If you are talking about the actual Reg DD disclosure given at account opening, then Reg DD, 12 CFR section 230.4 (a)(2)(b)(1) states that rate information must include "annual percentage yield" and the "interest rate", using those terms, and for fixed rate accounts, the period of time the interest rate will be in effect.
Look at the commentary to this section for specific information about Tiered Accounts. Generally you need to state the interest rate and corresponding annual percentage yield for each specified balance level.
Now if you are talking about an advertisement, as long as you don't state an interest rate, then you don't need to state an APY.
With respect to the names of the fees between the disclosures and the statement, I think a "reasonable" test is in order. Can a customer REASONABLY determine what the fees on their statement are for by checking their disclosure. In other words, "Maintence Fee" on the statement could reasonably be assumed to be the "Monthly Maintenance Fee" stated on the disclosure.
However, if your disclosure says you will charge a "Stop Payment Fee", and the account statement shows a "Transaction fee", then you may have an issue.
It has been my experience that banks do not disclose check printing fees since many customers go outside the bank to get their checks printed. The commentary does not list "check PRINTING fees" as a covered fee for disclosure.
If you have a chance, read the commentary on Reg DD, it will probably give you better guidance in answering these questions.
With respect to how insistent you should be, you can try my approach which is to inform management (and document this by a memo to mgt.) wherein you tell them "If you want to do this, it violates these Sections of Reg DD. Note that administrative enforcement is left up to the discretion of the regulator and the exam team. Inadvertent violations are generally treated less severly than "knowing" violations. In other words, a simple clerical error on a disclosure is not as bad as a conscience decision to ingore a regulation.
One note of interest, the civil liability portions are set to expire September 30, 2001. Any idea what the regulatory enforcement posture will be after that?