Ken, I agree with you that the OP has no choice but to send notice of the change. However, I was thinking the question was whether they had to continue sending an annual notice
after sending a revised notice as the OP referenced the proposed 1016.5(e)(2)(i) which is the section for when a bank now shares information and provides an opt-out, which was confusing as they also said that they
would typically qualify for the FAST Act GLBA exception. They either qualify for the exemption going forward or they don't, which is why they might want to contact their regulator if the are unsure. If they don't share information under 1016.8, then the proper citation would have been 1016.5(e)(2)
(ii) of the proposal as 1016.5(e)(2)
(i) applies when you are now sharing information.
So to answer the original question:
1016.5(e)(2)(i) seems to indicate that after a redisclosure required under 1016.8, the annual notice requirements of 1016.5(a) would apply.
If they revised their policies and now share information and have an opt-out, proposed 1016.5(e)(2)
(i) would apply and require ongoing annual notices.
If they revised their policies but still no longer share information and don't have an opt-out, proposed 1016.5(e)(2)
(ii) would apply and does not require an ongoing annual notice. The pre-amble to 1016.5(e)(2)
(ii) makes this clear:
"Specifically, after providing the one annual notice, the financial institution would once again meet both of the conditions for the exception—it would not be sharing other than as described in a Regulation P exception and its policies and practices would not have changed since it provided the annual notice. Because the financial institution would once again meet the conditions for the exception, it would not be required to provide future annual notices. In other words, these financial institutions would likely lose the exception for only a single year." All that said, this is probably pointless as this is only a proposal and the final rule will likely have changes.