson County 12,973 100.0% 2.2% 2.2% Jefferson County 760,575 98.2% 99.9% 98.2% 12,824 72.8% 94.9% 70.4% Jessamine County 40,812 99.9% 99.1% 99.1% 13,442 65.9% 88.7% 63.4% Johnson County 5,934 99.9% 67.9% 67.8% 16,310 96.0% 7.4% 7.2% Kenton County 158,473 99.4% 98.3% 97.7% 11,840 96.8% 78.3% 76.1% Knott County 13,874 99.3% 9.2% 9.2% Knox County 11,542 99.9% 58.7% 58.7% 18,249 76.9% 26.7% 22.6% Larue County 15,163 65.5% 44.7% 36.6% Laurel County 24,497 97.0% 66.5% 65.3% 38,388 85.4% 30.8% 28.5% Lawrence County 3,905 99.6% 99.8% 99.4% 12,204 99.7% 12.9% 12.8% Lee County 7,261 52.8% 23.5% 13.6% Leslie County 10,093 40.8% 4.8% 2.1% Letcher County 20,893 97.0% 17.6% 17.4% Lewis County 12,954 53.0% 56.6% 41.4% Lincoln County 22 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 24,338 50.4% 54.2% 33.1% Livingston County 375 98.4% 12.2% 12.2% 8,588 43.6% 44.2% 24.8% Logan County 6,795 98.8% 94.8% 94.6% 21,082 65.2% 41.6% 31.6% Lyon County 9,101 43.6% 47.1% 20.6% Madison County 60,597 98.5% 97.7% 96.3% 34,590 79.1% 58.0% 49.6% Magoffin County 11,357 100.0% 17.6% 17.6% Marion County 6,320 95.0% 94.0% 89.2% 13,455 59.1% 30.4% 22.6% Marshall County 4,771 94.3% 90.4% 84.7% 27,006 82.1% 44.5% 37.7% Martin County 11,095 36.0% 7.0% 3.2% Mason County 7,887 98.7% 98.7% 97.6% 9,043 51.3% 72.3% 43.6% McCracken County 49,238 98.7% 88.7% 87.6% 18,252 90.6% 63.5% 59.3% McCreary County 16,701 99.8% 39.0% 39.0% McLean County 9,105 37.9% 47.0% 23.8% Meade County 1,130 92.5% 100.0% 92.5% 28,871 98.7% 47.1% 46.7% Menifee County 6,250 100.0% 32.9% 32.9% Mercer County 9,908 96.5% 96.2% 93.0% 12,994 43.9% 48.9% 23.4% Metcalfe County 10,370 53.3% 21.3% 15.1% Monroe County 11,355 52.6% 10.7% 8.5% Montgomery County 14,087 95.7% 81.6% 78.0% 14,280 59.7% 63.5% 45.3% Morgan County 14,120 100.0% 11.9% 11.9% Muhlenberg County 11,077 90.3% 81.7% 72.5% 19,378 59.3% 30.5% 17.5% Nelson County 17,847 100.0% 95.2% 95.2% 29,545 88.9% 62.4% 58.3% Nicholas County 7,805 33.8% 66.0% 33.6% Ohio County 6,148 93.1% 92.2% 86.1% 17,379 25.7% 40.1% 13.9% Oldham County 51,962 96.4% 99.0% 95.5% 17,469 69.1% 91.8% 64.9% Owen County 11,290 47.6% 68.7% 41.2% Owsley County 3,929 99.5% 31.6% 31.6% Pendleton County 14,676 82.6% 59.4% 52.5% Perry County 7,863 98.5% 48.9% 48.5% 19,498 85.1% 5.8% 5.4% Pike County 8,683 68.6% 45.7% 33.2% 47,603 67.7% 7.4% 3.6% Powell County 13,083 47.7% 61.7% 36.3% Pulaski County 31,109 98.5% 87.3% 86.0% 34,686 64.2% 47.9% 38.2% Robertson County 2,229 8.5% 29.3% 4.3% Rockcastle County 16,242 55.0% 54.5% 39.1% Rowan County 8,436 99.2% 82.4% 81.8% 15,952 82.9% 49.4% 46.5% Russell County 18,178 94.6% 32.9% 32.2% Scott County 39,768 97.6% 100.0% 97.6% 19,331 42.5% 80.6% 39.4% Shelby County 23,200 94.4% 99.6% 94.0% 25,686 51.3% 78.1% 46.2% Simpson County 11,973 99.9% 96.4% 96.3% 7,976 90.8% 56.6% 52.9% Spencer County 20,204 63.1% 50.6% 35.5% Taylor County 13,097 99.1% 85.5% 84.8% 13,310 52.1% 19.3% 13.3% Todd County 12,404 44.2% 51.3% 28.8% Trigg County 14,332 52.9% 49.4% 34.8% Trimble County 8,539 62.9% 53.4% 33.1% Union County 12,961 70.6% 64.2% 53.5% Warren County 100,744 93.2% 96.9% 90.3% 39,099 90.1% 62.2% 58.3% Washington County 12,061 52.2% 64.2% 38.0% Wayne County 6,735 93.4% 94.4% 88.0% 12,946 62.1% 22.5% 18.4% Webster County 12,726 53.3% 52.3% 31.8% Whitley County 13,375 92.9% 43.6% 42.9% 23,498 66.2% 29.9% 19.7% Wolfe County 6,400 100.0% 28.1% 28.1% Woodford County 16,998 99.8% 100.0% 99.8% 10,064 52.2% 79.6% 47.3% Louisiana 3,275,134 95.9% 96.8% 93.2% 1,315,107 52.1% 63.5% 39.1% Acadia Parish 21,957 99.5% 99.9% 99.4% 34,787 53.6% 58.9% 36.1% Allen Parish 6,655 5.8% 99.9% 5.8% 15,665 25.0% 62.4% 21.9% Ascension Parish 116,460 99.9% 99.3% 99.3% 13,998 97.8% 92.3% 90.7% Assumption Parish 7,261 96.0% 92.5% 88.6% 13,343 95.1% 65.2% 62.1% Avoyelles Parish 7,098 0.0% 77.7% 0.0% 31,653 0.6% 71.9% 0.6% Beauregard Parish 10,132 86.2% 81.3% 69.7% 26,438 7.9% 46.3% 4.9% Bienville Parish 12,641 15.9% 44.5% 15.3% Bossier Parish 94,277 92.3% 91.5% 84.3% 34,999 47.3% 56.4% 34.1% Caddo Parish 192,575 98.8% 87.8% 86.7% 36,450 76.4% 46.5% 39.9% Calcasieu Parish 151,496 91.8% 98.1% 90.1% 50,922 53.7% 76.8% 43.9% Caldwell Parish 9,554 42.5% 65.3% 38.5% Cameron Parish 4,902 66.2% 57.9% 37.5% Catahoula Parish 8,566 5.0% 58.4% 5.0% Claiborne Parish 13,744 43.9% 42.3% 33.6% Concordia Parish 12,004 34.9% 98.8% 34.9% 6,112 7.0% 65.4% 3.6% De Soto Parish 5,622 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 21,231 55.2% 48.2% 35.9% East Baton Rouge Parish 418,268 100.0% 99.9% 99.9% 32,276 100.0% 86.6% 86.6% East Carroll Parish 6,990 64.6% 86.6% 63.5% East Feliciana Parish 19,135 10.7% 60.7% 9.5% Evangeline Parish 8,166 64.9% 69.0% 45.7% 23,820 24.4% 55.8% 14.5% Franklin Parish 5,143 100.0% 91.2% 91.2% 14,165 32.3% 49.3% 17.4% Grant Parish 22,000 23.8% 37.4% 15.8% Iberia Parish 46,124 88.7% 95.1% 86.8% 22,203 35.8% 71.4% 31.0% Iberville Parish 12,379 99.5% 97.5% 97.1% 17,127 83.4% 78.7% 64.0% Jackson Parish 5,212 6.1% 96.8% 6.1% 9,627 0.6% 25.6% 0.2% Jefferson Davis Parish 9,451 90.6% 81.6% 74.3% 22,575 51.6% 67.4% 39.0% Jefferson Parish 419,008 99.9% 99.9% 99.9% 6,876 97.2% 99.1% 96.4% LaSalle Parish 14,729 0.0% 53.0% 0.0% Lafayette Parish 225,336 99.5% 99.5% 99.0% 22,530 86.1% 69.5% 62.8% Lafourche Parish 73,273 72.5% 93.0% 69.7% 22,597 72.3% 75.5% 52.5% Lincoln Parish 28,300 81.1% 88.0% 72.2% 19,829 34.3% 46.9% 19.4% Livingston Parish 90,771 99.3% 95.1% 94.5% 57,654 93.5% 82.4% 77.8% Madison Parish 6,915 97.3% 97.8% 95.1% 2,563 11.5% 47.6% 11.5% Morehouse Parish 12,017 86.1% 82.3% 72.8% 12,429 86.3% 49.4% 43.3% Natchitoches Parish 17,568 87.2% 75.8% 68.4% 19,095 34.9% 24.5% 12.7% Orleans Parish 368,139 99.9% 100.0% 99.9% 1,610 91.1% 99.8% 91.1% Ouachita Parish 118,154 99.4% 97.6% 97.0% 39,548 69.1% 51.2% 40.9% Plaquemines Parish 14,400 92.2% 100.0% 92.2% 8,116 8.0% 91.2% 7.9% Pointe Coupee Parish 6,683 99.3% 94.1% 93.4% 13,468 78.6% 58.0% 46.7% Rapides Parish 77,738 87.7% 86.9% 76.8% 49,451 41.8% 49.7% 21.1% Red River Parish 7,420 21.8% 16.1% 1.6% Richland Parish 19,826 49.5% 76.9% 47.1% Sabine Parish 21,985 6.2% 16.2% 2.5% St. Bernard Parish 42,059 99.9% 100.0% 99.9% 2,420 98.2% 99.2% 97.4% St. Charles Parish 42,007 99.8% 99.8% 99.7% 8,991 97.3% 82.8% 80.4% St. Helena Parish 10,822 32.1% 35.2% 10.9% St. James Parish 9,850 85.8% 100.0% 85.8% 9,573 82.7% 95.2% 78.7% St. John the Baptist Parish 35,273 99.0% 100.0% 99.0% 4,591 92.2% 95.5% 92.1% St. Landry Parish 33,387 92.6% 97.0% 89.6% 48,386 65.0% 65.0% 44.3% St. Martin Parish 24,462 96.4% 92.0% 88.9% 26,774 70.5% 71.9% 52.7% St. Mary Parish 38,496 99.1% 95.9% 95.1% 9,293 61.9% 86.6% 57.5% St. Tammany Parish 210,234 96.7% 98.3% 95.1% 63,029 83.0% 84.8% 72.4% Tangipahoa Parish 74,093 97.3% 97.1% 94.4% 62,955 78.0% 82.1% 66.8% Tensas Parish 3,846 14.0% 17.7% 1.6% Terrebonne Parish 83,080 99.1% 92.5% 91.7% 21,706 96.4% 84.3% 81.7% Union Parish 20,721 24.8% 39.1% 16.5% Vermilion Parish 23,513 99.2% 92.1% 91.3% 33,439 51.6% 67.8% 39.7% Vernon Parish 15,568 65.7% 99.0% 65.3% 31,679 17.5% 57.6% 13.5% Washington Parish 11,218 47.7% 99.5% 47.6% 33,807 4.1% 70.6% 3.9% Webster Parish 18,115 80.7% 79.1% 61.2% 17,528 19.9% 39.2% 8.9% West Baton Rouge Parish 20,751 100.0% 99.9% 99.9% 7,283 99.8% 73.0% 72.8% West Carroll Parish 9,475 29.7% 53.1% 21.4% West Feliciana Parish 15,381 13.4% 68.5% 10.2% Winn Parish 4,446 58.1% 99.6% 57.9% 8,759 5.4% 35.1% 5.2% Maine 536,251 97.6% 90.3% 88.2% 849,089 82.1% 48.4% 42.4% Androscoggin County 62,053 98.7% 96.1% 95.0% 50,970 94.6% 51.1% 48.3% Aroostook County 9,816 97.6% 96.0% 93.7% 57,439 66.9% 51.2% 40.1% Cumberland County 190,379 98.9% 88.5% 87.6% 117,072 95.5% 46.1% 44.1% Franklin County 30,474 80.6% 58.9% 54.7% Hancock County 56,701 77.5% 47.4% 39.3% Kennebec County 47,592 94.8% 97.9% 92.9% 77,948 91.0% 56.3% 51.8% Knox County 14,795 97.0% 87.2% 84.6% 26,369 80.5% 36.7% 28.1% Lincoln County 3,464 96.6% 59.9% 58.5% 32,751 85.2% 28.0% 24.8% Oxford County 10,209 94.0% 98.7% 92.8% 49,286 72.1% 54.5% 43.0% Penobscot County 66,174 95.3% 92.3% 88.3% 87,530 76.9% 44.9% 38.6% Piscataquis County 17,417 65.1% 37.8% 27.6% Sagadahoc County 14,726 99.9% 93.6% 93.5% 22,667 90.2% 46.0% 43.3% Somerset County 7,699 97.8% 95.2% 93.8% 43,399 70.3% 54.5% 44.6% Waldo County 3,947 91.5% 89.3% 86.4% 36,294 49.8% 38.6% 21.2% Washington County 31,437 68.4% 34.1% 28.0% York County 105,397 97.8% 84.6% 82.8% 111,335 95.0% 56.4% 53.9% Maryland 5,253,864 99.4% 97.3% 96.8% 910,796 85.8% 76.3% 67.1% Allegany County 44,208 97.9% 96.7% 94.8% 23,059 78.5% 69.4% 56.9% Anne Arundel County 547,472 99.8% 97.1% 97.0% 45,814 97.5% 85.7% 83.6% Baltimore County 784,280 99.6% 99.1% 98.8% 61,881 89.9% 87.0% 79.5% Baltimore city 569,931 99.6% 99.7% 99.4% Calvert County 35,871 99.6% 94.4% 94.1% 58,702 97.0% 77.0% 74.7% Caroline County 5,000 99.1% 100.0% 99.1% 28,433 73.2% 82.5% 62.4% Carroll County 101,349 97.8% 97.8% 95.6% 73,956 80.5% 84.4% 68.4% Cecil County 53,984 97.2% 98.6% 96.0% 50,958 90.6% 75.2% 69.4% Charles County 121,260 99.6% 95.8% 95.6% 48,842 85.9% 67.5% 58.8% Dorchester County 14,979 99.1% 98.8% 98.0% 17,747 65.3% 74.1% 56.3% Frederick County 207,400 98.8% 95.1% 93.9% 79,679 85.5% 73.4% 65.0% Garrett County 4,416 98.9% 96.9% 95.8% 24,163 62.7% 60.1% 41.0% Harford County 206,360 99.7% 97.2% 97.0% 57,507 90.7% 84.5% 76.6% Howard County 293,702 99.8% 99.7% 99.6% 41,709 96.2% 84.5% 81.8% Kent County 5,589 99.9% 98.8% 98.7% 13,731 85.1% 48.2% 42.4% Montgomery County 1,023,429 99.8% 95.1% 94.9% 29,092 95.3% 63.1% 60.2% Prince George's County 923,186 99.7% 96.9% 96.6% 23,785 95.2% 78.9% 75.7% Queen Anne's County 21,109 98.9% 90.0% 89.1% 30,602 83.7% 70.7% 58.8% Somerset County 10,083 98.5% 97.8% 96.4% 14,463 63.8% 55.6% 37.2% St. Mary's County 48,848 97.1% 96.8% 95.3% 66,029 88.0% 73.2% 64.9% Talbot County 18,211 100.0% 98.1% 98.1% 19,721 79.1% 48.1% 41.2% Washington County 105,220 93.1% 99.9% 93.1% 50,370 84.2% 85.0% 73.7% Wicomico County 75,800 99.2% 99.4% 98.7% 28,864 78.3% 79.9% 65.6% Worcester County 32,177 99.5% 91.0% 90.7% 21,689 68.9% 74.8% 58.1% Massachusetts 6,355,065 98.9% 95.0% 94.0% 626,909 96.0% 62.5% 60.5% Barnstable County 226,371 99.6% 85.9% 85.7% 6,086 94.3% 77.2% 73.0% Berkshire County 83,002 94.0% 86.7% 81.3% 44,857 88.2% 51.4% 45.6% Bristol County 516,596 99.7% 95.7% 95.5% 63,472 98.6% 74.4% 73.6% Dukes County 14,140 99.7% 73.9% 73.7% 6,728 93.4% 39.8% 36.6% Essex County 764,734 99.8% 95.8% 95.6% 42,031 98.8% 70.8% 70.1% Franklin County 31,689 99.1% 84.5% 83.7% 39,205 92.0% 48.9% 46.0% Hampden County 416,511 98.8% 96.4% 95.3% 44,530 96.9% 63.3% 61.5% Hampshire County 111,271 98.6% 97.0% 95.6% 51,317 95.8% 72.0% 69.2% Middlesex County 1,558,677 99.7% 96.1% 95.8% 58,428 98.8% 60.5% 59.8% Nantucket County 12,044 99.8% 62.2% 62.0% 2,377 97.6% 34.8% 34.6% Norfolk County 710,431 99.4% 94.8% 94.2% 15,100 98.8% 81.1% 80.2% Plymouth County 465,915 99.5% 90.4% 90.0% 67,154 98.5% 69.3% 68.4% Suffolk County 766,380 99.8% 99.0% 98.9% 1 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% Worcester County 677,304 94.1% 94.0% 88.5% 185,623 95.2% 56.8% 54.3% Michigan 7,322,557 98.2% 97.3% 95.7% 2,711,556 70.5% 63.9% 48.1% Alcona County 757 96.9% 31.4% 30.7% 9,660 42.5% 21.9% 7.5% Alger County 8,807 57.6% 39.5% 30.2% Allegan County 38,365 95.1% 89.3% 85.3% 82,845 51.5% 64.8% 36.6% Alpena County 15,396 99.5% 91.6% 91.2% 13,451 99.5% 35.6% 35.4% Antrim County 24,249 72.3% 51.8% 40.6% Arenac County 2,066 92.1% 54.0% 48.0% 13,023 46.7% 35.6% 15.3% Baraga County 8,277 72.1% 34.2% 24.3% Barry County 8,042 86.5% 89.0% 82.9% 55,512 58.8% 53.5% 32.4% Bay County 73,083 96.1% 99.7% 95.9% 29,738 55.1% 89.7% 53.0% Benzie County 2,650 92.6% 70.2% 64.7% 15,647 62.6% 47.4% 33.3% Berrien County 106,293 98.5% 90.4% 89.3% 46,607 88.3% 66.8% 59.9% Branch County 13,504 97.7% 95.4% 93.3% 31,027 60.5% 41.9% 31.1% Calhoun County 89,003 96.7% 93.7% 90.9% 44,286 67.1% 54.7% 42.4% Cass County 13,137 97.9% 69.4% 67.5% 38,266 85.8% 49.4% 42.2% Charlevoix County 7,905 92.6% 67.5% 62.0% 18,388 88.0% 53.0% 48.1% Cheboygan County 5,325 90.8% 90.4% 82.8% 20,615 55.6% 42.4% 26.3% Chippewa County 17,579 77.7% 90.7% 69.5% 18,714 35.4% 28.7% 14.9% Clare County 3,912 91.0% 78.2% 69.5% 27,440 69.7% 48.2% 39.0% Clinton County 37,467 93.9% 100.0% 93.9% 42,281 76.7% 82.1% 62.7% Crawford County 45 91.1% 57.7% 48.8% 13,446 52.3% 48.8% 33.0% Delta County 20,938 95.0% 84.9% 81.0% 15,803 57.9% 33.0% 22.1% Dickinson County 16,654 93.9% 94.6% 88.8% 9,220 49.0% 36.3% 22.8% Eaton County 66,246 97.5% 99.0% 96.5% 42,746 63.4% 76.9% 52.0% Emmet County 12,482 85.8% 81.6% 69.5% 21,681 88.7% 38.8% 34.4% Genesee County 328,049 98.7% 99.8% 98.6% 73,934 84.1% 95.9% 81.8% Gladwin County 25,728 71.6% 42.2% 35.9% Gogebic County 5,111 94.1% 88.0% 82.4% 9,208 60.4% 68.1% 51.2% Grand Traverse County 54,575 93.3% 61.3% 56.8% 41,889 76.2% 51.7% 42.2% Gratiot County 15,608 99.9% 90.2% 90.2% 25,492 97.4% 59.7% 59.0% Hillsdale County 10,265 98.4% 90.1% 88.9% 35,497 85.2% 51.2% 46.5% Houghton County 19,694 93.7% 93.3% 87.2% 17,341 60.2% 48.1% 36.4% Huron County 31,248 59.5% 40.0% 26.8% Ingham County 238,867 97.5% 100.0% 97.5% 45,241 70.2% 84.5% 62.1% Ionia County 24,787 97.6% 99.6% 97.3% 42,022 84.0% 78.2% 65.4% Iosco County 12,980 93.8% 74.0% 69.4% 12,541 54.3% 35.6% 20.9% Iron County 11,622 53.4% 52.8% 43.0% Isabella County 29,841 99.8% 99.2% 99.0% 34,606 89.5% 49.3% 45.7% Jackson County 83,712 89.0% 99.9% 88.9% 76,354 72.8% 73.0% 54.7% Kalamazoo County 203,038 97.1% 90.7% 88.0% 58,135 92.6% 60.3% 56.8% Kalkaska County 18,182 47.2% 42.8% 23.8% Kent County 551,643 98.2% 99.4% 97.7% 107,440 82.2% 81.5% 67.8% Keweenaw County 2,180 47.0% 40.2% 34.6% Lake County 12,594 32.4% 43.9% 16.7% Lapeer County 13,209 86.9% 99.9% 86.8% 75,571 56.7% 80.5% 48.2% Leelanau County 2,788 93.4% 18.7% 17.6% 20,082 66.0% 38.2% 26.0% Lenawee County 41,160 99.6% 89.9% 89.6% 57,407 95.3% 59.8% 57.9% Livingston County 118,590 98.1% 96.0% 94.3% 77,571 77.1% 84.7% 65.9% Luce County 5,330 53.3% 24.7% 17.5% Mackinac County 2,702 89.1% 81.5% 73.1% 8,239 43.9% 32.6% 17.6% Macomb County 845,553 99.8% 99.7% 99.5% 28,642 75.2% 93.0% 71.3% Manistee County 8,191 93.6% 73.7% 68.1% 17,096 38.0% 36.4% 15.9% Marquette County 36,200 94.8% 86.9% 82.6% 30,461 61.6% 43.8% 34.7% Mason County 11,802 90.3% 88.1% 80.5% 17,607 39.3% 51.0% 23.2% Mecosta County 8,935 98.7% 94.2% 93.0% 31,785 91.6% 42.8% 40.9% Menominee County 8,549 94.4% 93.8% 89.7% 14,717 31.1% 35.0% 17.2% Midland County 46,886 95.2% 99.7% 94.9% 36,788 61.4% 84.4% 55.0% Missaukee County 15,213 33.2% 44.4% 16.7% Monroe County 96,257 98.7% 96.7% 95.5% 59,352 80.7% 87.7% 71.2% Montcalm County 10,061 99.9% 100.0% 99.9% 57,372 96.6% 67.3% 65.6% Montmorency County 9,569 57.2% 27.9% 17.6% Muskegon County 130,331 97.9% 81.8% 80.0% 46,234 68.4% 49.2% 33.0% Newaygo County 5,170 99.4% 94.5% 94.0% 45,716 61.2% 40.9% 25.9% Oakland County 1,197,505 99.4% 99.4% 98.8% 71,926 90.4% 94.3% 85.8% Oceana County 26,973 76.6% 54.0% 43.6% Ogemaw County 20,970 63.4% 43.7% 30.9% Ontonagon County 5,863 58.5% 39.8% 29.2% Osceola County 23,274 72.2% 66.7% 52.4% Oscoda County 8,404 60.2% 32.5% 26.0% Otsego County 8,516 95.0% 80.0% 77.1% 17,128 55.1% 44.4% 28.5% Ottawa County 237,228 97.3% 92.6% 90.2% 63,645 74.0% 80.0% 58.4% Presque Isle County 13,361 57.4% 40.0% 29.1% Roscommon County 13,368 95.6% 54.8% 51.8% 10,340 71.1% 59.0% 41.8% Saginaw County 125,077 96.0% 100.0% 96.0% 63,253 71.6% 89.7% 65.3% Sanilac County 2,717 88.1% 45.0% 34.5% 37,940 47.5% 26.4% 15.7% Schoolcraft County 8,188 51.0% 42.8% 30.6% Shiawassee County 27,211 95.3% 96.3% 92.2% 40,811 52.9% 94.1% 51.5% St. Clair County 97,029 98.9% 94.8% 93.8% 63,122 50.0% 84.6% 43.3% St. Joseph County 21,842 95.9% 95.7% 91.8% 39,032 94.4% 52.5% 49.7% Tuscola County 5,365 91.9% 87.4% 80.3% 47,580 63.5% 34.0% 22.7% Van Buren County 16,479 89.8% 85.0% 76.3% 59,213 64.2% 50.0% 32.9% Washtenaw County 301,309 96.4% 99.9% 96.4% 65,067 80.4% 91.0% 74.5% Wayne County 1,741,200 99.4% 99.7% 99.2% 15,843 94.1% 86.1% 82.2% Wexford County 12,308 92.8% 82.4% 76.6% 21,888 44.6% 50.2% 26.1% Minnesota 4,083,777 99.2% 98.0% 97.3% 1,633,407 81.6% 65.7% 55.5% Aitkin County 16,126 69.4% 48.5% 38.5% Anoka County 309,652 99.5% 98.8% 98.4% 59,212 86.6% 87.2% 75.3% Becker County 10,276 99.0% 75.9% 75.3% 25,095 73.6% 39.2% 31.4% Beltrami County 15,223 100.0% 89.6% 89.6% 31,576 98.8% 37.4% 37.3% Benton County 22,751 95.0% 100.0% 95.0% 18,712 80.2% 86.9% 68.5% Big Stone County 5,144 98.9% 24.3% 24.0% Blue Earth County 44,685 97.8% 95.3% 93.1% 24,946 95.3% 60.5% 57.6% Brown County 13,431 99.9% 83.3% 83.3% 12,292 88.4% 60.7% 57.3% Carlton County 13,055 99.1% 73.0% 72.5% 23,653 39.3% 50.8% 24.6% Carver County 82,827 99.6% 99.8% 99.5% 27,207 96.6% 96.5% 93.4% Cass County 31,274 63.7% 55.3% 39.9% Chippewa County 5,248 100.0% 83.3% 83.3% 7,036 98.3% 53.7% 52.9% Chisago County 19,811 97.0% 97.7% 94.8% 38,177 65.3% 89.5% 60.8% Clay County 48,609 100.0% 99.2% 99.2% 17,320 97.3% 64.5% 63.6% Clearwater County 8,649 99.1% 53.2% 52.9% Cook County 5,708 95.2% 54.0% 53.2% Cottonwood County 11,356 88.6% 76.5% 71.1% Crow Wing County 20,717 99.6% 95.3% 94.9% 47,231 83.2% 60.2% 52.7% Dakota County 420,676 99.4% 99.4% 98.8% 22,665 96.0% 96.6% 93.0% Dodge County 7,697 100.0% 93.4% 93.4% 13,284 99.8% 59.6% 59.6% Douglas County 19,301 96.4% 78.9% 76.2% 20,367 73.2% 34.5% 27.5% Faribault County 13,926 86.2% 49.2% 43.1% Fillmore County 21,414 85.9% 63.4% 58.6% Freeborn County 17,814 99.6% 96.6% 96.3% 12,904 99.1% 34.4% 34.0% Goodhue County 15,741 99.9% 83.8% 83.8% 32,272 91.1% 68.4% 65.7% Grant County 6,136 82.2% 39.1% 36.6% Hennepin County 1,229,360 99.6% 99.8% 99.4% 30,761 85.7% 99.1% 84.9% Houston County 5,468 100.0% 80.5% 80.5% 13,332 78.1% 36.2% 33.1% Hubbard County 21,960 92.2% 56.1% 52.7% Isanti County 17,136 99.3% 99.7% 99.0% 25,591 33.1% 73.2% 28.4% Itasca County 10,481 100.0% 90.8% 90.8% 34,724 90.6% 53.6% 49.9% Jackson County 9,893 95.5% 56.6% 54.1% Kanabec County 16,463 27.4% 59.8% 25.1% Kandiyohi County 24,852 97.6% 98.3% 95.9% 18,987 93.2% 69.4% 64.9% Kittson County 4,059 95.2% 33.9% 33.9% Koochiching County 6,622 99.2% 76.0% 75.4% 5,222 62.5% 21.5% 15.9% Lac qui Parle County 6,689 100.0% 43.6% 43.6% Lake County 10,939 90.6% 75.1% 71.4% Lake of the Woods County 3,871 80.9% 57.5% 53.2% Le Sueur County 4,029 99.7% 97.6% 97.3% 25,124 98.2% 74.8% 74.0% Lincoln County 5,580 99.0% 41.6% 41.0% Lyon County 13,391 100.0% 98.3% 98.3% 11,871 99.7% 55.0% 54.9% Mahnomen County 5,328 71.3% 38.0% 32.8% Marshall County 8,861 94.5% 45.2% 44.7% Martin County 8,106 100.0% 81.2% 81.2% 11,544 97.5% 48.5% 48.2% McLeod County 20,281 99.4% 99.1% 98.5% 16,433 94.9% 94.7% 90.5% Meeker County 6,652 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 16,844 90.0% 72.8% 65.7% Mille Lacs County 4,801 99.7% 100.0% 99.7% 22,479 77.8% 71.8% 58.6% Morrison County 9,392 99.8% 91.4% 91.2% 24,854 75.3% 53.3% 39.9% Mower County 25,313 100.0% 96.0% 96.0% 14,827 96.4% 40.7% 40.2% Murray County 8,060 98.8% 61.2% 60.8% Nicollet County 25,782 99.5% 95.1% 94.7% 8,659 73.6% 48.4% 32.9% Nobles County 13,661 99.9% 100.0% 99.9% 8,286 89.4% 46.3% 40.0% Norman County 6,377 87.6% 50.1% 46.8% Olmsted County 135,150 99.5% 100.0% 99.5% 28,870 96.5% 85.7% 83.9% Otter Tail County 13,183 96.5% 81.8% 78.6% 47,336 70.1% 40.3% 31.5% Pennington County 8,772 100.0% 99.0% 99.0% 5,073 96.5% 33.3% 31.8% Pine County 29,446 48.7% 57.6% 37.6% Pipestone County 9,355 99.0% 59.8% 59.5% Polk County 16,371 99.5% 98.2% 97.8% 14,360 98.2% 31.2% 31.1% Pope County 4,262 96.0% 65.7% 61.7% 7,169 89.0% 16.7% 15.4% Ramsey County 536,320 99.6% 99.8% 99.4% 93 81.7% 95.6% 77.4% Red Lake County 3,874 94.7% 62.2% 61.7% Redwood County 4,595 99.8% 99.4% 99.3% 10,766 72.1% 35.6% 28.6% Renville County 14,525 97.8% 61.3% 60.6% Rice County 45,157 98.6% 99.3% 98.0% 22,536 91.6% 81.7% 75.3% Rock County 4,764 99.9% 9.0% 9.0% 4,773 95.3% 36.7% 34.7% Roseau County 15,292 94.7% 61.3% 58.8% Scott County 125,853 99.8% 99.7% 99.6% 28,667 94.4% 96.9% 91.8% Sherburne County 49,029 97.4% 100.0% 97.4% 51,795 81.1% 91.6% 74.9% Sibley County 14,955 94.6% 73.1% 71.2% St. Louis County 121,161 96.4% 97.8% 94.3% 78,371 52.6% 68.4% 42.3% Stearns County 97,952 97.0% 99.8% 96.9% 62,453 85.3% 88.1% 75.8% Steele County 26,311 100.0% 77.3% 77.3% 11,087 99.9% 48.5% 48.4% Stevens County 5,030 100.0% 31.9% 31.9% 4,607 96.1% 15.8% 15.6% Swift County 9,755 99.2% 27.3% 27.2% Todd County 157 100.0% 91.0% 91.0% 25,381 63.6% 52.5% 39.6% Traverse County 3,275 82.2% 45.4% 43.2% Wabasha County 3,814 100.0% 94.2% 94.2% 17,844 92.3% 50.1% 49.4% Wadena County 4,010 99.9% 51.7% 51.6% 10,297 99.0% 31.1% 30.9% Waseca County 9,034 100.0% 97.2% 97.2% 9,859 99.9% 59.4% 59.4% Washington County 238,091 98.7% 99.3% 98.0% 37,821 70.3% 87.2% 62.3% Watonwan County 11,075 99.9% 76.0% 76.0% Wilkin County 3,205 99.9% 99.9% 99.9% 3,145 68.6% 26.4% 16.9% Winona County 29,391 99.9% 54.4% 54.4% 20,087 92.8% 47.7% 46.1% Wright County 89,324 98.5% 100.0% 98.5% 58,679 69.2% 96.8% 68.1% Yellow Medicine County 9,486 99.5% 56.2% 56.0% Mississippi 1,353,531 97.5% 94.5% 92.6% 1,586,526 63.0% 49.5% 34.8% Adams County 18,027 99.6% 92.8% 92.8% 10,381 39.5% 36.3% 14.4% Alcorn County 12,290 100.0% 91.6% 91.6% 21,914 99.8% 47.2% 47.1% Amite County 12,619 0.5% 30.2% 0.5% Attala County 6,589 97.0% 93.9% 91.1% 10,920 30.3% 35.0% 14.4% Benton County 7,550 37.9% 35.9% 12.5% Bolivar County 13,732 98.8% 68.7% 68.4% 15,638 62.9% 39.8% 31.1% Calhoun County 12,781 83.7% 55.6% 52.8% Carroll County 9,731 85.9% 34.7% 28.7% Chickasaw County 16,812 85.4% 51.6% 45.4% Choctaw County 8,037 57.3% 17.8% 10.5% Claiborne County 8,805 5.3% 56.6% 1.7% Clarke County 15,271 71.1% 49.9% 40.9% Clay County 8,173 99.2% 99.6% 98.9% 10,207 86.8% 31.6% 29.5% Coahoma County 13,573 99.7% 99.0% 98.8% 6,624 25.6% 41.1% 15.2% Copiah County 4,873 87.3% 99.6% 87.0% 22,846 15.7% 52.7% 10.9% Covington County 18,098 11.0% 44.1% 6.3% DeSoto County 149,067 99.3% 98.2% 97.6% 42,656 76.2% 77.6% 61.7% Forrest County 49,683 99.5% 99.4% 99.0% 28,427 75.0% 62.7% 48.9% Franklin County 7,642 35.3% 42.6% 25.0% George County 25,206 48.3% 35.6% 18.1% Greene County 13,552 4.1% 37.5% 1.0% Grenada County 10,036 99.8% 81.3% 81.2% 11,052 63.2% 32.4% 20.6% Hancock County 28,468 99.7% 88.0% 87.7% 17,626 97.3% 27.4% 25.6% Harrison County 169,328 99.9% 99.3% 99.2% 41,716 84.0% 53.8% 49.2% Hinds County 180,011 99.2% 100.0% 99.2% 37,719 41.9% 78.0% 39.3% Holmes County 16,121 66.1% 63.7% 50.5% Humphreys County 7,333 73.1% 62.3% 52.5% Issaquena County 1,273 0.0% 27.2% 0.0% Itawamba County 23,903 91.9% 50.7% 48.0% Jackson County 99,804 99.5% 98.1% 97.8% 45,171 77.3% 61.0% 47.6% Jasper County 16,167 43.7% 30.5% 17.0% Jefferson County 7,087 0.0% 23.4% 0.0% Jefferson Davis County 11,088 23.2% 37.2% 8.3% Jones County 24,911 99.1% 87.7% 87.2% 41,658 86.0% 26.2% 21.8% Kemper County 8,654 72.1% 45.0% 34.0% Lafayette County 34,292 91.5% 97.8% 89.6% 23,323 97.3% 45.6% 44.9% Lamar County 29,931 99.3% 99.7% 99.1% 35,852 45.9% 57.3% 37.9% Lauderdale County 32,419 99.2% 93.7% 93.0% 38,485 93.7% 63.6% 60.1% Lawrence County 11,713 2.3% 41.7% 1.7% Leake County 21,135 27.7% 61.9% 26.6% Lee County 39,920 99.7% 62.6% 62.5% 43,039 96.1% 50.1% 48.6% Leflore County 17,668 88.7% 89.8% 79.5% 8,902 64.4% 57.0% 46.3% Lincoln County 10,120 99.1% 73.1% 72.8% 24,597 17.4% 26.6% 8.0% Lowndes County 25,928 99.9% 94.7% 94.7% 31,675 98.7% 53.7% 53.3% Madison County 82,479 98.7% 98.8% 97.6% 28,634 59.2% 76.2% 53.1% Marion County 6,088 6.6% 52.0% 0.1% 17,962 66.5% 12.0% 10.1% Marshall County 5,630 78.7% 100.0% 78.7% 28,480 57.2% 53.5% 34.8% Monroe County 5,894 96.6% 95.0% 91.7% 27,683 84.4% 45.2% 37.6% Montgomery County 9,530 81.5% 58.3% 50.2% Neshoba County 7,124 88.5% 83.4% 74.3% 21,549 25.4% 42.1% 14.6% Newton County 21,029 38.8% 57.7% 30.4% Noxubee County 9,990 31.9% 61.3% 13.9% Oktibbeha County 31,997 92.0% 91.3% 84.5% 19,430 95.7% 40.8% 39.2% Panola County 6,272 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 26,389 87.1% 40.6% 36.2% Pearl River County 16,572 98.4% 69.9% 68.3% 40,689 80.5% 35.2% 23.0% Perry County 11,368 66.9% 20.3% 16.8% Pike County 14,614 100.0% 88.8% 88.8% 25,030 43.8% 37.0% 21.8% Pontotoc County 31,389 76.7% 59.7% 47.1% Prentiss County 5,974 100.0% 98.4% 98.4% 18,818 97.9% 32.4% 32.3% Quitman County 5,701 74.2% 69.0% 63.1% Rankin County 103,180 97.8% 99.5% 97.4% 55,799 70.8% 80.8% 62.8% Scott County 27,707 46.3% 63.2% 39.9% Sharkey County 3,488 62.6% 55.7% 50.8% Simpson County 25,587 8.3% 60.6% 6.7% Smith County 14,092 34.5% 40.8% 17.5% Stone County 18,669 43.6% 48.2% 28.3% Sunflower County 9,125 89.2% 90.1% 81.3% 15,686 55.2% 28.6% 22.9% Tallahatchie County 12,035 56.9% 65.3% 45.3% Tate County 6,659 98.9% 100.0% 98.9% 21,637 65.7% 46.8% 35.4% Tippah County 21,431 96.2% 45.7% 44.1% Tishomingo County 18,619 99.4% 57.5% 57.0% Tunica County 9,458 57.7% 54.0% 42.8% Union County 6,908 95.1% 91.4% 86.6% 21,217 71.0% 45.8% 34.7% Walthall County 13,761 0.5% 28.5% 0.3% Warren County 24,336 98.2% 86.1% 85.2% 18,313 57.4% 56.6% 38.2% Washington County 27,678 87.6% 81.8% 73.0% 14,836 66.9% 47.4% 35.2% Wayne County 19,681 91.0% 44.1% 42.4% Webster County 9,993 91.6% 46.7% 44.8% Wilkinson County 8,143 0.8% 27.6% 0.8% Winston County 17,543 62.4% 42.5% 34.9% Yalobusha County 12,364 54.9% 48.7% 37.5% Yazoo County 14,158 75.7% 70.8% 59.8% 11,790 14.0% 22.6% 8.7% Missouri 4,260,047 98.2% 98.7% 97.0% 1,917,910 68.5% 66.0% 48.4% Adair County 16,742 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 8,423 68.2% 39.7% 27.8% Andrew County 7,147 100.0% 90.4% 90.4% 10,856 81.6% 66.6% 54.2% Atchison County 5,182 46.7% 9.0% 2.4% Audrain County 11,303 96.2% 97.2% 93.5% 13,131 44.5% 55.2% 33.1% Barry County 6,144 77.5% 98.8% 76.7% 28,782 66.8% 64.6% 43.3% Barton County 11,694 32.8% 