to approve the temporary lease of registered rights as an adjunct to the permanent transfer of such rights. Accordingly, there has not been a duplication of services without a concomitant finding of public need by an appropriate regulatory Commission. One final matter remains for our consideration. As noted heretofore (footnote 3 supra), Richmond's conversion application has been denied by this Commission. Accordingly, the 180-day period stipulated in section 206(a)(7) respecting the nonseverability of the corresponding intrastate and interstate rights would begin to run as of the effective date of our order in that proceeding. FINDINGS We find that defendant has not effectuated the unlawful separation of its intrastate authority and its corresponding certificate of registration in contravention of section 206(a)(7) of the Interstate Commerce Act; that the certificate of registration has not been voided; and that the complaint should be dismissed. An appropriate order will be entered. 125 M.C.C. No. MC-104004 (SUB-No. 180) ASSOCIATED TRANSPORT, INC., EXTENSION- Decided July 13, 1976 Applicant found not shown to be fit, willing, and able properly to perform the proposed motor common carrier operations. Petition for removal of a 3-year term limitation denied. John P. Tynan for applicant. John F. Curley, Charles F. Riddle, and Stuart B. Robbins for the Bureau of Enforcement, Interstate Commerce Commission. REPORT OF THE COMMISSION DIVISION 1, Commissioners MURPHY, GRESHAM, AND CHRISTIAN MURPHY, Commissioner: Exceptions to the initial decision of the Administrative Law Judge were filed by applicant and the Bureau of Enforcement. Our conclusions differ from those recommended. By petition filed October 9, 1974, Associated Transport, Inc., of New York, N.Y., seeks removal of a 3-year term limitation from a certificate of public convenience and necessity issued to it in No. MC-104004 (Sub-No. 180). Associated, in the underlying application proceeding before this Commission, filed March 24, 1969, sought a certificate of public convenience and necessity authorizing operation, in interstate or foreign commerce, as a common carrier by motor vehicle, of general commodities (except those of unusual value, classes A and B explosives, household goods as defined by the Commission, commodities in bulk, and those injurious or contaminating to other lading), serving the Sequoyah Nuclear Power Plant of the Tennessee Valley Authority near Daisy, Tenn., as an off-route point in connection with its regular-route operations to and from Chattanooga, Tenn. Although no carriers appeared in opposition to the application, the Bureau of Enforcement participated in the proceeding solely with respect to the issue of applicant's fitness to perform the proposed operation. Thus, in Associated Transport, Inc., Ext.-T.V.A. Power Plant, 113 M.C.C. 637 (1971), the Commission, Division 1, granted the application (except insofar as it was modified to include the exceptions ordinarily imposed in a grant of general commodity authority) subject to a term limitation of 3 years. The Commission, at page 642, concluded: [W]e believe that the imposition of a term limitation in the authority granted, and the concomitant requirement that an applicant demonstrate its compliance with the act as a condition to any extension of that term, is warranted. Accordingly, even though we conclude that applicant has met its burden of establishing its fitness to conduct the proposed operation, the certificate to be issued in this proceeding will expire at the end of the 3-year term, unless, prior to its expiration date, applicant files a petition for its extension and demonstrates that it has been rendering reasonably adequate and continuous service as required by the act and the terms of its certificates. Applicant has appropriately petitioned the Commission for removal of the aforementioned term limitation. The Bureau of Enforcement presented evidence at the hearing with respect to four types of violations of the Commission's regulations: (1) applicant's extension of credit to a shipper for periods in excess of the time permitted in 49 CFR 1322.1; (2) applicant's failure to present pertinent freight bills to a shipper for transportation charges within the 7-day period as required under 49 CFR 1322.3; (3) applicant's failure to remit c.o.d. collections to shippers within 10 days of delivery as required by 49 CFR 1052.3; and (4) applicant's failure or refusal to accept certain shipments. The Administrative Law Judge recommended granting applicant's petition for removal of the 3-year term limitation, subject to certain specified reporting requirements,' primarily on the basis that by order of November 12, 1975, in No. MC-F-11626, Eastern Freight Ways, Inc. Invest. of Control, 122 M.C.C. 267 (1975), the Commission approved the acquisition of Associated by Eastern Freight Ways, Inc., and that the delinquent behavior attributable to Associated had been remedied, in large part, by said approval of acquisition, and by the management control assumed by Eastern over the operations of Associated. Thus, he concluded, "I am persuaded that the new managers of the Associated operation are 'The Administrative Law Judge required Associated to furnish to the Commission's Bureau of Enforcement a series of reports over a 12-month period to show the progress of new management's efforts to control the situation.” This proceeding also embraced No. MC-F-11632, Eastern Freight Ways. Inc.