Reporting of Rate Spread for Non-Owner Occupied loans

While investigating some loan count discrepancies between the Pricing Table reports and our Submission Summary reports, we identified an interesting anomaly in the way the data is submitted and subsequently reported by the FFIEC. The 2004 reporting changes as made to HMDA Regulation C regarding the reporting of Rate Spread on Home Purchase Originations has an interesting footnote in that Non-Owner Occupied loans may or may not be reportable based upon whether or not they are subject to the Truth In Lending Act Regulation Z. The FRB states that "Loans on non-owner occupied properties are generally not subject to Truth In Lending Act (TILA) and thus will not have an APR available for calculating rate spread.", the FFIEC further states on their Rate Spread calculator the "If the loan is not subject to Regulation Z, or is a home improvement loan that is not dwelling-secured, or is a loan that you purchased, enter 'NA'.". An analysis of the loan volume reported for 2004 using the Peer-2-Peer data shows that there were 212,713 loans reported with a Non-Owner Occupied status and a stated Rate Spread or 9.4% of the total 2,263,012 loans reported with stated Rate Spreads. Furthermore, the FFIEC Table reports specifically exclude all but Owner Occupied loans so the loans in question are not even being reviewed by the FFIEC, The problem from a HMDA perspective is that there is no field to denote if a loan is subject to Reg. Z or not, therefore Comply errs on the side of computing the Rate Spread when it is able to. I am proposing a RATA quality edit be added to Comply that would draw attention to any Non-Owner Occupied loans that have a reported Rate Spread. In this way, the user could identify the applications and using other data available to them establish if in fact the loan is or is not subject to Reg. Z. If not, the user could then NA the Rate Spread as it is not required to be reported. It should be noted that reporting a Rate Spread for Non-Owner Occupied loans is not incorrect as reporting of data beyond Reg. C’s requirements is acceptable as long as the reporting is consistent. Any thoughts?