66.2% 21.0% Bates County 16,177 58.3% 74.0% 52.0% Benton County 20,224 35.6% 56.6% 18.4% Bollinger County 10,518 5.1% 50.2% 2.6% Boone County 144,213 99.7% 89.5% 89.3% 43,477 63.6% 54.3% 40.0% Buchanan County 71,454 98.7% 99.8% 98.5% 11,457 93.4% 70.1% 65.9% Butler County 20,443 98.7% 97.8% 96.6% 21,736 45.7% 55.6% 30.2% Caldwell County 8,933 44.2% 77.0% 39.1% Callaway County 17,106 96.4% 98.4% 94.9% 27,656 98.7% 57.0% 56.2% Camden County 18,884 100.0% 96.3% 96.3% 24,884 99.9% 59.3% 59.3% Cape Girardeau County 56,309 95.9% 98.9% 94.8% 26,590 62.7% 66.5% 47.5% Carroll County 8,423 67.6% 70.4% 53.6% Carter County 5,268 7.9% 56.4% 6.7% Cass County 77,374 99.7% 99.8% 99.6% 33,020 71.4% 92.1% 67.4% Cedar County 14,601 74.2% 47.0% 39.4% Chariton County 7,386 66.6% 74.1% 54.6% Christian County 53,685 93.9% 100.0% 93.9% 39,429 59.3% 88.3% 56.5% Clark County 6,723 49.9% 59.1% 33.2% Clay County 235,755 98.9% 99.8% 98.7% 21,278 81.7% 94.8% 77.7% Clinton County 5,182 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 16,146 80.0% 79.4% 68.6% Cole County 50,634 100.0% 97.5% 97.5% 26,335 100.0% 62.6% 62.6% Cooper County 7,878 86.5% 90.0% 80.4% 8,894 77.0% 39.8% 34.6% Crawford County 1,569 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 21,090 100.0% 53.4% 53.4% Dade County 7,660 51.7% 47.4% 33.6% Dallas County 17,626 46.5% 58.2% 36.0% Daviess County 8,435 63.0% 62.7% 42.6% DeKalb County 2,975 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 8,361 84.4% 66.5% 57.7% Dent County 4,714 100.0% 79.5% 79.5% 9,753 100.0% 30.0% 30.0% Douglas County 11,975 38.0% 29.3% 17.2% Dunklin County 10,238 99.9% 98.5% 98.4% 17,168 86.4% 72.8% 66.0% Franklin County 47,692 100.0% 99.2% 99.2% 58,187 99.9% 82.2% 82.2% Gasconade County 14,768 100.0% 65.7% 65.7% Gentry County 6,253 92.1% 70.2% 67.4% Greene County 259,025 99.3% 99.6% 98.9% 44,268 78.6% 87.1% 69.6% Grundy County 5,434 91.3% 100.0% 91.3% 4,404 74.5% 36.6% 29.8% Harrison County 8,199 74.3% 62.3% 51.9% Henry County 8,953 93.3% 100.0% 93.3% 13,485 6.0% 76.2% 6.0% Hickory County 8,630 19.7% 53.0% 13.4% Holt County 4,262 29.1% 40.1% 24.7% Howard County 10,168 75.6% 47.2% 41.1% Howell County 11,856 99.8% 94.2% 94.1% 28,775 57.5% 52.0% 36.8% Iron County 9,414 100.0% 51.9% 51.9% Jackson County 685,810 98.9% 99.9% 98.8% 30,721 57.9% 96.2% 57.4% Jasper County 94,624 95.7% 98.1% 93.9% 29,451 54.8% 75.9% 43.8% Jefferson County 149,443 97.1% 99.5% 96.7% 79,893 73.3% 91.7% 69.9% Johnson County 24,683 96.9% 94.7% 91.7% 29,685 55.6% 66.3% 41.2% Knox County 3,776 29.4% 10.3% 1.5% Laclede County 14,810 100.0% 57.8% 57.8% 21,503 99.9% 33.4% 33.4% Lafayette County 9,985 99.4% 100.0% 99.4% 22,976 47.7% 83.1% 42.7% Lawrence County 11,011 86.5% 98.3% 84.9% 27,672 52.6% 74.1% 43.0% Lewis County 9,891 51.9% 69.7% 44.2% Lincoln County 17,667 99.6% 100.0% 99.6% 45,488 71.6% 85.1% 64.7% Linn County 3,867 96.6% 96.8% 93.5% 7,953 81.1% 69.4% 59.1% Livingston County 8,951 91.4% 91.5% 91.4% 5,451 55.5% 53.6% 27.4% Macon County 5,258 91.0% 97.8% 89.2% 9,791 63.5% 43.3% 31.7% Madison County 5,034 99.3% 100.0% 99.3% 7,719 46.0% 49.6% 33.2% Maries County 8,431 100.0% 39.3% 39.3% Marion County 17,365 95.6% 99.2% 95.0% 11,073 63.2% 75.0% 53.2% McDonald County 28 100.0% 82.1% 82.1% 23,560 26.0% 64.9% 21.6% Mercer County 3,437 92.2% 49.7% 47.8% Miller County 6,049 100.0% 99.2% 99.2% 19,354 100.0% 60.1% 60.1% Mississippi County 11,688 90.7% 86.5% 78.2% Moniteau County 15,220 88.1% 69.3% 61.4% Monroe County 8,652 54.2% 67.4% 48.8% Montgomery County 11,470 64.9% 63.7% 45.5% Morgan County 21,785 100.0% 57.8% 57.8% New Madrid County 1,914 96.7% 100.0% 96.7% 13,781 95.4% 76.0% 72.9% Newton County 22,028 95.7% 99.3% 95.1% 37,983 56.0% 78.7% 47.9% Nodaway County 10,962 100.0% 82.3% 82.3% 9,708 86.0% 30.0% 26.1% Oregon County 8,732 41.5% 47.4% 31.4% Osage County 13,399 100.0% 55.1% 55.1% Ozark County 8,940 3.6% 36.7% 1.0% Pemiscot County 4,957 99.8% 98.9% 98.8% 9,884 96.2% 54.6% 52.0% Perry County 8,028 99.5% 94.4% 94.1% 10,830 49.7% 50.6% 33.2% Pettis County 26,291 97.6% 99.5% 97.2% 17,062 48.7% 68.0% 39.2% Phelps County 20,819 100.0% 98.9% 98.9% 24,494 100.0% 46.5% 46.5% Pike County 17,664 75.7% 64.6% 58.5% Platte County 95,084 98.4% 99.3% 97.7% 15,450 73.9% 83.2% 61.9% Polk County 10,573 99.4% 99.6% 99.0% 22,120 59.9% 52.9% 39.3% Pulaski County 21,392 100.0% 91.3% 91.3% 32,549 100.0% 51.7% 51.7% Putnam County 4,666 97.7% 64.2% 64.1% Ralls County 273 91.5% 100.0% 91.5% 10,147 96.0% 62.4% 60.4% Randolph County 12,102 96.3% 98.9% 95.3% 12,520 49.8% 54.7% 29.5% Ray County 5,966 99.9% 100.0% 99.9% 17,141 55.1% 83.1% 50.5% Reynolds County 6,006 100.0% 25.0% 25.0% Ripley County 10,703 30.0% 42.6% 17.8% Saline County 13,097 100.0% 99.8% 99.8% 9,910 56.7% 67.2% 46.7% Schuyler County 4,002 72.1% 54.4% 31.3% Scotland County 4,643 93.2% 47.2% 47.2% Scott County 20,445 96.5% 91.6% 88.4% 17,395 95.5% 77.6% 74.1% Shannon County 7,193 100.0% 51.5% 51.5% Shelby County 5,982 44.8% 70.1% 38.9% St. Charles County 390,160 98.4% 99.8% 98.3% 23,643 48.9% 91.1% 46.0% St. Clair County 9,576 29.3% 38.6% 11.8% St. Francois County 39,037 96.5% 98.8% 95.3% 27,932 70.6% 71.7% 58.5% St. Louis County 976,861 98.4% 99.9% 98.4% 13,553 57.8% 84.0% 54.2% St. Louis city 286,578 97.4% 100.0% 97.4% Ste. Genevieve County 5,006 95.2% 98.5% 93.7% 13,638 59.9% 59.2% 41.2% Stoddard County 9,466 99.6% 97.4% 97.0% 18,911 72.1% 68.3% 51.2% Stone County 5,603 58.8% 79.8% 53.0% 26,533 17.7% 63.7% 15.3% Sullivan County 5,840 80.9% 58.9% 52.1% Taney County 35,431 94.9% 86.0% 81.7% 21,390 62.7% 61.6% 43.7% Texas County 161 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 25,175 99.9% 43.8% 43.8% Vernon County 8,588 99.8% 92.7% 92.6% 11,063 53.5% 55.1% 35.7% Warren County 9,801 99.6% 96.9% 96.7% 27,459 45.7% 77.2% 42.0% Washington County 23,441 100.0% 63.1% 63.1% Wayne County 10,792 25.4% 30.0% 16.9% Webster County 7,809 99.7% 93.5% 93.3% 32,526 42.4% 56.2% 35.4% Worth County 1,955 74.2% 56.8% 47.0% Wright County 4,321 100.0% 95.9% 95.9% 14,835 99.9% 39.4% 39.4% Montana 596,115 94.8% 95.2% 90.4% 526,752 52.8% 66.9% 39.2% Beaverhead County 4,523 88.7% 95.6% 84.4% 5,196 52.8% 44.0% 20.9% Big Horn County 12,851 55.5% 69.8% 44.9% Blaine County 6,936 76.4% 48.1% 32.1% Broadwater County 7,793 29.2% 56.4% 20.8% Carbon County 11,179 31.9% 75.7% 29.2% Carter County 1,382 42.9% 1.8% 0.3% Cascade County 66,983 93.0% 90.9% 84.1% 17,881 47.6% 52.2% 25.1% Chouteau County 5,898 87.4% 39.6% 39.0% Custer County 9,376 79.7% 99.3% 79.2% 2,656 51.5% 64.0% 40.6% Daniels County 1,628 92.9% 0.0% 0.0% Dawson County 6,580 77.8% 37.5% 29.7% 2,250 53.8% 45.2% 29.6% Deer Lodge County 6,753 96.2% 100.0% 96.2% 2,757 44.9% 69.7% 32.7% Fallon County 3,011 68.4% 26.5% 19.1% Fergus County 6,196 84.2% 100.0% 84.2% 5,467 56.6% 49.4% 25.6% Flathead County 53,672 93.7% 92.2% 86.3% 58,142 41.2% 79.4% 35.3% Gallatin County 80,473 99.3% 97.8% 97.2% 44,384 76.1% 87.7% 71.7% Garfield County 1,218 45.3% 46.3% 38.6% Glacier County 13,681 31.9% 58.1% 28.5% Golden Valley County 835 74.2% 36.1% 30.8% Granite County 3,502 5.8% 69.1% 4.1% Hill County 10,114 97.1% 93.7% 91.0% 5,954 78.5% 42.3% 37.9% Jefferson County 12,826 37.6% 75.2% 29.7% Judith Basin County 2,105 88.0% 48.2% 44.0% Lake County 6,016 99.0% 99.4% 98.4% 26,837 53.0% 63.2% 39.9% Lewis and Clark County 54,220 94.5% 99.0% 93.7% 19,612 36.3% 74.8% 26.9% Liberty County 1,972 76.4% 41.5% 38.4% Lincoln County 4,743 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 16,782 45.7% 54.5% 33.1% Madison County 9,265 74.6% 71.5% 56.3% McCone County 1,709 48.8% 46.4% 37.2% Meagher County 2,013 84.5% 74.7% 70.9% Mineral County 5,058 10.5% 78.7% 10.5% Missoula County 90,195 96.1% 92.5% 88.8% 30,846 47.5% 70.2% 36.0% Musselshell County 5,197 55.1% 23.8% 16.1% Park County 9,551 91.9% 100.0% 91.9% 8,239 26.1% 60.5% 22.8% Petroleum County 524 45.8% 44.4% 36.0% Phillips County 4,240 81.5% 63.2% 61.6% Pondera County 6,078 37.7% 53.4% 23.4% Powder River County 1,725 17.1% 7.8% 1.7% Powell County 7,051 45.2% 85.9% 44.8% Prairie County 1,107 27.1% 22.5% 12.1% Ravalli County 7,464 99.5% 100.0% 99.5% 39,834 88.6% 69.8% 64.4% Richland County 6,311 76.8% 83.5% 65.4% 4,926 47.9% 33.3% 19.0% Roosevelt County 10,572 64.4% 71.6% 58.8% Rosebud County 8,088 11.2% 63.2% 8.3% Sanders County 13,442 47.4% 63.4% 35.9% Sheridan County 3,564 76.6% 59.5% 51.8% Silver Bow County 31,174 95.1% 99.8% 94.9% 4,894 16.0% 79.2% 14.2% Stillwater County 9,177 45.1% 67.0% 35.8% Sweet Grass County 3,715 80.1% 74.1% 69.0% Teton County 6,368 89.3% 66.2% 60.9% Toole County 5,082 2.4% 74.3% 0.5% Treasure County 758 9.3% 46.5% 6.2% Valley County 7,513 57.2% 46.1% 39.1% Wheatland County 2,032 94.3% 72.5% 71.3% Wibaux County 919 11.2% 68.6% 2.1% Yellowstone County 141,771 95.3% 97.9% 93.3% 28,081 47.1% 76.5% 38.0% N. Mariana Isl. 38,402 32.1% 0.2% 0.2% 13,073 31.0% 0.1% 0.1% Rota Municipality 2,194 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% Saipan Municipality 38,402 32.1% 0.2% 0.2% 8,367 4.9% 0.2% 0.2% Tinian Municipality 2,512 57.9% 0.0% 0.0% Nebraska 1,435,718 99.7% 87.9% 87.7% 532,205 80.0% 33.0% 27.8% Adams County 24,646 100.0% 87.3% 87.3% 6,324 98.3% 14.6% 14.6% Antelope County 6,293 87.9% 8.7% 7.9% Arthur County 433 44.8% 0.0% 0.0% Banner County 660 66.5% 0.3% 0.1% Blaine County 453 43.0% 0.0% 0.0% Boone County 5,385 68.5% 0.0% 0.0% Box Butte County 8,039 99.9% 0.0% 0.0% 2,633 85.0% 1.7% 1.7% Boyd County 1,741 99.9% 7.3% 7.3% Brown County 2,872 83.0% 2.0% 2.0% Buffalo County 34,525 97.2% 99.7% 97.0% 16,061 78.5% 36.0% 26.5% Burt County 6,755 95.6% 42.2% 41.3% Butler County 8,427 96.6% 0.2% 0.2% Cass County 6,976 99.4% 72.2% 71.8% 20,146 83.8% 38.1% 32.6% Cedar County 8,371 79.2% 23.1% 18.7% Chase County 3,772 88.0% 50.7% 50.5% Cherry County 5,464 68.5% 52.4% 45.3% Cheyenne County 6,164 99.3% 99.6% 99.1% 3,347 64.3% 12.9% 10.0% Clay County 6,049 97.5% 5.9% 5.6% Colfax County 6,167 99.4% 3.6% 3.6% 4,277 83.1% 35.5% 33.8% Cuming County 8,929 99.1% 13.7% 13.7% Custer County 10,476 58.1% 66.9% 47.7% Dakota County 16,603 99.7% 99.1% 98.9% 4,439 80.4% 61.7% 51.0% Dawes County 4,638 99.4% 0.0% 0.0% 3,603 38.3% 8.9% 6.4% Dawson County 10,337 98.2% 96.4% 94.7% 13,547 78.2% 71.6% 64.2% Deuel County 1,902 73.7% 52.8% 50.0% Dixon County 5,464 95.3% 25.9% 24.0% Dodge County 27,800 99.0% 97.6% 97.5% 9,197 87.3% 43.2% 35.4% Douglas County 571,741 99.9% 99.9% 99.9% 14,586 87.9% 95.2% 84.9% Dundy County 1,590 94.9% 0.0% 0.0% Fillmore County 5,553 95.1% 0.0% 0.0% Franklin County 2,873 67.1% 0.3% 0.0% Frontier County 2,633 58.8% 0.0% 0.0% Furnas County 4,575 79.1% 0.0% 0.0% Gage County 12,258 99.6% 2.4% 2.4% 9,325 84.4% 11.7% 11.5% Garden County 1,837 55.6% 0.0% 0.0% Garfield County 1,801 68.1% 0.0% 0.0% Gosper County 1,808 56.8% 0.1% 0.0% Grant County 576 13.8% 0.0% 0.0% Greeley County 2,227 48.5% 46.9% 38.0% Hall County 54,346 98.5% 91.7% 90.3% 7,751 82.1% 33.5% 30.0% Hamilton County 9,429 98.8% 10.7% 10.2% Harlan County 3,054 71.3% 0.2% 0.0% Hayes County 849 26.9% 0.0% 0.0% Hitchcock County 2,598 26.9% 0.0% 0.0% Holt County 10,043 72.1% 76.2% 59.6% Hooker County 686 14.1% 0.0% 0.0% Howard County 6,515 57.2% 56.2% 35.4% Jefferson County 3,973 99.8% 0.0% 0.0% 3,181 71.0% 0.1% 0.0% Johnson County 5,287 95.5% 38.6% 37.8% Kearney County 6,690 75.2% 84.4% 68.4% Keith County 4,754 99.8% 98.6% 98.4% 3,515 70.9% 11.6% 7.7% Keya Paha County 787 94.1% 8.5% 8.5% Kimball County 3,315 88.2% 4.9% 4.3% Knox County 8,336 53.2% 37.2% 20.6% Lancaster County 292,325 99.9% 99.9% 99.9% 32,431 87.6% 77.1% 68.2% Lincoln County 23,014 99.7% 8.5% 8.5% 10,671 65.0% 0.5% 0.2% Logan County 675 38.0% 0.5% 0.4% Loup County 599 46.2% 0.0% 0.0% Madison County 25,608 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 9,760 83.9% 30.5% 28.8% McPherson County 372 19.6% 30.6% 1.0% Merrick County 7,721 83.4% 51.7% 48.1% Morrill County 4,527 84.9% 0.0% 0.0% Nance County 3,326 75.3% 38.7% 32.8% Nemaha County 7,035 96.0% 50.8% 50.8% Nuckolls County 4,041 86.2% 0.0% 0.0% Otoe County 7,444 99.9% 97.9% 97.9% 8,754 92.1% 31.2% 29.8% Pawnee County 2,528 94.4% 42.1% 42.1% Perkins County 2,829 75.7% 47.5% 45.8% Phelps County 5,587 97.1% 100.0% 97.1% 3,401 60.1% 35.0% 18.2% Pierce County 7,332 90.3% 54.2% 52.7% Platte County 24,569 100.0% 0.9% 0.9% 9,727 80.3% 12.3% 10.8% Polk County 5,166 91.0% 0.0% 0.0% Red Willow County 7,398 99.4% 0.0% 0.0% 3,175 32.7% 1.1% 0.2% Richardson County 3,465 100.0% 16.9% 16.9% 4,240 90.0% 9.7% 9.6% Rock County 1,245 4.7% 0.0% 0.0% Saline County 6,723 98.8% 0.0% 0.0% 7,393 79.6% 1.0% 0.6% Sarpy County 186,019 99.7% 99.5% 99.2% 10,534 74.1% 88.3% 66.5% Saunders County 4,896 99.5% 0.0% 0.0% 18,222 87.3% 30.6% 29.3% Scotts Bluff County 24,542 100.0% 14.4% 14.4% 11,061 98.7% 4.3% 4.3% Seward County 7,447 99.7% 0.0% 0.0% 10,245 86.4% 13.6% 10.1% Sheridan County 4,996 50.1% 4.5% 1.9% Sherman County 2,980 57.7% 49.1% 42.2% Sioux County 1,127 63.6% 5.0% 4.8% Stanton County 1,591 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 4,126 93.5% 6.5% 5.5% Thayer County 4,885 80.1% 6.5% 4.5% Thomas County 671 39.6% 0.2% 0.2% Thurston County 6,507 44.8% 38.3% 6.2% Valley County 4,073 59.7% 60.2% 49.5% Washington County 8,102 99.9% 62.0% 61.9% 13,065 76.4% 30.2% 20.6% Wayne County 6,052 100.0% 99.2% 99.2% 3,819 96.0% 8.3% 8.3% Webster County 3,336 86.5% 29.8% 27.9% Wheeler County 785 56.0% 1.5% 0.0% York County 7,969 99.8% 93.3% 93.2% 6,385 99.2% 10.3% 10.3% Nevada 2,988,756 99.2% 99.7% 98.9% 189,016 74.4% 78.0% 63.0% Carson City 54,573 99.9% 99.8% 99.7% 3,557 99.6% 98.5% 98.3% Churchill County 17,139 99.0% 98.1% 97.1% 8,704 64.4% 72.9% 51.6% Clark County 2,291,900 99.4% 99.9% 99.4% 31,085 53.3% 80.6% 52.8% Douglas County 34,851 99.0% 94.8% 93.8% 14,777 98.1% 79.5% 77.8% Elko County 25,965 99.9% 100.0% 99.9% 28,081 89.3% 78.4% 73.7% Esmeralda County 744 0.1% 61.9% 0.1% Eureka County 1,863 83.2% 85.7% 72.6% Humboldt County 10,607 99.8% 83.8% 83.7% 6,665 69.7% 53.1% 41.8% Lander County 5,766 93.8% 55.6% 52.6% Lincoln County 4,482 39.5% 21.9% 7.4% Lyon County 34,069 99.9% 97.6% 97.6% 27,516 98.6% 91.9% 90.8% Mineral County 4,525 68.9% 76.9% 68.9% Nye County 39,498 86.7% 100.0% 86.7% 15,240 44.1% 79.7% 43.3% Pershing County 6,462 19.6% 72.2% 13.1% Storey County 454 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 3,716 97.1% 75.2% 73.1% Washoe County 475,131 99.8% 99.5% 99.3% 21,614 92.9% 83.1% 77.7% White Pine County 4,569 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 4,219 0.2% 61.7% 0.0% New Hampshire 805,748 99.0% 83.0% 82.2% 589,483 89.7% 43.8% 40.7% Belknap County 29,234 98.0% 83.9% 82.4% 35,547 85.1% 47.9% 42.3% Carroll County 5,107 91.8% 83.9% 76.9% 47,092 87.9% 41.5% 37.4% Cheshire County 24,024 94.6% 87.3% 83.3% 53,326 86.2% 39.3% 34.0% Coos County 10,255 96.4% 83.3% 80.8% 21,249 52.2% 27.2% 17.6% Grafton County 28,952 97.8% 87.2% 85.2% 62,174 78.8% 37.5% 32.2% Hillsborough County 321,876 99.3% 87.3% 86.8% 104,718 97.0% 46.2% 45.1% Merrimack County 69,543 99.0% 53.2% 52.5% 86,477 92.8% 36.8% 34.9% Rockingham County 226,186 99.3% 82.3% 81.8% 93,238 98.2% 50.8% 50.0% Strafford County 81,041 99.6% 88.3% 87.9% 51,234 92.4% 57.2% 54.3% Sullivan County 9,530 99.8% 97.7% 97.6% 34,428 87.7% 42.1% 38.7% New Jersey 8,667,895 96.8% 98.5% 95.4% 593,804 90.9% 72.5% 67.3% Atlantic County 235,020 99.6% 98.7% 98.4% 40,618 94.6% 68.4% 65.4% Bergen County 950,345 97.4% 99.2% 96.6% 2,652 88.7% 74.1% 67.5% Burlington County 414,308 99.4% 97.9% 97.4% 51,795 87.5% 71.0% 68.2% Camden County 518,170 99.8% 99.2% 99.0% 6,737 89.6% 80.6% 71.1% Cape May County 77,503 99.2% 96.5% 95.9% 18,131 95.7% 81.6% 78.5% Cumberland County 114,979 97.8% 95.8% 93.6% 36,377 83.2% 58.3% 55.5% Essex County 849,353 93.8% 99.7% 93.5% 124 98.3% 100.0% 98.3% Gloucester County 272,085 99.7% 97.9% 97.6% 34,516 96.5% 77.1% 74.2% Hudson County 703,366 99.3% 99.8% 99.2% Hunterdon County 53,252 99.5% 90.0% 89.6% 76,525 94.7% 60.3% 57.3% Mercer County 360,795 98.8% 99.6% 98.4% 19,893 96.5% 80.5% 77.6% Middlesex County 852,885 95.5% 99.0% 94.6% 8,533 96.5% 85.7% 82.6% Monmouth County 611,213 98.1% 97.3% 95.5% 32,885 92.6% 75.2% 70.0% Morris County 466,800 96.2% 95.5% 91.8% 44,351 94.9% 71.1% 67.7% Ocean County 631,220 98.0% 98.7% 96.7% 24,515 93.7% 90.6% 85.1% Passaic County 499,082 88.1% 99.0% 87.3% 14,854 96.3% 79.6% 76.8% Salem County 30,569 99.8% 98.5% 98.3% 34,548 89.4% 72.5% 65.0% Somerset County 320,185 97.6% 96.6% 94.3% 26,690 96.6% 86.8% 84.1% Sussex County 74,468 89.7% 93.2% 84.2% 71,616 82.5% 67.8% 57.1% Union County 569,815 96.0% 99.5% 95.5% Warren County 62,482 97.0% 98.2% 95.4% 48,444 84.5% 80.8% 69.9% New Mexico 1,581,331 96.5% 96.7% 93.6% 532,013 44.7% 65.9% 34.1% Bernalillo County 642,053 99.5% 99.9% 99.5% 30,455 48.2% 63.2% 35.1% Catron County 3,827 0.0% 14.1% 0.0% Chaves County 47,569 99.6% 78.8% 78.5% 16,325 55.9% 65.3% 42.7% Cibola County 10,126 99.0% 93.8% 92.9% 16,824 32.1% 66.5% 26.6% Colfax County 5,629 18.4% 99.7% 18.4% 6,617 23.7% 65.9% 13.9% Curry County 38,457 97.5% 98.3% 96.0% 9,075 79.5% 78.5% 65.0% De Baca County 1,693 86.5% 43.0% 40.1% Doña Ana County 173,808 98.6% 93.6% 92.3% 49,529 38.9% 78.2% 37.2% Eddy County 46,817 99.4% 94.4% 93.8% 13,583 54.5% 63.2% 39.7% Grant County 16,522 95.0% 98.7% 93.7% 11,164 35.1% 74.6% 31.9% Guadalupe County 4,310 84.0% 84.6% 71.6% Harding County 628 71.8% 47.6% 38.2% Hidalgo County 4,003 3.9% 67.9% 0.2% Lea County 54,268 99.9% 88.4% 88.4% 18,184 90.1% 65.2% 61.7% Lincoln County 11,313 99.6% 97.2% 97.0% 9,098 60.8% 46.2% 33.3% Los Alamos County 18,151 99.3% 98.1% 97.5% 1,036 81.1% 95.9% 77.1% Luna County 14,945 0.0% 92.5% 0.0% 10,804 1.0% 63.3% 0.5% McKinley County 24,175 97.5% 100.0% 97.5% 45,655 5.9% 53.1% 5.4% Mora County 4,169 76.7% 34.7% 29.7% Otero County 32,856 99.0% 72.1% 71.6% 35,967 45.9% 63.4% 23.5% Quay County 4,832 98.9% 100.0% 98.9% 3,714 69.1% 70.5% 47.1% Rio Arriba County 17,249 80.1% 99.8% 80.1% 22,799 40.8% 58.8% 26.4% Roosevelt County 11,782 95.9% 100.0% 95.9% 7,152 67.6% 64.7% 45.8% San Juan County 84,762 98.1% 96.8% 95.0% 35,656 60.1% 80.5% 51.6% San Miguel County 14,563 99.9% 99.9% 99.8% 12,390 44.6% 55.3% 28.9% Sandoval County 125,106 98.7% 100.0% 98.7% 28,395 37.1% 64.0% 28.5% Santa Fe County 99,970 97.8% 99.5% 97.6% 55,694 74.2% 76.2% 61.8% Sierra County 7,702 99.0% 99.6% 98.7% 3,734 17.8% 59.4% 11.8% Socorro County 8,197 99.1% 99.8% 99.0% 7,918 9.4% 42.8% 9.1% Taos County 16,215 31.6% 66.0% 21.3% 18,365 20.9% 27.5% 5.7% Torrance County 15,454 25.3% 69.7% 21.3% Union County 3,980 69.2% 76.8% 60.4% Valencia County 54,264 89.2% 98.0% 87.4% 23,816 45.9% 88.0% 42.6% New York 7,114,427 97.2% 98.5% 95.8% 2,562,724 88.2% 62.3% 56.4% Albany County 284,896 98.0% 97.7% 95.8% 30,915 86.7% 74.1% 68.4% Allegany County 5,512 93.4% 99.4% 92.9% 41,182 87.9% 55.1% 49.1% Bronx County 1,379,939 97.0% 99.9% 97.0% 7 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Broome County 142,079 97.8% 99.2% 97.0% 55,038 94.0% 67.2% 64.2% Cattaraugus County 29,165 91.6% 97.0% 88.7% 47,274 76.2% 45.2% 37.8% Cayuga County 30,911 99.5% 99.5% 99.0% 44,087 88.1% 60.4% 54.0% Chautauqua County 70,513 97.6% 92.0% 89.8% 55,514 79.1% 57.6% 47.8% Chemung County 60,374 95.1% 98.2% 93.4% 21,052 90.6% 51.1% 45.7% Chenango County 7,803 91.0% 98.6% 89.7% 38,655 78.3% 48.5% 40.3% Clinton County 27,269 95.5% 78.9% 74.9% 51,484 91.4% 26.7% 24.8% Columbia County 10,397 99.1% 96.7% 95.8% 50,889 89.8% 54.1% 48.7% Cortland County 24,312 94.9% 97.3% 92.4% 21,814 87.9% 60.3% 53.2% Delaware County 4,182 89.9% 97.0% 87.0% 40,558 93.1% 46.8% 44.4% Dutchess County 202,104 95.4% 87.3% 83.2% 95,441 87.8% 70.2% 63.0% Erie County 850,999 97.4% 98.7% 96.4% 99,313 92.3% 85.6% 80.9% Essex County 5,002 91.6% 98.5% 90.3% 31,908 82.4% 15.8% 13.8% Franklin County 13,865 86.9% 81.2% 69.4% 32,508 69.5% 17.7% 10.8% Fulton County 25,856 93.1% 97.8% 91.2% 26,813 84.6% 59.0% 53.1% Genesee County 21,853 97.4% 99.8% 97.3% 35,682 88.5% 71.4% 63.3% Greene County 12,414 95.5% 84.5% 80.4% 35,647 92.1% 47.0% 44.0% Hamilton County 5,118 67.2% 32.7% 26.2% Herkimer County 28,256 96.6% 100.0% 96.6% 31,566 84.2% 63.8% 55.1% Jefferson County 51,854 95.7% 97.4% 93.4% 64,783 89.9% 67.2% 60.8% Kings County 2,590,516 97.9% 99.9% 97.8% Lewis County 26,699 78.4% 37.9% 32.3% Livingston County 17,413 80.7% 69.2% 66.8% 44,103 81.3% 73.9% 62.3% Madison County 20,839 95.8% 98.4% 94.4% 46,258 88.3% 75.9% 69.4% Monroe County 690,379 97.3% 99.2% 96.5% 61,656 95.3% 91.1% 86.9% Montgomery County 27,071 95.2% 94.9% 90.3% 22,552 70.2% 63.4% 47.3% Nassau County 1,377,449 98.2% 99.4% 97.6% 6,277 92.8% 71.7% 66.1% New York County 1,596,273 99.3% 99.9% 99.3% Niagara County 147,321 95.3% 98.9% 94.4% 63,559 94.0% 86.7% 81.4% Oneida County 149,985 95.1% 99.4% 94.5% 78,861 87.1% 72.4% 64.8% Onondaga County 398,920 98.4% 99.9% 98.3% 69,329 93.2% 92.2% 86.2% Ontario County 61,432 98.0% 97.9% 95.9% 51,275 92.1% 79.4% 73.8% Orange County 290,865 87.8% 94.4% 82.4% 115,076 90.6% 58.0% 52.3% Orleans County 13,011 93.3% 95.8% 89.3% 26,307 90.4% 66.2% 59.7% Oswego County 41,796 97.7% 96.8% 94.5% 76,491 92.3% 72.3% 67.9% Otsego County 16,229 89.1% 99.7% 88.8% 44,407 80.4% 54.7% 46.6% Putnam County 63,802 98.5% 92.8% 91.4% 34,243 96.2% 83.9% 81.0% Queens County 2,277,973 99.1% 99.9% 99.1% 56 76.7% 100.0% 76.7% Rensselaer County 106,428 97.7% 97.6% 95.5% 53,425 94.2% 71.3% 67.6% Richmond County 491,128 99.2% 98.1% 97.3% 5 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% Rockland County 337,696 95.9% 97.0% 93.0% 1,326 84.4% 93.7% 81.3% Saratoga County 170,582 97.2% 97.5% 94.8% 68,215 93.3% 68.4% 64.0% Schenectady County 145,798 97.5% 97.3% 94.9% 14,295 94.7% 73.7% 69.7% Schoharie County 4,911 79.5% 98.5% 78.2% 25,152 92.7% 42.6% 39.3% Schuyler County 17,650 89.4% 62.1% 58.3% Seneca County 13,877 99.0% 99.5% 98.6% 19,005 90.6% 62.0% 58.9% St. Lawrence County 32,994 91.1% 88.5% 81.5% 74,739 83.9% 32.8% 29.3% Steuben County 37,199 99.5% 97.0% 96.7% 55,400 82.3% 45.3% 39.5% Suffolk County 1,494,620 96.4% 95.7% 92.4% 30,845 79.5% 83.0% 65.8% Sullivan County 18,901 93.1% 95.5% 88.9% 60,757 90.2% 52.6% 48.3% Tioga County 16,085 98.7% 98.3% 97.1% 31,687 87.3% 56.3% 50.1% Tompkins County 55,854 91.1% 98.9% 90.1% 48,923 91.2% 73.1% 67.7% Ulster County 79,485 94.1% 90.0% 84.4% 102,834 90.0% 49.3% 42.8% Warren County 44,232 96.0% 91.0% 87.3% 21,367 86.4% 37.9% 34.5% Washington County 14,810 97.4% 99.0% 96.5% 46,031 84.4% 55.2% 47.4% Wayne County 22,758 96.6% 83.8% 81.3% 68,367 90.5% 69.0% 63.3% Westchester County 944,629 92.1% 97.4% 89.6% 45,798 95.0% 64.0% 60.3% Wyoming County 4,008 96.2% 55.2% 53.8% 35,658 79.3% 57.4% 50.2% Yates County 7,603 99.2% 92.3% 91.7% 16,848 79.0% 63.8% 50.9% North Carolina 7,110,087 96.7% 96.5% 93.3% 3,588,886 73.9% 65.7% 52.3% Alamance County 128,183 96.7% 99.4% 96.2% 48,170 82.6% 85.5% 72.0% Alexander County 3,992 97.5% 94.4% 92.5% 32,520 62.3% 69.6% 49.2% Alleghany County 11,185 98.5% 17.4% 17.3% Anson County 5,283 95.4% 89.7% 85.2% 16,919 46.5% 44.3% 23.1% Ashe County 27,110 99.5% 21.1% 20.8% Avery County 17,571 70.1% 66.9% 53.5% Beaufort County 16,380 91.1% 85.1% 78.8% 27,892 35.3% 40.4% 17.2% Bertie County 17,240 62.5% 45.2% 33.2% Bladen County 29,446 66.1% 58.3% 42.5% Brunswick County 98,643 99.4% 85.3% 84.8% 54,421 97.0% 72.4% 71.1% Buncombe County 211,740 95.9% 95.9% 91.9% 61,849 84.5% 61.5% 53.6% Burke County 47,490 82.7% 94.4% 77.6% 40,391 75.9% 62.1% 50.8% Cabarrus County 194,672 98.9% 99.6% 98.6% 41,125 81.6% 92.1% 76.4% Caldwell County 45,847 95.5% 96.1% 91.7% 34,645 82.8% 63.1% 56.4% Camden County 518 99.2% 86.4% 85.7% 10,570 72.2% 40.9% 33.1% Carteret County 48,006 96.5% 93.7% 90.5% 21,374 92.5% 63.7% 58.2% Caswell County 43 100.0% 97.6% 97.6% 22,571 52.0% 32.1% 24.1% Catawba County 105,065 95.0% 90.5% 85.7% 58,397 85.2% 74.3% 64.3% Chatham County 28,215 96.9% 83.9% 81.5% 51,649 57.8% 51.5% 33.0% Cherokee County 29,512 58.7% 33.2% 23.5% Chowan County 4,342 99.5% 82.0% 81.8% 9,598 47.2% 26.6% 8.0% Clay County 11,614 58.9% 21.3% 15.7% Cleveland County 37,888 95.3% 98.0% 93.4% 62,782 79.0% 77.0% 65.2% Columbus County 5,307 92.1% 38.5% 34.5% 44,578 86.9% 44.7% 39.2% Craven County 65,535 87.9% 99.1% 87.1% 35,339 64.5% 63.1% 45.7% Cumberland County 287,110 96.7% 99.3% 96.1% 49,589 85.4% 82.0% 72.4% Currituck County 1,908 96.1% 95.2% 91.5% 29,107 87.1% 76.5% 67.0% Dare County 29,475 97.2% 70.0% 67.6% 8,481 92.8% 64.5% 60.7% Davidson County 89,915 97.6% 98.2% 95.9% 82,671 95.2% 89.5% 86.4% Davie County 12,695 99.9% 99.8% 99.7% 31,395 95.4% 86.2% 83.0% Duplin County 48,990 53.3% 77.7% 45.2% Durham County 314,819 96.1% 99.5% 95.7% 17,861 59.6% 85.4% 55.5% Edgecombe County 26,647 87.6% 98.6% 86.9% 21,654 42.1% 51.8% 28.4% Forsyth County 359,038 97.9% 99.7% 97.6% 30,119 94.5% 95.9% 91.2% Franklin County 15,729 96.6% 85.0% 82.0% 58,810 67.2% 61.7% 47.0% Gaston County 189,534 97.0% 99.6% 96.7% 44,681 88.1% 94.6% 84.2% Gates County 10,383 51.1% 32.7% 16.9% Graham County 7,980 43.0% 28.0% 23.5% Granville County 17,771 94.7% 78.5% 73.5% 44,132 55.2% 60.4% 41.3% Greene County 20,211 36.2% 80.7% 30.8% Guilford County 466,670 97.2% 99.6% 96.9% 79,431 90.2% 95.8% 87.3% Halifax County 20,954 95.9% 97.5% 93.6% 26,894 30.5% 50.9% 19.3% Harnett County 49,423 95.5% 87.5% 83.3% 89,409 74.7% 61.3% 48.0% Haywood County 33,106 94.6% 89.6% 84.5% 29,503 73.7% 50.7% 41.4% Henderson County 77,201 92.3% 96.7% 89.5% 40,905 58.2% 71.1% 47.4% Hertford County 4,729 91.1% 93.7% 84.9% 16,146 66.8% 61.3% 44.2% Hoke County 30,733 96.4% 99.1% 95.6% 23,054 62.8% 76.6% 55.3% Hyde County 4,576 1.2% 26.0% 0.0% Iredell County 132,821 98.2% 99.2% 97.5% 63,076 84.3% 83.6% 70.7% Jackson County 13,010 54.7% 97.3% 53.7% 29,945 26.6% 39.5% 12.9% Johnston County 109,577 96.5% 83.6% 80.4% 125,201 79.1% 65.0% 52.2% Jones County 9,233 83.6% 57.7% 45.9% Lee County 37,861 