M.A.901(c)(2) and (f) allow the CAMO managing the aircraft to extend the ARC subject to the conditions of M.A.901(b), for controlled environment, and M.A.901(j), regarding the prohibition to extend the ARC if there is evidence that the aircraft is not airworthy.

The fact that the ARC expires during base maintenance and was subsequently extended after partial CRS prior to the MCF would not automatically imply that the aircraft was not in a controlled environment.

There are currently no fees applicable for the declaratory renewal of the airworthiness certificate of an amateur-built aircraft.

This regime applies only to ULM aeroplanes of "Category A" as defined in Article 1(2) of Royal Decree 765/2022 of 20 September, which do not have novel or unusual design features, meaning those not covered by certification specifications or industry standards previously recognised through acceptable means of compliance by the competent body of EASA, and whose empty mass (excluding the ballistic parachute) does not exceed 120 kg and which are single-seater aeroplanes.

No, AESA will not reply or send you an acknowledgement of receipt of your declaration.
However, the owner or the person responsible for the maintenance and preservation of airworthiness must keep the proof of notification as evidence that the notification has been made.

Although it is not always mandatory when deferring a defect, a certifying technician must issue a CRS if a previous analysis has been required or a maintenance action has been carried out.

EASA Response "The original intent of the task-trained certification staff was to provide relief to certification personnel requirements for maintenance organizations that have multiple line maintenance stations away from the main base. 

This scenario was particularly adapted to Part-145, which is the type of organisation required for authorised air carriers (and CMPAs), which normally use such line stations. This is why points 66.A.20(a)(1) and 66.A.20(a)(3)(ii) (for task-trained CS) only refer to Part 145. 

No, as set out in the EASA-FAA bilateral agreement, only FAA Form8130-3 Rebuilt for engine are acceptable, as set out in point 10.11.1.6 “Engines rebuilt by the PAH can be accepted as specified in the TIP associated with Annex 1 of the Agreement.

“Rebuilt Engine” means an engine that has been disassembled, cleaned, inspected, repaired as necessary, reassembled, and tested to the same tolerances and limits as a new item by the production approval holder in 
accordance with 14 CFR part 43.

No, independent certifiers may certify defects listed in (b)(1) and (b)(2) in addition to those listed in (b)(4)

No, it's one of the reliefs that the CAO part allows.