ARose, unfortunately, I agree with you,
12 CFR 229.33(d) is not all that clear, it just says “send notice to its customer of the facts…” Yet the commentary to that paragraph (d) analogizes the notice to the one required under the UCC, perhaps suggesting that a notice sufficient under the UCC would be sufficient here, which is undoubtedly why John sent you in that direction. The author you reference is providing his judgment as to how much of the information provided to the depositary bank in paragraph (b) is really relevant to the customer under paragraph (d). Personally, I think his judgment is reasonable. However, I do not think the "date of the item" is essential to the consumer's understanding of what is happening.
If the check is less than $2,500, the timing and content requirements for notice under the UCC apply. If the check is $2,500 or more, the timing and content requirements for both the UCC and Regulation CC apply. As the Regulation CC requirements are much more specific, generally compliance with the Regulation CC is adequate for both; i.e. if you comply with Regulation CC on large dollar returns, you have probably provided the same information only more quickly than is necessary under the UCC.
As Al notes, you can modify UCC requirements by agreement. Generally, the same observation applies to the requirements of Subsection C of Regulation CC; i.e. the portion of the regulation which includes 12 CFR 229.33. However, once the check is above $2,500 my opinion would be that an “agreement” not to send the notice would defeat the purpose of the regulation, protecting the consumer; I would not rely on contractual language to eliminate the requirement that the customer receive notice of large dollar returns.
Flsh224, there is no exclusion from sending the notice based on the reason for return.