97.9% 69.6% 68.3% 27,615 63.5% 56.0% 39.5% Lenoir County 20,832 91.2% 94.4% 86.2% 33,801 63.9% 78.4% 51.4% Lincoln County 24,260 94.1% 87.0% 82.2% 68,835 86.8% 75.6% 67.6% Macon County 9,531 88.7% 74.7% 67.1% 28,534 33.8% 23.7% 13.4% Madison County 21,768 91.2% 37.3% 35.0% Martin County 5,325 88.5% 95.1% 84.4% 16,183 38.9% 36.8% 21.1% McDowell County 12,143 91.0% 91.1% 83.2% 32,610 51.9% 65.9% 37.9% Mecklenburg County 1,134,449 98.0% 99.9% 97.9% 10,943 89.0% 97.5% 86.9% Mitchell County 15,094 91.8% 56.0% 52.6% Montgomery County 25,894 50.8% 53.4% 34.3% Moore County 53,240 97.2% 46.8% 45.1% 52,291 59.7% 28.2% 19.1% Nash County 48,205 87.9% 94.7% 83.9% 47,584 49.7% 60.1% 30.8% New Hanover County 230,767 97.1% 96.4% 93.6% 4,154 87.9% 87.9% 76.4% Northampton County 1,966 96.3% 73.9% 72.1% 14,813 66.5% 32.5% 25.3% Onslow County 121,871 94.5% 86.8% 81.9% 85,427 87.0% 77.2% 67.1% Orange County 102,990 95.7% 96.7% 92.5% 47,487 59.4% 72.9% 47.7% Pamlico County 12,381 68.6% 39.2% 29.1% Pasquotank County 22,301 93.9% 93.8% 88.0% 18,637 82.1% 54.9% 45.1% Pender County 26,064 97.4% 77.9% 75.5% 39,673 64.5% 77.3% 57.6% Perquimans County 13,210 56.9% 36.5% 28.3% Person County 8,954 92.8% 79.9% 73.3% 30,432 64.6% 36.7% 28.6% Pitt County 126,137 91.8% 97.9% 90.0% 47,405 63.8% 70.4% 47.3% Polk County 1,748 98.7% 24.1% 24.1% 18,238 46.0% 58.7% 31.7% Randolph County 57,458 94.5% 97.9% 92.5% 88,585 87.4% 76.2% 66.7% Richmond County 23,721 95.4% 49.0% 46.3% 19,057 69.6% 47.2% 33.3% Robeson County 26,002 95.2% 87.3% 83.4% 90,661 78.2% 55.5% 43.8% Rockingham County 35,248 94.3% 85.7% 80.7% 56,709 77.7% 53.5% 44.9% Rowan County 86,128 97.6% 98.5% 96.2% 63,517 85.1% 90.6% 78.9% Rutherford County 20,925 97.5% 95.8% 93.4% 44,038 46.9% 73.6% 40.9% Sampson County 8,962 99.9% 99.6% 99.6% 50,158 63.7% 64.5% 41.3% Scotland County 16,189 96.2% 95.4% 91.7% 17,973 56.0% 64.2% 35.5% Stanly County 17,319 99.3% 97.8% 97.2% 46,834 76.3% 78.0% 61.1% Stokes County 8,780 98.6% 99.7% 98.4% 36,395 79.4% 74.5% 61.0% Surry County 17,442 98.3% 90.2% 88.8% 53,961 94.0% 61.3% 58.6% Swain County 13,967 36.9% 45.9% 28.2% Transylvania County 13,107 98.8% 71.5% 71.1% 20,248 73.0% 21.3% 17.4% Tyrrell County 3,365 33.9% 29.1% 19.9% Union County 179,205 98.0% 99.8% 97.8% 69,865 78.7% 85.6% 70.5% Vance County 19,793 94.2% 92.5% 86.9% 22,345 66.1% 46.4% 34.8% Wake County 1,112,030 98.1% 99.8% 97.9% 62,991 90.0% 95.5% 86.0% Warren County 18,713 31.6% 36.0% 14.4% Washington County 10,828 67.6% 28.9% 24.3% Watauga County 27,197 94.1% 92.9% 87.3% 27,892 91.9% 46.7% 44.1% Wayne County 53,724 94.6% 98.0% 92.7% 63,562 82.1% 79.0% 65.7% Wilkes County 19,753 95.9% 77.0% 73.4% 46,031 94.7% 31.3% 29.9% Wilson County 48,446 99.4% 93.9% 93.3% 30,003 88.2% 73.7% 65.1% Yadkin County 37,463 92.0% 83.3% 77.7% Yancey County 18,811 94.4% 56.1% 54.1% North Dakota 476,825 99.6% 93.9% 93.6% 302,436 95.8% 55.8% 54.0% Adams County 2,115 100.0% 7.1% 7.1% Barnes County 6,743 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 4,015 93.4% 49.5% 46.2% Benson County 5,770 75.5% 59.5% 44.2% Billings County 1,018 49.3% 47.9% 27.5% Bottineau County 6,376 98.1% 55.4% 55.0% Bowman County 2,894 100.0% 63.2% 63.2% Burke County 2,155 96.4% 56.7% 55.8% Burleigh County 75,752 98.9% 93.0% 92.0% 23,528 99.4% 21.9% 21.7% Cass County 173,268 100.0% 99.0% 99.0% 19,466 96.1% 77.7% 75.8% Cavalier County 3,597 99.7% 72.5% 72.5% Dickey County 4,923 99.3% 75.4% 74.8% Divide County 2,187 95.3% 72.1% 70.8% Dunn County 4,015 97.9% 45.5% 45.3% Eddy County 2,314 90.6% 82.5% 76.6% Emmons County 3,250 100.0% 55.9% 55.9% Foster County 3,378 100.0% 67.3% 67.3% Golden Valley County 1,744 81.2% 64.3% 56.0% Grand Forks County 58,498 100.0% 99.3% 99.3% 13,915 99.4% 67.8% 67.5% Grant County 2,243 96.5% 51.0% 50.4% Griggs County 2,252 99.7% 73.5% 73.3% Hettinger County 2,406 100.0% 52.9% 52.9% Kidder County 2,393 100.0% 58.2% 58.2% LaMoure County 4,098 100.0% 55.5% 55.5% Logan County 1,855 100.0% 37.6% 37.6% McHenry County 5,189 95.1% 61.0% 59.1% McIntosh County 2,475 100.0% 37.8% 37.8% McKenzie County 6,012 99.4% 94.8% 94.4% 7,896 82.4% 41.1% 37.3% McLean County 9,824 95.5% 61.7% 60.4% Mercer County 8,333 100.0% 68.2% 68.2% Morton County 23,609 99.7% 79.4% 79.2% 10,101 99.5% 47.5% 47.1% Mountrail County 9,290 93.6% 79.7% 76.8% Nelson County 2,995 86.9% 30.0% 25.7% Oliver County 1,856 100.0% 39.8% 39.8% Pembina County 6,763 100.0% 42.8% 42.8% Pierce County 3,942 79.8% 74.7% 66.5% Ramsey County 7,274 99.9% 99.8% 99.7% 4,241 77.9% 60.9% 47.0% Ransom County 5,640 99.3% 59.7% 59.6% Renville County 2,220 95.5% 57.8% 56.2% Richland County 7,744 100.0% 96.8% 96.8% 8,836 96.2% 46.5% 45.2% Rolette County 11,933 99.6% 52.7% 52.5% Sargent County 3,795 99.8% 35.1% 35.0% Sheridan County 1,295 95.9% 57.8% 56.2% Sioux County 3,711 98.1% 12.2% 12.0% Slope County 672 99.7% 38.0% 38.0% Stark County 24,910 100.0% 96.5% 96.5% 7,893 95.6% 50.2% 48.1% Steele County 1,788 100.0% 17.2% 17.2% Stutsman County 15,040 100.0% 89.0% 89.0% 6,447 100.0% 46.5% 46.5% Towner County 2,064 94.7% 63.1% 61.3% Traill County 7,958 98.9% 73.0% 72.6% Walsh County 10,438 99.9% 82.5% 82.4% Ward County 51,246 98.9% 88.8% 87.8% 17,624 97.7% 62.1% 60.9% Wells County 3,930 88.9% 32.3% 29.3% Williams County 26,729 98.9% 70.9% 70.3% 11,380 86.8% 58.1% 53.5% Ohio 8,944,217 97.9% 98.6% 96.6% 2,811,841 73.1% 70.0% 55.0% Adams County 27,420 41.3% 47.2% 26.7% Allen County 69,632 96.3% 76.1% 73.9% 31,483 84.6% 57.5% 51.5% Ashland County 19,016 99.9% 100.0% 99.9% 33,165 74.6% 86.1% 66.1% Ashtabula County 46,108 98.9% 86.5% 85.5% 50,906 72.5% 73.4% 56.4% Athens County 30,042 87.6% 96.3% 83.9% 28,937 59.8% 45.6% 34.6% Auglaize County 28,170 99.8% 65.6% 65.5% 17,778 67.6% 26.6% 18.3% Belmont County 25,281 98.8% 91.6% 90.6% 40,228 62.1% 59.0% 41.6% Brown County 1,796 96.6% 96.6% 93.3% 41,884 64.2% 62.2% 44.5% Butler County 350,832 98.1% 99.9% 98.1% 37,588 91.9% 90.3% 83.9% Carroll County 26,659 51.9% 67.4% 40.3% Champaign County 11,213 100.0% 81.5% 81.5% 27,496 74.2% 65.4% 52.0% Clark County 100,627 97.9% 100.0% 97.9% 34,204 88.6% 93.0% 82.9% Clermont County 155,081 98.2% 99.4% 97.6% 55,724 92.6% 85.3% 79.4% Clinton County 12,254 94.8% 99.4% 94.4% 29,710 68.9% 81.8% 58.0% Columbiana County 45,218 98.5% 98.5% 97.0% 55,293 58.8% 79.0% 50.8% Coshocton County 12,263 94.1% 99.7% 93.9% 24,308 41.2% 47.8% 28.1% Crawford County 27,008 95.0% 84.6% 80.5% 14,514 52.2% 49.8% 26.5% Cuyahoga County 1,228,946 99.1% 99.8% 98.9% 7,095 97.7% 100.0% 97.7% Darke County 14,737 95.8% 71.6% 68.5% 36,792 64.8% 50.2% 36.3% Defiance County 17,537 100.0% 76.5% 76.5% 20,650 97.1% 34.5% 33.6% Delaware County 179,294 98.3% 100.0% 98.3% 47,002 90.4% 97.2% 87.9% Erie County 53,368 99.2% 94.0% 93.4% 21,133 84.1% 90.8% 76.4% Fairfield County 104,966 98.1% 99.9% 98.1% 57,932 79.2% 85.1% 69.9% Fayette County 14,655 96.1% 95.0% 91.8% 14,184 51.1% 56.0% 28.2% Franklin County 1,303,134 99.0% 100.0% 99.0% 18,686 93.0% 99.4% 92.5% Fulton County 7,473 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 34,698 99.6% 78.3% 78.1% Gallia County 5,778 61.0% 98.1% 61.0% 23,290 15.6% 49.1% 11.4% Geauga County 20,621 98.6% 100.0% 98.6% 74,848 82.1% 97.1% 80.7% Greene County 130,585 97.9% 99.9% 97.9% 37,871 69.2% 91.6% 64.1% Guernsey County 14,290 93.7% 88.9% 83.2% 23,808 57.9% 38.4% 23.8% Hamilton County 805,046 98.9% 99.3% 98.2% 19,991 95.8% 88.2% 84.6% Hancock County 51,836 99.8% 95.0% 94.9% 23,025 99.3% 35.8% 35.6% Hardin County 13,060 99.7% 99.2% 99.0% 17,356 95.2% 39.5% 37.9% Harrison County 14,378 50.8% 17.8% 12.6% Henry County 8,675 100.0% 88.3% 88.3% 18,837 99.1% 39.0% 38.7% Highland County 11,331 92.5% 99.7% 92.3% 32,060 46.2% 55.6% 32.2% Hocking County 8,050 94.5% 95.0% 90.3% 19,808 44.1% 31.1% 22.0% Holmes County 44,390 34.5% 69.5% 25.7% Huron County 28,167 96.2% 98.5% 94.8% 30,051 65.4% 76.4% 55.0% Jackson County 11,708 92.5% 93.3% 86.3% 20,878 49.0% 43.6% 28.9% Jefferson County 38,809 99.1% 90.8% 90.2% 25,521 65.9% 39.1% 29.2% Knox County 18,805 91.4% 99.9% 91.4% 44,378 51.8% 85.4% 50.0% Lake County 214,280 98.0% 99.7% 97.7% 17,562 95.3% 99.6% 95.0% Lawrence County 31,177 98.3% 91.0% 89.5% 25,476 64.5% 46.1% 38.5% Licking County 117,938 98.1% 100.0% 98.1% 63,421 73.3% 79.5% 64.6% Logan County 20,053 97.9% 82.4% 81.0% 25,987 83.5% 41.7% 37.4% Lorain County 271,185 97.2% 99.6% 96.8% 45,083 71.1% 96.3% 67.6% Lucas County 405,120 99.6% 98.7% 98.3% 21,523 96.7% 80.4% 77.8% Madison County 14,719 96.1% 100.0% 96.1% 28,821 60.3% 96.9% 58.3% Mahoning County 190,215 97.4% 99.9% 97.4% 35,421 89.2% 96.4% 86.4% Marion County 41,971 99.9% 91.9% 91.9% 22,671 85.9% 51.0% 43.9% Medina County 119,743 99.4% 100.0% 99.4% 63,769 90.4% 99.3% 90.1% Meigs County 2,647 84.4% 55.0% 45.7% 19,322 33.0% 31.0% 12.1% Mercer County 11,931 99.9% 57.8% 57.8% 30,417 84.8% 44.7% 41.4% Miami County 76,475 99.3% 99.9% 99.3% 33,772 71.7% 92.2% 67.5% Monroe County 179 99.4% 100.0% 99.4% 13,055 20.2% 34.3% 5.7% Montgomery County 504,304 98.0% 99.9% 98.0% 29,588 75.9% 93.0% 72.6% Morgan County 13,668 35.4% 29.7% 20.7% Morrow County 4 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 35,335 80.7% 87.3% 71.4% Muskingum County 42,030 94.8% 91.4% 86.4% 44,083 67.4% 54.1% 42.2% Noble County 14,335 35.9% 55.0% 26.0% Ottawa County 15,187 96.5% 91.8% 88.4% 24,791 75.0% 73.4% 56.4% Paulding County 18,757 95.2% 41.7% 41.6% Perry County 6,945 94.7% 96.5% 91.3% 28,535 46.6% 47.5% 25.9% Pickaway County 23,628 97.2% 98.2% 95.4% 36,395 65.2% 81.0% 51.7% Pike County 5,035 88.1% 96.4% 84.6% 21,970 57.3% 34.4% 23.4% Portage County 99,231 98.2% 100.0% 98.2% 62,514 90.3% 95.2% 86.1% Preble County 9,462 95.9% 99.5% 95.4% 31,134 71.2% 74.5% 56.7% Putnam County 5,204 100.0% 84.0% 84.0% 29,130 97.9% 32.1% 31.7% Richland County 83,088 92.1% 99.9% 92.0% 42,231 81.1% 80.8% 65.7% Ross County 28,679 96.9% 95.9% 93.0% 47,927 65.6% 54.3% 37.0% Sandusky County 33,142 96.1% 95.8% 92.1% 25,525 72.7% 73.9% 53.1% Scioto County 32,037 92.8% 92.1% 85.2% 40,157 69.8% 42.2% 32.6% Seneca County 29,333 98.1% 96.6% 94.8% 25,299 83.0% 40.3% 35.9% Shelby County 20,304 99.9% 95.5% 95.5% 27,367 64.2% 45.7% 32.8% Stark County 317,100 91.4% 99.9% 91.4% 55,557 81.2% 95.1% 78.4% Summit County 515,651 98.6% 100.0% 98.6% 20,231 95.6% 99.9% 95.6% Trumbull County 145,967 95.6% 100.0% 95.6% 54,676 80.2% 92.7% 78.4% Tuscarawas County 46,211 98.6% 97.1% 95.8% 45,726 59.5% 65.9% 45.3% Union County 36,011 97.9% 98.8% 96.7% 30,887 91.7% 67.0% 60.9% Van Wert County 14,340 99.3% 91.0% 90.4% 14,429 99.3% 35.0% 34.9% Vinton County 721 97.9% 49.2% 47.4% 11,844 28.4% 28.9% 19.1% Warren County 205,222 97.2% 98.7% 96.0% 44,556 85.5% 90.0% 77.1% Washington County 24,575 92.2% 93.0% 85.6% 34,326 50.4% 37.1% 23.3% Wayne County 50,902 78.8% 99.3% 78.6% 65,657 74.5% 90.6% 68.6% Williams County 9,132 99.6% 92.0% 91.7% 27,520 98.8% 25.8% 25.5% Wood County 91,281 98.5% 96.2% 94.8% 40,311 94.9% 69.0% 64.5% Wyandot County 6,446 99.4% 89.8% 89.3% 15,121 98.6% 50.8% 50.7% Oklahoma 2,587,917 98.3% 99.4% 97.8% 1,431,883 71.7% 72.3% 55.4% Adair County 19,576 99.8% 56.6% 56.6% Alfalfa County 5,637 55.0% 61.9% 27.7% Atoka County 14,262 79.6% 63.8% 54.6% Beaver County 5,016 88.0% 42.4% 41.4% Beckham County 10,810 99.6% 99.8% 99.5% 11,199 98.3% 76.6% 76.2% Blaine County 8,409 88.3% 49.2% 46.8% Bryan County 19,240 100.0% 97.0% 97.0% 28,942 86.0% 57.2% 53.2% Caddo County 5,076 97.4% 99.3% 96.7% 21,122 64.8% 73.4% 46.1% Canadian County 136,667 99.9% 100.0% 99.9% 32,482 92.9% 90.8% 86.8% Carter County 21,725 99.9% 97.2% 97.2% 26,785 92.6% 62.2% 58.9% Cherokee County 17,357 99.6% 98.5% 98.2% 30,741 91.0% 58.4% 53.4% Choctaw County 4,998 91.2% 54.3% 48.0% 9,360 20.1% 29.4% 5.8% Cimarron County 2,252 80.6% 61.1% 57.6% Cleveland County 252,601 99.6% 100.0% 99.6% 46,986 91.4% 87.6% 81.8% Coal County 5,313 63.0% 63.6% 49.1% Comanche County 86,819 99.7% 100.0% 99.7% 36,227 87.7% 88.7% 78.2% Cotton County 5,477 93.1% 84.3% 81.4% Craig County 4,682 100.0% 98.5% 98.5% 9,441 52.8% 59.2% 41.4% Creek County 27,272 99.3% 99.7% 99.1% 45,427 54.6% 75.2% 46.5% Custer County 19,706 99.9% 99.5% 99.5% 8,180 95.0% 51.9% 51.6% Delaware County 8,372 99.9% 94.1% 94.1% 33,041 66.4% 55.2% 41.8% Dewey County 4,401 77.1% 65.0% 58.2% Ellis County 3,657 25.1% 49.2% 14.6% Garfield County 48,152 99.9% 99.7% 99.7% 13,768 96.1% 53.5% 52.6% Garvin County 5,479 85.1% 98.9% 84.6% 20,234 49.0% 73.4% 39.4% Grady County 15,256 54.0% 100.0% 54.0% 41,402 86.3% 84.7% 74.4% Grant County 4,124 75.9% 53.4% 46.8% Greer County 5,547 91.7% 87.2% 86.0% Harmon County 2,428 1.1% 74.2% 1.1% Harper County 3,129 51.9% 74.4% 38.7% Haskell County 11,641 56.1% 54.3% 42.5% Hughes County 4,269 95.5% 65.4% 61.1% 9,138 6.0% 58.4% 4.1% Jackson County 17,723 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 6,833 97.7% 28.9% 28.8% Jefferson County 5,389 91.3% 70.8% 67.1% Johnston County 10,406 60.0% 64.4% 46.5% Kay County 29,910 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 13,758 95.2% 82.9% 81.9% Kingfisher County 15,293 87.7% 80.7% 77.0% Kiowa County 8,345 96.0% 79.9% 79.1% Latimer County 9,630 42.6% 58.1% 35.7% Le Flore County 9,802 86.7% 100.0% 86.7% 39,105 43.0% 78.8% 38.9% Lincoln County 1 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 34,187 66.1% 72.9% 50.1% Logan County 19,814 96.4% 99.9% 96.3% 32,119 77.8% 86.8% 67.4% Love County 10,218 90.6% 76.5% 74.0% Major County 7,502 89.6% 48.5% 45.7% Marshall County 15,882 81.1% 70.3% 64.5% Mayes County 9,583 99.9% 99.9% 99.8% 30,006 64.4% 74.0% 52.5% McClain County 5,911 96.9% 100.0% 96.9% 39,395 85.2% 92.9% 82.3% McCurtain County 5,606 100.0% 86.2% 86.2% 25,325 75.2% 29.6% 27.6% McIntosh County 19,451 83.3% 75.0% 62.9% Murray County 4,775 100.0% 98.7% 98.7% 8,897 85.1% 71.3% 66.1% Muskogee County 35,636 79.7% 99.6% 79.5% 30,718 76.4% 78.2% 59.9% Noble County 4,471 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 6,425 94.9% 59.3% 57.2% Nowata County 687 98.8% 12.0% 11.2% 8,796 65.5% 65.4% 54.3% Okfuskee County 11,134 54.6% 60.5% 37.9% Oklahoma County 739,493 99.6% 99.9% 99.6% 63,066 87.7% 97.7% 85.8% Okmulgee County 17,327 79.7% 95.0% 75.6% 19,663 78.1% 61.4% 43.9% Osage County 12,432 67.9% 99.2% 67.1% 33,407 34.6% 69.5% 28.9% Ottawa County 15,383 99.9% 97.4% 97.4% 14,955 72.2% 58.0% 38.7% Pawnee County 15,757 58.2% 77.0% 48.6% Payne County 54,313 88.6% 99.9% 88.5% 28,481 74.7% 91.7% 69.7% Pittsburg County 20,908 100.0% 97.8% 97.8% 22,705 45.1% 61.4% 35.4% Pontotoc County 17,199 99.5% 98.8% 98.3% 20,942 57.2% 56.3% 36.1% Pottawatomie County 34,436 99.9% 99.7% 99.7% 39,097 76.2% 83.0% 67.2% Pushmataha County 10,769 58.3% 39.8% 32.0% Roger Mills County 3,320 36.3% 38.0% 4.6% Rogers County 44,505 97.5% 99.9% 97.5% 54,331 47.8% 84.7% 43.2% Seminole County 6,042 83.8% 96.3% 81.7% 17,309 34.3% 65.4% 30.4% Sequoyah County 7,505 99.6% 95.4% 95.0% 32,162 75.0% 61.1% 48.1% Stephens County 20,840 99.3% 98.2% 97.5% 22,870 50.8% 60.1% 43.7% Texas County 11,606 99.9% 95.8% 95.8% 8,889 92.8% 44.8% 43.4% Tillman County 6,977 89.4% 73.1% 71.4% Tulsa County 642,084 99.4% 99.9% 99.3% 35,274 65.8% 88.4% 59.7% Wagoner County 54,610 98.6% 99.9% 98.6% 32,034 78.6% 79.8% 62.3% Washington County 40,573 99.8% 100.0% 99.8% 12,669 28.7% 68.0% 21.7% Washita County 10,732 94.5% 70.7% 67.5% Woods County 5,072 100.0% 88.8% 88.8% 3,515 58.5% 57.5% 25.8% Woodward County 11,189 100.0% 89.3% 89.3% 8,801 66.6% 46.7% 28.2% Oregon 3,397,493 98.9% 97.5% 96.5% 842,644 62.5% 62.0% 43.1% Baker County 9,873 97.3% 72.5% 70.7% 7,065 29.6% 33.6% 7.9% Benton County 78,129 98.9% 94.7% 94.1% 19,501 68.1% 62.2% 48.8% Clackamas County 349,001 98.6% 99.4% 98.1% 74,176 71.8% 76.3% 57.1% Clatsop County 25,432 94.3% 75.2% 70.2% 16,263 62.0% 56.9% 38.3% Columbia County 31,362 98.3% 94.7% 93.3% 22,226 46.9% 54.6% 34.0% Coos County 40,166 99.3% 84.4% 83.9% 24,824 61.2% 48.8% 38.5% Crook County 13,020 99.9% 99.0% 98.9% 13,355 25.7% 75.8% 18.4% Curry County 11,238 100.0% 90.8% 90.8% 12,360 80.3% 26.9% 25.8% Deschutes County 144,569 99.8% 91.0% 90.9% 61,980 74.0% 52.7% 40.8% Douglas County 66,794 99.6% 91.7% 91.3% 45,503 85.2% 53.4% 48.4% Gilliam County 2,018 27.1% 78.3% 27.1% Grant County 7,218 29.1% 0.0% 0.0% Harney County 4,168 97.8% 88.0% 86.0% 3,347 22.4% 52.1% 19.6% Hood River County 11,680 95.2% 96.5% 91.9% 12,368 51.6% 90.0% 48.4% Jackson County 175,338 99.8% 94.5% 94.4% 46,306 73.9% 66.5% 51.3% Jefferson County 8,106 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 17,224 50.4% 81.4% 45.8% Josephine County 49,780 95.6% 99.1% 94.9% 37,950 34.4% 67.4% 28.1% Klamath County 43,579 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 26,633 70.9% 64.5% 52.4% Lake County 8,385 58.8% 67.7% 52.6% Lane County 310,885 99.0% 96.1% 95.1% 71,468 58.9% 43.5% 30.4% Lincoln County 31,515 97.4% 84.4% 82.3% 19,298 74.2% 59.9% 52.9% Linn County 84,477 99.6% 97.7% 97.5% 45,990 70.2% 65.1% 51.2% Malheur County 13,010 100.0% 97.5% 97.5% 18,869 71.3% 69.5% 59.2% Marion County 300,790 98.6% 98.9% 97.6% 45,913 70.0% 81.6% 59.4% Morrow County 12,300 49.2% 59.1% 33.0% Multnomah County 784,431 99.4% 99.7% 99.1% 10,652 70.5% 73.7% 53.0% Polk County 70,433 99.8% 98.3% 98.1% 19,181 47.7% 73.5% 42.5% Sherman County 1,955 60.3% 64.8% 40.7% Tillamook County 10,833 96.7% 90.3% 87.2% 16,741 80.0% 45.3% 39.6% Umatilla County 54,956 88.1% 95.9% 84.1% 25,259 69.4% 61.0% 40.9% Union County 15,657 97.4% 97.7% 95.2% 10,520 53.0% 44.5% 29.4% Wallowa County 7,659 49.6% 16.2% 9.7% Wasco County 17,023 95.4% 99.3% 94.8% 9,538 38.3% 53.9% 27.1% Washington County 564,963 99.5% 99.7% 99.3% 35,213 51.9% 78.2% 48.4% Wheeler County 1,445 44.4% 34.1% 28.5% Yamhill County 76,285 99.2% 99.8% 99.1% 31,941 43.7% 74.2% 40.9% Pennsylvania 9,886,696 99.3% 98.2% 97.6% 3,085,312 81.3% 71.2% 61.5% Adams County 38,444 98.8% 99.6% 98.4% 67,583 81.6% 91.3% 78.0% Allegheny County 1,202,611 99.8% 97.4% 97.2% 30,642 95.9% 84.4% 81.2% Armstrong County 22,769 99.6% 95.4% 95.0% 41,978 78.0% 49.9% 42.0% Beaver County 117,542 99.4% 97.8% 97.3% 48,135 87.8% 80.4% 72.8% Bedford County 4,532 99.4% 98.6% 98.1% 42,886 70.6% 43.6% 37.4% Berks County 316,496 100.0% 99.9% 99.9% 113,953 99.9% 90.8% 90.8% Blair County 89,811 99.5% 97.7% 97.4% 31,221 83.5% 57.3% 52.0% Bradford County 16,056 99.3% 93.1% 92.4% 43,810 48.9% 36.5% 23.0% Bucks County 577,183 99.4% 98.3% 97.7% 67,871 97.8% 81.7% 80.1% Butler County 111,247 99.7% 95.5% 95.2% 86,053 92.2% 68.1% 64.4% Cambria County 70,762 97.9% 96.6% 94.6% 60,679 81.1% 63.0% 54.6% Cameron County 4,418 88.2% 65.3% 63.3% Carbon County 26,583 99.6% 89.2% 88.9% 38,877 96.6% 68.3% 66.8% Centre County 95,558 96.9% 99.6% 96.6% 62,867 80.5% 79.3% 68.4% Chester County 438,805 99.4% 95.2% 94.7% 107,018 93.7% 84.6% 79.6% Clarion County 5,444 99.0% 100.0% 99.0% 31,902 65.3% 44.1% 33.8% Clearfield County 30,072 93.5% 85.6% 79.2% 47,832 69.8% 58.8% 47.4% Clinton County 19,422 99.8% 89.4% 89.4% 18,509 79.1% 42.2% 35.1% Columbia County 35,765 98.8% 99.8% 98.7% 29,161 55.6% 67.4% 42.1% Crawford County 27,930 99.9% 93.5% 93.5% 54,740 60.1% 56.6% 37.3% Cumberland County 210,853 99.2% 99.8% 99.0% 57,726 86.0% 91.6% 78.9% Dauphin County 245,175 99.8% 99.8% 99.6% 43,625 87.9% 90.7% 80.8% Delaware County 570,605 99.8% 98.5% 98.3% 4,577 98.6% 70.9% 69.8% Elk County 13,447 97.8% 90.7% 88.7% 17,030 82.3% 70.5% 64.0% Erie County 202,325 96.6% 96.2% 93.0% 65,364 80.8% 73.5% 60.7% Fayette County 56,537 96.6% 94.5% 91.6% 69,218 77.6% 57.6% 45.1% Forest County 6,626 37.6% 64.4% 27.3% Franklin County 87,280 99.2% 98.5% 97.7% 69,622 80.8% 87.0% 72.2% Fulton County 14,533 40.6% 63.9% 33.5% Greene County 8,483 99.7% 99.1% 98.8% 26,180 64.7% 30.5% 21.7% Huntingdon County 10,800 99.9% 96.4% 96.3% 32,481 73.8% 45.3% 39.9% Indiana County 33,118 99.2% 95.1% 94.5% 49,839 56.0% 51.3% 31.7% Jefferson County 11,616 99.7% 98.2% 98.0% 32,178 72.4% 56.4% 45.7% Juniata County 23,339 56.2% 60.7% 42.2% Lackawanna County 177,056 99.7% 99.4% 99.2% 38,559 89.8% 80.3% 73.9% Lancaster County 402,902 99.6% 99.8% 99.5% 153,727 87.8% 93.8% 83.3% Lawrence County 48,985 99.7% 95.5% 95.3% 35,864 85.4% 82.3% 70.8% Lebanon County 106,637 99.7% 100.0% 99.7% 37,374 88.1% 96.1% 84.8% Lehigh County 338,178 99.4% 99.9% 99.4% 38,139 95.4% 92.4% 88.9% Luzerne County 252,720 98.7% 99.5% 98.3% 73,649 80.2% 74.2% 61.1% Lycoming County 67,473 99.9% 99.8% 99.7% 45,631 76.7% 63.6% 55.1% McKean County 10,760 99.6% 93.2% 92.9% 29,106 79.6% 56.2% 51.5% Mercer County 56,103 96.7% 99.4% 96.2% 53,117 73.2% 70.7% 53.8% Mifflin County 20,827 99.8% 88.7% 88.6% 25,161 76.4% 44.1% 36.8% Monroe County 72,247 99.5% 91.7% 91.2% 94,951 94.5% 69.4% 65.7% Montgomery County 835,528 99.1% 98.2% 97.5% 29,155 96.1% 91.9% 88.6% Montour County 8,252 95.9% 100.0% 95.9% 9,839 70.6% 86.4% 63.6% Northampton County 264,026 99.7% 99.8% 99.6% 54,500 97.4% 92.0% 89.6% Northumberland County 57,496 99.3% 97.6% 97.0% 32,637 74.2% 66.7% 51.8% Perry County 2,963 99.9% 96.9% 96.8% 43,151 71.8% 72.4% 56.9% Philadelphia County 1,567,258 99.7% 99.9% 99.6% Pike County 7,714 97.0% 86.6% 83.7% 52,844 94.7% 47.8% 45.8% Potter County 16,220 93.6% 32.3% 31.3% Schuylkill County 75,615 96.4% 95.0% 91.8% 67,489 77.6% 68.5% 55.1% Snyder County 11,781 99.6% 94.3% 93.9% 27,871 66.7% 62.6% 48.4% Somerset County 16,384 98.5% 93.4% 92.0% 56,326 71.3% 55.8% 42.7% Sullivan County 5,855 46.7% 20.9% 12.5% Susquehanna County 38,074 67.5% 58.3% 42.9% Tioga County 41,106 80.6% 38.2% 36.0% Union County 14,230 99.7% 87.9% 87.8% 28,514 77.3% 65.6% 54.4% Venango County 21,728 97.7% 97.8% 95.7% 28,049 67.6% 45.6% 35.4% Warren County 15,065 95.8% 90.6% 87.4% 22,743 52.4% 55.1% 39.3% Washington County 141,292 99.5% 96.7% 96.3% 69,091 77.0% 71.1% 58.1% Wayne County 7,091 98.9% 94.6% 93.6% 44,082 81.6% 48.0% 40.5% Westmoreland County 259,097 99.4% 94.8% 94.3% 92,960 89.4% 79.3% 71.9% Wyoming County 1,219 96.7% 100.0% 96.7% 24,795 73.0% 56.5% 45.1% York County 328,798 99.5% 99.8% 99.3% 132,260 83.6% 94.6% 80.5% Puerto Rico 2,966,395 98.7% 98.9% 97.7% 255,394 77.0% 86.3% 68.8% Adjuntas Municipio 7,642 97.9% 97.3% 96.0% 9,558 96.2% 88.3% 84.9% Aguada Municipio 36,358 97.6% 89.1% 87.4% 220 99.5% 100.0% 99.5% Aguadilla Municipio 53,970 99.9% 99.5% 99.5% 120 98.3% 100.0% 98.3% Aguas Buenas Municipio 20,347 94.6% 99.0% 93.8% 2,745 76.3% 95.3% 72.2% Aibonito Municipio 19,513 100.0% 98.4% 98.4% 4,229 100.0% 86.1% 86.1% Arecibo Municipio 77,213 99.4% 98.7% 98.3% 8,627 52.2% 66.0% 40.6% Arroyo Municipio 15,575 99.9% 98.3% 98.2% 519 91.5% 75.7% 67.8% Añasco Municipio 21,093 97.0% 98.6% 96.0% 3,528 31.4% 88.5% 30.4% Barceloneta Municipio 21,419 98.5% 96.8% 95.5% 1,208 91.0% 90.8% 83.6% Barranquitas Municipio 26,483 99.0% 96.8% 95.8% 1,383 99.8% 84.9% 84.8% Bayamón Municipio 181,072 99.9% 99.8% 99.7% Cabo Rojo Municipio 45,509 98.7% 98.5% 97.3% 1,949 77.7% 99.5% 77.4% Caguas Municipio 122,435 99.4% 99.8% 99.2% 1,424 99.8% 95.8% 95.7% Camuy Municipio 26,007 96.6% 99.8% 96.5% 5,725 45.4% 79.2% 40.9% Canóvanas Municipio 39,884 99.9% 99.3% 99.2% 1,439 98.6% 87.4% 87.0% Carolina Municipio 152,771 99.7% 99.7% 99.4% 369 97.5% 100.0% 97.5% Cataño Municipio 22,319 100.0% 98.6% 98.6% Cayey Municipio 36,264 100.0% 99.9% 99.9% 4,669 100.0% 88.7% 88.7% Ceiba Municipio 10,535 98.6% 99.8% 98.5% 951 33.4% 96.0% 31.9% Ciales Municipio 10,034 82.6% 99.6% 82.5% 6,245 29.3% 93.4% 28.0% Cidra Municipio 37,089 98.0% 99.8% 97.9% 760 99.0% 79.7% 78.8% Coamo Municipio 23,946 100.0% 99.0% 99.0% 10,381 100.0% 90.6% 90.6% Comerío Municipio 15,229 88.7% 98.4% 87.9% 2,799 85.4% 97.0% 84.2% Corozal Municipio 30,714 93.3% 99.9% 93.3% 1,836 94.8% 94.5% 89.4% Culebra Municipio 1,858 95.9% 95.5% 92.3% Dorado Municipio 34,556 98.9% 99.8% 98.9% 570 80.3% 100.0% 80.3% Fajardo Municipio 30,597 99.4% 99.7% 99.1% 1,883 83.4% 94.7% 81.3% Florida Municipio 9,148 95.4% 99.8% 95.2% 2,296 60.9% 89.5% 51.3% Guayama Municipio 31,320 100.0% 99.8% 99.8% 5,666 92.5% 87.2% 80.3% Guayanilla Municipio 13,784 98.2% 93.5% 92.3% 3,539 71.4% 81.0% 66.9% Guaynabo Municipio 89,274 99.7% 99.9% 99.7% Gurabo Municipio 38,555 99.2% 99.7% 98.9% 1,432 89.0% 100.0% 89.0% Guánica Municipio 12,170 100.0% 93.9% 93.9% 2,029 100.0% 93.3% 93.3% Hatillo Municipio 32,904 99.5% 99.8% 99.3% 3,898 95.5% 88.8% 85.8% Hormigueros Municipio 15,112 98.8% 100.0% 98.8% 214 94.3% 100.0% 94.3% Humacao Municipio 50,093 99.6% 99.0% 98.7% 318 93.3% 100.0% 93.3% Isabela Municipio 40,080 98.4% 97.6% 96.3% 2,160 84.7% 87.7% 77.5% Jayuya Municipio 9,553 79.6% 80.0% 66.8% 4,547 37.0% 53.1% 26.2% Juana Díaz Municipio 41,765 99.9% 98.1% 98.1% 4,102 100.0% 76.6% 76.6% Juncos Municipio 35,811 97.8% 100.0% 97.8% 702 76.7% 99.2% 76.6% Lajas Municipio 14,522 99.9% 99.9% 99.9% 8,228 100.0% 97.0% 97.0% Lares Municipio 20,811 95.4% 98.0% 94.3% 5,965 63.1% 82.3% 61.0% Las Marías Municipio 99 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 8,352 54.8% 97.3% 54.6% Las Piedras Municipio 33,525 98.0% 98.8% 96.9% 559 47.5% 100.0% 47.5% Loíza Municipio 22,342 98.5% 99.8% 98.4% 1,009 25.4% 95.8% 25.4% Luquillo Municipio 16,399 98.7% 98.1% 97.1% 1,611 76.0% 90.0% 68.2% Manatí Municipio 34,443 98.0% 97.6% 95.7% 4,078 52.1% 97.6% 50.8% Maricao Municipio 4,527 60.3% 87.5% 59.5% Maunabo Municipio 7,051 99.9% 100.0% 99.9% 3,374 99.0% 98.8% 98.1% Mayagüez Municipio 69,501 95.7% 98.6% 94.5% 2,961 66.0% 97.4% 65.8% Moca Municipio 31,706 96.2% 97.4% 94.3% 3,926 80.6% 95.0% 78.5% Morovis Municipio 23,817 92.5% 98.0% 91.2% 3,508 72.2% 92.5% 67.6% Naguabo Municipio 17,510 93.0% 99.4% 92.4% 5,611 81.9% 95.8% 77.9% Naranjito Municipio 27,464 97.3% 99.5% 96.9% Orocovis Municipio 12,356 98.8% 98.4% 97.3% 8,029 68.4% 87.2% 59.5% Patillas Municipio 11,484 99.9% 92.6% 92.6% 4,154 98.7% 50.0% 49.6% Peñuelas Municipio 15,206 99.8% 99.1% 99.0% 4,761 99.6% 87.5% 87.1% Ponce Municipio 129,315 100.0% 98.7% 98.7% 8,484 91.2% 51.7% 49.1% Quebradillas Municipio 20,414 