A bank that stretches a deposit hold beyond the normal schedule has to say so on paper. Regulation CC, the Federal Reserve Board’s funds-availability rule, spells out exactly what that written notice must contain, and it attaches a penalty to leaving the notice out: the bank loses the right to charge certain overdraft and returned-check fees that the hold itself caused. The rule is in force today.
Regulation CC’s exception holds and when the notice duty starts
Banks ordinarily make check deposits available on a fixed timetable. Under 12 CFR 229.12, a local check is generally available on the second business day and a nonlocal check on the fifth. Section 229.13 lets a bank go past that timetable only through listed exceptions, and one of them covers a bank that has reasonable cause to believe a check is uncollectible from the paying bank. The regulation frames that as facts that would cause a well-grounded belief in the mind of a reasonable person, not a hunch.
The notice duty belongs to those exception holds. A deposit that simply follows the standard schedule triggers no five-item notice. Once a bank invokes an exception, though, section 229.13(g) requires written notice to the depositor.
The five facts 229.13(g)(1)(i) requires a hold notice to state
The regulation enumerates five items, lettered (A) through (E). The notice must carry:
- a number or code identifying the customer’s account, which the text says “need not exceed four digits”;
- the date of the deposit;
- the amount of the deposit that is being delayed;
- the reason the exception was invoked; and
- the time period within which the funds will be available for withdrawal.
Each item does a separate job. The account code ties the notice to a specific account without printing a full account number. The date and amount identify which deposit, and which part of it, is held, a distinction that matters when a deposit is split between funds available now and funds frozen. The reason tells the depositor which exception the bank is relying on. The availability period is the date the money can be used, which is the figure a depositor needs in order to schedule rent, a mortgage payment or a utility bill.
When the written notice has to arrive
The default is the moment of deposit. Section 229.13(g)(1)(ii) provides that the notice goes to the depositor at the time of the deposit, with two carve-outs: the deposit was not made in person to a bank employee, or the facts behind the exception only became known to the bank after the deposit. In those situations the notice is due no later than the first business day after the bank discovers the basis for the hold.
That timing split means a notice for a mailed or remotely made deposit can legitimately arrive after the deposit. A depositor who handed a check to a teller should be holding a notice before leaving the counter.
The overdraft and returned-check fee bar in 229.13(e)(2)
The consequence for silence sits in 229.13(e)(2). Where a bank extends the availability of funds without giving the required written notice, the regulation says it “shall not assess any fees for any subsequent overdrafts” or for the return of checks or other debits on the account, provided the overdraft would not have occurred except for the delay and the check that was held is ultimately paid.
Two conditions in that sentence do real work. The fee bar reaches only fees that trace to the hold; an account that was overdrawn anyway is outside it. And it applies where the held check clears, so a bad check that bounces leaves the bank free to treat the account as it ordinarily would. In practice, a depositor charged an overdraft fee after a hold has two questions to answer: whether a compliant written notice was ever delivered, and whether the account would have stayed positive had the funds been available on schedule.
The question of which of the five items a notice left out can matter as much as whether a notice existed. A document that names a hold but never states the availability period, or never says why the exception was invoked, does not carry everything (A) through (E) demands.
The 2024 Regulation CC rule and the current eCFR text
The most recent amendment to the section dates to a Federal Register final rule published on May 20, 2024, which states that it is effective July 1, 2025. The current eCFR text of the section, updated September 30, 2026, shows the five-item notice list in 229.13(g)(1)(i) and the fee bar in (e)(2).
The eCFR text is the controlling record, and its structure is the cleanest test of any notice a bank issues: five lettered items, one required deliverable, and one stated consequence when the deliverable never comes.
Documenting a hold and the overdraft fee that follows
The costly gap in 229.13(e)(2) is that the fee bar turns on a notice the bank may never have sent, and on a timeline of hold date, availability date and fee date that few depositors have written down. The Bank Account & Debt Protection Kit is for people who need to keep that record and press a bank dispute.
The Bank Account & Debt Protection Kit is a 10-page kit that includes a protected-funds and dispute log, where the deposit, the hold and the fee can be recorded in one place for a fee dispute.
Open The Bank Account & Debt Protection Kit and its protected-funds and dispute log →
This article was drafted with AI assistance from the cited official sources and checked against them before publication.
Warren Cohen is a finance writer based in Phoenix, Arizona, covering personal finance topics including credit, banking, and beginner investing. He earned his degree in business administration from Arizona State University and began his career working in consumer finance, where he gained direct experience with lending and credit systems. He now writes for personal finance websites and fintech platforms, focusing on clear, practical content that helps readers make informed financial decisions.
