The fees to be paid would be according to the following table: TASAS (hyperlink). If the case is not contemplated, contact the CAO mailbox. (New!)  smga.aesa@seguridadaerea.es 

A summary table on the applicability of the payment of fees is included:

In any case, the organization's report (CAE) should always reflect the real scope of the organization and the work it performs; no aircraft may be added that are not being managed/maintained even though they fall under the category of their approval. (New!)

EASA reply: “Yes, control and approval by the competent authority is necessary.”

EASA reply: “Generic maintenance programmes are not required for Part-ML aircraft”

Since a CAO organization only has a single approval, regardless of privileges (maintenance only, continued airworthiness only, or both), it cannot be considered simultaneously small and large. That is, if it were small for one privilege and large for the other, the organization would be considered large as a whole.

According to CAO.A.100(e):

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

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.

There is no limitation in the standard or in the EASA guides that prevent a certifier from performing critical tasks in its first year.  
However, the organisation may add additional requirements in its maintenance organisation manual.

RESPUESTA DE EASA

The following aspects to be taken in consideration:

• it is possible to release component maintenance on an internal release document (IRD) when this component will be installed on an aircraft by the same maintenance organisation (145.A.50(d));
• The CAMO/operator of the aircraft should be in agreement; and 
• all the information normally required for an EASA Form 1 should be adequately detailed in the IRD (and in MOE procedure). In this case the IRD is considered to be equivalent to an EASA Form 1 for 145.A.42 purpose

A summary table on the applicability of the payment of fees is included: