CFTC and SEC seek public input on data reporting frameworks for swaps and security-based swaps

Summary

On June 24, 2026, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) published a joint request for comment on the reporting frameworks for swap and security-based swap (SBS) data.¹ The agencies are exploring whether their respective reporting frameworks can be further aligned and simplified, while serving intended policy objectives and maximizing the integrity of reported data. 

The joint request for comment is part of a broader CFTC-SEC harmonization initiative, aimed at advancing coordinated oversight and promoting clarity in areas of common regulatory interest.² Responses to the joint request for comment are due by August 24, 2026.

Background

The CFTC’s and SEC’s reporting frameworks for swaps and SBS, respectively, were adopted pursuant to Title VII of the Dodd-Frank Act and include data recordkeeping and reporting requirements as well as real-time public reporting requirements.³ Registered data repositories—swap data repositories (SDRs) and SBS data repositories (SBSDRs)—receive and maintain data reported by exchanges, clearinghouses and market participants. The data repositories provide data access to regulators to support oversight responsibilities and publicly disseminate certain specified transaction and pricing data on a real-time basis. 

In 2019, the SEC issued a statement (the 2019 Compliance Statement)⁴ providing time-limited relief from certain provisions of its SBS data reporting rules. The relief was granted in recognition of an initiative, at the time, by the CFTC to reconsider its own swap data reporting rules, as well as SEC mindfulness of the time and costs that could be incurred by reporting parties and data repositories to implement aspects of the SBS data reporting rules that have no analogue in, or are not wholly consistent with, the CFTC’s rules.⁵ The 2019 Compliance Statement remains in effect and is currently scheduled to expire on November 5, 2029. The joint request for comment states that it is the SEC’s understanding that SBS market participants have universally relied on the 2019 Compliance Statement, resulting in the reporting of SBS transactions in a manner that is broadly harmonized with CFTC reporting requirements for swaps.⁶

The CFTC amended its swap data reporting rules in 2020; the rules were implemented by May 25, 2022. The technical specification associated with the amended CFTC rules has provided the basis for CFTC and, in most circumstances, SEC reporting since the implementation of the technical specification in 2022.⁷

Key elements of the joint request for comment

In the joint request for comment, the CFTC and SEC note that differences in swap and SBS data reporting requirements may create operational complexity for market participants active in both markets. The agencies state that identifying areas where further harmonization can reduce redundancies or inefficiencies may lessen compliance burdens associated with reporting requirements, and thereby also improve the overall effectiveness of the swap and SBS data reporting frameworks. In a public statement announcing the joint request for comment, CFTC Chairman Michael Selig framed the agencies’ reporting harmonization effort as an opportunity to "cut red tape and reduce costs, while still collecting the data we need to conduct our market oversight responsibilities," a view echoed by SEC Chairman Paul Atkins, who emphasized that "extensive data collection, if not appropriately calibrated, can hinder, rather than enhance, understanding and accountability."⁸ 

The joint request for comment poses questions organized around the following five thematic areas. The agencies specifically encourage commenters to provide data-driven input, including information about compliance and operational costs, data quality challenges, error and rejection rates and correction frequency and latency.

Harmonization across frameworks

The agencies seek input on which reporting requirements or data elements could benefit from further harmonization, including whether the SEC should consider amendments to its SBS data reporting rules to more fully harmonize those rules with the CFTC’s swap data reporting rules. The agencies also ask specific questions about aligning reporting responsibilities for exchange-executed, non-cleared trades and about how to address the reporting and public dissemination of swap and SBS transactions that may occur on a blockchain.

Transparency and data quality

The agencies note that the swap and SBS data reporting frameworks are designed to fulfill the dual purposes of providing transparency to the public and ensuring that regulators have access to data to carry out oversight responsibilities. The agencies state that, following experience with the data reporting frameworks, it is time to reassess which data elements remain critical for regulatory oversight, market transparency or other public purposes. 

The agencies ask whether there are reportable data elements that provide nominal value compared to the cost or complexity of reporting them, and whether there are reportable data elements that could be combined or eliminated—for example, because they are duplicative. The agencies also ask questions about the impact of their public dissemination frameworks on price transparency, market liquidity and treatment of large notional transactions, and whether changes to those public dissemination frameworks would be useful. In addition, the agencies ask whether trade repositories (SDRs and SBSDRs) should take additional steps to validate reported transaction data to support accurate and high-quality public dissemination and regulatory reporting. 

