WPCe 2IBETZE3|P) X-#XP\  P6QXP#HP LaserJet 5Si/5Si MXPSHPLA5SMX.WRSx6X@7,,,$܎X@ X-#XP\  P6QXP#2({XCourier New (TT)Times New Roman (TT)"5^2BQdd$BBdq2B28dddddddddd88qqqYzoBNzoozzB8B^dBYdYdYBdd88d8ddddBN8ddddY`(`l2BBBBPBddYYYYYYzYzYzYzYB8B8B8B8ddddddddddYdddddoddYYYYzYzYzYdddddPdBdBBBdNdoNNF2ZdBYddddd7>d<d<BBYYdBBddBYBdYzzzzBBBBqodYYYYYYYYYYY8888dddddddnddddddd?xxxXhjXx6X@DQX@7PC2XXP\  P6QXP.Current Windows Form'3 9N`y *:GYp4Get  <Ubv .CZv 2 -E Zb 3|P"5^*7DSS77S^*7*.SSSSSSSSSS..^^^Jxooxf]xx7Axfxx]xo]fxxxxf7.7NS7JSJSJ7SS..S.SSSS7A.SSxSSJP!PZ*7777C7SSxJxJxJxJxJooJfJfJfJfJ7.7.7.7.xSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxJxSxSxSxSxS]SxSxJxJoJoJfJfJfJxSxSxSxSxSCS7S777SAxSx]AN:*KS7JSSSSS.4}}S2~~S}277JJS77SS7J72N7[[^C`^SS`*7DSS77S^*7*.SSSSSSSSSS..^^^Jxooxf]xx7Axfxx]xo]fxxxxf7.7NS7JSJSJ7SS..S.SSSS7A.SSxSSJP!PZv7SJSS7]777JJ:S7A7xx*7SSSS!S7~.S^7~SC[227`K*724S}}}Jxxxxxxoffff7777xxxxxxx^xxxxxx]SJJJJJJoJJJJJ....SSSSSSS[SSSSSSS X-#XP\  P6QXP#HP LaserJet 5Si/5Si MXPSHPLA5SMX.WRSC\  P6Q,,,$܎P2R @ v0 p Times New Roman (TT)Times New Roman (Bold) (TT)Times New Roman (Italic) (TT)"5^2BQdd$BBdq2B28dddddddddd88qqqYzoBNzoozzB8B^dBYdYdYBdd88d8ddddBN8ddddY`(`l2BBBBPBddYYYYYYzYzYzYzYB8B8B8B8ddddddddddYdddddoddYYYYzYzYzYdddddPdBdBBBdNdoNNF2ZdBYddddd7>d<d<BBYYdBBddBYBdYzzzzBBBBqodYYYYYYYYYYY8888dddddddnddddddda8DocumentgDocument Style Style` ư a4DocumentgDocument Style Style  . 2'kHkva6DocumentgDocument Style Style ư a5DocumentgDocument Style Style ư a2DocumentgDocument Style Style*    a7DocumentgDocument Style Style  ` ư 2Y  'a1Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers8@ ư a2Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersA@`  ` ư a3DocumentgDocument Style Style 0     a3Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers J` @  ` ư 2   r7a4Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers S`  @ ư a5Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers \`  @h hư a6Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers e`  h@ hư a7Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbersn`  h@ ư 27La8Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbersw `  h@p pư a1DocumentgDocument Style StyleF#$   ׃  a5TechnicalTechnical Document Style&%&  . a6TechnicalTechnical Document Style&'(  . 2w3a2TechnicalTechnical Document Style*)*    a3TechnicalTechnical Document Style'+,    a4TechnicalTechnical Document Style&-.    a1TechnicalTechnical Document Style4/$0     2-}.a7TechnicalTechnical Document Style&12  . a8TechnicalTechnical Document Style&34  . a1Paragraph+_0X_81. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)08=(_08S AH*_0F$ a2Paragraph+_0X_81. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)08=(_08S AH*_0F/` ` ` 2v {a3Paragraph+_0X_81. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)08=(_08S AH*_0F:` ` `  a4Paragraph+_0X_81. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)08=(_08S AH*_0FE` ` `  a5Paragraph+_0X_81. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)08=(_08S AH*_0FP` ` ` hhh a6Paragraph+_0X_81. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)08=(_08S AH*_0F[ 25# g!!r1"""a7Paragraph+_0X_81. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)08=(_08S AH*_0Ff a8Paragraph+_0X_81. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)08=(_08S AH*_0F q a2Agenda!a1AgendaAgenda Items"7D yP ) I. 2%#rg#$#%i$&%a3Agenda#a1Order$8X X-I.xa2Order%Ap X-xA.` ` a3Order&J* X-x` ` 1. 2+' %(&)'(a4Order'4 X- I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) I. A. 1. 1.(1)(a) i) a)I.xannotation rK&7>annotation referenceGw. "7>NGI "(OaOb#Xv P7XP##Xv P7XP#annotation tK&7>annotation textGw/ "7>NGI ")2c(d"5^2BoddȦ8BBdr2B28ddddddddddBBrrrdzNdzoȐB8BtdBdoYoYBdo8Bo8odooYNBodddYO,Oh2BBBBPBdodddddȐYYYYYN8N8N8N8oddddooooddoddddzodddYYYYYdddooPoNoNBNoddȐoNNF2ldBdddddd>#o\  PCXP##]\  PCP#footnote tex`6]footnote text*=( Y :* 8BYNE-E;#o\  PCXP##]\  PCP#footnote ref`6]footnote reference Y :* 8BYNE.