IEC 62351 - Power Systems Communication SecurityvsFTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314)
See exactly how IEC 62351 - Power Systems Communication Security controls map to FTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314). Pre-computed mappings, identified gaps, and coverage analysis.
Need this as a report you can hand to an assessor? A coverage crosswalk for this pair can be built to order.
According to the TheArtOfService Compliance Knowledge Graph:
IEC 62351 - Power Systems Communication Security maps to FTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314) with 6% coverage across 6 directly mapped controls. Analysis of 109 IEC 62351 - Power Systems Communication Security controls identifies 103 compliance gaps, primarily concentrated in Superseded batch representation – IEC 62351 - Power Systems Communication Security.
Source: TheArtOfService Knowledge Graph | 109 controls analysed | 1,016 frameworks | 316K+ cross-framework mappings
Control Mappings
Showing 6 of 6 control mappings across 1 domains. Sign up to explore all 316K+ mappings across 1,016 frameworks.
Superseded batch representation – IEC 62351 - Power Systems Communication Security(6 mappings)
A IEC 62351 - Power Systems Communication Security to FTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314) crosswalk, built to order
The table above lists candidate mappings. A crosswalk answers the narrower question you are probably here for: which FTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314) controls your existing IEC 62351 - Power Systems Communication Security work already satisfies, which are real gaps, and the reasoning behind every claim so you can check it. One pair, $299, one time.
This direction has not been through crosswalk review and sign off, so no coverage figure is published for it. Reporting an unreviewed number would be worse than reporting none. It can be built to order at the same price as a pair that is already on the shelf.
If the two frameworks turn out to have too little in common for a crosswalk to help you, we say so and refund it rather than send a number worth nothing.
This direction has not been through crosswalk review and sign off, so no coverage figure is published for it. Reporting an unreviewed number would be worse than reporting none. It can be built to order at the same price as a pair that is already on the shelf.
If the two frameworks turn out to have too little in common for a crosswalk to help you, we say so and refund it rather than send a number worth nothing.
- Every evidenced control, with the reasoning behind it
- Every gap, with what it requires
- Its level of review stated plainly, not a bare number
Why this page shows two different percentages. The 6% in the header counts how many IEC 62351 - Power Systems Communication Security controls carry at least one candidate mapping in the graph, before any review. The crosswalk percentage counts something stricter: how many FTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314) controls are actually evidenced, after a pass that argued against each mapping and kept only what survived. They answer different questions and they are not meant to agree.
A crosswalk narrows the work. It does not replace an audit, and your assessor may take a different view on individual controls. Mappings between frameworks are judgements, not text printed in either standard, which is why every claim in the report shows its reasoning. Questions go to support@theartofservice.com.
Related Comparisons
Other IEC 62351 - Power Systems Communication Security comparisons
Other FTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314) comparisons
Stop Paying Consultants to Read Spreadsheets
Cross-framework mappings across 1,016 frameworks, at a fraction of consulting costs.
Free
- ✓ 1,016 framework browser
- ✓ Cross-framework mappings (316K+)
- ✓ 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 IEC 62351 - Power Systems Communication Security and FTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314)?
IEC 62351 - Power Systems Communication Security has 109 controls across its framework, while FTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314) covers 37 controls. Direct mapping analysis identifies 6 overlapping controls (6% coverage). The frameworks diverge most significantly in Superseded batch representation – IEC 62351 - Power Systems Communication Security, where 28 IEC 62351 - Power Systems Communication Security controls have no direct FTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314) equivalent.
How many controls map between IEC 62351 - Power Systems Communication Security and FTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314)?
Of 109 total IEC 62351 - Power Systems Communication Security controls, 6 map directly to FTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314) controls, representing 6% coverage. The remaining 103 controls represent compliance gaps requiring additional documentation or compensating controls to satisfy both frameworks simultaneously.
What are the compliance gaps when mapping IEC 62351 - Power Systems Communication Security to FTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314)?
103 IEC 62351 - Power Systems Communication Security controls have no direct equivalent in FTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314). The highest concentration of gaps is in Superseded batch representation – IEC 62351 - Power Systems Communication Security with 28 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 IEC 62351 - Power Systems Communication Security and FTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314)?
The domain with the highest gap count is Superseded batch representation – IEC 62351 - Power Systems Communication Security (28 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.