We have a check written on B of A/Sacramento with the fractional routing # of 1210. The MICR encoded routing # is 1220. We've discovered that B of A checks w/a MICR encoded 1220 go first to the LA check processing facility, then are forwarded to the SF facility. This adds an extra day to the processing time. For Reg CC purposes, we need to use the 1220 # as we process in the LA region - that would make the check local. But the check is in fact processed in SF, which would be nonlocal. Is there a way to account for this in the hold procedure - i.e. some kind of exception that we could use to identify this check as nonlocal even though the MICR is local? (the fractional routing # is nonlocal)

The only provision in Regulation CC for using other than the MICR line information is for "payable through" checks where the MICR line is for the payable through bank and the payable "at" financial institution (often a credit union) is different.

I don't think the scenario you painted fits this exception. You might consult the Fed in your processing district to find out more about why there is the apparent disconnect between the MICR line and the processing bank location.

Thanks for your reply, John. I also found out that sometimes in acquisition scenarios, the printed fraction is that of the acquired bank, with the MICR encoded routing number being that of the resulting bank. Not an easy question! And fraud is always a possibility - the perpetrator just getting the fractional number wrong.