> > #o\  P CXP##]\  P CP#toc 1Y `6]toc 1 I*=( Y :* 8BYNE/ (#`` hp x (#2@02712922*<32\>toc 2Y `6]toc 2 I*=( Y :* 8BYNE0 ` (#`` hp x (#toc 3Y `6]toc 3 I*=( Y :* 8BYNE1` (#` hp x (#toc 4Y `6]toc 4 I*=( Y :* 8BYNE2 (#` hp x (#toc 5Y`6]toc 5 I*=( Y :* 8BYNE3h(#` hp x (#2G42@5B62|C72Etoc 6Y`6]toc 6 I*=( Y :* 8BYNE4(# ` hp x (#toc 7Y`6]toc 7 I*=( Y :* 8BYNE5toc 8Y`6]toc 8 I*=( Y :* 8BYNE6(# ` hp x (#toc 9Y`6]toc 9 I*=( Y :* 8BYNE7(#`` hp x (#2O82H92DJ:2vL;Nindex 1Y`6]index 1 I*=( Y :* 8BYNE8` (#` hp x (#index 2Y`6]index 2 I*=( Y :* 8BYNE9 ` (#`` hp x (#toa heading`6]toa heading*=( Y :* 8BYNE:!"(#` hp x (#captionY`6]caption I*=( Y :* 8BYNE;E#;$#o\  P CXP##]\  P CP#2cT<O=JP>2Q?gS_Equation Ca`6]_Equation Caption Y :* 8BYNE<;%;&#o\  P CXP##]\  PCP#headerY`6]header I*=( Y :* 8BYNE='( (# footerY`6]footer I*=( Y :* 8BYNE>)* (# ` hp x (#" 2=1!oSmall Circle1c?1=o>?1L=1?"27[@tTA+ UB4VC4WBibliogrphyBibliography@:X (# Doc InitInitialize Document StyleA  0*0*  I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) I. 1. A. a.(1)(a) i) a)DocumentgTech InitInitialize Technical StyleB. k I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 TechnicalPleadingHeader for numbered pleading paperCP@n   $] X X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8: :*?8!Zo>NED''#A\  PP##A\  PP#"5^!)22SN!!28!2222222222888,\HCCH=8HH!'H=YHH8HC8=HH^HH=!!/2!,2,2,!222N2222!'22H22,006!!!!(!22H,H,H,H,H,YCC,=,=,=,=,!!!!H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H,H2H2H2H2H282H2H,H,C,C,=,=,=,H2H2H2H2H2(2!2!!!2'H2YH8'N#-2!,22222KK2LL2K!!,,2d!!22bd!,d!N!778(98229!)22SN!!28!2222222222888,\HCCH=8HH!'H=YHH8HC8=HH^HH=!!/2!,2,2,!222N2222!'22H22,006G!2,d22!d8!Y!!,,#2d!b'!HH!22222!L28!L2(7!9-!2KKK,HHHHHHYC====!!!!HHHHHHH8HHHHHH82,,,,,,C,,,,,222222272222222"5^*7FSS$77Sp*7*.SSSSSSSSSS77pppSffoxffxx7Jo]oxfxfS]xff]]A.AFS7SSJSJ.SS..J.xSSSSAA.SJoJJAC.CZ*7777C7SSfSfSfSfSfSooJfJfJfJfJ7.7.7.7.oSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxS]JfSxSxSxS]JxSfSfSfSfSoJoJfJfJfJxSxSxSxSxSCS7S777SJxSoSAN:*WSASSSSSS.4}}S2~~S}277]]S77SS7]72N7[[pC`pSS`*7FSS$77Sp*7*.SSSSSSSSSS77pppSffoxffxx7Jo]oxfxfS]xff]]A.AFS7SSJSJ.SS..J.xSSSSAA.SJoJJAC.CZv7S]SS7S777]]:S7A7o]*ASSSS.S7~.Sp7~SC[227`W*724S}}}Sffffffoffff7777xoxxxxxpxxxxx]fSSSSSSSoJJJJJ....SSSSSSS[SSSSSJS"5^2BTdd+BBd2B28ddddddddddBBdzzzzBYozzdozzooN8NTdBddYdY8dd88Y8ddddNN8dYYYNP7Pl2BBBBPBddzdzdzdzdzdYzYzYzYzYB8B8B8B8dddddddddoYzddddoYdzdzdzdzdYYzYzYzYdddddPdBdBBBdYddNNF2hdNdddddd7>d<d<BBoodBBddBoBddzzzzzzzzzzBBBBozdddddddYYYYY8888dddddddndddddYd2e X- X-{  Federal Communications Commission`+(# DA 982141 ă  yxdddy   +2 Before the { Federal Communications Commission  X-Washington, D.C. 20554 ă R#Xj\  P6G;XP#) In the Matter ofR) R)  X_-Public Utility Commission of TexasO ) hppNSD File No. L98105 Petition for Expedited Waiver ofR) 47 C.F.R. Section 52.19(c)(3)(ii) forR) Area Code ReliefR)  X -; ORDER TP  X -X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:$-ԍx47 C.F.R.  52.19(c)(3)(ii). R"M 0*%%ZZ+"Ԍ X-ԙx4.` ` On July 9, 1998, the Texas Commission directed the Texas Code Administrator  X-to implement NPA relief in the metropolitan Dallas and Houston areas. K {Ob-ԍxOrder, Numbering Plan Area Code Relief Planning for the 214/972 Area Codes, Project No. 16899, and  {O,-Numbering Plan Area Code Relief Planning for the 713/281 Area Codes, Project No. 16900 (July 10, 1998). The NPA boundary currently separating the 214 and 972 NPAs in Dallas would be eliminated on December 5,  X-1998, creating a single area served by both NPAs.E $K yO-ԍxPetition at 3.E A new overlay NPA would also be added to the Dallas area, comprising the same area served by the 214 and 972 NPAs, in July 1999. In Houston, the boundary separating the 713 and 281 NPAs would be eliminated on  Xv-January 16, 1999.