Answer:
No. Reducing the rate means you actually did not charge a rate that would trigger HOEPA. Generally, as long as this is done for all there are no Fair Lending concerns although an adjustment to pricing in general would likely be a better approach then reducing rates.
The example in the commentary points out dividing a loan into two loans to split the fees charged across two loans. In this case, the higher fees are actually being charged, unlike your example of a reduced rate.
Official Interpretation
34(b) Prohibited acts or practices for dwelling-secured loans; structuring loans to evade high-cost mortgage requirements.
1. Examples. i. A creditor structures a transaction in violation of § 1026.34(b) if, for example, the creditor structures a loan that would otherwise be a high-cost mortgage as two or more loans, whether made consecutively or at the same time, for example, to divide the loan fees to avoid the points and fees threshold for high-cost mortgages in § 1026.32(a)(1)(ii).
ii. A creditor does not structure a transaction in violation of § 1026.34(b) when a loan to finance the initial construction of a dwelling may be permanently financed by the same creditor, such as a "construction-to-permanent" loan, and the construction phase and the permanent phase are treated as separate transactions. Section 1026.17(c)(6)(ii) permits the creditor to give either one combined disclosure for both the construction financing and the permanent financing, or a separate set of disclosures for each of the two phases as though they were two separate transactions. See also comment 17(c)(6)–2.
print
share