99.8% 99.4% 99.2% 2,268 47.3% 88.2% 38.4% Rincón Municipio 14,959 96.4% 94.5% 91.6% 8 62.5% 62.5% 25.0% Río Grande Municipio 43,873 98.6% 99.8% 98.4% 2,503 83.6% 95.8% 80.9% Sabana Grande Municipio 19,297 99.2% 93.9% 93.4% 2,806 72.9% 91.4% 69.8% Salinas Municipio 20,959 99.8% 99.7% 99.6% 5,340 99.9% 72.9% 72.9% San Germán Municipio 25,016 98.1% 95.2% 94.0% 5,797 67.7% 71.5% 56.0% San Juan Municipio 343,257 99.9% 99.7% 99.7% 7 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% San Lorenzo Municipio 31,319 97.4% 100.0% 97.4% 4,431 84.3% 99.4% 83.8% San Sebastián Municipio 31,718 96.5% 99.7% 96.3% 6,638 64.8% 95.8% 63.4% Santa Isabel Municipio 16,480 100.0% 98.8% 98.8% 3,767 99.8% 98.3% 98.3% Toa Alta Municipio 64,186 99.4% 99.8% 99.2% 685 92.7% 96.0% 89.6% Toa Baja Municipio 72,337 99.9% 99.9% 99.8% 603 93.0% 99.8% 92.8% Trujillo Alto Municipio 66,009 99.5% 100.0% 99.5% 18 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Utuado Municipio 12,482 97.5% 97.9% 95.8% 14,749 71.9% 80.2% 67.6% Vega Alta Municipio 32,612 95.0% 99.2% 94.4% 1,279 28.8% 99.1% 28.8% Vega Baja Municipio 49,747 98.6% 99.7% 98.3% 3,167 78.2% 96.1% 75.2% Vieques Municipio 6,580 90.6% 91.8% 83.1% 1,661 92.7% 90.6% 85.7% Villalba Municipio 17,593 100.0% 99.0% 99.0% 3,682 100.0% 90.1% 90.1% Yabucoa Municipio 24,289 97.1% 97.9% 95.6% 5,187 99.9% 98.9% 98.9% Yauco Municipio 27,574 98.5% 99.2% 98.5% 5,763 36.4% 81.1% 33.7% Rhode Island 992,744 99.7% 94.1% 93.9% 100,990 96.6% 66.6% 64.7% Bristol County 49,821 99.9% 79.9% 79.9% 539 98.5% 93.8% 92.3% Kent County 158,751 99.9% 88.9% 88.9% 12,524 99.4% 61.0% 60.9% Newport County 76,788 99.9% 87.8% 87.7% 7,693 92.9% 57.9% 54.3% Providence County 622,963 99.6% 98.9% 98.5% 34,325 97.5% 59.2% 58.5% Washington County 84,421 99.9% 82.6% 82.6% 45,909 95.8% 74.9% 71.8% South Carolina 3,589,048 97.1% 96.9% 94.2% 1,693,586 76.1% 66.6% 53.1% Abbeville County 5,410 100.0% 68.5% 68.5% 18,946 95.2% 46.4% 44.0% Aiken County 109,268 99.1% 99.8% 98.9% 64,882 75.9% 86.5% 67.8% Allendale County 7,579 63.2% 69.3% 57.2% Anderson County 120,997 96.6% 98.9% 95.6% 88,584 85.0% 87.8% 74.9% Bamberg County 12,908 70.8% 39.4% 30.3% Barnwell County 20,414 61.6% 47.4% 32.7% Beaufort County 158,991 99.9% 92.6% 92.5% 37,380 95.0% 55.4% 53.4% Berkeley County 188,666 94.7% 98.0% 93.2% 56,451 36.8% 69.1% 25.0% Calhoun County 14,179 89.2% 57.9% 53.5% Charleston County 380,123 99.0% 97.9% 97.0% 39,156 71.5% 74.8% 57.7% Cherokee County 18,945 94.8% 98.6% 93.4% 37,176 66.2% 71.3% 50.2% Chester County 8,672 91.5% 93.4% 85.7% 23,259 42.9% 37.5% 18.2% Chesterfield County 7,350 94.1% 62.7% 58.5% 36,333 73.3% 39.2% 31.1% Clarendon County 4,707 95.6% 98.2% 93.9% 26,206 75.3% 38.9% 29.9% Colleton County 9,129 100.0% 96.5% 96.5% 29,470 99.7% 46.1% 45.9% Darlington County 26,602 96.1% 88.8% 85.0% 35,796 71.1% 45.6% 36.4% Dillon County 8,371 96.4% 93.7% 90.6% 19,367 70.6% 43.1% 30.0% Dorchester County 141,425 98.8% 99.8% 98.6% 24,708 54.4% 73.2% 42.2% Edgefield County 3,209 99.7% 100.0% 99.7% 23,723 69.8% 57.4% 44.0% Fairfield County 4,599 80.3% 70.2% 55.8% 15,856 56.3% 44.2% 30.1% Florence County 83,376 97.1% 94.1% 91.5% 53,345 82.9% 66.4% 55.7% Georgetown County 37,383 96.5% 90.2% 87.0% 27,339 92.6% 53.4% 50.1% Greenville County 479,714 96.5% 99.8% 96.3% 68,236 73.3% 84.7% 65.9% Greenwood County 41,379 99.9% 89.0% 89.0% 27,888 72.0% 64.0% 54.2% Hampton County 18,113 65.1% 32.8% 27.5% Horry County 291,937 96.9% 92.8% 89.8% 91,164 93.3% 63.1% 59.4% Jasper County 3,523 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 28,516 89.6% 73.3% 68.9% Kershaw County 31,889 96.2% 96.4% 93.1% 35,862 68.5% 55.9% 39.8% Lancaster County 64,424 99.4% 86.5% 86.0% 40,153 87.1% 56.5% 50.4% Laurens County 24,291 95.8% 86.0% 82.8% 43,674 81.1% 70.9% 59.2% Lee County 16,153 50.1% 48.8% 31.0% Lexington County 227,157 98.1% 99.9% 98.0% 77,640 90.7% 89.8% 82.4% Marion County 11,561 95.9% 93.2% 89.7% 16,889 86.7% 42.6% 36.4% Marlboro County 9,232 44.6% 72.1% 32.1% 16,807 35.5% 40.3% 14.3% McCormick County 9,764 87.6% 22.9% 22.5% Newberry County 11,797 100.0% 86.9% 86.9% 26,450 87.6% 62.6% 53.8% Oconee County 28,662 94.2% 97.9% 92.4% 51,518 53.6% 72.5% 44.4% Orangeburg County 28,046 94.5% 97.6% 92.2% 55,048 70.4% 52.9% 37.9% Pickens County 79,888 97.1% 99.3% 96.5% 53,574 84.0% 83.5% 72.4% Richland County 387,035 95.8% 99.5% 95.4% 34,531 88.2% 85.8% 75.7% Saluda County 281 99.6% 100.0% 99.6% 18,657 74.4% 57.3% 44.1% Spartanburg County 242,595 94.9% 99.6% 94.6% 103,236 70.2% 90.6% 67.3% Sumter County 67,425 97.5% 98.0% 95.6% 36,587 78.4% 72.4% 60.0% Union County 9,440 92.8% 99.7% 92.7% 17,312 57.8% 65.3% 47.2% Williamsburg County 5,262 94.7% 84.5% 79.9% 24,796 75.9% 53.4% 42.4% York County 226,287 99.5% 94.4% 94.0% 67,961 89.0% 62.0% 56.5% South Dakota 517,050 99.5% 97.3% 96.9% 392,774 83.4% 68.0% 59.4% Aurora County 2,755 95.5% 54.3% 52.7% Beadle County 14,288 100.0% 99.4% 99.4% 5,088 96.8% 60.2% 59.0% Bennett County 3,336 81.3% 51.9% 45.4% Bon Homme County 7,062 89.5% 75.7% 65.6% Brookings County 23,754 99.7% 98.6% 98.3% 11,730 96.2% 70.9% 68.3% Brown County 27,354 99.8% 89.7% 89.5% 10,618 64.7% 32.6% 26.1% Brule County 5,321 93.1% 73.0% 70.9% Buffalo County 1,861 92.3% 71.3% 66.7% Butte County 5,455 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 5,319 80.7% 64.8% 56.1% Campbell County 1,349 60.7% 22.0% 12.6% Charles Mix County 9,213 83.5% 66.5% 58.7% Clark County 3,912 96.1% 67.4% 65.3% Clay County 11,724 100.0% 99.6% 99.6% 3,556 62.5% 55.9% 44.4% Codington County 20,975 100.0% 95.7% 95.7% 7,746 97.4% 73.2% 72.5% Corson County 3,826 87.7% 48.9% 44.2% Custer County 9,006 69.9% 63.4% 47.8% Davison County 15,477 100.0% 98.1% 98.1% 4,496 98.1% 75.1% 74.3% Day County 5,479 91.3% 68.5% 66.4% Deuel County 4,352 98.8% 61.6% 61.0% Dewey County 5,140 88.7% 72.2% 66.7% Douglas County 2,776 95.1% 57.5% 56.4% Edmunds County 4,065 75.2% 34.1% 32.8% Fall River County 7,370 78.9% 77.2% 69.3% Faulk County 2,126 97.4% 46.0% 46.0% Grant County 7,463 98.1% 71.6% 70.5% Gregory County 3,962 97.4% 50.1% 49.6% Haakon County 1,826 96.8% 77.5% 76.3% Hamlin County 6,352 98.6% 65.7% 65.1% Hand County 3,140 99.4% 56.1% 56.1% Hanson County 3,461 96.4% 55.1% 52.5% Harding County 1,330 99.3% 31.1% 30.5% Hughes County 12,538 99.5% 98.1% 97.6% 5,154 90.1% 83.3% 73.4% Hutchinson County 7,368 93.2% 80.8% 77.0% Hyde County 1,184 100.0% 84.7% 84.7% Jackson County 2,821 74.2% 47.8% 40.9% Jerauld County 1,650 98.2% 82.7% 81.4% Jones County 884 69.6% 62.4% 49.3% Kingsbury County 5,294 93.2% 74.0% 71.0% Lake County 5,972 99.9% 100.0% 99.9% 5,000 87.3% 80.4% 70.0% Lawrence County 18,025 99.6% 87.5% 87.1% 9,189 54.7% 51.1% 35.0% Lincoln County 51,648 99.7% 99.4% 99.1% 19,339 79.1% 86.7% 71.1% Lyman County 3,692 98.1% 60.5% 59.8% Marshall County 4,374 99.2% 64.7% 64.7% McCook County 5,778 86.4% 70.9% 61.4% McPherson County 2,395 67.0% 23.6% 17.6% Meade County 17,839 98.4% 76.7% 75.7% 12,859 54.3% 59.7% 32.7% Mellette County 1,892 60.0% 29.8% 17.3% Miner County 2,304 94.4% 75.0% 71.4% Minnehaha County 173,681 99.2% 99.7% 99.0% 30,290 95.2% 89.2% 84.8% Moody County 6,349 99.9% 77.7% 77.6% Oglala Lakota County 13,519 69.9% 78.1% 61.9% Pennington County 93,213 99.5% 99.1% 98.6% 21,248 54.1% 64.8% 40.6% Perkins County 2,804 97.2% 60.4% 60.1% Potter County 2,438 100.0% 55.3% 55.3% Roberts County 10,163 97.6% 56.6% 54.7% Sanborn County 2,415 94.2% 71.1% 67.8% Spink County 6,235 91.2% 12.3% 11.6% Stanley County 2,146 97.4% 99.2% 96.6% 853 56.5% 66.1% 35.7% Sully County 1,471 100.0% 77.5% 77.5% Todd County 9,220 44.1% 78.9% 41.2% Tripp County 5,565 90.6% 71.5% 66.2% Turner County 8,856 92.5% 74.7% 70.4% Union County 6,937 99.4% 99.9% 99.3% 10,126 94.5% 87.8% 83.5% Walworth County 5,265 93.5% 85.1% 80.5% Yankton County 16,024 99.8% 93.6% 93.5% 7,349 61.6% 67.7% 44.1% Ziebach County 2,395 93.9% 57.9% 55.6% Tennessee 4,643,858 98.7% 97.3% 96.1% 2,407,481 79.3% 60.0% 51.0% Anderson County 50,325 99.3% 99.6% 99.0% 28,588 86.9% 77.3% 69.1% Bedford County 22,783 94.9% 93.0% 88.3% 29,167 62.1% 55.1% 38.5% Benton County 16,002 55.8% 44.7% 32.1% Bledsoe County 14,798 72.3% 41.5% 39.2% Blount County 87,960 97.2% 98.7% 96.0% 51,998 86.3% 81.4% 72.8% Bradley County 75,453 96.5% 99.0% 95.6% 35,163 76.7% 67.3% 56.4% Campbell County 20,399 98.9% 87.0% 86.2% 19,185 49.1% 51.4% 30.5% Cannon County 14,788 66.6% 72.4% 52.5% Carroll County 5,089 91.5% 96.2% 88.3% 23,369 56.5% 51.9% 37.7% Carter County 33,304 95.6% 93.5% 89.4% 23,106 78.8% 48.5% 41.9% Cheatham County 41,830 86.5% 78.6% 70.8% Chester County 5,979 99.5% 99.3% 98.9% 11,630 78.4% 34.7% 27.3% Claiborne County 9,464 100.0% 89.7% 89.7% 22,967 93.3% 53.0% 50.6% Clay County 7,620 99.9% 37.8% 37.8% Cocke County 11,972 97.0% 95.1% 92.2% 24,907 47.4% 48.4% 31.1% Coffee County 32,037 98.0% 72.1% 70.6% 27,691 85.1% 36.7% 32.6% Crockett County 13,888 99.9% 58.9% 58.9% Cumberland County 29,335 93.8% 76.5% 71.4% 34,187 56.3% 51.2% 33.1% Davidson County 684,748 99.6% 99.8% 99.4% 23,396 91.5% 89.2% 82.2% DeKalb County 4,985 100.0% 81.6% 81.6% 16,018 89.4% 49.9% 44.3% Decatur County 11,564 46.3% 35.4% 25.5% Dickson County 16,953 98.8% 97.1% 95.9% 38,808 55.2% 75.5% 45.2% Dyer County 16,427 100.0% 98.2% 98.2% 19,983 99.0% 61.8% 61.4% Fayette County 11,226 99.5% 91.0% 90.6% 32,404 70.0% 55.8% 46.6% Fentress County 19,332 100.0% 29.1% 29.1% Franklin County 14,271 96.9% 81.5% 78.6% 29,671 64.3% 39.9% 25.9% Gibson County 14,881 95.9% 99.7% 95.7% 35,956 92.9% 56.8% 53.7% Giles County 8,062 93.5% 99.8% 93.3% 22,492 32.3% 52.3% 25.2% Grainger County 3,805 95.2% 88.3% 83.9% 20,472 76.5% 42.1% 35.0% Greene County 22,678 99.5% 94.0% 93.6% 48,727 83.6% 49.4% 42.8% Grundy County 13,783 90.7% 42.7% 39.9% Hamblen County 50,348 99.7% 79.2% 79.0% 14,820 93.9% 69.2% 66.7% Hamilton County 326,275 99.9% 99.5% 99.5% 48,407 96.9% 82.4% 80.5% Hancock County 6,845 99.7% 1.6% 1.6% Hardeman County 5,391 100.0% 77.1% 77.1% 20,138 70.5% 47.5% 38.3% Hardin County 8,842 92.8% 79.2% 72.3% 18,235 44.0% 37.8% 19.3% Hawkins County 21,803 96.2% 90.3% 86.5% 36,240 97.7% 70.4% 69.4% Haywood County 9,420 98.7% 96.2% 95.2% 8,130 51.9% 38.7% 22.2% Henderson County 6,409 92.2% 75.9% 69.4% 21,520 49.2% 46.7% 28.7% Henry County 10,317 93.2% 84.2% 78.2% 22,062 78.2% 38.8% 30.6% Hickman County 25,455 86.2% 29.6% 26.6% Houston County 8,219 95.8% 24.4% 23.8% Humphreys County 19,106 100.0% 44.9% 44.9% Jackson County 11,989 99.8% 22.4% 22.3% Jefferson County 13,552 99.8% 98.5% 98.4% 43,175 81.0% 69.8% 57.1% Johnson County 18,086 81.7% 41.8% 37.5% Knox County 448,465 99.3% 99.6% 98.9% 46,109 90.6% 89.4% 81.1% Lake County 6,507 100.0% 23.4% 23.4% Lauderdale County 6,693 95.4% 69.2% 66.2% 18,100 97.2% 43.8% 42.2% Lawrence County 12,105 94.5% 91.1% 85.8% 33,310 68.4% 54.9% 41.2% Lewis County 12,957 97.9% 51.2% 50.7% Lincoln County 10,384 94.3% 84.2% 79.1% 25,620 63.4% 56.6% 40.2% Loudon County 37,131 97.3% 97.6% 95.0% 21,050 68.3% 78.7% 60.4% Macon County 6,463 100.0% 10.3% 10.3% 19,766 99.9% 21.0% 21.0% Madison County 73,108 99.9% 96.9% 96.8% 26,137 89.0% 50.9% 47.9% Marion County 2,554 100.0% 75.4% 75.4% 26,540 99.2% 64.8% 64.4% Marshall County 12,397 94.9% 87.6% 82.9% 23,481 68.1% 35.3% 25.2% Maury County 67,108 97.0% 99.5% 96.5% 41,051 70.8% 67.1% 54.3% McMinn County 20,976 96.5% 83.4% 81.8% 33,743 47.2% 38.1% 22.2% McNairy County 25,988 47.3% 44.9% 27.0% Meigs County 13,272 58.1% 47.5% 31.7% Monroe County 12,908 94.2% 49.7% 46.6% 34,832 52.5% 34.7% 24.3% Montgomery County 192,019 99.7% 99.3% 99.0% 43,182 91.2% 84.1% 77.5% Moore County 7 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 6,735 46.9% 34.0% 17.4% Morgan County 21,224 99.8% 42.6% 42.6% Obion County 12,273 94.7% 95.9% 90.8% 18,121 99.3% 53.7% 53.0% Overton County 23,044 99.8% 53.5% 53.4% Perry County 8,685 99.8% 35.6% 35.6% Pickett County 5,107 99.9% 34.6% 34.6% Polk County 17,863 69.9% 25.7% 19.8% Putnam County 50,115 94.0% 95.7% 89.8% 32,267 85.6% 62.4% 53.1% Rhea County 9,917 95.4% 98.8% 94.3% 23,813 76.5% 57.4% 49.5% Roane County 26,422 98.7% 91.9% 90.8% 28,660 74.3% 47.0% 40.4% Robertson County 34,723 99.6% 99.8% 99.4% 40,747 74.9% 85.9% 67.8% Rutherford County 299,938 99.4% 99.8% 99.3% 60,681 89.9% 92.1% 84.6% Scott County 22,035 100.0% 61.1% 61.1% Sequatchie County 16,909 87.1% 75.2% 68.1% Sevier County 45,548 96.5% 99.1% 95.8% 53,241 75.3% 78.2% 63.0% Shelby County 884,674 99.1% 99.1% 98.2% 31,697 73.2% 76.5% 63.1% Smith County 20,489 96.4% 55.8% 53.1% Stewart County 14,035 86.1% 36.5% 32.7% Sullivan County 118,242 97.1% 95.3% 92.5% 42,578 94.4% 78.1% 74.4% Sumner County 151,135 99.2% 99.7% 99.0% 52,723 89.3% 80.8% 73.6% Tipton County 20,580 99.8% 60.4% 60.3% 41,076 88.2% 46.2% 42.6% Trousdale County 12,111 96.5% 31.9% 31.8% Unicoi County 8,654 99.8% 98.5% 98.4% 9,020 94.7% 57.5% 56.1% Union County 20,452 70.9% 65.9% 49.6% Van Buren County 6,429 78.5% 38.2% 33.3% Warren County 15,934 95.0% 87.4% 83.0% 26,092 82.8% 45.5% 36.8% Washington County 100,364 98.6% 94.6% 93.3% 35,808 81.7% 74.7% 61.4% Wayne County 16,308 38.7% 36.0% 28.8% Weakley County 10,318 99.9% 86.3% 86.2% 22,745 74.8% 50.7% 44.5% White County 5,895 93.3% 98.7% 92.0% 22,169 91.2% 58.8% 54.8% Williamson County 210,560 99.4% 99.0% 98.4% 50,255 76.3% 91.4% 72.3% Wilson County 101,755 97.3% 98.9% 96.2% 56,800 87.0% 87.3% 76.3% Texas 5,000,804 96.8% 99.2% 96.1% 5,028,768 72.5% 74.4% 57.8% Anderson County 19,419 97.8% 62.4% 61.8% 38,645 14.2% 19.3% 8.4% Andrews County 15,058 100.0% 78.3% 78.3% 3,276 75.0% 41.5% 39.6% Angelina County 41,615 85.9% 92.2% 79.1% 45,486 47.4% 55.8% 32.1% Aransas County 19,088 99.9% 98.3% 98.2% 5,856 99.2% 96.2% 95.7% Archer County 1,131 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 7,704 87.1% 58.0% 51.3% Armstrong County 1,850 99.0% 27.5% 27.2% Atascosa County 14,555 91.9% 97.9% 90.0% 36,309 40.1% 80.2% 37.9% Austin County 6,262 100.0% 99.1% 99.1% 24,835 93.1% 78.4% 74.5% Bailey County 4,994 100.0% 99.4% 99.4% 1,785 99.4% 32.8% 32.6% Bandera County 22,115 89.7% 65.1% 59.8% Bastrop County 30,178 88.9% 96.5% 86.1% 76,010 72.0% 74.1% 57.7% Baylor County 3,466 92.6% 72.1% 72.1% Bee County 14,225 99.9% 95.8% 95.7% 16,169 93.8% 49.5% 46.4% Bell County 331,132 99.1% 98.7% 97.9% 57,254 83.5% 76.1% 64.7% Bexar County 1,954,489 96.8% 99.9% 96.7% 105,041 51.8% 98.7% 51.1% Blanco County 12,418 91.0% 77.5% 73.2% Borden County 585 54.8% 37.6% 32.9% Bosque County 18,697 61.8% 59.2% 37.4% Bowie County 56,828 99.7% 95.7% 95.5% 35,207 58.5% 59.2% 39.4% Brazoria County 300,034 97.4% 99.6% 97.0% 88,147 56.1% 93.7% 54.4% Brazos County 211,543 98.2% 99.9% 98.2% 30,471 82.2% 86.1% 74.3% Brewster County 6,175 94.1% 100.0% 94.1% 3,168 48.0% 53.0% 29.5% Briscoe County 1,431 96.4% 81.8% 81.6% Brooks County 4,462 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 2,444 81.2% 65.0% 59.7% Brown County 21,367 100.0% 99.0% 99.0% 17,006 97.8% 64.6% 64.1% Burleson County 18,657 55.3% 69.1% 40.3% Burnet County 17,148 98.8% 98.0% 96.9% 35,354 81.5% 72.9% 63.9% Caldwell County 21,316 97.1% 90.3% 87.6% 26,532 72.3% 60.5% 46.2% Calhoun County 11,732 99.8% 99.3% 99.2% 7,974 69.8% 84.0% 60.8% Callahan County 14,210 95.0% 67.8% 66.5% Cameron County 349,423 99.7% 99.8% 99.5% 75,785 86.9% 97.6% 85.4% Camp County 12,716 94.1% 45.9% 45.7% Carson County 5,784 83.1% 76.6% 67.5% Cass County 5,537 96.1% 98.3% 94.6% 23,002 28.0% 50.7% 22.9% Castro County 7,298 82.8% 80.2% 71.3% Chambers County 23,346 97.6% 100.0% 97.6% 27,942 75.5% 92.4% 70.7% Cherokee County 14,071 90.4% 77.7% 71.9% 37,574 24.0% 46.5% 17.7% Childress County 4,938 100.0% 86.8% 86.8% 1,871 41.7% 24.6% 21.0% Clay County 10,486 94.4% 61.1% 60.1% Cochran County 2,526 83.3% 16.3% 8.9% Coke County 3,333 80.9% 71.2% 67.8% Coleman County 3,478 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 4,372 83.1% 52.0% 51.1% Collin County 1,085,403 96.6% 99.9% 96.6% 73,293 86.9% 95.0% 83.1% Collingsworth County 2,568 85.7% 77.9% 75.6% Colorado County 20,754 70.5% 80.1% 65.3% Comal County 96,653 93.4% 99.1% 92.7% 87,989 94.6% 93.7% 88.7% Comanche County 13,878 75.1% 74.0% 62.8% Concho County 3,340 95.1% 58.2% 57.6% Cooke County 16,555 99.7% 100.0% 99.7% 26,495 82.8% 56.9% 50.6% Coryell County 64,267 99.6% 99.5% 99.1% 20,790 54.9% 67.9% 41.4% Cottle County 1,307 96.4% 83.0% 82.4% Crane County 4,546 18.9% 98.6% 18.9% Crockett County 2,943 0.9% 89.0% 0.9% Crosby County 4,998 96.4% 88.3% 86.4% Culberson County 2,155 68.1% 94.8% 67.8% Dallam County 5,559 99.9% 72.4% 72.4% 1,682 83.9% 52.2% 46.3% Dallas County 2,585,848 96.5% 99.9% 96.5% 14,992 88.6% 100.0% 88.6% Dawson County 9,189 100.0% 97.0% 97.0% 2,941 96.1% 78.0% 75.9% DeWitt County 9,598 93.7% 99.6% 93.4% 10,174 10.8% 70.9% 8.8% Deaf Smith County 15,255 99.9% 90.8% 90.8% 3,122 90.9% 40.7% 37.1% Delta County 5,406 93.6% 78.9% 76.2% Denton County 901,254 96.0% 100.0% 96.0% 76,027 92.3% 96.8% 89.3% Dickens County 1,726 94.0% 81.8% 78.3% Dimmit County 5,457 95.2% 94.4% 90.0% 2,930 46.5% 57.6% 25.4% Donley County 3,339 17.4% 84.1% 15.4% Duval County 9,888 93.5% 90.7% 88.1% Eastland County 17,944 89.5% 78.3% 73.9% Ector County 146,058 100.0% 99.4% 99.4% 14,811 79.8% 97.7% 79.6% Edwards County 1,422 7.2% 78.3% 4.2% El Paso County 834,862 99.4% 99.9% 99.4% 33,901 97.9% 98.7% 96.8% Ellis County 145,813 99.0% 99.9% 98.9% 66,369 90.7% 93.5% 85.8% Erath County 20,742 99.9% 95.4% 95.4% 23,153 70.3% 55.9% 44.5% Falls County 5,538 0.0% 99.9% 0.0% 11,511 67.1% 46.4% 24.0% Fannin County 8,071 99.9% 98.9% 98.9% 29,054 71.7% 58.1% 44.6% Fayette County 5,072 99.9% 96.7% 96.6% 19,841 49.6% 76.7% 41.9% Fisher County 3,622 81.5% 64.9% 60.7% Floyd County 5,235 78.6% 73.5% 63.8% Foard County 1,057 92.3% 75.5% 75.5% Fort Bend County 844,502 98.3% 99.9% 98.3% 44,644 73.2% 98.3% 72.5% Franklin County 10,618 88.1% 67.2% 60.5% Freestone County 19,950 87.1% 43.8% 41.4% Frio County 8,016 91.6% 92.7% 84.9% 9,799 63.1% 53.5% 37.9% Gaines County 7,251 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 14,930 98.2% 64.9% 64.7% Galveston County 341,251 98.0% 99.7% 97.7% 15,866 63.8% 98.9% 63.6% Garza County 6,262 86.5% 89.9% 81.7% Gillespie County 11,530 100.0% 99.9% 99.9% 15,947 93.7% 49.8% 49.2% Glasscock County 1,164 81.8% 33.5% 30.6% Goliad County 7,131 63.8% 69.9% 50.9% Gonzales County 6,926 99.7% 65.3% 65.1% 12,906 28.8% 61.6% 12.2% Gray County 16,666 100.0% 99.9% 99.9% 4,349 94.5% 71.9% 70.1% Grayson County 72,754 99.9% 99.9% 99.8% 70,377 91.6% 79.8% 74.9% Gregg County 108,763 98.2% 96.5% 95.1% 16,680 63.9% 62.5% 43.5% Grimes County 7,764 100.0% 98.0% 98.0% 22,990 68.6% 68.3% 47.9% Guadalupe County 136,485 97.2% 99.9% 97.1% 46,275 80.5% 92.0% 74.9% Hale County 22,168 93.6% 93.3% 93.2% 9,659 90.2% 68.0% 64.7% Hall County 2,810 87.2% 80.8% 72.8% Hamilton County 8,298 79.4% 70.8% 67.1% Hansford County 5,151 84.0% 58.1% 55.1% Hardeman County 3,516 97.5% 90.3% 89.7% Hardin County 28,333 96.6% 98.5% 95.3% 29,478 66.6% 70.4% 51.4% Harris County 4,722,337 96.6% 99.9% 96.6% 58,576 77.0% 99.8% 76.9% Harrison County 31,362 98.2% 92.4% 90.7% 38,593 49.2% 47.7% 30.0% Hartley County 2,745 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 2,463 67.4% 52.0% 40.4% Haskell County 5,403 88.8% 70.6% 68.3% Hays County 184,244 99.0% 99.7% 98.7% 84,981 91.4% 95.6% 88.2% Hemphill County 3,217 82.9% 38.9% 31.8% Henderson County 28,645 93.8% 78.4% 74.2% 55,866 43.4% 41.3% 22.2% Hidalgo County 808,957 96.9% 99.9% 96.9% 79,410 76.3% 99.0% 75.8% Hill County 8,266 99.5% 87.9% 87.6% 29,063 73.0% 45.0% 37.0% Hockley County 12,383 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 8,778 91.2% 78.5% 75.5% Hood County 39,046 97.8% 96.9% 94.7% 27,327 79.8% 86.6% 72.5% Hopkins County 15,011 99.0% 100.0% 99.0% 22,793 93.1% 56.3% 54.7% Houston County 6,011 99.4% 98.8% 98.2% 15,939 22.1% 45.4% 18.1% Howard County 27,182 99.9% 97.1% 97.1% 6,490 82.8% 84.8% 73.5% Hudspeth County 3,432 7.1% 82.6% 7.1% Hunt County 39,350 99.9% 99.4% 99.3% 68,932 92.1% 64.7% 61.1% Hutchinson County 12,764 99.5% 96.3% 95.8% 7,451 82.1% 81.9% 72.0% Irion County 1,530 82.4% 74.5% 67.7% Jack County 8,922 82.4% 25.1% 19.3% Jackson County 5,894 100.0% 82.0% 82.0% 9,248 79.9% 71.9% 62.4% Jasper County 7,473 95.8% 93.4% 89.2% 25,011 18.0% 68.1% 13.8% Jeff Davis County 1,903 29.7% 51.9% 21.0% Jefferson County 227,531 94.1% 99.9% 94.0% 23,299 74.8% 83.6% 60.5% Jim Hogg County 4,763 24.8% 97.7% 24.7% Jim Wells County 19,214 98.6% 100.0% 98.6% 19,612 96.8% 73.8% 72.2% Johnson County 104,364 97.6% 99.7% 97.4% 91,142 96.6% 94.1% 92.1% Jones County 19,935 91.1% 60.0% 57.9% Karnes County 14,836 52.0% 82.1% 47.8% Kaufman County 98,454 97.6% 99.9% 97.6% 73,912 97.3% 77.2% 74.6% Kendall County 19,866 98.5% 100.0% 98.5% 29,107 91.0% 70.7% 66.0% Kenedy County 358 22.9% 42.1% 10.8% Kent County 740 92.7% 75.4% 73.6% Kerr County 32,124 98.3% 83.8% 82.2% 21,617 80.6% 58.9% 49.8% Kimble County 4,422 63.2% 74.3% 57.8% King County 233 84.5% 54.5% 53.6% Kinney County 3,128 0.0% 95.4% 0.0% Kleberg County 24,004 100.0% 99.6% 99.6% 6,358 91.4% 89.2% 83.0% Knox County 3,273 95.2% 0.3% 0.0% La Salle County 6,604 67.5% 65.5% 51.6% Lamar County 26,209 99.1% 99.4% 98.5% 24,275 62.1% 50.6% 34.8% Lamb County 5,575 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 7,149 90.5% 76.1% 72.8% Lampasas County 7,766 99.9% 98.8% 98.7% 15,019 89.6% 61.5% 56.1% Lavaca County 3,645 97.2% 99.6% 96.8% 16,944 49.8% 75.5% 44.6% Lee County 17,954 72.1% 69.0% 57.4% Leon County 16,209 35.4% 47.6% 24.3% Liberty County 22,118 98.6% 99.8% 98.5% 79,874 41.6% 82.1% 35.0% Limestone County 6,709 100.0% 51.1% 51.1% 15,544 86.2% 33.7% 30.8% Lipscomb County 2,854 62.3% 1.8% 0.5% Live Oak County 11,428 74.5% 62.2% 56.7% Llano County 11,068 94.9% 91.3% 86.7% 11,472 81.1% 65.2% 56.1% Loving County 51 35.2% 64.7% 35.2% Lubbock County 282,328 98.8% 99.7% 98.6% 35,233 86.7% 81.0% 70.9% Lynn County 5,724 94.9% 79.9% 76.1% Madison County 13,661 74.2% 65.5% 60.6% Marion County 9,560 29.0% 35.4% 25.5% Martin County 5,217 93.8% 83.2% 80.0% Mason County 3,982 82.4% 61.3% 57.5% Matagorda County 18,713 99.8% 99.1% 98.9% 17,412 69.8% 79.1% 56.5% Maverick County 54,071 95.8% 96.7% 92.6% 3,772 73.6% 82.1% 62.6% McCulloch County 4,831 100.0% 98.4% 98.4% 2,666 92.4% 56.4% 54.6% McLennan County 200,174 97.9% 92.9% 90.9% 66,662 82.0% 63.5% 55.0% McMullen County 576 74.8% 50.5% 43.9% Medina County 8,927 81.2% 97.4% 79.1% 44,796 42.0% 76.7% 36.6% Menard County 1,968 91.4% 74.2% 73.1% Midland County 147,391 95.9% 99.2% 95.2% 24,608 66.6% 87.7% 56.8% Milam County 10,819 100.0% 73.3% 73.3% 14,809 84.1% 60.3% 54.7% Mills County 4,500 91.3% 67.9% 61.9% Mitchell County 5,683 99.9% 98.5% 98.5% 3,260 33.7% 50.5% 20.7% Montague County 5,705 99.7% 90.1% 89.9% 15,358 84.5% 64.9% 59.5% Montgomery County 518,900 92.2% 99.9% 92.2% 159,590 60.6% 98.7% 59.6% Moore County 14,464 100.0% 99.0% 99.0% 6,532 94.8% 86.3% 83.5% Morris County 12,083 53.0% 31.1% 16.0% Motley County 1,032 91.4% 84.8% 83.9% Nacogdoches County 32,832 92.9% 98.8% 91.9% 32,030 25.1% 45.7% 14.4% Navarro County 24,856 99.9% 74.1% 74.1% 29,780 91.3% 51.5% 49.9% Newton County 12,052 11.7% 47.7% 9.5% Nolan County 10,141 99.9% 98.4% 98.3% 4,332 44.8% 45.1% 28.6% Nueces County 328,314 98.3% 99.8% 98.1% 23,360 98.0% 90.9% 89.9% Ochiltree County 8,073 98.9% 30.5% 29.7% 1,533 25.6% 20.0% 12.0% Oldham County 1,752 88.1% 69.2% 64.4% Orange County 53,979 95.8% 98.6% 94.5% 30,955 70.7% 85.2% 65.8% Palo Pinto County 14,142 100.0% 98.2% 98.2% 15,097 61.4% 58.0% 34.8% Panola County 6,408 98.5% 97.6% 96.2% 16,269 22.0% 24.0% 8.2% Parker County 59,806 99.1% 99.6% 98.7% 106,028 94.7% 87.0% 83.1% Parmer County 9,620 86.6% 86.0% 73.1% Pecos County 8,402 99.7% 99.8% 99.5% 6,333 52.8% 60.0% 36.0% Polk County 5,978 86.9% 100.0% 86.9% 47,277 52.8% 60.3% 34.4% Potter County 102,370 95.0% 98.4% 94.3% 13,275 80.7% 65.1% 53.4% Presidio County 5,939 70.4% 71.5% 60.1% Rains County 12,823 99.6% 44.0% 44.0% Randall County 121,191 96.3% 98.3% 94.9% 24,949 86.5% 74.3% 64.7% Reagan County 3,135 94.4% 96.3% 93.3% Real County 2,840 53.9% 47.1% 37.0% Red River County 11,542 49.5% 46.0% 35.2% Reeves County 10,479 97.8% 94.5% 94.3% 2,426 38.7% 67.6% 31.8% Refugio County 6,632 87.1% 87.4% 77.4% Roberts County 803 37.7% 8.7% 1.4% Robertson County 17,153 86.6% 51.7% 47.9% Rockwall County 106,049 99.7% 99.8% 99.6% 17,159 98.2% 98.4% 96.6% Runnels County 9,859 93.9% 69.3% 68.3% Rusk County 19,320 94.6% 93.9% 89.6% 34,013 35.5% 33.4% 13.1% Sabine County 10,048 21.3% 25.5% 4.2% San Augustine County 7,857 22.0% 46.3% 18.1% San Jacinto County 28,348 36.9% 56.9% 21.8% San Patricio County 50,039 99.7% 98.3% 98.1% 19,915 98.9% 86.7% 86.2% San Saba County 5,824 79.4% 74.4% 63.1% Schleicher County 2,357 90.4% 85.4% 83.6% Scurry County 11,331 100.0% 93.8% 93.8% 5,355 54.5% 43.3% 31.7% Shackelford County 3,186 89.7% 84.0% 83.6% Shelby County 5,071 67.8% 74.3% 51.3% 18,937 13.8% 39.5% 7.7% Sherman County 2,799 94.4% 86.6% 84.0% Smith County 155,432 81.2% 96.5% 79.7% 86,490 36.3% 62.8% 25.8% Somervell County 9,757 54.4% 68.3% 43.1% Starr County 46,889 97.6% 98.5% 96.1% 18,839 86.5% 85.8% 75.4% Stephens County 5,861 100.0% 96.1% 96.1% 3,529 84.4% 48.2% 46.7% Sterling County 1,417 87.0% 2.6% 0.9% Stonewall County 1,182 86.8% 83.6% 79.1% Sutton County 3,217 86.2% 86.9% 83.8% Swisher County 6,881 98.9% 82.3% 82.0% Tarrant County 2,127,286 96.8% 99.9% 96.8% 27,309 82.8% 99.7% 82.6% Taylor County 121,295 99.6% 91.3% 90.9% 23,868 96.5% 74.6% 73.3% Terrell County 693 88.8% 0.0% 0.0% Terry County 8,151 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 3,416 95.0% 74.2% 71.2% Throckmorton County 1,550 81.3% 48.1% 47.9% Titus County 15,305 99.8% 95.7% 95.6% 15,903 66.0% 56.9% 45.9% Tom Green County 98,647 99.6% 99.2% 98.9% 20,245 95.2% 64.2% 62.4% Travis County 1,254,347 96.2% 98.6% 94.9% 72,089 84.2% 87.4% 75.0% Trinity County 13,996 