@ vK {O -ԍxId. at 4.@ Coincident with the elimination of the 713/281 boundary, a third new  X_-overlay NPA would be introduced to the Houston area, encompassing the 713 and 281 areas.:_FK {OV-ԍxId.: The Petition seeks a temporary waiver of the tendigit dialing requirement for the Dallas and Houston areas citing the short time frame in which to complete customer education efforts and necessary modifications to customer premises alarm equipment as the principal reasons  X -for the request.I K {O-ԍxSee Petition at 6.I  X -x5.` ` One party, Logix Communications Corporation (Logix), a competitive local exchange carrier (CLEC), filed comments in opposition to the Texas Commission's waiver request. Logix disputes the Texas Commission's contention that five months is an inadequate amount of time to complete consumer education efforts, noting that in the previous NPA splits of Dallas and Houston, the NPA relief took place approximately five months after the  Xb-Texas Commission approved the split.bj K yO}-ԍxComments of Logix Communications Corp., filed Aug. 13, 1998, at 6 (Logix Comments). Logix also argues that as early as April 1998, industry participants in the NPA relief planning effort for the Dallas and Houston areas informed the Texas Commission that alarm system modifications would be a central concern  X-in implementing overlays in Texas.LZ K yO-ԍxLogix comments at 7 (citing letter from Merrie Cavanaugh, Southwestern Bell Telephone Company, to Ms. Elizabeth Barton Jones and Ms. Linda Hymans, Texas Commission, dated April 29, 1998, attached as  {OX!-Exhibit C of the Petition (hereinafter Exhibit C Letter)).L Thus, according to Logix, the Texas Commission has had adequate time to prepare the industry and the public for the modifications necessary to  X-accommodate the change to tendigit dialing.EK yO$-ԍxLogix Comments at 7.E Logix also contends that the anticompetitive"0*%%ZZ " effects of the requested waiver are not overcome by the temporary nature of the waiver  X-request.GK yOb-ԍxLogix Comments at 46.G  X- III. DISCUSSION ĐTP  X-x6.` ` Under Section 1.3 of the Commission's rules, the Commission may exercise its  Xv-discretion to waive a rule where there is "good cause" to do so.DvXK yO -ԍx47 C.F.R.  1.3.D That discretion, however, "does not contemplate that an agency must or should tolerate evisceration of a rule by  XH-waivers."HK {O -ԍxWAIT Radio v. FCC, 418 F.2d 1153, 1159 (D.C. Cir. 1969), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1027 (1972) (WAIT  {O -Radio). Rather, petitioners generally face a "high hurdle" to show that a waiver is  X1-justified.P1DK {O&-ԍxId. at 1153. P A waiver of the rules is appropriate if special circumstances warrant a deviation  X -from the general rule and such deviation will serve the public interest. K {O-ԍxNortheast Cellular Telephone Co. v. FCC, 897 F.2d 1164, 1166 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (Northeast Cellular);  {Ok-WAIT Radio, 418 F.2d at 1157. Examples of special circumstances the Commission may consider include hardship imposed by the rule's enforcement, equity, or more effective implementation of overall policy on an individual  X -basis.T 2 K {O-ԍxWAIT Radio, 418 F.2d at 1159.T Further, a decision to grant a waiver must be based on articulated, reasonable  X -standards that are predictable, workable, and not susceptible to discriminatory application.\ K {O3-ԍxNortheast Cellular, 897 F.2d at 1166.\  X-x7.