The set of people included in the regulations are a subset of all the underserved population. According to the study you linked, they should be a large portion of the underserved population. By cutting the additional regulations, you reduce friction. Let's say there is some (probably small) marginal deprioritization of the groups targeted if you remove those regulations. Even with that, if the states can more easily implement these programs, those target populations will probably benefit on net because investment is more likely to actually happen, and their location intersects with the same locations that qualify for being underserved.