18.5% 52.7% 12.9% Tyler County 20,030 33.0% 64.8% 20.6% Upshur County 8,191 91.8% 71.8% 65.7% 34,297 55.4% 46.2% 26.3% Upton County 3,152 4.5% 24.8% 0.0% Uvalde County 15,878 94.6% 100.0% 94.6% 9,062 65.9% 52.1% 38.5% Val Verde County 41,957 93.5% 94.6% 90.4% 5,649 68.0% 72.2% 56.9% Van Zandt County 62,859 90.3% 52.5% 51.0% Victoria County 64,796 99.8% 99.5% 99.4% 26,269 72.5% 78.6% 59.0% Walker County 44,107 62.6% 94.2% 60.4% 34,763 56.4% 73.7% 42.0% Waller County 13,942 99.5% 99.9% 99.5% 47,952 81.5% 95.4% 78.2% Ward County 8,643 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 2,321 83.0% 86.9% 71.9% Washington County 17,281 100.0% 98.0% 98.0% 18,878 96.1% 68.3% 66.7% Webb County 251,256 95.9% 99.0% 94.9% 16,524 85.6% 87.9% 75.5% Wharton County 21,724 99.7% 97.7% 97.5% 20,100 61.0% 78.3% 55.4% Wheeler County 4,807 79.6% 42.8% 36.3% Wichita County 113,133 95.3% 98.8% 94.1% 16,845 62.2% 83.8% 50.5% Wilbarger County 9,119 99.0% 22.5% 21.9% 3,372 70.1% 16.0% 11.5% Willacy County 13,059 81.8% 99.7% 81.6% 7,084 78.6% 86.3% 66.2% Williamson County 604,861 97.8% 98.5% 96.4% 66,557 90.3% 78.4% 72.7% Wilson County 6,367 95.5% 99.6% 95.1% 46,368 61.7% 76.9% 49.9% Winkler County 6,030 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 1,276 26.8% 27.6% 26.0% Wise County 7,213 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 67,682 99.7% 80.1% 79.9% Wood County 5,850 96.8% 88.8% 86.3% 41,007 83.0% 46.5% 42.3% Yoakum County 7,451 89.2% 92.1% 85.5% Young County 8,694 100.0% 92.1% 92.1% 9,268 91.0% 58.8% 58.6% Zapata County 10,852 97.4% 79.7% 77.4% 2,997 74.5% 64.0% 49.7% Zavala County 6,387 97.5% 99.7% 97.3% 2,990 39.0% 83.8% 38.3% U.S. Virgin Isl. 99,088 99.6% 92.1% 91.8% 6,325 96.0% 54.8% 52.3% St. Croix Island 47,201 99.8% 88.6% 88.5% 3,965 98.7% 63.2% 62.5% St. John Island 3,599 100.0% 84.9% 84.9% 1,452 96.0% 13.2% 12.1% St. Thomas Island 48,288 99.4% 96.0% 95.5% 908 84.6% 84.6% 72.3% Utah 3,018,430 99.0% 99.7% 98.7% 362,370 81.4% 87.6% 75.0% Beaver County 7,327 94.2% 95.3% 90.9% Box Elder County 41,660 99.8% 100.0% 99.8% 19,838 70.7% 87.6% 60.2% Cache County 118,911 99.8% 100.0% 99.8% 21,262 91.3% 97.4% 90.4% Carbon County 13,459 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 7,112 97.2% 77.3% 75.8% Daggett County 1,014 42.6% 93.3% 42.6% Davis County 366,836 99.5% 99.9% 99.5% 3,112 92.8% 99.7% 92.8% Duchesne County 6,384 99.7% 100.0% 99.7% 13,777 37.2% 67.6% 30.5% Emery County 10,099 98.4% 93.9% 93.0% Garfield County 5,281 72.2% 83.2% 65.6% Grand County 8,101 100.0% 94.9% 94.9% 1,668 90.2% 59.1% 55.2% Iron County 43,810 99.9% 100.0% 99.9% 18,619 93.8% 93.2% 89.8% Juab County 6,773 99.8% 100.0% 99.8% 5,794 75.0% 97.8% 73.2% Kane County 8,227 70.1% 83.1% 63.9% Millard County 13,330 78.3% 82.4% 70.4% Morgan County 12,832 94.3% 89.9% 86.6% Piute County 1,487 58.8% 90.7% 58.7% Rich County 2,628 64.4% 62.0% 43.5% Salt Lake County 1,175,333 98.9% 100.0% 98.9% 10,924 70.2% 94.8% 68.8% San Juan County 14,359 49.6% 42.4% 33.1% Sanpete County 5,097 99.6% 100.0% 99.6% 24,627 90.2% 86.0% 78.4% Sevier County 8,867 100.0% 35.7% 35.7% 13,202 92.8% 79.5% 75.5% Summit County 23,868 98.9% 100.0% 98.9% 19,168 76.8% 94.7% 75.2% Tooele County 63,805 99.8% 100.0% 99.8% 16,129 94.3% 99.2% 93.9% Uintah County 20,392 97.7% 99.9% 97.6% 16,749 55.9% 80.4% 50.8% Utah County 668,312 98.1% 100.0% 98.1% 34,122 85.3% 97.7% 85.0% Wasatch County 25,979 98.1% 99.4% 97.6% 10,640 78.0% 90.9% 74.2% Washington County 167,052 99.9% 99.3% 99.3% 30,628 93.6% 87.5% 83.3% Wayne County 2,645 68.4% 88.8% 66.0% Weber County 253,791 99.5% 100.0% 99.5% 15,770 94.6% 98.0% 94.5% Vermont 228,285 98.4% 79.2% 77.8% 418,779 73.4% 38.6% 31.7% Addison County 6,224 99.3% 93.9% 93.2% 31,354 59.5% 40.9% 33.0% Bennington County 14,056 99.7% 33.2% 33.1% 23,336 81.8% 47.1% 42.9% Caledonia County 5,183 89.3% 95.5% 85.1% 25,396 57.7% 47.9% 35.3% Chittenden County 124,390 98.2% 79.0% 77.4% 44,911 86.0% 38.3% 34.0% Essex County 5,994 40.0% 40.4% 25.9% Franklin County 11,688 99.5% 96.2% 95.8% 39,043 69.9% 24.9% 19.6% Grand Isle County 7,489 59.7% 13.1% 10.6% Lamoille County 26,090 65.0% 45.0% 37.4% Orange County 29,846 76.0% 26.2% 19.5% Orleans County 27,666 63.9% 30.7% 23.4% Rutland County 19,851 99.7% 97.3% 97.0% 40,515 88.0% 48.9% 45.9% Washington County 20,608 96.7% 88.8% 86.2% 39,440 57.4% 57.3% 36.3% Windham County 13,914 99.5% 53.8% 53.5% 31,928 72.8% 22.8% 19.6% Windsor County 12,371 99.9% 87.3% 87.3% 45,771 94.8% 38.7% 37.4% Virginia 6,525,894 98.5% 96.7% 95.3% 2,157,725 73.7% 53.5% 42.1% Accomack County 3,338 98.4% 83.6% 82.3% 29,853 78.6% 43.8% 36.5% Albemarle County 66,890 99.9% 90.3% 90.3% 47,644 92.4% 37.6% 36.0% Alexandria city 155,525 99.7% 100.0% 99.7% Alleghany County 6,891 98.3% 87.9% 86.5% 7,944 63.7% 31.0% 25.2% Amelia County 13,455 71.6% 28.3% 23.2% Amherst County 11,761 99.9% 57.6% 57.6% 19,828 97.7% 25.2% 25.1% Appomattox County 16,748 98.8% 31.1% 31.0% Arlington County 234,000 99.9% 99.7% 99.7% Augusta County 12,382 97.8% 97.9% 95.7% 65,682 66.3% 68.8% 53.3% Bath County 4,049 45.0% 12.3% 6.2% Bedford County 23,538 100.0% 73.1% 73.1% 57,310 98.3% 39.3% 39.2% Bland County 6,148 49.0% 34.0% 21.5% Botetourt County 13,666 99.3% 86.2% 85.6% 20,469 69.1% 60.3% 41.3% Bristol city 16,782 99.9% 97.8% 97.8% 193 100.0% 64.2% 64.2% Brunswick County 15,921 38.5% 32.5% 8.3% Buchanan County 19,352 91.0% 1.7% 1.7% Buckingham County 16,982 70.2% 22.6% 16.9% Buena Vista city 6,417 98.8% 99.7% 98.7% 174 84.4% 54.5% 50.5% Campbell County 23,847 99.9% 83.0% 83.0% 31,294 99.0% 52.8% 52.6% Caroline County 31,957 53.3% 41.4% 22.0% Carroll County 693 97.8% 74.0% 73.5% 28,454 44.3% 32.2% 16.1% Charles City County 6,605 66.9% 50.3% 33.8% Charlotte County 11,475 83.5% 34.8% 29.9% Charlottesville city 45,373 99.1% 97.8% 96.9% Chesapeake city 232,776 99.6% 100.0% 99.6% 19,712 76.6% 92.2% 71.6% Chesterfield County 347,328 98.6% 99.1% 97.8% 31,080 94.3% 87.3% 83.0% Clarke County 15,266 57.3% 69.1% 42.9% Colonial Heights city 18,294 99.7% 100.0% 99.7% Covington city 5,644 98.1% 98.8% 97.0% 35 82.8% 82.8% 82.8% Craig County 4,847 24.1% 40.5% 21.7% Culpeper County 22,903 99.7% 94.6% 94.4% 31,478 75.0% 45.1% 34.9% Cumberland County 674 100.0% 98.0% 98.0% 9,072 88.2% 44.0% 41.4% Danville city 40,885 98.9% 97.1% 96.1% 1,344 90.4% 90.6% 82.5% Dickenson County 13,725 71.7% 21.9% 20.7% Dinwiddie County 8,009 94.4% 99.7% 94.2% 20,152 32.8% 41.7% 23.4% Emporia city 5,204 99.2% 91.9% 91.2% 277 90.2% 55.2% 50.5% Essex County 10,630 57.8% 53.8% 39.4% Fairfax County 1,119,903 99.6% 96.2% 95.9% 18,428 97.7% 57.8% 56.5% Fairfax city 24,835 99.9% 98.9% 98.9% Falls Church city 14,586 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Fauquier County 31,583 98.1% 89.0% 87.5% 43,081 49.4% 45.4% 28.4% Floyd County 15,619 63.8% 39.2% 28.1% Fluvanna County 10,299 99.9% 89.4% 89.4% 17,860 98.8% 32.7% 32.4% Franklin County 5,486 99.9% 96.1% 96.0% 49,588 93.5% 47.2% 46.3% Franklin city 7,898 93.2% 100.0% 93.2% 349 90.8% 98.5% 89.6% Frederick County 56,146 98.8% 73.1% 72.1% 38,905 53.4% 65.4% 42.0% Fredericksburg city 28,757 99.1% 99.7% 98.8% Galax city 6,032 97.0% 94.2% 91.4% 698 91.4% 87.9% 81.2% Giles County 16,453 73.5% 71.7% 58.1% Gloucester County 10,941 99.4% 99.3% 98.8% 28,552 78.5% 80.8% 67.5% Goochland County 1,825 81.6% 96.3% 78.0% 24,284 65.2% 60.0% 42.1% Grayson County 17 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 15,326 45.1% 34.2% 20.4% Greene County 21,107 83.9% 49.4% 41.9% Greensville County 1,304 98.3% 53.6% 52.3% 9,922 25.2% 44.3% 5.8% Halifax County 7,373 99.9% 94.9% 94.9% 26,271 89.2% 37.4% 35.0% Hampton city 137,590 98.5% 99.8% 98.4% 447 91.9% 100.0% 91.9% Hanover County 70,769 98.9% 99.8% 98.8% 42,169 44.9% 82.0% 38.1% Harrisonburg city 50,813 94.0% 97.1% 91.6% 345 90.7% 98.8% 89.5% Henrico County 321,084 99.3% 99.6% 99.0% 12,878 90.4% 81.1% 74.1% Henry County 17,468 97.3% 86.6% 84.6% 32,438 85.6% 46.0% 41.5% Highland County 2,301 71.3% 24.7% 22.6% Hopewell city 22,962 99.6% 99.9% 99.6% Isle of Wight County 16,440 95.9% 95.6% 91.9% 23,711 64.5% 74.7% 52.9% James City County 69,608 98.7% 98.0% 96.8% 11,591 92.6% 93.3% 86.8% King George County 27,856 69.2% 69.4% 53.1% King William County 18,492 54.7% 52.7% 31.8% King and Queen County 6,718 45.6% 46.1% 24.5% Lancaster County 10,750 74.4% 19.1% 14.7% Lee County 21,982 96.7% 48.4% 47.6% Lexington city 7,457 99.5% 100.0% 99.5% Loudoun County 376,094 94.1% 97.2% 91.6% 55,991 67.9% 78.7% 54.8% Louisa County 40,116 45.3% 41.3% 25.3% Lunenburg County 12,031 60.9% 26.1% 22.3% Lynchburg city 77,645 94.6% 82.2% 78.2% 1,642 75.9% 59.2% 39.0% Madison County 14,000 55.5% 50.7% 34.7% Manassas Park city 16,703 99.9% 100.0% 99.9% Manassas city 42,642 99.7% 99.9% 99.7% Martinsville city 13,714 99.1% 86.1% 85.6% 11 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Mathews County 8,490 80.0% 68.2% 55.1% Mecklenburg County 5,165 98.5% 92.1% 90.7% 25,343 47.1% 33.7% 21.1% Middlesex County 10,943 65.1% 41.5% 24.2% Montgomery County 68,909 98.8% 94.0% 92.9% 30,006 76.9% 54.3% 47.3% Nelson County 14,652 96.3% 33.4% 33.1% New Kent County 24,986 69.6% 84.5% 64.4% Newport News city 184,069 99.7% 99.8% 99.5% 237 93.2% 100.0% 93.2% Norfolk city 232,995 92.1% 99.7% 91.9% Northampton County 11,900 80.2% 56.6% 49.2% Northumberland County 12,302 70.4% 27.2% 18.9% Norton city 3,250 100.0% 98.9% 98.9% 359 100.0% 56.5% 56.5% Nottoway County 15,559 78.7% 67.3% 57.0% Orange County 16,544 99.1% 98.0% 97.3% 21,447 84.9% 46.2% 39.3% Page County 4,774 97.3% 100.0% 97.3% 18,976 52.7% 59.5% 38.4% Patrick County 17,643 25.8% 38.1% 14.9% Petersburg city 32,413 96.4% 99.3% 95.8% 981 94.8% 100.0% 94.8% Pittsylvania County 6,528 99.9% 77.2% 77.2% 53,424 96.5% 58.7% 57.7% Poquoson city 11,462 99.8% 99.7% 99.6% 1,120 99.7% 100.0% 99.7% Portsmouth city 97,029 98.3% 100.0% 98.3% Powhatan County 624 100.0% 97.4% 97.4% 30,865 90.2% 69.4% 63.0% Prince Edward County 6,628 100.0% 96.1% 96.1% 15,299 99.1% 32.8% 32.5% Prince George County 18,466 93.7% 99.7% 93.5% 24,668 91.9% 70.1% 64.3% Prince William County 460,771 98.8% 95.7% 94.6% 26,172 79.4% 84.0% 66.0% Pulaski County 19,157 96.5% 89.6% 86.3% 14,549 56.8% 46.6% 29.9% Radford city 15,638 98.5% 91.5% 90.4% 1,100 91.5% 67.3% 63.6% Rappahannock County 7,502 43.7% 45.8% 33.8% Richmond County 9,080 61.8% 34.2% 26.8% Richmond city 229,384 99.6% 99.9% 99.6% 11 36.3% 100.0% 36.3% Roanoke County 78,714 99.9% 86.7% 86.7% 18,200 91.2% 47.8% 46.7% Roanoke city 97,833 99.6% 94.6% 94.2% 14 100.0% 71.4% 71.4% Rockbridge County 1,894 97.3% 96.8% 94.4% 20,699 75.4% 48.7% 40.8% Rockingham County 34,540 95.4% 88.7% 84.4% 50,857 56.6% 74.1% 45.2% Russell County 164 100.0% 1.2% 1.2% 25,284 91.4% 62.4% 58.6% Salem city 25,523 99.7% 95.5% 95.3% Scott County 368 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 21,108 80.5% 54.1% 47.6% Shenandoah County 13,500 99.2% 91.0% 90.4% 31,468 68.6% 64.4% 51.4% Smyth County 7,158 99.8% 99.4% 99.3% 22,291 93.3% 34.3% 32.3% Southampton County 318 100.0% 83.9% 83.9% 17,614 40.8% 63.4% 30.7% Spotsylvania County 99,078 98.7% 94.7% 93.4% 47,610 77.4% 40.4% 34.5% Stafford County 132,275 98.3% 95.4% 93.8% 31,105 89.1% 60.9% 54.4% Staunton city 25,325 98.5% 94.5% 93.0% 579 78.0% 100.0% 78.0% Suffolk city 71,183 94.2% 100.0% 94.2% 27,354 73.7% 87.4% 67.6% Surry County 6,527 92.6% 65.7% 61.7% Sussex County 10,680 64.7% 48.6% 38.4% Tazewell County 19,072 99.4% 87.3% 87.1% 20,749 85.2% 36.5% 34.4% Virginia Beach city 446,292 99.2% 99.8% 99.1% 9,326 87.7% 86.6% 76.8% Warren County 16,308 98.8% 71.7% 70.8% 25,132 73.9% 40.9% 29.3% Washington County 16,664 99.5% 85.8% 85.5% 37,294 86.1% 54.0% 50.5% Waynesboro city 22,262 98.3% 99.3% 97.7% 546 98.9% 100.0% 98.9% Westmoreland County 3,930 99.5% 53.4% 53.3% 14,782 65.9% 52.5% 34.6% Williamsburg city 15,893 98.7% 99.2% 97.9% 16 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Winchester city 27,936 99.6% 98.5% 98.1% Wise County 12,364 98.9% 84.6% 83.9% 23,057 93.2% 38.2% 37.2% Wythe County 7,032 98.8% 90.3% 89.4% 21,079 47.2% 47.1% 26.9% York County 65,668 98.9% 99.0% 98.0% 5,673 94.0% 94.0% 89.5% Washington 6,454,972 98.6% 96.8% 95.6% 1,330,814 56.9% 66.7% 41.9% Adams County 10,862 95.3% 91.8% 87.8% 10,099 12.3% 71.4% 10.6% Asotin County 20,873 99.8% 96.1% 96.0% 1,635 32.9% 36.3% 25.5% Benton County 186,138 98.5% 94.3% 93.0% 26,653 90.7% 87.6% 81.3% Chelan County 52,580 98.9% 97.1% 96.2% 27,346 77.0% 68.8% 60.1% Clallam County 49,716 92.5% 88.1% 82.3% 28,089 19.3% 49.4% 8.6% Clark County 444,059 99.1% 99.5% 98.7% 72,720 39.7% 60.9% 35.1% Columbia County 4,026 66.1% 74.7% 65.8% Cowlitz County 74,807 99.1% 95.4% 94.7% 37,149 52.2% 37.5% 24.3% Douglas County 32,796 99.5% 100.0% 99.5% 11,396 73.7% 73.4% 56.9% Ferry County 7,448 24.3% 40.2% 17.6% Franklin County 87,080 92.3% 76.1% 68.5% 11,598 59.3% 56.6% 30.2% Garfield County 2,363 64.3% 63.8% 57.8% Grant County 55,408 99.7% 92.3% 92.0% 45,903 67.3% 76.9% 53.3% Grays Harbor County 47,074 99.4% 85.8% 85.3% 29,964 68.7% 67.9% 51.5% Island County 43,243 96.4% 67.4% 65.1% 43,382 73.8% 51.9% 38.2% Jefferson County 15,717 96.8% 59.5% 57.1% 17,872 51.0% 51.4% 31.9% King County 2,190,819 99.2% 98.9% 98.2% 75,970 74.6% 85.0% 65.8% Kitsap County 227,766 97.9% 91.4% 89.7% 49,907 73.2% 67.0% 50.1% Kittitas County 24,704 100.0% 99.9% 99.9% 20,485 93.7% 87.3% 84.2% Klickitat County 4,668 94.0% 99.9% 93.9% 18,603 28.4% 61.6% 25.5% Lewis County 33,023 98.3% 95.2% 93.6% 52,347 26.2% 69.9% 19.6% Lincoln County 11,601 6.9% 65.8% 6.1% Mason County 20,935 97.6% 63.2% 62.2% 47,231 76.5% 35.4% 27.8% Okanogan County 8,302 89.4% 91.6% 81.6% 34,825 19.4% 60.7% 13.6% Pacific County 9,075 91.8% 68.1% 62.5% 15,038 72.7% 68.0% 53.6% Pend Oreille County 14,179 53.4% 61.1% 31.8% Pierce County 861,399 98.3% 97.8% 96.3% 65,981 48.4% 65.9% 35.0% San Juan County 3,614 95.8% 80.9% 77.8% 15,048 63.5% 39.3% 30.0% Skagit County 85,623 99.2% 91.1% 90.4% 45,556 65.4% 69.7% 48.7% Skamania County 12,460 33.6% 66.2% 30.8% Snohomish County 737,939 98.4% 99.3% 97.9% 102,140 60.9% 74.8% 47.7% Spokane County 466,824 98.9% 99.8% 98.7% 82,866 28.3% 85.1% 26.9% Stevens County 5,452 89.7% 100.0% 89.7% 42,777 27.6% 56.7% 23.6% Thurston County 233,624 98.7% 94.9% 93.9% 65,134 63.3% 54.2% 38.3% Wahkiakum County 4,688 68.1% 56.5% 46.8% Walla Walla County 49,015 95.3% 84.0% 79.6% 12,875 63.1% 66.7% 49.8% Whatcom County 163,530 98.0% 91.6% 91.0% 67,147 66.7% 64.3% 44.3% Whitman County 30,418 93.6% 100.0% 93.6% 17,201 57.1% 42.8% 28.2% Yakima County 177,889 98.3% 97.5% 95.9% 79,112 87.0% 88.6% 79.6% West Virginia 795,101 92.5% 92.5% 86.1% 980,055 52.6% 45.2% 29.4% Barbour County 15,414 7.7% 44.1% 4.3% Berkeley County 87,162 97.8% 95.5% 93.6% 42,328 69.0% 71.2% 53.9% Boone County 20,968 68.5% 32.6% 22.2% Braxton County 12,185 36.5% 43.4% 30.3% Brooke County 12,785 99.4% 87.8% 87.5% 8,948 74.5% 37.0% 29.2% Cabell County 72,386 95.4% 98.9% 94.5% 20,344 65.9% 51.7% 41.5% Calhoun County 6,068 3.0% 13.1% 0.8% Clay County 7,814 12.2% 14.3% 1.2% Doddridge County 7,698 44.1% 32.9% 26.1% Fayette County 14,758 81.1% 76.5% 60.7% 24,729 40.4% 40.1% 18.2% Gilmer County 7,325 29.9% 49.0% 23.9% Grant County 10,968 39.3% 43.0% 26.5% Greenbrier County 7,058 73.7% 72.2% 52.1% 25,377 32.2% 48.6% 19.3% Hampshire County 23,468 24.1% 44.4% 17.0% Hancock County 18,935 99.8% 94.8% 94.6% 9,237 70.5% 68.5% 56.4% Hardy County 14,192 82.6% 51.3% 45.8% Harrison County 36,136 93.1% 96.1% 89.9% 28,779 55.1% 50.2% 37.2% Jackson County 27,716 53.0% 68.2% 46.7% Jefferson County 22,598 99.2% 85.8% 85.2% 36,381 85.3% 59.2% 50.7% Kanawha County 124,363 88.9% 92.4% 82.4% 51,152 44.1% 54.6% 27.0% Lewis County 4,387 99.1% 95.6% 94.8% 12,380 48.3% 37.6% 27.3% Lincoln County 19,901 48.3% 23.6% 15.1% Logan County 8,564 51.5% 61.6% 38.0% 22,752 49.7% 9.8% 4.1% Marion County 31,407 95.5% 97.0% 92.6% 24,545 61.4% 57.1% 42.1% Marshall County 15,074 99.7% 67.4% 67.3% 14,678 51.9% 27.9% 16.6% Mason County 7,805 78.6% 88.6% 70.9% 17,195 28.9% 38.2% 15.6% McDowell County 17,850 82.2% 16.7% 10.8% Mercer County 34,307 89.3% 84.9% 76.5% 24,393 52.7% 52.5% 31.8% Mineral County 8,212 98.4% 98.5% 97.0% 18,643 66.9% 63.7% 47.3% Mingo County 22,573 60.8% 2.4% 2.0% Monongalia County 78,216 98.4% 96.9% 95.3% 28,653 73.5% 58.2% 48.3% Monroe County 12,296 46.8% 20.1% 12.8% Morgan County 17,430 46.6% 57.1% 34.3% Nicholas County 24,335 44.1% 52.0% 27.2% Ohio County 27,809 99.7% 95.6% 95.3% 13,638 80.5% 72.2% 63.8% Pendleton County 6,011 62.8% 28.5% 21.6% Pleasants County 7,586 54.6% 46.6% 33.7% Pocahontas County 7,819 17.7% 14.6% 0.7% Preston County 34,172 66.2% 58.6% 45.4% Putnam County 37,562 92.1% 90.9% 84.3% 19,453 47.3% 41.0% 25.0% Raleigh County 41,559 86.3% 91.3% 79.2% 31,323 59.4% 45.4% 28.5% Randolph County 10,943 64.6% 83.2% 52.9% 16,657 19.5% 35.7% 8.4% Ritchie County 8,207 82.6% 40.1% 37.7% Roane County 13,834 26.3% 42.5% 22.8% Summers County 11,762 27.3% 62.8% 23.4% Taylor County 5,134 97.4% 96.9% 94.3% 11,208 59.9% 62.1% 43.7% Tucker County 6,568 63.6% 58.9% 52.5% Tyler County 8,183 24.7% 49.1% 20.6% Upshur County 8,487 69.3% 73.3% 52.2% 15,225 28.7% 17.0% 7.4% Wayne County 15,451 94.7% 95.6% 90.7% 22,547 40.4% 38.2% 22.4% Webster County 8,167 55.9% 51.5% 43.9% Wetzel County 5,278 78.6% 96.7% 76.8% 8,747 30.2% 10.9% 7.7% Wirt County 5,091 25.5% 44.0% 13.5% Wood County 58,725 93.5% 97.2% 90.9% 24,615 62.7% 52.0% 38.9% Wyoming County 20,527 85.0% 23.2% 21.6% Wisconsin 3,926,612 98.4% 96.1% 94.7% 1,965,927 70.3% 56.7% 45.7% Adams County 21,226 69.7% 29.8% 19.7% Ashland County 7,207 99.2% 59.6% 59.3% 8,832 44.7% 28.9% 16.6% Barron County 9,898 99.7% 93.4% 93.3% 36,945 73.0% 58.3% 47.4% Bayfield County 16,608 85.1% 27.6% 23.7% Brown County 224,072 99.8% 99.3% 99.2% 45,964 95.0% 85.3% 81.7% Buffalo County 13,391 79.7% 9.4% 8.3% Burnett County 17,036 69.5% 37.1% 32.5% Calumet County 24,825 99.8% 100.0% 99.8% 27,893 99.4% 77.2% 76.8% Chippewa County 24,919 94.6% 99.0% 93.7% 41,888 73.8% 63.6% 48.6% Clark County 34,691 36.9% 48.5% 28.6% Columbia County 19,388 94.9% 96.4% 92.2% 38,805 77.7% 57.7% 48.0% Crawford County 5,811 99.3% 99.8% 99.1% 10,196 38.8% 17.6% 12.0% Dane County 488,425 97.7% 99.1% 96.9% 79,778 74.3% 80.1% 62.8% Dodge County 39,781 99.7% 89.8% 89.6% 48,501 99.0% 69.7% 69.2% Door County 9,287 93.5% 95.6% 90.2% 21,239 51.3% 51.2% 26.4% Douglas County 26,876 96.1% 100.0% 96.1% 17,268 28.8% 42.9% 17.6% Dunn County 16,227 93.5% 98.4% 92.0% 29,424 70.0% 43.1% 32.3% Eau Claire County 81,517 96.1% 99.2% 95.3% 25,320 65.8% 60.8% 44.7% Florence County 4,688 38.8% 29.6% 21.6% Fond du Lac County 65,680 99.8% 100.0% 99.8% 38,156 97.2% 93.0% 90.5% Forest County 9,381 49.9% 15.1% 10.1% Grant County 11,431 90.1% 56.5% 49.0% 39,845 57.4% 38.3% 25.4% Green County 10,683 98.8% 99.0% 97.9% 26,133 42.4% 63.1% 38.2% Green Lake County 5,211 97.0% 99.1% 96.2% 14,009 58.1% 54.0% 32.1% Iowa County 4,874 98.5% 53.5% 53.1% 18,991 45.6% 38.8% 22.5% Iron County 1,962 95.1% 58.0% 53.9% 4,262 15.3% 26.1% 4.0% Jackson County 4,342 92.7% 98.0% 90.9% 16,494 27.8% 32.5% 14.4% Jefferson County 47,192 99.7% 90.9% 90.7% 38,592 96.5% 84.4% 82.2% Juneau County 26,866 57.0% 52.5% 37.4% Kenosha County 145,282 97.2% 96.5% 93.8% 22,535 76.0% 80.6% 62.7% Kewaunee County 20,623 91.5% 95.6% 88.0% La Crosse County 98,291 96.9% 90.0% 87.1% 22,003 67.1% 39.6% 29.9% Lafayette County 16,877 43.6% 44.3% 22.6% Langlade County 7,819 100.0% 88.9% 88.9% 11,740 73.9% 22.2% 16.2% Lincoln County 9,076 93.1% 90.7% 84.8% 19,300 34.4% 15.9% 4.1% Manitowoc County 46,185 99.9% 99.5% 99.5% 34,987 93.6% 76.1% 73.2% Marathon County 77,943 98.6% 70.5% 69.4% 60,015 44.4% 36.6% 21.4% Marinette County 16,204 95.1% 79.5% 76.7% 25,784 38.8% 17.1% 7.2% Marquette County 15,779 65.9% 41.0% 31.2% Menominee County 4,197 90.8% 24.3% 22.9% Milwaukee County 916,096 99.6% 99.5% 99.2% 2,565 87.8% 98.7% 87.2% Monroe County 19,910 95.7% 85.5% 82.0% 26,199 33.6% 43.9% 19.3% Oconto County 39,633 85.4% 49.0% 46.6% Oneida County 9,404 91.8% 50.1% 45.5% 28,808 54.4% 12.0% 9.4% Outagamie County 143,021 99.3% 98.8% 98.2% 49,106 93.2% 69.4% 65.2% Ozaukee County 70,024 98.5% 98.0% 96.6% 22,985 97.3% 87.6% 85.8% Pepin County 7,410 81.4% 40.2% 33.1% Pierce County 12,163 98.8% 97.7% 96.8% 30,369 83.4% 64.9% 58.5% Polk County 45,709 72.9% 51.6% 39.9% Portage County 44,396 97.2% 85.1% 82.7% 26,322 83.8% 47.3% 42.2% Price County 14,179 57.7% 25.6% 20.4% Racine County 167,554 96.6% 95.8% 92.6% 28,292 74.5% 72.0% 52.3% Richland County 4,939 96.4% 74.6% 71.2% 12,151 64.7% 17.2% 11.1% Rock County 130,747 97.5% 97.3% 95.0% 33,313 64.8% 71.7% 48.9% Rusk County 14,186 53.4% 12.8% 9.1% Sauk County 36,032 94.0% 76.9% 72.4% 29,745 58.8% 29.1% 18.7% Sawyer County 18,559 46.5% 34.0% 21.7% Shawano County 12,185 99.6% 98.6% 98.2% 28,701 84.8% 62.5% 58.6% Sheboygan County 83,036 99.7% 95.7% 95.5% 34,805 91.9% 73.8% 69.3% St. Croix County 34,353 94.5% 99.0% 93.6% 61,664 63.2% 90.2% 57.9% Taylor County 4,135 99.2% 95.6% 94.9% 15,840 14.7% 8.6% 4.1% Trempealeau County 30,899 78.1% 27.1% 22.5% Vernon County 4,137 100.0% 97.0% 97.0% 26,923 92.3% 33.2% 30.2% Vilas County 23,763 40.8% 14.1% 4.3% Walworth County 65,850 96.0% 86.8% 83.3% 39,530 72.8% 66.7% 49.2% Washburn County 16,911 37.3% 42.7% 26.1% Washington County 84,574 99.8% 97.4% 97.3% 53,114 98.4% 88.4% 87.3% Waukesha County 347,091 99.2% 96.8% 96.0% 63,343 95.9% 88.9% 85.6% Waupaca County 18,355 95.0% 93.9% 89.1% 33,133 54.8% 58.0% 38.1% Waushara County 84 98.8% 98.8% 98.8% 24,915 43.5% 56.2% 27.5% Winnebago County 140,685 99.2% 99.7% 98.9% 30,033 82.9% 74.4% 67.7% Wood County 47,433 97.8% 79.0% 76.9% 26,560 54.3% 38.2% 25.1% Wyoming 355,788 98.6% 82.6% 81.5% 225,593 70.4% 50.9% 41.8% Albany County 32,825 100.0% 45.2% 45.2% 5,206 81.9% 43.7% 41.5% Big Horn County 11,855 47.8% 60.4% 38.6% Campbell County 34,413 99.2% 93.9% 93.2% 12,645 71.0% 47.4% 40.5% Carbon County 7,546 95.6% 100.0% 95.6% 6,996 71.5% 33.4% 18.7% Converse County 6,463 100.0% 95.1% 95.1% 7,323 81.6% 40.4% 35.1% Crook County 7,448 48.9% 50.3% 33.8% Fremont County 18,963 99.7% 84.2% 84.0% 20,509 77.8% 28.6% 25.4% Goshen County 6,441 100.0% 91.3% 91.3% 6,121 90.2% 37.6% 36.1% Hot Springs County 4,588 75.0% 82.4% 72.1% Johnson County 4,664 99.9% 38.2% 38.2% 4,066 59.5% 26.4% 11.1% Laramie County 76,245 97.6% 99.9% 97.5% 24,478 87.9% 71.7% 67.7% Lincoln County 20,660 72.0% 51.7% 39.6% Natrona County 67,196 99.7% 100.0% 99.7% 12,405 89.3% 76.4% 71.6% Niobrara County 2,380 86.8% 72.4% 70.3% Park County 16,925 99.4% 85.1% 84.7% 13,593 17.5% 41.1% 12.0% Platte County 8,645 92.6% 74.1% 72.1% Sheridan County 20,248 99.9% 83.8% 83.7% 11,848 84.6% 31.5% 27.3% Sublette County 8,763 74.8% 51.9% 51.1% Sweetwater County 36,823 97.1% 42.1% 40.3% 4,522 62.5% 37.3% 24.3% Teton County 10,708 99.2% 100.0% 99.2% 12,579 80.5% 63.5% 57.5% Uinta County 11,430 90.5% 33.3% 31.2% 9,282 14.8% 19.8% 4.7% Washakie County 4,898 100.0% 92.8% 92.8% 2,821 49.2% 40.1% 22.9% Weston County 6,860 82.6% 71.5% 67.6% Source: FCC BDC data; Staff Block Estimates. Note: For year-end 2022, we rely on the 2020 Census Urban Areas (See United States Census Bureau, Urban and Rural, https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/geography/guidance/geo-areas/urban-rural.html). A blank cell indicates that the county contains either no populated Urban Areas or no populated Rural Areas. APPX. B-14 Service Availability (Millions) of Fixed Terrestrial 100/20 Mbps and Mobile 5G-NR with a Minimum Advertised Speed of 35/3 Mbps on Tribal Lands by State (December 31, 2022) Fixed 100/20 Mbps Mobile 5G-NR 35/3 Mbps Fixed 100/20 Mbps and Mobile 5G-NR 35/3 Mbps Pop. Evaluated Pop. % of Pop. Pop. % of Pop. Pop. % of Pop. All Tribal Lands 4,043,227 3,086,560 76.3% 3,145,177 77.8% 2,663,757 65.9% Alaska Native Village Statistical Areas 269,755 162,806 60.4% 117,621 43.6% 97,841 36.3% Federal Reservations 1,056,973 599,136 56.7% 688,602 65.1% 467,432 44.2% Alabama 321 0 0.0% 69 21.5% 0 0.0% Alaska 1,200 39 3.3% 9 0.8% 0 0.0% Arizona 168,817 33,141 19.6% 73,517 43.5% 29,279 17.3% California 68,497 42,023 61.4% 58,936 86.0% 39,953 58.3% Colorado 13,917 8,229 59.1% 7,834 56.3% 5,106 36.7% Connecticut 651 562 86.3% 461 70.8% 372 57.1% Florida 3,913 1,608 41.1% 3,330 85.1% 1,608 41.1% Idaho 33,361 12,428 37.3% 17,298 51.9% 8,447 25.3% Indiana 16 16 100.0% 16 100.0% 16 100.0% Iowa 993 867 87.3% 599 60.3% 567 57.1% Kansas 5,432 4,877 89.8% 4,163 76.6% 3,801 70.0% Louisiana 950 637 67.1% 831 87.5% 635 66.8% Maine 2,281 2,184 95.7% 822 36.0% 773 33.9% Massachusetts 98 98 100.