` ` The Bureau denied two prior requests from state public utility commissions for a permanent waiver of the tendigit dialing requirement in the case of the activation of an  Xb-overlay NPA. &bV K yOi-ԍxPennsylvania Public Utility Commission Petition for Expedited Waiver of 47 C.F.R. Section 52.19 for  {O1 -Area Code 412 Relief, DA 97675, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 3783 (1997) (Pennsylvania  {O -Order); New York Department of Public Service Petition for Expedited Waiver of 47 C.F.R. Section  {O!-52.19(c)(3)(ii), Order, DA 981434, NSD File No. L9803 (rel. July 20, 1998) (New York Order).  The Bureau did, however, grant a temporary waiver of the tendigit dialing requirement in both cases, citing three factors justifying the temporary delay: (1) insufficient"KD0*%%ZZ"  X-time remained to adjust telecommunications networks for the change to tendigit dialing;K {Oy-ԍxPennsylvania Order at  25. See also New York Order at  16. (2)  X-insufficient time remained to educate customers to the change in dialing patterns;ZK {O-ԍxPennsylvania Order at  25. See also New York Order at  16. and (3)  X-certain geographic conditions weighed in favor of the grant of a temporary delay.(|K {Oo-ԍxNew York Order at  15. In New York, two overlays were scheduled: one in Manhattan, and the other in Brooklyn, the Bronx, Queens, and Staten Island. The overlays, however, were scheduled to occur at different times, so that consumers in Manhattan would have had to dial ten digits sooner than those in Brooklyn, the Bronx, Queens, and Staten Island, who would have continued dialing seven digits for local calls until they received the new NPA overlay. The New York State Department of Public Service stated that, in the event it was not given a permanent waiver of the tendigit dialing requirement, that it preferred to activate tendigit  {O! -dialing on a citywide basis after both of the overlays had been activated. Id.( Although the geographic considerations that, in part, led to a grant of a temporary waiver of tendigit  X-dialing requirements in New York are not present in Texas,0 K yO-ԍxThe 214/972 and the 713/281 areas are not contiguous in Texas, whereas in New York, 212 and 718 serve contiguous areas. we find that special circumstances in the instant matter favor granting the Texas Commission's request for a sixmonth delay of tendigit dialing in the Dallas and Houston areas following the implementation of NPA overlays in those cities. The additional time required properly to educate consumers to the change in dialing patterns, and the additional time required to reprogram alarm systems, warrant a temporary deviation from the Commission's rules requiring tendigit dialing in areas served by two or more overlaid NPAs.  X -  X -x8.` ` Inadequate Time Remains for Consumer Education, Reprogramming Alarm  X -Equipment. We agree with the Texas Commission that more time is required to complete consumer education regarding the change in dialing patterns and to reprogram customerpremises alarm equipment so as to accommodate the tendigit dialing requirement in Dallas and Houston. The Texas Commission states that it did not finalize the NPA relief plans for the Dallas and Houston metropolitan areas until June 24, 1998, and did not issue an order  Xf-until July 10, 1998, directing implementation of these relief plans.?f K yO-ԍxPetition at 3.? As such, with the first overlay scheduled for December 5, 1998, only a fivemonth period exists in which to prepare customers for the change in local dialing patterns and to reprogram alarm equipment. The Texas Commission states that it delayed adoption of the plan in order to ascertain that it was  X -necessary and that no other alternatives existed.I K {O#-ԍxSee Petition at 6.I