Powered by Lexis+®
Jurisdiction(s):
United Kingdom
CASE STUDY

“LexisPSL and the other Lexis solutions support our business in exactly the way we want. They enable us to quickly turn around work and deliver the best possible service to our clients.”

SBP Law

Access all documents on CAT A/B/C functionality

CAT A/B/C functionality meaning

Published by a LexisNexis Energy expert
What does CAT A/B/C functionality mean?
In nuclear projects, CAT A/B/C functionality describes how an instrumentation and control (I&C) function is graded for its importance to nuclear safety. The grading derives from IEC 61226 (Nuclear power plants – I&C important to safety – Classification of I&C functions). It is not defined in UK or Irish statute or case law, but is widely used in industry practice and referenced in Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR) guidance in Great Britain. Category A covers the highest‑significance safety functions; Category B covers significant but lower‑risk safety functions; Category C covers functions of the lowest safety significance that are still important to safe operation. The assigned category typically drives regulatory expectations and contract requirements, including design assurance, qualification and software standards, segregation and independence, testing, change control, competence, and record‑keeping. It is routinely used in safety cases, licensing submissions, technical specifications, and procurement and supply chain flow‑down. Usage and meaning are broadly consistent across England & Wales and Scotland (regulated by the ONR). Northern Ireland and Ireland have no nuclear power plants; where the term appears (for example in cross‑border supply, decommissioning or international projects), it carries the same IEC 61226 meaning.
Speed up all aspects of your legal work with tools that help you to work faster and smarter. Win cases, close deals and grow your business–all whilst saving time and reducing risk.

View the related Practice Notes about CAT A/B/C functionality

PRACTICE NOTES
Competition Appeal Tribunal upholds CMA’s section 23 Enterprise Act 2002 jurisdiction to block Sabre/Farelogix merger; appeal dismissed; functionality-based RDS and supply in the UK findings confirmed

CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub captures the position as at the judgment dated 21 May 2021; it is no longer being updated. For more, see the timeline and commentary. Case facts Outline Sabre Corporation appealed the Competition and Markets Authority’s 9 April 2020 decision blocking Sabre’s anticipated acquisition of Farelogix Inc. Latest development On 21 May 2021, the CAT handed down its judgment, rejecting the appeal in full. Among other findings, the CAT held that the CMA: (i) did not err in claiming jurisdiction over the deal by applying the share of supply test under section 23 of the Enterprise Act 2002; and (ii) enjoys wide discretion in deploying that test as it considers appropriate, including by looking at products’ functionality. Parties Sabre Corporation (Sabre): A US-based travel technology provider headquartered in Southlake, Texas. Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). Background The transaction On 14 November 2018, Sabre announced an agreement to acquire...

Read More Right Arrow