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Michigan 33,852 31,017 91.6% 24,484 72.3% 23,027 68.0% Minnesota 39,095 30,759 78.7% 16,142 41.3% 12,399 31.7% Mississippi 7,882 3,445 43.7% 4,663 59.2% 1,802 22.9% Montana 69,552 35,563 51.1% 43,038 61.9% 27,573 39.6% Nebraska 8,097 3,682 45.5% 3,054 37.7% 494 6.1% Nevada 11,330 7,817 69.0% 8,639 76.2% 7,297 64.4% New Mexico 119,317 43,372 36.4% 77,710 65.1% 34,059 28.5% New York 77,771 64,593 83.1% 65,911 84.8% 57,808 74.3% North Carolina 9,091 496 5.5% 2,023 22.3% 83 0.9% North Dakota 22,307 20,749 93.0% 12,109 54.3% 11,191 50.2% Oklahoma 45,839 20,010 43.7% 35,556 77.6% 18,016 39.3% Oregon 8,734 4,450 51.0% 6,343 72.6% 2,957 33.9% Rhode Island 1 1 100.0% 1 100.0% 1 100.0% South Carolina 997 993 99.6% 403 40.4% 403 40.4% South Dakota 61,023 47,285 77.5% 41,247 67.6% 33,681 55.2% Tennessee 82 81 98.8% 82 100.0% 81 98.8% Texas 2,463 1,800 73.1% 1,756 71.3% 1,674 68.0% Utah 32,383 13,808 42.6% 21,120 65.2% 12,584 38.9% Washington 138,514 103,774 74.9% 117,642 84.9% 94,319 68.1% Wisconsin 43,317 35,915 82.9% 25,654 59.2% 24,357 56.2% Wyoming 24,879 22,817 91.7% 13,140 52.8% 13,069 52.5% Hawaiian Home Lands 34,358 32,529 94.7% 32,309 94.0% 30,866 89.8% Tribal Statistical Areas 2,682,141 2,292,089 85.5% 2,306,645 86.0% 2,067,618 77.1% California 3,212 3,183 99.1% 3,204 99.8% 3,183 99.1% New York 2,504 2,385 95.2% 1,764 70.4% 1,682 67.2% Oklahoma 2,628,939 2,247,858 85.5% 2,272,804 86.5% 2,036,882 77.5% Virginia 5,009 2,597 51.8% 2,410 48.1% 1,434 28.6% Washington 42,477 36,066 84.9% 26,463 62.3% 24,437 57.5% Source: FCC BDC data; Staff Block Estimates. APPX. B-15 Service Availability (Millions) on Tribal Lands of Fixed Terrestrial 100/20 Mbps and Mobile 5G-NR with a Minimum Speed of 35/3 Mbps (In-Vehicle Mobile Services) (December 31, 2022) Including Fixed Wireless Excluding Fixed Wireless Area Pop. Evaluated Pop. % Pop. % Tribal Lands 4.043 2.242 55.5% 2.113 52.3% Rural Areas 2.219 0.702 31.6% 0.589 26.5% Urban Areas 1.824 1.540 84.4% 1.524 83.5% Alaska Native Village Statistical Areas 0.270 0.097 36.1% 0.087 32.2% Rural Areas 0.176 0.032 18.3% 0.023 12.9% Urban Areas 0.094 0.065 69.2% 0.064 68.2% Federal Reservations 1.057 0.329 31.1% 0.294 27.8% Rural Areas 0.780 0.150 19.2% 0.126 16.2% Urban Areas 0.277 0.179 64.6% 0.168 60.5% Hawaiian Home Lands 0.034 0.025 71.7% 0.025 71.7% Rural Areas 0.008 0.003 40.0% 0.003 40.0% Urban Areas 0.026 0.021 81.7% 0.021 81.7% Tribal Statistical Areas 2.682 1.791 66.8% 1.707 63.7% Rural Areas 1.255 0.516 41.1% 0.436 34.8% Urban Areas 1.427 1.275 89.4% 1.271 89.1% Source: FCC BDC data; Staff Block Estimates. APPX. B-16 Service Availability (Millions) on Tribal Lands of Fixed Terrestrial 100/20 Mbps and Mobile 5G-NR with a Minimum Speed of 7/1 Mbps (Outdoor Stationary Services) (December 31, 2022) Including Fixed Wireless Excluding Fixed Wireless Area Pop. Evaluated Pop. % Pop. % Tribal Lands 4.043 2.948 72.9% 2.697 66.7% Rural Areas 2.219 1.210 54.5% 0.981 44.2% Urban Areas 1.824 1.738 95.3% 1.717 94.1% Alaska Native Village Statistical Areas 0.270 0.131 48.4% 0.110 40.8% Rural Areas 0.176 0.053 30.3% 0.035 19.8% Urban Areas 0.094 0.077 82.3% 0.075 80.1% Federal Reservations 1.057 0.546 51.6% 0.475 44.9% Rural Areas 0.780 0.306 39.3% 0.249 31.9% Urban Areas 0.277 0.239 86.4% 0.225 81.3% Hawaiian Home Lands 0.034 0.032 93.5% 0.032 93.5% Rural Areas 0.008 0.006 75.5% 0.006 75.5% Urban Areas 0.026 0.026 99.2% 0.026 99.1% Tribal Statistical Areas 2.682 2.239 83.5% 2.081 77.6% Rural Areas 1.255 0.844 67.2% 0.691 55.0% Urban Areas 1.427 1.395 97.8% 1.390 97.4% Source: FCC BDC data; Staff Block Estimates. APPX. B-17 Service Availability (Millions) on Tribal Lands of Fixed Terrestrial 100/20 Mbps and Mobile 5G-NR with a Minimum Speed of 7/1 Mbps (In-Vehicle Mobile Services) (December 31, 2022) Including Fixed Wireless Excluding Fixed Wireless Area Pop. Evaluated Pop. % Pop. % Tribal Lands 4.043 2.762 68.3% 2.542 62.9% Rural Areas 2.219 1.059 47.7% 0.860 38.7% Urban Areas 1.824 1.703 93.3% 1.682 92.2% Alaska Native Village Statistical Areas 0.270 0.130 48.0% 0.110 40.6% Rural Areas 0.176 0.052 29.8% 0.034 19.6% Urban Areas 0.094 0.077 82.1% 0.075 79.9% Federal Reservations 1.057 0.473 44.8% 0.415 39.2% Rural Areas 0.780 0.248 31.8% 0.203 26.0% Urban Areas 0.277 0.226 81.4% 0.212 76.5% Hawaiian Home Lands 0.034 0.031 91.3% 0.031 91.3% Rural Areas 0.008 0.006 69.4% 0.006 69.4% Urban Areas 0.026 0.026 98.2% 0.026 98.1% Tribal Statistical Areas 2.682 2.127 79.3% 1.986 74.1% Rural Areas 1.255 0.753 60.0% 0.617 49.1% Urban Areas 1.427 1.374 96.3% 1.369 96.0% Source: FCC BDC data; Staff Block Estimates. APPX. B-18 Service Availability (Millions) on Tribal Lands of Fixed Terrestrial 100/20 Mbps and Mobile 4G LTE with a Minimum Speed of 5/1 Mbps (Outdoor Stationary Services) (December 31, 2022) Including Fixed Wireless Excluding Fixed Wireless Area Pop. Evaluated Pop. % Pop. % Tribal Lands 4.043 3.076 76.1% 2.800 69.3% Rural Areas 2.219 1.328 59.9% 1.074 48.4% Urban Areas 1.824 1.748 95.8% 1.726 94.6% Alaska Native Village Statistical Areas 0.270 0.162 60.1% 0.137 50.8% Rural Areas 0.176 0.077 44.0% 0.054 30.9% Urban Areas 0.094 0.085 90.3% 0.083 88.1% Federal Reservations 1.057 0.595 56.3% 0.513 48.5% Rural Areas 0.780 0.355 45.6% 0.287 36.8% Urban Areas 0.277 0.240 86.5% 0.226 81.4% Hawaiian Home Lands 0.034 0.032 93.7% 0.032 93.6% Rural Areas 0.008 0.006 76.1% 0.006 76.1% Urban Areas 0.026 0.026 99.2% 0.026 99.2% Tribal Statistical Areas 2.682 2.287 85.3% 2.118 79.0% Rural Areas 1.255 0.890 70.9% 0.726 57.9% Urban Areas 1.427 1.397 97.9% 1.392 97.6% Source: FCC BDC data; Staff Block Estimates. APPX. B-19 Service Availability (Millions) on Tribal Lands of Fixed Terrestrial 100/20 Mbps and Mobile 4G LTE with a Minimum Speed of 5/1 Mbps (In-Vehicle Mobile Services) (December 31, 2022) Including Fixed Wireless Excluding Fixed Wireless Area Pop. Evaluated Pop. % Pop. % Tribal Lands 4.043 3.005 74.3% 2.741 67.8% Rural Areas 2.219 1.259 56.7% 1.016 45.8% Urban Areas 1.824 1.746 95.7% 1.725 94.6% Alaska Native Village Statistical Areas 0.270 0.159 58.9% 0.134 49.8% Rural Areas 0.176 0.074 42.2% 0.052 29.4% Urban Areas 0.094 0.085 90.2% 0.083 88.0% Federal Reservations 1.057 0.571 54.0% 0.492 46.5% Rural Areas 0.780 0.331 42.5% 0.267 34.2% Urban Areas 0.277 0.239 86.3% 0.225 81.2% Hawaiian Home Lands 0.034 0.032 93.5% 0.032 93.5% Rural Areas 0.008 0.006 75.4% 0.006 75.4% Urban Areas 0.026 0.026 99.2% 0.026 99.1% Tribal Statistical Areas 2.682 2.243 83.6% 2.083 77.7% Rural Areas 1.255 0.847 67.5% 0.692 55.1% Urban Areas 1.427 1.396 97.9% 1.391 97.5% Source: FCC BDC data; Staff Block Estimates. APPX. B-20 Mobile Broadband Penetration Rate by State and U.S. Territory Market Name Market Population Market Subscribers Penetration Rate Alabama 5,024,279 7,199,971 143% Alaska 733,391 915,124 125% American Samoa 49,710 64,353 129% Arizona 7,151,502 9,088,300 127% Arkansas 3,011,524 4,159,367 138% California 39,538,223 60,892,488 154% Colorado 5,773,714 7,527,238 130% Connecticut 3,605,944 4,922,150 137% Delaware 989,948 1,331,546 135% District of Columbia 689,545 2,157,418 313% Florida 21,538,187 30,489,936 142% Georgia 10,711,908 17,340,764 162% Guam 153,836 287,716 187% Hawaii 1,455,271 2,019,816 139% Idaho 1,839,106 2,188,649 119% Illinois 12,812,508 18,780,531 147% Indiana 6,785,528 8,329,725 123% Iowa 3,190,369 4,368,050 137% Kansas 2,937,880 3,569,547 122% Kentucky 4,505,836 5,517,509 122% Louisiana 4,657,757 6,520,325 140% Maine 1,362,359 1,630,561 120% Maryland 6,177,224 8,622,416 140% Massachusetts 7,029,917 10,187,328 145% Michigan 10,077,331 14,511,454 144% Minnesota 5,706,494 7,358,738 129% Mississippi 2,961,279 4,071,355 137% Missouri 6,154,913 8,387,890 136% Montana 1,084,225 1,282,691 118% Northern Mariana Islands 47,329 79,760 169% Nebraska 1,961,504 2,575,272 131% Nevada 3,104,614 4,103,863 132% New Hampshire 1,377,529 1,771,650 129% New Jersey 9,288,994 13,954,224 150% New Mexico 2,117,522 3,013,685 142% New York 20,201,249 29,462,722 146% North Carolina 10,439,388 13,343,109 128% North Dakota 779,094 981,453 126% Ohio 11,799,448 15,641,767 133% Oklahoma 3,959,353 5,359,529 135% Oregon 4,237,256 5,221,279 123% Pennsylvania 13,002,700 17,943,765 138% Puerto Rico 3,285,874 4,470,827 136% Rhode Island 1,097,379 1,391,946 127% South Carolina 5,118,425 6,555,368 128% South Dakota 886,667 1,101,224 124% Tennessee 6,910,840 9,775,055 141% Texas 29,145,505 41,024,051 141% U.S. Virgin Islands 87,146 133,300 153% Utah 3,271,616 4,731,514 145% Vermont 643,077 717,070 112% Virginia 8,631,393 11,368,538 132% Washington 7,705,281 9,740,849 126% West Virginia 1,793,716 2,348,320 131% Wisconsin 5,893,718 7,175,627 122% Wyoming 576,851 745,735 129% Source: December 2022 NRUF data; 2020 U.S. Census data. APPX. B-21 Average Percentage of Households with Zero, One, Two, or at Least Three Provider Options for 25/3 Mbps Fixed Terrestrial Services by Census Block (December 31, 2022) Zero One Two At Least Three Population Density First Quartile (Lowest Population Density) 17.2% 36.6% 27.2% 19.1% Second Quartile 1.9% 18.7% 34.4% 45.0% Third Quartile 0.9% 11.7% 30.7% 56.6% Fourth Quartile (Highest Population Density) 0.9% 9.4% 29.4% 60.3% Population Density - Excluding Fixed Wireless First Quartile (Lowest Population Density) 31.3% 50.1% 17.2% 1.4% Second Quartile 3.8% 44.0% 46.2% 6.0% Third Quartile 1.9% 32.7% 55.1% 10.3% Fourth Quartile (Highest Population Density) 1.9% 30.0% 57.1% 11.0% Median Household Income First Quartile (Lowest Median H/hold Income) 6.7% 22.6% 30.6% 40.1% Second Quartile 6.7% 21.7% 29.5% 42.1% Third Quartile 4.6% 18.5% 30.1% 46.8% Fourth Quartile (Highest Median H/hold Income) 1.9% 12.9% 31.6% 53.6% Median Household Income - Excluding Fixed Wireless First Quartile (Lowest Median H/hold Income) 11.0% 48.3% 35.7% 4.9% Second Quartile 12.5% 42.2% 39.1% 6.1% Third Quartile 10.0% 37.1% 45.1% 7.7% Fourth Quartile (Highest Median H/hold Income) 4.3% 28.5% 57.1% 10.1% Household Count First Quartile (Lowest H/hold Count) 6.1% 19.3% 30.3% 44.2% Second Quartile 5.6% 19.4% 30.2% 44.8% Third Quartile 5.3% 19.6% 30.4% 44.7% Fourth Quartile (Highest H/hold Count) 3.9% 18.2% 30.8% 47.2% Household Count - Excluding Fixed Wireless First Quartile (Lowest H/hold Count) 11.2% 37.9% 43.9% 7.0% Second Quartile 10.4% 38.4% 44.2% 6.9% Third Quartile 9.8% 40.0% 43.3% 7.0% Fourth Quartile (Highest H/hold Count) 7.5% 40.5% 44.2% 7.8% Source: FCC BDC data; Staff Block Estimates; 2020 Census; ACS Five-Year Estimates for 2018-2022. Median household income is based on 2022 data and is measured in 2022 inflation-adjusted dollars. APPX. B-22 Average Percentage of Households with Zero, One, Two, or at Least Three Provider Options for 940/500 Mbps Fixed Terrestrial Services by Census Block Group (December 31, 2022) Zero One Two At Least Three Population Density First Quartile (Lowest Population Density) 76.4% 22.4% 1.2% 0.1% Second Quartile 63.4% 33.6% 2.8% 0.1% Third Quartile 55.5% 39.7% 4.6% 0.2% Fourth Quartile (Highest Population Density) 51.5% 42.2% 6.1% 0.2% Population Density - Excluding Fixed Wireless First Quartile (Lowest Population Density) 77.1% 21.7% 1.1% 0.1% Second Quartile 64.2% 32.9% 2.7% 0.1% Third Quartile 56.4% 38.9% 4.5% 0.2% Fourth Quartile (Highest Population Density) 52.1% 41.8% 6.0% 0.1% Median Household Income First Quartile (Lowest Median H/hold Income) 68.9% 28.9% 2.1% 0.1% Second Quartile 65.3% 32.0% 2.5% 0.1% Third Quartile 61.0% 35.3% 3.5% 0.2% Fourth Quartile (Highest Median H/hold Income) 50.7% 42.5% 6.6% 0.2% Median Household Income - Excluding Fixed Wireless First Quartile (Lowest Median H/hold Income) 70.1% 27.8% 2.0% 0.1% Second Quartile 66.1% 31.4% 2.4% 0.1% Third Quartile 61.6% 34.8% 3.4% 0.2% Fourth Quartile (Highest Median H/hold Income) 51.1% 42.2% 6.5% 0.2% Household Count First Quartile (Lowest H/hold Count) 59.8% 35.6% 4.5% 0.1% Second Quartile 60.9% 35.1% 3.9% 0.1% Third Quartile 62.8% 33.8% 3.2% 0.2% Fourth Quartile (Highest H/hold Count) 63.4% 33.4% 3.0% 0.2% Household Count - Excluding Fixed Wireless First Quartile (Lowest H/hold Count) 60.4% 35.0% 4.4% 0.1% Second Quartile 61.7% 34.4% 3.8% 0.1% Third Quartile 63.7% 33.1% 3.1% 0.1% Fourth Quartile (Highest H/hold Count) 64.1% 32.8% 2.9% 0.1% Source: FCC BDC data; Staff Block Estimates; 2020 Census; ACS Five-Year Estimates for 2018-2022. Median household income is based on 2022 data and is measured in 2022 inflation-adjusted dollars. APPX. B-23 Average Percentage of Population with Fixed Terrestrial Services at 100/20 Mbps and Mobile 5G-NR with a Minimum Speed of 7/1 Mbps (Outdoor Stationary Services) by Census Block Group (December 31, 2022) Fixed Terrestrial 100/20 Mbps Mobile 5G-NR 35/3 Mbps Both Fixed and Mobile 5G-NR Median Household Income - Including Fixed Wireless First Quartile (Lowest Median Household Income) 89.4% 95.8% 87.2% Second Quartile 88.8% 94.2% 85.5% Third Quartile 91.5% 96.3% 89.2% Fourth Quartile (Highest Median Household Income) 96.5% 98.7% 95.5% Population Density - Including Fixed Wireless First Quartile (Lowest Population Density) 72.4% 86.3% 64.8% Second Quartile 96.7% 99.2% 96.0% Third Quartile 98.6% 99.7% 98.3% Fourth Quartile (Highest Population Density) 98.6% 99.9% 98.5% Household Poverty Rate - Including Fixed Wireless First Quartile (Lowest Household Poverty Rate) 93.5% 97.9% 92.2% Second Quartile 92.0% 96.1% 89.5% Third Quartile 90.0% 95.1% 87.2% Fourth Quartile (Highest Household Poverty Rate) 90.8% 96.0% 88.7% Median Household Income - Excluding Fixed Wireless First Quartile (Lowest Median Household Income) 87.3% 95.8% 85.2% Second Quartile 86.0% 94.2% 83.0% Third Quartile 88.4% 96.3% 86.3% Fourth Quartile (Highest Median Household Income) 95.0% 98.7% 94.1% Population Density - Excluding Fixed Wireless First Quartile (Lowest Population Density) 64.9% 86.3% 58.1% Second Quartile 95.6% 99.2% 94.9% Third Quartile 98.1% 99.7% 97.8% Fourth Quartile (Highest Population Density) 98.0% 99.9% 97.8% Household Poverty Rate - Excluding Fixed Wireless First Quartile (Lowest Household Poverty Rate) 91.3% 97.9% 90.1% Second Quartile 89.2% 96.1% 87.0% Third Quartile 87.4% 95.1% 84.8% Fourth Quartile (Highest Household Poverty Rate) 88.8% 96.0% 86.8% Source: FCC BDC data; Staff Block Estimates; 2020 Census; ACS Five-Year Estimates for 2018-2022. Median household income is based on 2022 data and is measured in 2022 inflation-adjusted dollars. APPX. B-24 Average Percentage of Population with Fixed Terrestrial Services at 100/20 Mbps and Mobile 4G LTE with a Minimum Speed of 5/1 Mbps (Outdoor Stationary Services) by Census Block Group (December 31, 2022) Fixed Terrestrial 100/20 Mbps Mobile 5G-NR 35/3 Mbps Both Fixed and Mobile 5G-NR Median Household Income - Including Fixed Wireless First Quartile (Lowest Median Household Income) 89.4% 99.1% 89.0% Second Quartile 88.8% 99.1% 88.4% Third Quartile 91.5% 99.4% 91.2% Fourth Quartile (Highest Median Household Income) 96.5% 99.7% 96.3% Population Density - Including Fixed Wireless First Quartile (Lowest Population Density) 72.4% 97.7% 71.4% Second Quartile 96.7% 99.8% 96.6% Third Quartile 98.6% 99.9% 98.5% Fourth Quartile (Highest Population Density) 98.6% 99.9% 98.5% Household Poverty Rate - Including Fixed Wireless First Quartile (Lowest Household Poverty Rate) 93.5% 99.6% 93.3% Second Quartile 92.0% 99.4% 91.6% Third Quartile 90.0% 99.2% 89.6% Fourth Quartile (Highest Household Poverty Rate) 90.8% 99.2% 90.5% Median Household Income - Excluding Fixed Wireless First Quartile (Lowest Median Household Income) 87.3% 99.1% 86.9% Second Quartile 86.0% 99.1% 85.5% Third Quartile 88.4% 99.4% 88.1% Fourth Quartile (Highest Median Household Income) 95.0% 99.7% 94.7% Population Density - Excluding Fixed Wireless First Quartile (Lowest Population Density) 64.9% 97.7% 64.0% Second Quartile 95.6% 99.8% 95.5% Third Quartile 98.1% 99.9% 98.0% Fourth Quartile (Highest Population Density) 98.0% 99.9% 97.8% Household Poverty Rate - Excluding Fixed Wireless First Quartile (Lowest Household Poverty Rate) 91.3% 99.6% 91.1% Second Quartile 89.2% 99.4% 88.8% Third Quartile 87.4% 99.2% 87.0% Fourth Quartile (Highest Household Poverty Rate) 88.8% 99.2% 88.4% Source: FCC BDC data; Staff Block Estimates; 2020 Census; ACS Five-Year Estimates for 2018-2022. Median household income is based on 2022 data and is measured in 2022 inflation-adjusted dollars. APPX. B-25 Average Percentage of Population with Fixed Terrestrial Services at 100/20 Mbps and Mobile 5G-NR with a Minimum Speed of 35/3 Mbps (In-Vehicle Mobile Services) by Census Block Group (December 31, 2022) Fixed Terrestrial 100/20 Mbps Mobile 5G-NR 35/3 Mbps Both Fixed and Mobile 5G-NR Median Household Income - Including Fixed Wireless First Quartile (Lowest Median Household Income) 89.4% 75.8% 71.2% Second Quartile 88.8% 68.6% 65.0% Third Quartile 91.5% 70.1% 67.1% Fourth Quartile (Highest Median Household Income) 96.5% 72.7% 71.1% Population Density - Including Fixed Wireless First Quartile (Lowest Population Density) 72.4% 39.8% 32.0% Second Quartile 96.7% 72.2% 69.8% Third Quartile 98.6% 83.4% 82.2% Fourth Quartile (Highest Population Density) 98.6% 91.8% 90.5% Household Poverty Rate - Including Fixed Wireless First Quartile (Lowest Household Poverty Rate) 93.5% 71.4% 68.4% Second Quartile 92.0% 69.1% 66.4% Third Quartile 90.0% 70.0% 66.6% Fourth Quartile (Highest Household Poverty Rate) 90.8% 76.7% 73.1% Median Household Income - Excluding Fixed Wireless First Quartile (Lowest Median Household Income) 87.3% 75.8% 69.8% Second Quartile 86.0% 68.6% 63.7% Third Quartile 88.4% 70.1% 65.6% Fourth Quartile (Highest Median Household Income) 95.0% 72.7% 70.2% Population Density - Excluding Fixed Wireless First Quartile (Lowest Population Density) 64.9% 39.8% 28.7% Second Quartile 95.6% 72.2% 69.0% Third Quartile 98.1% 83.4% 81.7% Fourth Quartile (Highest Population Density) 98.0% 91.8% 89.9% Household Poverty Rate - Excluding Fixed Wireless First Quartile (Lowest Household Poverty Rate) 91.3% 71.4% 67.1% Second Quartile 89.2% 69.1% 65.1% Third Quartile 87.4% 70.0% 65.3% Fourth Quartile (Highest Household Poverty Rate) 88.8% 76.7% 71.7% Source: FCC BDC data; Staff Block Estimates; 2020 Census; ACS Five-Year Estimates for 2018-2022. Median household income is based on 2022 data and is measured in 2022 inflation-adjusted dollars. APPX. B-26 Average Percentage of Population with Fixed Terrestrial Services at 100/20 Mbps and Mobile 5G-NR with a Minimum Speed of 7/1 Mbps (In-Vehicle Mobile Services) by Census Block Group (December 31, 2022) Fixed Terrestrial 100/20 Mbps Mobile 5G-NR 35/3 Mbps Both Fixed and Mobile 5G-NR Median Household Income - Including Fixed Wireless First Quartile (Lowest Median Household Income) 89.4% 90.3% 83.4% Second Quartile 88.8% 86.7% 80.1% Third Quartile 91.5% 89.7% 84.2% Fourth Quartile (Highest Median Household Income) 96.5% 94.2% 91.6% Population Density - Including Fixed Wireless First Quartile (Lowest Population Density) 72.4% 68.8% 52.9% Second Quartile 96.7% 94.2% 91.2% Third Quartile 98.6% 98.3% 96.9% Fourth Quartile (Highest Population Density) 98.6% 99.5% 98.1% Household Poverty Rate - Including Fixed Wireless First Quartile (Lowest Household Poverty Rate) 93.5% 92.5% 87.8% Second Quartile 92.0% 89.4% 84.4% Third Quartile 90.0% 88.2% 82.2% Fourth Quartile (Highest Household Poverty Rate) 90.8% 90.7% 85.0% Median Household Income - Excluding Fixed Wireless First Quartile (Lowest Median Household Income) 87.3% 90.3% 81.5% Second Quartile 86.0% 86.7% 77.9% Third Quartile 88.4% 89.7% 81.6% Fourth Quartile (Highest Median Household Income) 95.0% 94.2% 90.2% Population Density - Excluding Fixed Wireless First Quartile (Lowest Population Density) 64.9% 68.8% 47.2% Second Quartile 95.6% 94.2% 90.2% Third Quartile 98.1% 98.3% 96.5% Fourth Quartile (Highest Population Density) 98.0% 99.5% 97.5% Household Poverty Rate - Excluding Fixed Wireless First Quartile (Lowest Household Poverty Rate) 91.3% 92.5% 85.9% Second Quartile 89.2% 89.4% 82.2% Third Quartile 87.4% 88.2% 80.1% Fourth Quartile (Highest Household Poverty Rate) 88.8% 90.7% 83.2% Source: FCC BDC data; Staff Block Estimates; 2020 Census; ACS Five-Year Estimates for 2018-2022. Median household income is based on 2022 data and is measured in 2022 inflation-adjusted dollars. APPX. B-27 Average Percentage of Population with Fixed Terrestrial Services at 100/20 Mbps and Mobile 4G LTE with a Minimum Speed of 5/1 Mbps (In-Vehicle Mobile Services) by Census Block Group (December 31, 2022) Fixed Terrestrial 100/20 Mbps Mobile 5G-NR 35/3 Mbps Both Fixed and Mobile 5G-NR Median Household Income - Including Fixed Wireless First Quartile (Lowest Median Household Income) 89.4% 96.8% 87.8% Second Quartile 88.8% 95.3% 86.3% Third Quartile 91.5% 96.4% 89.3% Fourth Quartile (Highest Median Household Income) 96.5% 98.0% 94.9% Population Density - Including Fixed Wireless First Quartile (Lowest Population Density) 72.4% 87.8% 65.8% Second Quartile 96.7% 99.0% 95.8% Third Quartile 98.6% 99.8% 98.4% Fourth Quartile (Highest Population Density) 98.6% 99.9% 98.5% Household Poverty Rate - Including Fixed Wireless First Quartile (Lowest Household Poverty Rate) 93.5% 97.4% 91.8% Second Quartile 92.0% 96.3% 89.7% Third Quartile 90.0% 95.8% 87.7% Fourth Quartile (Highest Household Poverty Rate) 90.8% 96.9% 89.3% Median Household Income - Excluding Fixed Wireless First Quartile (Lowest Median Household Income) 87.3% 96.8% 85.8% Second Quartile 86.0% 95.3% 83.6% Third Quartile 88.4% 96.4% 86.4% Fourth Quartile (Highest Median Household Income) 95.0% 98.0% 93.4% Population Density - Excluding Fixed Wireless First Quartile (Lowest Population Density) 64.9% 87.8% 58.9% Second Quartile 95.6% 99.0% 94.7% Third Quartile 98.1% 99.8% 97.9% Fourth Quartile (Highest Population Density) 98.0% 99.9% 97.8% Household Poverty Rate - Excluding Fixed Wireless First Quartile (Lowest Household Poverty Rate) 91.3% 97.4% 89.7% Second Quartile 89.2% 96.3% 87.1% Third Quartile 87.4% 95.8% 85.2% Fourth Quartile (Highest Household Poverty Rate) 88.8% 96.9% 87.3% Source: FCC BDC data; Staff Block Estimates; 2020 Census; ACS Five-Year Estimates for 2018-2022. Median household income is based on 2022 data and is measured in 2022 inflation-adjusted dollars. APPX. B-28 Comparison of Demographic Data Between Areas With and Without Fixed Terrestrial Services at 100/20 Mbps and Mobile 5G-NR with a Minimum Speed of 7/1 Mbps (Outdoor Stationary Services) (December 31, 2022) Population Population Density Per Capita Income Median Household Income Household Poverty Rate United States - Including Fixed Wireless Served 1,440.8*** 7,969.0*** $43,020.05*** $88,765.54*** 12.9%*** Unserved 1,282.3 1,735.0 $36,871.45 $73,141.99 13.8% Rural Areas - Including Fixed Wireless Served 1,318.7*** 465.5*** $37,992.83*** $80,054.89*** 11.4%*** Unserved 1,220.5 123.6 $35,622.24 $72,157.87 12.6% Urban Areas - Including Fixed Wireless Served 1,448.7*** 8,455.0*** $43,345.35*** $89,338.58*** 13.1%*** Unserved 1,393.2 4,622.8 $39,158.24 $75,007.99 15.9% Tribal Areas - Including Fixed Wireless Served 1,274.8*** 2,211.3*** $33,458.19*** $66,366.56*** 16.1%*** Unserved 1,201.1 289.0 $29,488.03 $59,105.90 18.5% Tribal Rural Areas - Including Fixed Wireless Served 1,181.6 352.8*** $30,000.31 $61,700.69 16.5%** Unserved 1,180.5 115.6 $29,179.34 $58,931.06 18.6% Tribal Urban Areas - Including Fixed Wireless Served 1,305.2 2,817.0*** $34,577.18* $67,864.55*** 16.0% Unserved 1,311.6 1,219.2 $31,142.98 $60,039.34 17.8% United States - Excluding Fixed Wireless Served 1,440.3*** 7,986.3*** $43,361.09*** $89,497.12*** 12.8%*** Unserved 1,304.6 2,531.6 $36,948.63 $73,616.99 13.9% Rural Areas - Excluding Fixed Wireless Served 1,295.9*** 559.3*** $38,190.45*** $79,787.61*** 11.8%*** Unserved 1,231.2 132.7 $35,758.78 $72,770.33 12.5% Urban Areas - Excluding Fixed Wireless Served 1,447.1*** 8,335.7*** $43,604.24*** $89,959.20*** 12.9%*** Unserved 1,414.2 6,110.2 $38,754.95 $74,949.49 16.2% Tribal Areas - Excluding Fixed Wireless Served 1,272.9** 2,434.4*** $33,761.81*** $66,768.14*** 16.1%*** Unserved 1,209.5 297.8 $29,622.08 $59,464.55 18.3% Tribal Rural Areas - Excluding Fixed Wireless Served 1,144.2 425.9*** $29,643.31 $61,581.07 16.8% Unserved 1,187.3 120.6 $29,306.62 $59,161.49 18.4% Tribal Urban Areas - Excluding Fixed Wireless Served 1,303.8 2,917.1*** $34,747.88** $67,998.16** 15.9% Unserved 1,315.3 1,143.6 $31,129.27 $60,911.15 17.7% Source: FCC BDC data; Staff Block Estimates; 2020 Census; ACS Five-Year Estimates for 2018-2022. Per capita income and median household income are based on 2022 data and are measured in 2022 inflation-adjusted dollars. APPX. B-29 Comparison of Demographic Data Between Areas With and Without Fixed Terrestrial Services at 100/20 Mbps and Mobile LTE with a Minimum Speed of 5/1 Mbps (Outdoor Stationary Services) (December 31, 2022) Population Population Density Per Capita Income Median Household Income Household Poverty Rate United States - Including Fixed Wireless Served 1,436.2*** 7,730.3*** $42,953.87*** $88,526.61*** 12.9%*** Unserved 1,281.3 1,862.0 $36,480.64 $72,321.19 14.0% Rural Areas - Including Fixed Wireless Served 1,295.9*** 384.2*** $38,092.83*** $79,120.73*** 11.4%*** Unserved 1,218.4 117.2 $35,314.60 $71,620.47 12.7% Urban Areas - Including Fixed Wireless Served 1,448.8*** 8,391.0*** $43,391.17*** $89,389.53*** 13.0%*** Unserved 1,389.2 4,854.6 $38,526.28 $73,596.57 16.3% Tribal Areas - Including Fixed Wireless Served 1,268.2** 2,084.0*** $33,338.71*** $66,210.63*** 16.1%*** Unserved 1,202.2 268.0 $29,281.53 $58,643.98 18.7% Tribal Rural Areas - Including Fixed Wireless Served 1,155.8 353.5*** $29,957.46 $61,823.48* 16.4%*** Unserved 1,190.4 95.0 $29,125.39 $58,639.83 18.9% Tribal Urban Areas - Including Fixed Wireless Served 1,314.3 2,794.6*** $34,719.75*** $67,999.53*** 15.9% Unserved 1,265.7 1,196.1 $30,118.75 $58,666.18 18.2% United States - Excluding Fixed Wireless Served 1,436.7*** 7,785.7*** $43,320.75*** $89,324.73*** 12.8%*** Unserved 1,304.6 2,661.8 $36,632.94 $72,984.98 14.1% Rural Areas - Excluding Fixed Wireless Served 1,281.6*** 456.1*** $38,351.41*** $79,208.26*** 11.8%*** Unserved 1,229.9 126.5 $35,534.45 $72,381.36 12.5% Urban Areas - Excluding Fixed Wireless Served 1,447.1*** 8,274.3*** $43,652.15*** $90,008.99*** 12.9%*** Unserved 1,412.9 6,342.6 $38,257.14 $73,911.96 16.5% Tribal Areas - Excluding Fixed Wireless Served 1,271.5** 2,336.4*** $33,676.53*** $66,602.16*** 16.1%*** Unserved 1,207.5 274.0 $29,484.59 $59,227.35 18.4% Tribal Rural Areas - Excluding Fixed Wireless Served 1,130.3 447.5*** $29,529.79 $61,305.67 17.1% Unserved 1,192.8 100.3 $29,317.25 $59,105.08 18.4% Tribal Urban Areas - Excluding Fixed Wireless Served 1,313.6 2,899.0*** $34,908.06*** $68,169.54*** 15.9%* Unserved 1,278.1 1,109.9 $30,291.21 $59,816.26 18.0% Source: FCC BDC data; Staff Block Estimates; 2020 Census; ACS Five-Year Estimates for 2018-2022. Per capita income and