Operational complexity

The agencies seek input on whether there are aspects of the current reporting frameworks that are especially difficult for market participants to implement and maintain. The agencies ask whether there are particular validation rules or reporting requirements related to lifecycle events that could be simplified, as well as whether there are operational concerns or suggestions with respect to reporting hierarchies. The agencies ask whether machine-readable rule structures or standardized reporting logic should be integrated into the reporting frameworks. In addition, the agencies ask whether the implementation of a materiality or de minimis threshold for correcting errors in reported data—for example, for swaps or SBS that have terminated, matured or are no longer open—should be considered.⁹

Standardized identifiers and reference data

The agencies note that swap and SBS data reporting frameworks rely on certain standardized and static reference data elements, such as counterparty identifiers (Legal Entity Identifiers, or LEIs) and product classifications (Unique Product Identifiers, or UPIs). The agencies seek input on the use of these types of data elements, including whether there are limitations that may arise from the use of the UPI or other standardized product classification systems; whether there are instances where a data standard other than the UPI or LEI, respectively, should be used; and whether there are additional opportunities to use standardized and static reference data elements in swap and SBS data reporting. 

Implementation considerations

Finally, the agencies seek input on appropriate implementation timelines and sequencing for any potential regulatory reforms, including the factors that should inform implementation timelines to minimize implementation risk and compliance costs and burdens. 

Key takeaways

The joint request for comment signals that the CFTC and SEC may be considering a new wave of amendments to their swap and SBS data reporting rules—and that they may be envisioning an implementation timeline that aligns with the time horizon for the 2019 Compliance Statement, which is set to expire on November 5, 2029. 

The joint request for comment may be viewed as an opportunity to influence how the agencies approach designing a harmonized regulatory regime that prioritizes consistency, utility and operational efficacy. As exchanges, clearinghouses and market participants active in swap and SBS markets consider potential comments, it may be helpful to take the following steps:

• Inventory current reporting pain points. Identify data elements that are duplicative; rarely populated; difficult to report consistently across asset classes, products, or market structures; or that generate outsized operational cost. Identify aspects of the current swap and SBS data reporting frameworks that are operationally challenging or difficult to implement. Gather supporting metrics.
• Evaluate CFTC/SEC divergences. For market participants subject to both agencies’ reporting regimes, consider specific areas where requirements diverge (e.g., technical specifications or with respect to exchange-traded, non-cleared swaps) and assess whether there may be opportunities for further harmonization, or whether there are reasons for differing regulatory approaches.
• Consider publicly disseminated data. Consider whether there are changes to public dissemination frameworks that could support market transparency or alleviate any concerns about market liquidity or disclosure of the identity of traders or trading strategies. 
• Assess experience with standard identifiers. Assess experience with the LEI and UPI regimes, and whether there are risks, benefits or costs associated with using these or other standardized and static reference data. 
• Weigh implementation sequencing. Because any reforms would likely require updates to internal systems, vendor platforms, SDR/SBSDR interfaces and technical specifications, consider realistic implementation timelines and sequencing.

___________

If you have any questions about this Legal Briefing, please feel free to contact any of the attorneys listed or the Eversheds Sutherland attorney with whom you regularly work.

_{1 Joint Request for Comment on Swap and Security-Based Swap Data Reporting, 91 FR 37877 (June 24, 2026).
2 See CFTC-SEC Harmonization Initiative, accessible at https://www.cftc.gov/harmonization.
3 17 CFR Parts 43, 45, and 49 (CFTC swap data reporting rules); 17 CFR 242.900–909 (Regulation SBSR); 17 CFR 240.13n-1 through 13n-12 (SBSDR Rules).
4 See Cross-Border Application of Certain Security-Based Swap Requirements, 85 FR 6270, 6346-49 (Feb. 4, 2020).
5 See id. at 6346-47.
6 91 FR 37879.
7 Id. 
8 See CFTC Press Release No. 9257-26 (Jun. 18, 2026), CFTC, SEC Seek Public Input on Data Reporting Frameworks for Security-Based Swap and Swap Markets, accessible at https://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/9257-26
9 On July 31, 2025, CFTC staff issued a no-action letter stating that staff would not recommend that the Commission take enforcement action against a reporting counterparty that fails to submit a swap data error correction notification with respect to an error if, at the time the reporting counterparty initially discovers and assesses the impact of the error, the reporting counterparty makes a reasonable determination that the number of reportable trades affected by the error does not exceed five percent of the reporting counterparty’s open swaps for the relevant asset class in swaps for which it was the reporting counterparty. See CFTC Letter No. 25-25, Request for a No-Action Position Concerning the Commission’s Swap Data Error Correction Notification Regulations (July 31, 2025), accessible at: 25-25.pdf. On December 10, 2025, CFTC staff issued a no-action letter stating that staff would not recommend that the CFTC take enforcement action against a reporting counterparty for failure to correct: (i) certain regulatory reporting errors with respect to certain matured, terminated or otherwise closed swaps; (ii) for open swaps, regulatory reporting errors other than in the most recently reported swap data for a swap; and (iii) certain errors in data required to reported for public dissemination purposes. See CFTC Letter No. 25-43, No-Action Position Concerning Error Correction Rules (December 10, 2025), accessible at: 25-43.pdf}