May 26, 2026
Adam Cohen
Chief Counsel
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency
400 7th Street NW, Suite 3E-218
Washington, DC 20219
Via: Federal eRulemaking Portal – Regulations.gov
Re: Streamlining Regulations Concerning Public Welfare Investments, Open Market Collateralized Loan Obligations, and Federal Savings Association Nondiscrimination Requirements; 12 CFR Parts 24, 43, and 128, RIN 1557-AF32 [Docket ID OCC-2025-0075]
Dear Chief Counsel Adam Cohen:
The National Community Reinvestment Coalition (NCRC) appreciates the opportunity to comment on the proposed rule of the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) regarding public welfare investments (PWIs) and nondiscrimination requirements for Federal Savings Associations (FSAs).
NCRC opposes the proposed removal of language regarding “minority- and women-owned entities” concerning public welfare investments because the deletion would reduce clarity, chill permissible public welfare investments, and undermine the rule’s community development purpose. In addition, NCRC opposes the removal of nondiscrimination requirements for FSAs because it will likely weaken clear supervisory standards against discriminatory lending practices. NCRC urges the OCC to retain the existing Part 24 references to minority- and women-owned entities and to withdraw the proposed repeal of Part 128.
NCRC is a network of more than 700 community-based organizations dedicated to creating a nation that not only promises but delivers opportunities for all Americans to build wealth and attain a high quality of life. We work with community leaders and policymakers to advance solutions and build the will to solve America’s persistent racial and socio-economic wealth, income, and opportunity divides, and to make a Just Economy a national priority and a local reality.
The OCC Should Retain References to Minority- and Women-Owned Entities in Its Public Welfare Investment Rule
The OCC’s PWI rule allows national banks and their subsidiaries to make investments directly or indirectly that primarily benefit low- and moderate income (LMI) individuals.[1] The OCC proposes to remove references to minority and women-owned business from examples of eligible of PWI activities. The OCC contends that including support for minority-and women-owned businesses as PWI examples does not have “clear statutory authority” and that it should be removed in accordance with Executive Order 14219.[2]
However, removing examples of investments with minority- and women-owned institutions would reduce clarity in a rule that banks, examiners, and community development practitioners rely on to identify permissible public welfare investments. Part 24 does not provide an independent preference or exemption for any investment. Rather, all PWIs must satisfy the rule’s public welfare standards. The existing examples help illustrate how investments involving minority- and women-owned entities can qualify when they primarily benefit LMI individuals and communities. Deleting these examples will likely chill permissible investments without changing the underlying legal standard.
If implemented, the removal of these examples may make national banks hesitant to make public welfare investments in minority- and women-owned institutions out of fear of violating the rule. Regulatory examples matter because banks, examiners, counsel, and investment committees rely on them to understand which community development investments are clearly permissible, especially when deciding whether to pursue community development investments that require internal legal review or board approval.
In addition, the OCC has not shown that the existing examples have caused confusion, exceeded Part 24’s public welfare limits, or authorized investments that fail to meet statutory standards. Because Part 24 investments must still satisfy the rule’s public welfare requirements, retaining these examples does not create an independent preference or exemption. It simply preserves clarity for investments that may qualify when they benefit LMI individuals, LMI areas, targeted redevelopment areas, or otherwise meet CRA-related community development standards.
The OCC Should Preserve Nondiscrimination Requirements for Federal Savings Associations
The OCC includes nondiscrimination requirements for FSAs, outlined in 12 C.F.R. Part 128, which prohibits them from implementing discriminatory lending and employment practices.[3] In its proposed rule, the OCC asserts that it does not have statutory authority to impose nondiscrimination requirements because it implicates “matters of social, political, or economic significance that are not authorized by clear statutory authority” and they should be removed in accordance with E.O. 14219.[4] Furthermore, the OCC claims that imposing nondiscrimination requirements is unnecessary as they are duplicative of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act and its implementing regulations.[5]
We point out the obvious: removing nondiscrimination requirements disadvantages borrowers, communities, and FSAs that benefit from clear supervisory guidance. These requirements provide clear guidelines to the FSAs that wish to execute their lending responsibilities within the bounds of antidiscrimination laws.
Furthermore, the CFPB’s recent final rule that amends Regulation B will make it even more difficult to prove and challenge lending discrimination. The final rule specifically removes disparate impact liability,[6] and therefore, FSAs whose credit practices are facially neutral but still produce discriminatory outcomes would not be held liable for violating ECOA. Without nondiscrimination requirements clearly stated, the OCC could open the doors for FSAs to commit lending discrimination without any accountability.
FSAs operate under federal charters granted and supervised by the OCC. That charter carries public responsibilities, including the obligation to operate in a safe, sound, and lawful manner and to serve communities fairly. Lending discrimination undermines those responsibilities, exposes institutions to compliance risks, and violates the public trust that comes with a federal banking charter. As such, the OCC should preserve clear nondiscrimination standards for FSAs rather than eliminating Part 128 in its entirety.
NCRC urges the OCC not to repeal Part 128. If the OCC believes conforming amendments are necessary, it should identify the specific provisions at issue, explain the legal concern, and propose targeted revisions rather than eliminating clear nondiscrimination requirements in their entirety.
Sincerely,
Jesse Van Tol
President & CEO
National Community Reinvestment Coalition
[1] 12 CFR Part 24.
[2] 91 FR 22841 (April 27, 2026).
[3] 12 U.S.C. 1464(b)(2)(B).
[4] 91 FR 22841 (April 27, 2026).
[5] Ibid.
[6] 91 FR 21620 (April 22, 2026).
