Here is the key paragraph:
Identifying the taxpayer and the holder of the information in administrative assistance requests will generally continue to be by indicating the name and address. The revision should merely underline that administrative assistance procedures should not be doomed to failure because of the DTA provisions being interpreted too formally and that other means of identification should be admissible. Identification via a bank account is also a possibility, although care should be taken in these cases to ensure that a fishing expedition is not involved.I think the key word is "generally." The only exception mentioned is that perhaps the Swiss will respond if a particular bank account is identified, which often is not available to the requesting treaty partner.
One of the issues that some have worried about was whether the agreement reached between the U.S. and the Swiss regarding the interpretation of the DTA to permit requests without names but with certain characteristics would become a roadmap for requests for information from Swiss banks other than UBS. The Swiss answer seems to be no, at least generally. I think it fair to say that the interpretation applied for the UBS disclosures to the IRS will not be repeated unless, of course, peer pressure or some other pressure counsels otherwise. That is the risk for the U.S. tax cheats who want to play the Swiss game.