L 138/32 Official Journal of the European Union 5.6.2003 COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 963/2003 of 4 June 2003 amending Regulation (EC) No 445/2002 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 on support for rural development from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 of 17 May 1999 on support for rural development from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and amending and repealing certain Regulations ('), and in particular Articles 34, 45 and 50 thereof, Whereas: ( ( ( ) 9) ) ) ) 0 In the light of the experience gained in applying Commission Regulation (EC) No 445/2002 (%), the Member States and the Commission have found that some of its provisions should be simplified. In order to make the monitoring of rural development programmes more flexible, Regulation (EC) No 445/ 2002 should be simplified, in particular as concerns the procedure for amending programming documents and the indicative overall financial table. It has been found that the time limit for notifying cases of force majeure and providing the relevant evidence may be too short in certain cases. Member States should therefore be given the right to extend that time limit. Since the beginning of the programming period standard unit costs have frequently been fixed for certain invest- ments part-financed under the first, second and sixth indents of Article 30(1) and under Article 31 of Regula- tion (EC) No 1257/1999. In the interests of clarity and in order to simplify the management of those measures, provision should be made from 2000 onwards to allow the exemption of beneficiaries from the requirement to present invoices under Commission Regulation (EC) No 1685/2000 of 28 July 2000 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 as regards eligibility of expenditure of opera- tions part-financed by the Structural Funds (). The conditions by which Member States may apply such standard costs should also be laid down in order to ensure efficient management. L 160, 26.6.1999, p. 80. L 74,15.3.2002, p. 1. L 193, 29.7.2000, p. 39. () (11) To facilitate the financial administration of rural devel- opment programmes, the conditions for amending the financing of measures should be relaxed so that only substantial amendments to the financing of programmes are subject to the management committee procedure. Provision should be made for the possibility of exceeding the limit on submitting amendments to programming documents to the Commission in cases where such amendments are the result of a natural disaster or other exceptional occurrence with a major impact on the Member State's programming. The procedure should be changed for amendments to rural development programming documents and single programming documents under Objective 2 in the case of rural development measures financed by the EAGGF Guarantee Section which do not require approval from the Commission. Communication of financial amend- ments to the Commission should be rapid and efficient, as should the Commission's examination of other amendments. To ensure effective and regular monitoring, the Member States should make a consolidated and updated elec- tronic version of their programming documents avail- able to the Commission. The deadline for submitting the annual progress reports provided for in Article 48(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 should be the date provided for in the context of multiannual assistance under Council Regula- tion (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds (*), as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1447/2001 (°). In order to give the Member States more flexibility as regards the Community's contribution to the financing of evaluation, the minimum level of co-financing for ex post evaluation should be abolished. The fact that investment measures are often imple- mented over several years should be taken into account in order to ensure optimal on-the-spot checking in terms of both the choice of beneficiary and the period of inspection and avoid checks which are not relevant. () OJL 161, 26.6.1999, p. 1. () OJ L 198, 21.7.2001, p. 1.