median household income are based on 2022 data and are measured in 2022 inflation-adjusted dollars. APPX. B-30 Comparison of Demographic Data Between Areas With and Without Fixed Terrestrial Services at 100/20 Mbps and Mobile 5G-NR with a Minimum Speed of 35/3 Mbps (In-Vehicle Mobile Services) (December 31, 2022) Population Population Density Per Capita Income Median Household Income Household Poverty Rate United States - Including Fixed Wireless Served 1,383.2*** 11,478.3*** $40,496.33*** $81,909.92*** 14.9%*** Unserved 1,407.1 2,861.8 $41,912.82 $86,208.53 12.0% Rural Areas - Including Fixed Wireless Served 1,222.8 854.7*** $34,021.83*** $73,762.73 13.4%*** Unserved 1,240.9 171.3 $36,165.94 $73,755.00 12.3% Urban Areas - Including Fixed Wireless Served 1,386.0*** 11,664.9*** $40,608.45*** $82,051.86*** 14.9%*** Unserved 1,497.1 4,319.5 $45,037.73 $93,028.99 11.9% Tribal Areas - Including Fixed Wireless Served 1,287.2** 2,944.2*** $33,990.93*** $67,087.78*** 15.6%*** Unserved 1,218.3 582.7 $30,467.87 $60,976.77 18.0% Tribal Rural Areas - Including Fixed Wireless Served 1,094.4 535.9*** $29,654.87 $63,406.33 14.2%** Unserved 1,185.1 148.8 $29,343.68 $59,338.30 18.4% Tribal Urban Areas - Including Fixed Wireless Served 1,307.9 3,202.9*** $34,446.19 $67,471.76 15.7% Unserved 1,304.4 1,708.7 $33,377.32 $65,224.64 17.0% United States - Excluding Fixed Wireless Served 1,381.2*** 11,294.9*** $40,735.82*** $82,423.59*** 14.7%*** Unserved 1,407.5 3,247.9 $41,723.74 $85,775.04 12.2% Rural Areas - Excluding Fixed Wireless Served 1,170.0*** 961.6*** $33,809.60*** $72,408.54 13.5%*** Unserved 1,242.0 174.5 $36,153.71 $73,786.24 12.3% Urban Areas - Excluding Fixed Wireless Served 1,384.1*** 11,435.9*** $40,829.47*** $82,560.54*** 14.7%*** Unserved 1,493.9 4,852.5 $44,641.93 $92,112.44 12.2% Tribal Areas - Excluding Fixed Wireless Served 1,294.6** 3,071.9*** $34,168.86*** $67,291.27*** 15.7%*** Unserved 1,217.0 583.3 $30,470.27 $61,014.86 17.9% Tribal Rural Areas - Excluding Fixed Wireless Served 1,105.3 627.3*** $28,753.08 $62,520.74 14.8% Unserved 1,183.5 150.2 $29,380.98 $59,418.91 18.3% Tribal Urban Areas - Excluding Fixed Wireless Served 1,310.4 3,275.1*** $34,611.84 $67,681.87 15.8% Unserved 1,301.7 1,680.2 $33,224.09 $65,058.08 16.9% Source: FCC BDC data; Staff Block Estimates; 2020 Census; ACS Five-Year Estimates for 2018-2022. Per capita income and median household income are based on 2022 data and are measured in 2022 inflation-adjusted dollars. APPX. B-31 Comparison of Demographic Data Between Areas With and Without Fixed Terrestrial Services at 100/20 Mbps and Mobile 5G-NR with a Minimum Speed of 7/1 Mbps (In-Vehicle Mobile Services) (December 31, 2022) Population Population Density Per Capita Income Median Household Income Household Poverty Rate United States - Including Fixed Wireless Served 1,431.2*** 8,676.5*** $42,578.60*** $87,762.73*** 13.3%*** Unserved 1,334.2 1,718.2 $39,023.52 $78,432.91 13.0% Rural Areas - Including Fixed Wireless Served 1,280.8*** 585.6*** $36,297.59 $76,951.95*** 12.0%* Unserved 1,235.2 142.8 $36,075.32 $73,352.82 12.4% Urban Areas - Including Fixed Wireless Served 1,437.1*** 8,993.5*** $42,823.86 $88,190.37*** 13.3%*** Unserved 1,461.4 3,743.6 $42,862.52 $85,177.43 13.7% Tribal Areas - Including Fixed Wireless Served 1,282.1*** 2,441.1*** $33,551.46*** $66,768.65*** 15.8%*** Unserved 1,204.9 361.6 $29,913.49 $59,716.59 18.4% Tribal Rural Areas - Including Fixed Wireless Served 1,161.6 374.7*** $29,814.85 $61,961.76 15.7%** Unserved 1,183.8 133.8 $29,284.84 $59,144.07 18.6% Tribal Urban Areas - Including Fixed Wireless Served 1,309.3 2,907.8*** $34,385.68 $67,828.73* 15.9% Unserved 1,296.9 1,353.8 $32,648.67 $62,200.94 17.7% United States - Excluding Fixed Wireless Served 1,429.6*** 8,647.8*** $42,882.28*** $88,422.08*** 13.1% Unserved 1,345.7 2,404.6 $38,854.14 $78,201.30 13.2% Rural Areas - Excluding Fixed Wireless Served 1,223.3 724.4*** $35,855.78 $75,055.05* 12.6% Unserved 1,241.7 149.5 $36,120.01 $73,650.72 12.4% Urban Areas - Excluding Fixed Wireless Served 1,435.2*** 8,864.1*** $43,073.61*** $88,789.20*** 13.1%*** Unserved 1,464.1 4,971.4 $42,002.27 $83,560.86 14.3% Tribal Areas - Excluding Fixed Wireless Served 1,284.0*** 2,627.8*** $33,730.69*** $67,127.06*** 15.9%*** Unserved 1,208.2 365.4 $30,006.52 $59,895.42 18.2% Tribal Rural Areas - Excluding Fixed Wireless Served 1,148.2 444.1*** $29,358.55 $62,046.04 15.8%* Unserved 1,184.3 136.9 $29,358.44 $59,258.74 18.4% Tribal Urban Areas - Excluding Fixed Wireless Served 1,306.7 2,993.2*** $34,457.97 $67,956.30* 15.9% Unserved 1,305.2 1,293.9 $32,639.46 $62,470.87 17.4% Source: FCC BDC data; Staff Block Estimates; 2020 Census; ACS Five-Year Estimates for 2018-2022. Per capita income and median household income are based on 2022 data and are measured in 2022 inflation-adjusted dollars. APPX. B-32 Comparison of Demographic Data Between Areas With and Without Fixed Terrestrial Services at 100/20 Mbps and Mobile LTE with a Minimum Speed of 5/1 Mbps (In-Vehicle Mobile Services) (December 31, 2022) Population Population Density Per Capita Income Median Household Income Household Poverty Rate United States - Including Fixed Wireless Served 1,434.0*** 8,091.7*** $42,677.35*** $87,933.73*** 13.1%*** Unserved 1,306.6 1,704.6 $38,011.51 $75,956.07 13.4% Rural Areas - Including Fixed Wireless Served 1,270.2*** 494.5*** $36,231.17 $75,775.77*** 12.1%** Unserved 1,233.5 124.2 $36,070.58 $73,295.93 12.4% Urban Areas - Including Fixed Wireless Served 1,443.8** 8,548.5*** $43,064.49*** $88,676.14*** 13.2%*** Unserved 1,429.0 4,353.7 $41,328.23 $80,643.99 15.0% Tribal Areas - Including Fixed Wireless Served 1,268.5** 2,225.5*** $33,360.53*** $66,160.13*** 16.1%*** Unserved 1,206.6 260.7 $29,553.49 $59,246.49 18.5% Tribal Rural Areas - Including Fixed Wireless Served 1,130.3 423.8*** $29,425.09 $60,897.01 16.6%* Unserved 1,194.8 95.9 $29,339.92 $59,153.23 18.6% Tribal Urban Areas - Including Fixed Wireless Served 1,313.0 2,804.7*** $34,616.66** $67,830.81*** 16.0% Unserved 1,273.6 1,193.1 $30,761.62 $59,771.97 17.9% United States - Excluding Fixed Wireless Served 1,433.5*** 8,113.2*** $43,018.65*** $88,667.16*** 13.0%*** Unserved 1,323.7 2,476.2 $37,901.97 $75,958.36 13.6% Rural Areas - Excluding Fixed Wireless Served 1,234.9 610.3*** $35,853.15 $74,187.57 12.7%** Unserved 1,241.1 132.9 $36,135.54 $73,693.57 12.3% Urban Areas - Excluding Fixed Wireless Served 1,442.0 8,432.0*** $43,322.83*** $89,288.71*** 13.0%*** Unserved 1,440.9 5,798.6 $40,447.28 $79,329.89 15.4% Tribal Areas - Excluding Fixed Wireless Served 1,273.4** 2,460.8*** $33,700.25*** $66,534.53*** 16.2%*** Unserved 1,209.0 272.4 $29,660.89 $59,626.15 18.2% Tribal Rural Areas - Excluding Fixed Wireless Served 1,108.4 536.5*** $29,108.57 $60,658.93 17.2% Unserved 1,193.6 101.9 $29,402.91 $59,331.34 18.3% Tribal Urban Areas - Excluding Fixed Wireless Served 1,312.0 2,910.9*** $34,770.28** $67,894.97** 15.9% Unserved 1,285.1 1,113.2 $30,935.14 $61,080.94 17.8% Source: FCC BDC data; Staff Block Estimates; 2020 Census; ACS Five-Year Estimates for 2018-2022. Per capita income and median household income are based on 2022 data and are measured in 2022 inflation-adjusted dollars. APPX. B-33 Comparison of Demographic Data Between Areas With and Without Fixed Terrestrial Services at 100/20 Mbps and Mobile 5G-NR with a Median Ookla Speed of 35/3 Mbps (December 31, 2022) Population Population Density Per Capita Income Median Household Income Household Poverty Rate United States - Including Fixed Wireless Served 1,446.6*** 8,873.1*** $43,056.18*** $88,900.78*** 13.0%*** Unserved 1,409.6 2,141.0 $41,616.16 $84,342.11 11.9% Rural Areas - Including Fixed Wireless Served 1,386.1*** 622.0*** $39,380.23 $85,741.46*** 10.3% Unserved 1,334.9 163.8 $38,874.35 $80,796.12 10.8% Urban Areas - Including Fixed Wireless Served 1,448.1*** 9,073.3*** $43,144.77*** $88,977.63*** 13.1% Unserved 1,481.3 4,037.4 $44,283.39 $87,868.34 13.1% United States - Excluding Fixed Wireless Served 1,446.6*** 8,873.1*** $43,056.18*** $88,900.78*** 13.0%*** Unserved 1,409.6 2,141.0 $41,616.16 $84,342.11 11.9% Rural Areas - Excluding Fixed Wireless Served 1,386.1*** 622.0*** $39,380.23 $85,741.46*** 10.3% Unserved 1,334.9 163.8 $38,874.35 $80,796.12 10.8% Urban Areas - Excluding Fixed Wireless Served 1,448.1*** 9,073.3*** $43,144.77*** $88,977.63*** 13.1% Unserved 1,481.3 4,037.4 $44,283.39 $87,868.34 13.1% Source: FCC BDC data; Ookla Speedtest data; Staff Block Estimates; 2020 Census; ACS Five-Year Estimates for 2018-2022. Per capita income and median household income are based on 2022 data and are measured in 2022 inflation-adjusted dollars. APPX. B-34 Comparison of Demographic Data Between Areas With and Without Fixed Terrestrial Services at 100/20 Mbps and Mobile 5G-NR with a Median Ookla Speed of 7/1 Mbps (December 31, 2022) Population Population Density Per Capital Income Median Household Income Household Poverty Rate United States - Including Fixed Wireless Served 1,456.6*** 8,265.4*** $43,611.29*** $90,164.25*** 12.8%*** Unserved 1,363.3 2,345.0 $39,185.78 $78,376.19 13.1% Rural Areas - Including Fixed Wireless Served 1,414.7*** 446.1*** $40,775.00*** $87,759.37*** 9.8%*** Unserved 1,318.0 143.7 $38,372.16 $79,383.38 11.1% Urban Areas - Including Fixed Wireless Served 1,458.6*** 8,643.8*** $43,748.25*** $90,282.22*** 12.9%*** Unserved 1,417.5 4,985.1 $40,183.47 $77,097.05 15.5% United States - Excluding Fixed Wireless Served 1,454.8*** 8,246.0*** $43,913.33*** $90,811.70*** 12.6%*** Unserved 1,383.4 3,351.5 $39,035.15 $78,402.23 13.4% Rural Areas - Excluding Fixed Wireless Served 1,398.7*** 538.6*** $41,556.74*** $89,049.01*** 9.9%*** Unserved 1,329.6 153.1 $38,438.11 $79,889.12 11.0% Urban Areas - Excluding Fixed Wireless Served 1,456.7*** 8,509.9*** $43,993.89*** $90,872.65*** 12.7%*** Unserved 1,437.8 6,576.5 $39,648.06 $76,819.42 15.9% Source: FCC BDC data; Ookla Speedtest data; Staff Block Estimates; 2020 Census; ACS Five-Year Estimates for 2018-2022. Per capita income and median household income are based on 2022 data and are measured in 2022 inflation-adjusted dollars. APPX. B-35 Comparison of Demographic Data Between Areas With and Without Fixed Terrestrial Services at 100/20 Mbps and Mobile Broadband with a Median Ookla Speed of 10/3 Mbps (December 31, 2022) Population Population Density Per Capital Income Median Household Income Household Poverty Rate United States - Including Fixed Wireless Served 1,446.1*** 7,916.7*** $43,306.63*** $89,375.34*** 12.8%*** Unserved 1,297.1 1,945.7 $36,680.43 $72,750.34 14.0% Rural Areas - Including Fixed Wireless Served 1,356.3*** 390.3*** $39,873.03*** $84,097.71*** 10.4%*** Unserved 1,243.6 129.7 $35,780.86 $72,759.03 12.4% Urban Areas - Including Fixed Wireless Served 1,452.6*** 8,464.2*** $43,556.29*** $89,766.55*** 13.0%*** Unserved 1,379.1 4,728.4 $38,088.35 $72,736.24 16.4% United States - Excluding Fixed Wireless Served 1,445.5*** 7,942.5*** $43,639.54*** $90,087.15*** 12.7%*** Unserved 1,321.0 2,785.2 $36,874.50 $73,524.54 14.0% Rural Areas - Excluding Fixed Wireless Served 1,346.9*** 464.2*** $40,416.95*** $84,880.50*** 10.7%*** Unserved 1,256.0 137.8 $36,039.45 $73,648.33 12.2% Urban Areas - Excluding Fixed Wireless Served 1,450.8*** 8,340.2*** $43,810.92*** $90,368.02*** 12.8%*** Unserved 1,405.7 6,234.2 $37,981.50 $73,354.13 16.5% Source: FCC BDC data; Ookla Speedtest data; Staff Block Estimates; 2020 Census; ACS Five-Year Estimates for 2018-2022. Per capita income and median household income are based on 2022 data and are measured in 2022 inflation-adjusted dollars. Federal Communications Commission FCC 24-27 STATEMENT OF CHAIRWOMAN JESSICA ROSENWORCEL Re: Inquiry Concerning the Deployment of Advanced Telecommunications Capability to All Americans in a Reasonable and Timely Fashion, GN Docket No. 22-270, 2024 Section 706 Report (March 14, 2024) In the United States, we dream big and do audacious things. We connected the coasts with railways. We crisscrossed this country with interstate highways. We did these things because they strengthened our communities, our economy, and our national security. Today we are engaged in the same kind of history-making because we are building high-speed broadband to everyone, everywhere in this country. We have committed to this course—at the Federal Communications Commission, with our colleagues at other agencies, and with Congress—because we know that all of us need access to broadband to have a fair shot at 21st century success. Nothing made this apparent like the pandemic. After all, it was just four years ago this week that so many of us were told to head home. Life moved online—school, work, healthcare, and so much more. But not all of us were able to make this digital leap. Not everyone had access to reliable broadband. The pandemic exposed our digital divide in living color. That is why we are now in the bold business of fixing this divide. That is why today the Commission updates its standard for broadband, our baseline, to 100 Megabits down and 20 Megabits up from 25 Megabits down and 3 Megabits up. This fix is overdue. It aligns us with pandemic legislation like the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and the work of our colleagues at other agencies. It also helps us better identify the extent to which low-income neighborhoods and rural communities are underserved. And because doing big things is in our DNA, we also adopt a long-term goal of 1 Gigabit down and 500 Megabits up. One more thing. The law requires that we assess how reasonable and timely the deployment of broadband is in this country. So we do something in this report that is simple. We are honest. Our goal is to connect everyone, everywhere to high-speed broadband. But the last fully vetted and validated annual data before this agency show conclusively that we are not there yet. Nearly 24 million are not connected, including 28% of Americans living in rural areas and more than 23% of people on Tribal lands.  That means millions of people still do not have the broadband they need to fully participate in modern life.  We are working on it. That is why we have revamped our broadband mapping at this agency. It is why we are refining our universal service programs. It is why our colleagues at other agencies have been given unprecedented billions from Congress to help build broadband infrastructure to places that are still without. Don’t bet against us. Because we are making progress. So many providers are building and so many communities are planning their digital futures. Big things are ahead. Thank you to the staff across the agency for their work on this report, including Allison Baker, Michele Berlove, Brad Berry, Bryan Boyle, David Brodian, Ted Burmeister, Jessica Campbell, Adam Copeland, Lisa Edwards, CJ Ferraro, Janice Gorin, Joel Graham, Jodie Griffin, Audra Hale-Maddox, Heather Hendrickson, Clint Highfill, Jesse Jachman, Alex Johns, Julia Johnson, Jamile Kadre, Melissa Kirkel, Ed Krachmer, Heidi Lankau, Chris Laughlin, Jodie May, Ben Nashed, Khoa Nguyen, Kimia Nikseresht, Nick Page, Jordan Reth, Johnnay Schrieber, Christi Shewman, Gilbert Smith, Simon Solemani, Noah Stein, Renae Stong, Raphael Sznajder, Jennifer Vickers, George Weber, Eric Wu, and Suzanne Yelen from the Wireline Competition Bureau; Johannes Bauer, Nicholas Copeland, Judith Dempsey, Chelsea Fallon, Lonnie Hofmann, Steven Kauffman, Evan Kwerel, Ken Lynch, Catherine Matraves, Jeffrey Ocker, Steven Rosenberg, Michelle Schaefer, Molly Schwarz, Alexander Simmons, Donald Stockdale, and Patrick Sun from the Office of Economics and Analytics; Barbara Esbin, Garnet Hanly, Jean Kiddoo, Susannah Larson, Susan Mort, Paul Powell, Jessica Quinley, Sayuri Rajapakse, Sean Spivey, and Matt Warner from the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau; Scott Mackoul and Kerry Murray from the Space Bureau; Eduard Bartholme, Zac Champ, Bambi Kraus, Wes Platt, and Cara Voth from the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau; Ben Bartolme, Doug Klein, Irene Ly, Rick Mallen, Erika Olsen, Karen Onyeije, Brayden Parker, Robert Primosch, Anjali Singh, Sheryl Wilkerson, Derek Yeo, and Chin Yoo from the Office of General Counsel; and Joy Ragsdale from the Office of Communications Business Opportunities. 2 DISSENTING STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER BRENDAN CARR Re: Inquiry Concerning the Deployment of Advanced Telecommunications Capability to All Americans in a Reasonable and Timely Fashion, GN Docket No. 22-270, 2024 Section 706 Report (March 14, 2024) Today’s Section 706 Report is the FCC’s first in three years. Thanks to the passage of time, we came to this proceeding with a fresh opportunity to grade the pace of progress that broadband providers have made over the past few years to bring Americans across the digital divide. We’ve made impressive strides. Definitively so. Wireline providers are aggressively rolling out fiber optic networks with gigabit speeds. 5G networks now stretch from coast to coast. Fixed wireless has become a competitive mainstay with millions of new subscribers in the residential broadband market. Thousands of satellites launched into low-earth orbit offer speeds comparable to terrestrial broadband, particularly in rural and remote areas that were traditionally left behind. And billions of dollars in federal support are flowing to close any remaining gaps. By any possible measure, we’re seeing real progress in the availability of high-speed broadband. If there were ever moment—if there were ever a stretch of time—where the pace, cadence, and speed of broadband builds would result in the FCC agreeing, on a unanimous basis, that broadband is “being deployed to all Americans in a reasonable and timely fashion,” 47 U.S.C. § 1302(b). as Section 706 states, today would be that day. But it isn’t. The more than $8 billion for broadband allocated by states and localities under the American Rescue Plan does not matter. The more than $9 billion awarded through the Treasury Department’s Capital Projects Fund does not matter. The more than $21 billion doled out to the FCC’s low-income and school kids programs does not matter. So what today’s decision really does is lay bare for everyone to see that the Section 706 inquiry is no longer about assessing the pace of broadband builds—it is about the next month or two. It is about Title II. The reason the FCC gives the Biden Administration’s broadband efforts a failing grade today, the first the FCC has handed out since 2016, Compare Inquiry Concerning Deployment of Advanced Telecommunications Capability to All Americans in a Reasonable and Timely Fashion, Fourteenth Broadband Deployment Report, 36 FCC Rcd 836 (2021); Inquiry Concerning Deployment of Advanced Telecommunications Capability to All Americans in a Reasonable and Timely Fashion, 2020 Broadband Deployment Report, 35 FCC Rcd 8986 (2020); Inquiry Concerning Deployment of Advanced Telecommunications Capability to All Americans in a Reasonable and Timely Fashion, Broadband Deployment Report, 34 FCC Rcd 3857 (2019); Inquiry Concerning Deployment of Advanced Telecommunications Capability to All Americans in a Reasonable and Timely Fashion, 2018 Broadband Deployment Report, 33 FCC Rcd 1660 (2018). The FCC did not release a 706 Report in 2017, 2022, or 2023. is because the FCC believes that a negative finding will empower it soon enough to impose new controls on the Internet. None of this is really all that surprising. But what’s surprising, or at least interesting to me, is how the FCC arrived at this conclusion. This 706 Report makes three basic errors that work to obscure the state of progress. First, the report relies on bad data. It uses broadband deployment statistics that are 15 months old when newer information is available at our fingertips. And the numbers used in this report have inaccuracies that were since corrected. Second, the FCC reads a new standard into the law that Congress never enacted. Rather than measure the incremental progress of broadband availability as Section 706 requires, the FCC moves the goalposts and undertakes an all-or-nothing inquiry using factors that appear nowhere in the statute. In other words, the agency uses criteria that could never be satisfied. And third, while we all agree that the FCC should be aiming for 100/20 Mbps in our programs (which we’ve been doing since at least 2016), the 706 Report uses that benchmark to disregard technological neutrality and consumer expectations. * * * Start with the data. In 2020, Congress enacted the Broadband DATA Act, which directed the FCC to undertake a biannual Broadband Data Collection (BDC) “relating to the availability and quality of service of fixed and mobile broadband Internet access service for the Commission to create broadband coverage maps.” Broadband Deployment Accuracy and Technology Availability Act, Pub. L. No. 116-130, 134 Stat. 228 (2020) (codified at 47 U.S.C. §§ 641-646) (Broadband DATA Act). Congress recognized that these information collections would be imperfect. After all, they largely rely on self-reported data from providers. So Congress required the FCC to iterate continuously by undertaking a fresh BDC every six months and subjecting that data collection to a public challenge process. Each iteration would be more accurate than the last. To date, the Commission has released three versions of the map. In this 706 Report, the Commission relies on the BDC for the first time. The maps represent a monumental achievement thanks to the tireless work of Commission staff. But there is a very big problem: this 706 Report doesn’t use the latest BDC datasets. The 706 Report relies on BDC Version 2, which shows broadband deployment as of December 31, 2022. The most recent dataset, BDC Version 3, was released last year in November 2023 and reflects broadband deployment as of June 30, 2023. The FCC barely mentions the existence of BDC Version 3, let alone explains why it wasn’t used. The FCC offers two defenses for using the older BDC Version 2. First, the FCC claims to follow previous 706 reports, which used datasets from trailing years. See 706 Report at fn.720. That comparison is flawed. Unlike past reports, this 706 Report has access to a comprehensive data collection updated on a rolling, biannual basis. Second, the FCC states that the verification of BDC Version 4 remains ongoing. See id. (“Further, we evaluate December 2022 data because, among other things, the verification process for the more recent data, from June 2023 and December 2023, has not been completed.”). But the FCC provides no basis for ignoring BDC Version 3, which is current as of June 2023 and corrects numerous deficiencies in BDC Version 2. The 706 Report’s reliance on stale data undermines entirely the FCC’s conclusions. It discredits the whole exercise and renders its ultimate conclusions untenable as to the current state of broadband availability. The use of bad data has a compounding effect. For starters, the 706 Report glosses over all the developments that happened between the last two versions of the BDC. Six months may not sound like much, but it’s a lifetime in today’s climate of dynamism, investment, and intermodal competition. The rapid improvements in broadband availability and quality should be obvious to everyone. Consider the following changes over the course of six months, by no means exhaustive: · Total deployments: BDC Version 3 shows 151.8 million units served by fixed terrestrial broadband at 100/20 Mbps. BDC Version 2, by contrast, had that number at 145.7 million. No surprise. Shovels are well in the ground under our FCC funding programs. After all, December 31, 2023 was the 60% service milestone under CAF Phase II. Meanwhile, the December 31, 2025 deadline for 40% service under RDOF Phase I is fast approaching. · Fixed wireless: BDC Version 3 shows 66.0 million locations with fixed wireless service at 100/20 Mbps. BDC Version 2, used in the 706 Report, shows 41.9 million units with fixed wireless service at 100/20 Mbps. The growth of fixed wireless was also expected. Newly lit C-band and previously freed up 2.5 GHz spectrum have unlocked the possibilities of fixed wireless and intensified competition for the addressable in-home broadband segment. Mobile broadband providers have announced new fixed wireless deployments and record-shattering net adds on a seemingly daily basis during the intervening six months between BDC Version 2 and Version 3. · Satellite: BDC Version 3 shows 99.6% of locations with satellite service at 100/20 Mbps. BDC Version 2, used in the 706 Report, shows 16.09% of locations with satellite service at 100/20 Mbps. Here again, no surprise. Starlink successfully launched approximately 1,000 satellites between December 31, 2022 and June 30, 2023. See Wikipedia, List of Starlink and Starshield launches (last visited Mar. 8, 2023), https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Starlink_and_Starshield_launches. You don’t need to zoom into the FCC maps below to see the vivid differences in high-speed satellite coverage over the span of six months. Left image: Satellite coverage (100/20 Mbps) for BDC Version 3 (as of June 30, 2023) Right image: Satellite coverage (100/20 Mbps) for BDC Version 2 (as of December 31, 2022) Worse, the dataset used in the 706 Report (BDC Version 2) has inaccuracies that overstate the number of unserved locations. When announcing BDC Version 3, the FCC rightly highlighted the improvements in accuracy—resulting in a gross addition of 3 million broadband serviceable locations and a drop in 1.1 million net unserved locations. These corrections were the result of 4.8 million challenges to broadband availability, 1.5 million accepted challenges to broadband location, mobile coverage audits, and FCC-initiated verification efforts. See Chairwoman Rosenworcel Note, National Broadband Map 3.0: Thankful for Continued Improvements (Nov. 17, 2023), https://www.fcc.gov/news-events/notes/2023/11/17/national-broadband-map-30-thankful-continued-improvements. But the Commission disregards this newer, cleaner dataset for a 15-month-old snapshot that’s demonstrably inaccurate in many ways. * * * Now turn to the statute. Section 706(b) directs the FCC to study the “availability of advanced telecommunications capability to all Americans.” 