Regarding the prescribed Notice of opt-in rights, where the regulation indicates it must be substantially similar to the model notice, I'm seeing a modified notice from a peer bank that is not at all formatted like the model language, i.e. it does not follow the sections, format or sentence structure in describing the banks "standard" practice. It is basically two paragraphs and then lists the fees with maximums, etc. with the instructions on how to opt in. I'm wondering if that much of a departure from the model language will be considered non-compliant and the bank would have to redisclose with a version closer to the model language. Essentially, what is the risk if you don't use the model language and change the look of the notice? So far, from all the webinar, consultant resources and the ABA, the only format for the notice they are providing has been the model language with the understanding that each bank would modify the sentences describing their standard practices, fees and methods to opt in with the layout and structure of the model format. I agree with going with the model language (keeping it simple and not attracting any unnecessary regulatory criticism or customer complaints when that form will not look like the form the Fed had indicated to be on the look-out for) but am having this philosophical discussion over the risk of using a notice that looks and reads materially different than the model language.

Thoughts? How many banks are primarily using the model notice with minor revisions for your bank's particular service and fees?

Your peer bank will be the first to know the answer to that question, but they will not know until they have their first examination. If their examiner wants to crucify them, it will be easy to do. The doomsday scenario would be that he would conclude the opt-in's they obtain were not effective and all fees collected pursuant to that notice were subject to refund.

Seriously, no one knows the answer.

There was a CIP issue that David and I slugged it out over in anticipation of the effective date of those regulations. (I don't even remember what it was.) However, I do remember that I never saw an examiner make an issue of it in a written report in the years that followed. He and I were apparently the only two people on the planet who thought it was an issue.

What I do know is that intetlligent compliance with a new regulation requires calculated risks, not the bull in a china shop path your peer is on. I would follow the format in the model in every single way I could and take my compliance risks elsewhere. No one is going to read the [censored] thing anyway.