While we would prefer that state commissions not wait until NPA exhaust reaches a critical stage before making the decision" 0*%%ZZ" as to the form in which they will activate new NPAs, we cannot, in this instance, conclude that the Texas Commission acted unreasonably. Only two years ago, the Texas Commission undertook an NPA relief plan which, while projected to last more than five years, found  X-several NPAs in jeopardy within one year.!xK yO4-ԍxAccording to the Texas Commission, it implemented area code relief in the form of an NPA split in Dallas and Houston in September and November 1996, respectively. Despite projections that the new NPAs would last at least five years, the Texas Number Administrator declared a jeopardy situation within only one year of the implementation of the split. Shortly after the announcement that Dallas and Houston NPAs were in jeopardy, the Texas Commission began aggressive number conservation efforts, including rate center consolidation, sequential numbering, voluntary NXX code return, and investigation of number pooling. Those efforts were insufficient to defer the need for immediate NPA relief. Petition at 23. It is understandable that the Texas Commission would authorize implementation of a new NPA relief plan only after it was satisfied that one was necessary.  X_-x9.` ` We decline to second guess the Texas Commission's assessment that more time is needed to educate consumers to a change in dialing patterns. Moreover, we are not persuaded by Logix's arguments to the contrary, which rely on the facts behind the previous area code relief of Dallas and Houston, in which area code splits were made shortly after mandates ordering such relief. As the Texas Commission notes, however, although these splits were implemented within six months, as splits, rather than overlays, they included a permissive dialing period during which customers could dial either seven digits or ten digits to complete calls within the geographic area covered by the splits. As a practical matter, this  X -permissive dialing period allowed for a longer period of consumer education.M" K yO`-ԍxTexas Commission Reply at 4.M We conclude that granting the instant waiver request will serve to provide a similar amount of time until a mandatory dialing change occurs under the proposed NPA relief plan as in the previous NPA  Xb-splits.:#bK {O-ԍxId.:  X4-x 10.` ` Similarly, we agree that more time is needed to allow the alarm industry to reprogram equipment to account for the change in dialing patterns in the Dallas and Houston areas. Although the alarm industry has already begun to make system modifications in the affected NPAs, the Texas Commission has determined that alarm providers in the Dallas and Houston areas need additional time to convert each alarm unit to tendigit dialing, because most automated alarm systems must be individually reprogrammed or replaced to support the  X-new dialing requirement.~$* K {O#-ԍxTexas Commission Petition at 7. See also Exhibit C Letter.~ This view is supported by the North Texas Alarm Association, which contends that the alarm industry requires until July 1999 to complete reprogramming to" $0*%%ZZ3"  X-allow tendigit dialing in tens of thousands of alarm panels.u%K yOy-ԍxReply of North Texas Alarm Association, dated August 17, 1998, at 2.u Moreover, we note that in the prior NPA splits in Dallas and Houston, the alarm industry was given an additional eighteen  X-months beyond the end of the permissive dialing period to complete system modifications.M&XK yO-ԍxTexas Commission Reply at 9.M  X-x 11.` ` Potential Anticompetitive Effects of a Waiver. We find that the requested relief"a delay of tendigit dialing for six months from the date of NPA overlay implementation"strikes an acceptable balance between assuring a smooth transition to the new dialing pattern and the potential anticompetitive impacts of allowing sevendigit dialing within an area covered by two or more overlaid NPAs. Although we share Logix's concern that CLECs in Dallas and Houston without NXXs in the "old" NPAs could be competitively disadvantaged during the waiver period, we conclude that this potential problem is mitigated by the existence of several NXX codes in the existing NPAs which remain available for use by the industry. Moreover, in Dallas, where a new NPA is not slated for introduction until July 1999, telecommunications carriers which obtain NXX codes during the waiver period  X -will not be put at a disadvantage by an unfamiliar NPA.k'X K yOY-ԍxPetition at 9. Additionally, with regard to the specific concerns of Logix, the Texas Commission notes that in both the Dallas and Houston areas, Logix currently holds NXXs in both existing NPAs, and that thus it would not be at a competitive disadvantage during the waiver period. Texas Commission Reply at 67.k x  X-x 12.` ` Another factor weighing in favor of our grant of the Texas Commission's petition is that in both Dallas and Houston, local number portability (LNP) has been available  Xd-for several months.(dK yO-ԍxPursuant to the Commission's LNP implementation schedule, LNP has been implemented in Houston since March 31, 1998, and in Dallas since May 15, 1998. Logix correctly notes that the mere existence of LNP in a given area does not assure competitively neutral access to telephone numbers in an overlay plan with sevendigit dialing. The Bureau has determined, however, that longterm number portability does reduce some of the anticompetitive effects of overlays by allowing an incumbent LEC's  X-customers to retain their phone numbers when switching to a CLEC.U)` K {O-ԍxPennsylvania Order at  19.U  X- IV. CONCLUSION ĐTP  X-x 13.` ` We find that the Texas Commission has met the requirements of section 1.3 of  X-our rules and the waiver standard articulated in WAIT Radio and Northeast Cellular. As stated above, it has shown the special circumstances which warrant a deviation from the" )0*%%ZZ2" Commission's rules. Furthermore, the relief proposed, a sixmonth waiver, serves the public interest by providing sufficient time for customer education and time to reprogram alarm equipment, while the relatively short period of time keeps anticompetitive impacts to a minimum. We also note that on two prior occasions, the Bureau waived the tendigit dialing requirement in areas facing circumstances similar to those of Texas. We thus grant the Texas Commission's petition in its entirety and waive the requirement of tendigit dialing in the Dallas and Houston areas for a period of time not to exceed six months from the date of overlay implementation in those areas. Specifically, the sixmonth waiver period in Dallas will begin when the boundary separating the 214 and 972 NPAs is eliminated, and the waiver period in Houston will begin when the boundary separating the 713 and 281 NPAs is eliminated.  X - V. ORDERING CLAUSE TP  X -x 14.` ` IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1.3 and 52.19 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  1.3 and 52.19, and by authority delegated in sections 0.91 and 0.291 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  0.91 and 0.291, that the Texas HCommission's Petition for Expedited Temporary Waiver of 47 C.F.R. Section 52.19 is GRANTED as described herein. x` `  hh@FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION x` `  hh@Yog R. Varma x` `  hh@Deputy Chief, Common Carrier BureauH