Penal Code section 629.50 permits an application for a wiretap order to be approved by a second judge designated by the presiding judge where the first designated judge was unavailable. Therefore, where a written application for a wiretap application could not be approved by the judge designated by the presiding judge to review wiretap applications, and the wiretap application was reviewed by a second judge who was designated as the “next in line,” the approval for the wiretap was properly statutorily authorized. The statutory language was not violated by this procedure, and the legislative intent supports that interpretation.