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.

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):