21 CFR Part 58 - Good Laboratory Practice (GLP)vsNIST SP 800-82 Revision 3: Guide to Industrial Control Systems (ICS) Security
See exactly how 21 CFR Part 58 - Good Laboratory Practice (GLP) controls map to NIST SP 800-82 Revision 3: Guide to Industrial Control Systems (ICS) Security. Pre-computed mappings, identified gaps, and coverage analysis.
According to the TheArtOfService Compliance Knowledge Graph:
21 CFR Part 58 - Good Laboratory Practice (GLP) maps to NIST SP 800-82 Revision 3: Guide to Industrial Control Systems (ICS) Security with 10% coverage across 4 directly mapped controls. Analysis of 31 21 CFR Part 58 - Good Laboratory Practice (GLP) controls identifies 48 compliance gaps — primarily concentrated in Test Articles and Protocol (Subparts F & G).
Source: TheArtOfService Knowledge Graph | 31 controls analysed | 718 frameworks | 330K+ cross-framework mappings
Control Mappings
Showing 6 of 6 mapped controls across 3 domains. Sign up to explore all 330K+ mappings across 718 frameworks.
General Provisions (Subpart A)(4 mappings)
Facilities(1 mappings)
Facilities (Subpart C)(1 mappings)
Related Comparisons
Other 21 CFR Part 58 - Good Laboratory Practice (GLP) comparisons
Other NIST SP 800-82 Revision 3: Guide to Industrial Control Systems (ICS) Security comparisons
Stop Paying Consultants to Read Spreadsheets
AI-powered compliance intelligence across 718 frameworks — at a fraction of consulting costs.
Free
- ✓ 718 framework browser
- ✓ Cross-framework mappings (330K+)
- ✓ 824 compliance assessments
- ✓ 3 AI queries & searches per day
Professional
- ✓ Unlimited AI Compliance Advisory
- ✓ Unlimited full-text search
- ✓ Framework self-assessment
- ✓ PDF, Excel & CSV exports
What are the key differences between 21 CFR Part 58 - Good Laboratory Practice (GLP) and NIST SP 800-82 Revision 3: Guide to Industrial Control Systems (ICS) Security?
21 CFR Part 58 - Good Laboratory Practice (GLP) has 31 controls across its framework, while NIST SP 800-82 Revision 3: Guide to Industrial Control Systems (ICS) Security covers 8 controls. Direct mapping analysis identifies 4 overlapping controls (10% coverage). The frameworks diverge most significantly in Test Articles and Protocol (Subparts F & G), where 5 21 CFR Part 58 - Good Laboratory Practice (GLP) controls have no direct NIST SP 800-82 Revision 3: Guide to Industrial Control Systems (ICS) Security equivalent.
How many controls map between 21 CFR Part 58 - Good Laboratory Practice (GLP) and NIST SP 800-82 Revision 3: Guide to Industrial Control Systems (ICS) Security?
Of 31 total 21 CFR Part 58 - Good Laboratory Practice (GLP) controls, 4 map directly to NIST SP 800-82 Revision 3: Guide to Industrial Control Systems (ICS) Security controls — representing 10% coverage. The remaining 48 controls represent compliance gaps requiring additional documentation or compensating controls to satisfy both frameworks simultaneously.
What are the compliance gaps when mapping 21 CFR Part 58 - Good Laboratory Practice (GLP) to NIST SP 800-82 Revision 3: Guide to Industrial Control Systems (ICS) Security?
48 21 CFR Part 58 - Good Laboratory Practice (GLP) controls have no direct equivalent in NIST SP 800-82 Revision 3: Guide to Industrial Control Systems (ICS) Security. The highest concentration of gaps is in Test Articles and Protocol (Subparts F & G) with 5 unmapped controls. These gaps represent areas where additional controls, policies, or documentation must be created to achieve compliance with both frameworks.
Which control domains have the most gaps between 21 CFR Part 58 - Good Laboratory Practice (GLP) and NIST SP 800-82 Revision 3: Guide to Industrial Control Systems (ICS) Security?
The domain with the highest gap count is Test Articles and Protocol (Subparts F & G) (5 gaps). Export the full domain-by-domain gap breakdown via the Professional tier to generate a prioritised remediation roadmap.
Related Resources
This platform provides educational compliance tools, not legal, regulatory, or professional compliance advice. Cross-framework mappings are AI-assisted interpretations and do not reproduce or replace official standards. Framework names and trademarks belong to their respective owners. Consult qualified professionals for your specific compliance requirements. See our Terms of Service.