47 U.S.C. § 1302(b) (emphasis added). The FCC’s inquiry, in turn, must “determine whether advanced telecommunications capability is being deployed to all Americans in a reasonable and timely fashion.” 47 U.S.C. § 1302(b) (emphasis added). The 706 Report defies this directive in several ways. To start, the statute limits the scope of the 706 Report to the “availability” of broadband—that is, whether it “is being deployed to all Americans in a reasonable and timely fashion.” We have traditionally conducted the Section 706 exercise with a focus on availability, consistent with the law’s plain language. For the first time, however, the Commission conducts a completely new inquiry by focusing on “universal service,” “affordability,” “adoption,” and “equitable access.” One should not take solace in the item’s failure to make affirmative determinations about affordability, adoption, and other factors based on incomplete data, for the Commission states its intent to “revisit” these quixotic exercises in future reports. See, e.g., 706 Report at paras. 104, 114, 121. That cannot be right. For one, those terms appear nowhere in Section 706. Congress knows they are different from “availability,” as demonstrated elsewhere. As one example, the Communications Act has a specific section on “universal service.” And in that section, Congress uses “affordable” to modify “availability. See, e.g., 47 U.S.C. § 254(i) (“The Commission and the States should ensure that universal service is available at rates that are just, reasonable, and affordable.”). Section 706’s limited reference to “availability” is therefore no accident; it was meant to constrain the scope of our 706 Report. According to the FCC, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) describes Section 706 as containing “statutorily mandated goals of universal service.” 706 Report at para. 6. But as the FCC concedes, this passing characterization did not amend Section 706. Id. So the IIJA does not permit us to disregard Section 706’s plain language. And for another, the remedies envisioned in connection with the 706 Report—“removing barriers to infrastructure investment” and “promoting competition in the telecommunications market”—would be woefully incomplete under the Commission’s expansive reading. Having inserted “universal service” and other terms into Section 706, the Commission then undertakes a simplistic, binary determination of whether advanced telecommunications capability has been deployed to all Americans. That interpretation reads the “reasonable and timely” language out of the statute and contradicts Congress’s use of the present progressive tense “is being deployed.” It also disregards language Congress used for FCC inquiries that result in a negative determination. In such cases, Congress states that the FCC “shall take immediate action to accelerate deployment,” thus confirming Congress’s focus in Section 706 on the pace of deployment and the progress that providers are making. Yet the FCC in this 706 Report makes no attempt at a progress report or a comparative finding. Even assuming Section 706 means what the Commission now says, the 706 Report still flunks the statute. The 706 Report uses outdated (and demonstrably inaccurate) BDC datasets, and such data, by definition, cannot inform any inquiry Congress asked us to undertake when superior alternatives are available. The 706 Report could have measured incremental progress by putting our rich, iterative BDC datasets side by side. In particular, we could have compared BDC Version 3 to the previous two iterations and isolated changes resulting from new deployments (as opposed to errors uncovered during the challenge process). But we did not. * * * The liberties the Commission takes with the data and the law necessarily color its adoption of a new 100/20 Mbps benchmark. Now, to be clear, I would have no objection to the FCC setting a goal of 100/20 Mbps for our programs. As noted earlier, we have been doing so for at least eight years now. But the item’s treatment of the new benchmark is troubling in several respects. First, the 100/20 Mbps requirement appears to be part and parcel of the Commission’s broader attempt to circumvent the statutory requirement of technological neutrality. Section 706 defines “advanced telecommunications capability” as, “without regard to any transmission media or technology, as high-speed, switched, broadband telecommunications capability that enables users to originate and receive high-quality voice, data, graphics, and video telecommunications using any technology.” 47 U.S.C. § 1302(d)(1) (emphases added). Not just once, but twice, the statute expressly requires technological neutrality. Yet the 706 Report disregards Congress’s directive—most notably, by ignoring satellite deployment. According to the latest BDC, more than 99% of eligible locations have high-speed satellite service at 100/20 Mbps. In refusing to account for high-speed satellite, the item claims to follow past FCC practice. That ostrich-like assertion ignores the obvious fact that the quality and availability of high-speed, low-earth orbit satellite service has improved dramatically since our last report in 2021—so much so that satellite has become a viable source of intermodal competition. Next, the item cites to low take rates. 706 Report at para. 58. But evidence of consumer adoption, even if it were based on the latest BDC datasets (which it isn’t), has nothing to do with the “availability” of service, which is the inquiry the statute requires. And in any case, a rationale based on take rates would prove too much. For example, it would defeat the adoption of 100/20 Mbps altogether, which also has low take rates according to the Commission’s data. See 706 Report at fn. 226 & Fig. 23. Next, the FCC claims, without citing to any evidence, that BDC-reported satellite speeds are overstated due to the theoretical capacity constraints of satellite spectrum. 706 Report at para. 58 & fn. 223. I have already explained elsewhere why the Commission cannot use armchair speculation to pretend high-speed satellite broadband doesn’t exist. See Dissenting Statement of Commissioner Brendan Carr, Application for Review of Starlink Services, LLC, Rural Digital Opportunity Fund, Rural Digital Opportunity Fund (Auction 904), Viasat Auction 904 Application for Review, Order on Review, WC Docket No. 19- 126, OEA Docket No. 20-34, GN Docket No. 21-231 (Dec. 12, 2023), https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-23-105A2.pdf. In any case, the FCC cannot have it both ways: either the BDC represents the best evidence of broadband deployment or it doesn’t. Arbitrarily picking and choosing preferred technologies, unfortunately, has become all too common in this Administration. See, e.g., Redlight Report, Ranking Member, U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation (Sept. 2023), https://www.commerce.senate.gov/services/files/0B6D8C56-7DFD-440F-8BCC-F448579964A3. When I saw the original draft of the Notice of Inquiry in this proceeding, I was surprised to learn that it did not even propose to consider fixed wireless. And while I appreciated the ultimate decision to consider fixed wireless at my suggestion, I echo Commissioner Simington’s worry that Commission’s long-term goal of 1,000/500 Mbps lays the groundwork to step even further away from our technological neutrality mandate. I hope it is not a Trojan Horse to exclude fixed wireless in a future report because it is deemed not “capable” of supporting aspirational speeds. Because, fundamentally, the problem with counting broadband as something other than broadband is that it leads inevitably to wasteful overbuilding and upgrading communities that already have connectivity rather than remaining focused on the communities still stuck on the wrong side of the digital divide. Second, the 706 Report justifies 100/20 Mbps by invoking the performance benchmarks in BEAD, ARPA, and our other high-cost programs. See 706 Report at paras. 27-28. But the comparison is inapt. Our 706 Report should look at the current state of broadband availability. Federal funding programs are measured on a long-term horizon spanning many years. If the federal government is to spend billions of dollars on broadband deployment, that investment should endure for the long run. In other words, our funding programs establish 100/20 Mbps goals in an effort to futureproof each dollar that is spent. Section 706, on the other hand, does not direct the FCC to measure futureproofed service. Finally, the 706 Report makes a surprisingly weak showing to justify 100/20 Mbps as the minimum threshold to count as official broadband service—which is, after all, the point of the 706 Report. As Section 706 indicates, the FCC should be looking first to identify the voice, video, and data applications that consumers are demanding and then, as a second step, adopt metrics that define “advanced telecommunications capability” based on that determination. Put differently, is it really fair to say consumers don’t have “advanced telecommunications capability” at a speed lower than 100/20 Mbps? The answer may be yes, but the item provides no compelling reason why. As the FCC’s former Chief Economist has observed, the longstanding benchmark of 25/3 can readily support routine consumer applications—from videoconferencing to 4K streaming to real-time gaming. See Michelle P. Connolly, Mindfully Wasteful Spending: The Definition of Broadband, Free State Foundation Report (May 18, 2023), https://freestatefoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/Mindfully-Wasteful-Spending-The-Definition-of-Broadband-051823.pdf. See also 706 Report at fn. 151 (acknowledging this point). Just look at the revealed preferences. As the 706 Report acknowledges, the take rate for 100/20 Mbps was quite low as of December 2022. See 706 Report at fn. 226 & Fig. 23 (adoption rate between 2% and 38% for 100/20 Mbps depending on technology). In supporting the 100/20 Mbps benchmark, however, the 706 Report points to the adoption rate for services with download speeds at 100 Mbps or higher. See 706 Report at para. 29 (adoption rate between 68% and 79% for 100 Mbps download only). Do these consumers know something we don’t? These flaws suggest the benchmark was selected, not based on hard evidence or reasonable customer expectations, but as another lever to reverse-engineer a predetermined outcome. * * * I could go on, but everyone sees where the politics are headed. After putting off our Section 706 report for the past three years, the FCC now issues this 706 Report just ahead of what many expect will be a Title II vote to come. See Protecting and Promoting the Open Internet, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 29 FCC Rcd 5561, paras. 143-47 (2023) (proposing to rely on Section 706 as legal authority for Title II reclassification). In a regulatory environment where the FCC believes that doling out a failing grade will give the agency more power, I don’t think it is too surprising, as I noted at the outset, that this Commission landed where it did. But the FCC’s basic data and legal errors will ultimately sink whatever future decisions rely on this report as a justification or basis for action. I am sure the courts will see through that gambit. I dissent. STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER GEOFFREY STARKS Re: Inquiry Concerning the Deployment of Advanced Telecommunications Capability to All Americans in a Reasonable and Timely Fashion, GN Docket No. 22-270, 2024 Section 706 Report (March 14, 2024) Today, in assessing “the availability of advanced telecommunications capabilities,” we update our broadband benchmark to 100 Mbps download speed and 20 Mbps upload speed, better aligning with consumer expectations, other federal programming and the offerings of many ISPs. For the first time, we assess 5G mobile coverage data for speeds of at least 35/3, and we update our short-term goal for school and classroom broadband access. I support all of these steps, ensuring that our section 706 Report will continue to accurately reflect the availability of advanced telecommunications capability nationwide. We have made great progress since issuing our last section 706 report in 2021. Inquiry Concerning Deployment of Advanced Telecommunications Capability to All Americans in a Reasonable and Timely Fashion, GN Docket No. 20-269, Fourteenth Broadband Deployment Report, 36 FCC Rcd 836 (Jan. 19, 2021). But there remains much work to be done to close the digital divide, and I agree with the Report’s conclusion that advanced telecommunications capability is not being deployed to all Americans in a reasonable and timely fashion. One of those challenges is affordability. I want to focus, specifically, on this account because our ability to solve this aspect of the digital divide is in grave peril. I’m talking about the lack of funding for the Affordable Connectivity Program. Over 23 million American households have relied on the ACP to subscribe to broadband. These households will soon confront a hard choice between bill shock and disconnection. We should not let that happen. ACP has had a significant impact nationwide. Americans throughout the country enroll – in urban, rural, and Tribal communities. At the time of the ACP enrollment freeze last month, over 130,000 households in my home state of Kansas were enrolled, over 1,707,000 in Florida, 186,000 in Connecticut, and 470,000 in Virginia, the home states of my colleagues. Over 329,000 Tribal households were enrolled, and notably ACP has surpassed expectations for rural enrollment. John Horrigan, The Affordable Connectivity Program and Rural America: It’s going surprisingly well, Benton Institute for Broadband & Society, June 27, 2023, https://www.benton.org/blog/affordable-connectivity-program-and-rural-america. ACP enrollees include young learners, grandparents, and everyone in between. To put it plainly, ACP is the most effective program we’ve ever had in helping low-income Americans get online and stay online. Those benefits are in jeopardy because we recently announced that April will be the last fully funded month in the Program. That means without additional funding from Congress, millions of Americans will lose access to affordable broadband. Millions of low-income American households will face monthly Internet bills that will skyrocket, and I fear many will be unable to remain connected. This fear is supported by data the Commission recently released. 77 percent of recent survey respondents said that losing their ACP benefit would disrupt their service by making them change their plan or drop service entirely. ACP Consumer Survey, FCC, available at https://www.fcc.gov/acp-survey (last visited Mar. 12, 2024) (ACP Consumer Survey). Nationwide, 49 percent of ACP households are subscription vulnerable, meaning that they find the Internet very difficult to fit into their monthly budgets and are constantly on the edge of disconnection. John Horrigan, Affordability and the Digital Divide, EveryoneOn, Dec. 21, 2021, https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5aa8af1fc3c16a54bcbb0415/t/61ad7722de56262d89e76c94/1638758180025/EveryoneOn+Report+on+Affordability+%26+the+Digital+Divide+2021.pdf. 68 percent of ACP households reported that they had inconsistent or zero connectivity prior to ACP, and 80 percent cited affordability as the reason for this lack of connectivity. ACP Consumer Survey. I have heard directly from people about how having access to affordable, high-quality broadband has impacted their lives, and what the risk of losing access could mean. But, don’t take my word for it. Let me share one story with you. I met Debra, a dynamic grandmother, when I was recently in Illinois to discuss ACP. She is currently receiving federal housing assistance and moved to Lake County, an hour away from her family and church community. She told me that, thanks to ACP, she’s “hooked” on the Internet. She goes to church online every Sunday and speaks to her grandchildren and family once a week. She is taking advantage of her Internet connection to use MapQuest and explore her new community. She also started a knitting business online, and she told me when I met her just after Valentine’s Day last month that she has joined an online dating site for seniors. I wished her luck. When we discussed the potential end of the program, she asked me, “what am I going to have to give up to keep what you’ve put in my life? Maybe eat less food?” The lack of an affordability program also risks harming the biggest investment the country has ever made in broadband infrastructure deployment, the Broadband Equity Access and Deployment Program (BEAD). Without ACP, BEAD’s $42.5 billion to deploy broadband networks to reach millions of unserved and underserved communities, primarily in rural communities, will not reach as far as it could. ACP makes building out to these rural homes less risky and less expensive, because more of the serviceable population can afford to subscribe. Indeed, a recent study concluded that ACP reduces the subsidy needed to incentivize building in rural areas by a whopping 25 percent. Closing the Digital Divide Benefits Everyone, Not Just the Disconnected, Common Sense Media and BCG, https://www.commonsensemedia.org/sites/default/files/research/report/2022-cs-bcg-closing-digital-divide_final-release-3-for-web.pdf. With ACP, states can stretch their BEAD dollars farther and can connect some of the 24 million Americans identified in our section 706 Report. I’m an optimist, so I remain hopeful that Congress will fund ACP going forward. And there is reason for hope. President Biden has asked Congress to fund ACP as part of his budget, and recently called again on Congress to extend its funding. There is a bipartisan, bicameral effort to fund ACP – the Affordable Connectivity Program Extension Act – which I am proud to strongly support. Additionally, nearly 400 other government leaders, industry, and public interest groups support the Extension Act as well. At the state and local level, 26 bipartisan governors and 174 mayors have urged Congress to act. I stand ready and willing to do whatever it takes to make sure that these Congressional proposals bear fruit, so that next year when we adopt our 2025 section 706 Report, we can highlight that the availability of advanced telecommunications capability to all Americans has improved because Americans continue to have access to affordable broadband. I thank the Commission staff for their hard work. I approve. DISSENTING STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER NATHAN SIMINGTON Re: Inquiry Concerning the Deployment of Advanced Telecommunications Capability to All Americans in a Reasonable and Timely Fashion, GN Docket No. 22-270, 2024 Section 706 Report (March 14, 2024) I agree with all of Commissioner Carr’s points, but I want to focus on a few specific issues. I think the report deserves some praise for considering latency (the time it takes a packet to reach its destination, measured in milliseconds) and not just speed (the amount of data that a connection can carry per time period, measured in megabits per second). Especially as speed ceases to be the bottleneck, other connection characteristics like latency and jitter (moment-to-moment variations in latency) become more important for improving application performance and user experience. It’s high latency, not low speed, that makes your video chat feel choppy, that makes you lag in a video game, that makes skipping to a different part of a movie painful, and that makes web browsing feel unresponsive. So as we push for better internet service for Americans, I’m glad we’re going to be considering what can be done to drive down latency and make sure that all Americans can fully enjoy these interactive internet applications. This does not necessarily mean new rules or impositions on ISPs, but might instead involve initiatives with router manufacturers and Wi-Fi vendors to reduce other sources of latency and jitter, such as a buffer bloat or avoidable Wi-Fi interference. Dave Taht & Members and supporters of the Bufferbloat.net community Comments. Unfortunately, I am unable to support the report due to numerous other issues. While I’m glad the report addresses latency, I’m disappointed that it nonetheless sets an unnecessary long-term speed target of 1000/500 Mbps. Certainly, for the same price, I would take gigabit service over 100/20 Mbps service, but I wouldn’t get much added utility out of it. A 100/20 Mbps connection is enough to watch multiple 4K video streams, make multiple video calls, and play multiple online games, all at the same time. Before we adopt a 1000/500 Mbps long-term goal and begin to design our universal service programs around reaching it, we need to be able to articulate the use cases for such high speeds that justify making the taxpayer subsidize deployment of such service to every corner of the country. This report does no such thing, and I fear that it instead sets the stage for a generation of wasteful spending. The second issue, even more glaring, is the exclusion of satellite-based internet service from the report’s analysis. Before the advent of Low Earth Orbit (LEO) constellations, it used to be that satellite internet was unbearably slow and extremely high latency. These old services were not adequate substitutes for wired broadband, just make-dos for when no viable alternative existed. And if that was still what the satellite internet market looked like, we would be right to exclude it from consideration in our assessment of broadband access and affordability in the United States. But SpaceX’s LEO-based Starlink service has completely changed the game. Starlink is available in almost every corner of all 50 states and offers low latency and speeds nearing or exceeding 100/20 Mbps, especially in rural areas, which are most likely to lack access to comparable wireline service in the first place. Starlink Map, https://www.starlink.com/map; Starlink Specifications, https://www.starlink.com/legal/documents/DOC-1400-28829-70. The report says that satellite services are limited in the numbers of customers they can serve, but that limit is only a function of how much spectrum they are allowed to use and how many satellites they can launch per year, both things the FCC has control over. If we give Starlink and its forthcoming competitors access to more spectrum and permission for more launches, and if we allow them to compete for Universal Service Fund subsidies on equal footing with other providers, I have no doubt that they could easily offer low latency 100/20 Mbps service to every household that does not already have it. So, for these reasons, I must respectfully dissent. STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER ANNA M. GOMEZ Re: Inquiry Concerning the Deployment of Advanced Telecommunications Capability to All Americans in a Reasonable and Timely Fashion, GN Docket No. 22-270, 2024 Section 706 Report (March 14, 2024) I support the adoption of today’s Section 706 Report, which updates the benchmark for broadband to 100/20 Mbps and finds that more work must be done to connect the unconnected. I couldn’t agree more. Today’s Report finds that 24 million Americans lack access to fixed broadband connectivity. More must be done to ensure that broadband is being reasonably and timely deployed to all Americans, and particularly those that have been historically underserved—consumers who live in rural, tribal, and low-income communities. More must also be done to ensure that when broadband is deployed, that it affordable to consumers. Ensuring that connectivity is affordable will ensure that once deployed, networks can be sustained. Unfortunately, one of the FCC’s greatest tools to closing the digital divide and supporting connectivity, the Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP), will end next month. For low-income rural Americans, the ACP has been a lifeline to ensuring they have access to connectivity. For rural Americans who are yet to be served, the end of ACP means that the Broadband, Equity, Access Deployment (BEAD) Program’s $42.5 billion investment in broadband infrastructure may not reach them. These rural consumers have been waiting for connectivity to finally come to them—but may be disappointed when the buildout does not go as far as expected. We’ve made so much progress. But as today’s Report finds, more must be done. The ACP is a key tool that is necessary to continue our progress to connecting everyone everywhere, particularly, those in rural and hard to reach areas. Thank you to the Chairwoman for her leadership on this item, and for her leadership in establishing the ACP. Thank you also to the staff of the Wireline Competition Bureau, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, and Office of Economics and Analytics for their work on this item.