-Control-Associated Transport, Inc. well along toward cleaning up the service failures, and the other violations disclosed here and "I am persuaded that new management efforts to overcome these inherited problems has [sic] been sufficiently strong to warrant a present finding of fitness for Associated, and to justify the issuance of permanent authority* On exceptions, the Bureau of Enforcement contends that the Administrative Law Judge erred in finding petitioner fit to receive permanent authority to perform the involved operations. It asserts that instead of conditioning the grant of authority on a requirement that Associated furnish the Bureau of Enforcement with a series of reports over a 12-month period, the Administrative Law Judge should have instead issued another limited-term certificate. In its exceptions, petitioner asserts that a limited-term certificate should not be issued, and that the aforementioned reporting requirements should be modified. The evidence, the initial decision and recommended order of the Administrative Law Judge, and the exceptions have been considered. We find the Administrative Law Judge's statement of facts to be substantially correct in all material respects. Except insofar as modified and supplemented in the appendix hereto, and except insofar as subsequent events have impacted the issue of petitioner's fitness, willingness, and ability properly to perform the proposed operations, we adopt that statement as our own. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS At the outset, we must recognize that certain events have transpired subsequent to the issuance of the initial decision which compel a different result from that arrived at by the Administrative Law Judge. First, although the Administrative Law Judge correctly recognized that the Commission had formally approved the merger of Eastern and Associated, and although de facto control of the latter by the former may actually have existed, the approved merger was never officially consummated and thus de jure control by Eastern has never existed. Moreover, by order of May 27, 1976, the Commission, in No. MC-F-11626, Eastern Freight Ways, Inc. Investigation of Control-Associated Transport, Inc., and No. MC-F-11632, Eastern Freight Ways, Inc.-Control-Associated Transport, Inc., dismissed the latter proceeding" and vacated and set aside the authority which had previously been granted to Eastern to acquire control of Associated. The proceeding in No. MC-F-11626 had already become final by operation of law. Second, on April 28, 1976, in No. 76-B-982, In the Matter of Associated Transport, Debtor (S.D.N.Y.), Associated was adjudicated a bankrupt, and it is presently in the process of being liquidated. A sale of all of Associated's outstanding certificates, subject to the approval of this Commission, was conducted by the Bankruptcy Judge on July 9, 1976, and the Sub-No. 180 certificate here at issue was purchased by Eastern Express, Inc. These are matters which have overwhelming significance to our decision herein, and of which we may properly take official notice.^ Associated, or its successors in interest, have actual knowledge of these events, and certainly have constructive knowledge of the fact that events such as these would weigh heavily in our determination of its financial fitness, and its willingness and ability properly to perform the proposed operation. Section 207(a) of the Interstate Commerce Act requires that an applicant seeking authority to operate as a motor common carrier in interstate or foreign commerce must be found fit, willing, and able properly to perform the proposed service, and to conform to the act and the Commission's rules and regulations thereunder, and that such service is or will be required by the present or future public convenience and necessity before a certificate will be issued. Thus, the finding of fitness is a statutory prerequisite to the granting of operating authority and stands on equal footing with and is unrelated to the determination of public convenience and necessity. Where there has been some question raised with respect to an applicant's fitness and its compliance with the Interstate Commerce Act and the applicable rules and regulations thereunder, the Commission has, on numerous occasions, subjected the authority granted to a term limitation, thereby affording itself an opportunity to scrutinize at a later date the applicant's continued efforts of compliance with respect to the authority in question. Such is the situation before us in the instant proceeding. 'In the interest of sound and impartial regulation of surface transportation, we must, until a final determination of pending proceedings is made, take notice of applicable prior decisions. Cf. Rock Island M. Transit Co.-Purchase-White Line M. Frt., 55 M.C.C. 567 (1949); Younger Bros., Inc.. Ext.-Bishop and Port Arthur, Tex., 79 M.C.C. 469 (1959); P. Saldutti & Son, Inc., Conversion Proceeding, 89 M.C.C. 338 (1961); and Coastal Tank Lines, Inc., Ext.-W. Va., 108 M.C.C. 190 (1968). See, e.g. Bowen Trucking, Inc., Extension-Mineral County, Nev., 67 M.C.C. 287 (1956); Jamerson Contract Carrier Application, 110 M.C.C. 469 (1969); Spector Freight System, Inc., Extension-Whitley, 111 M.C.C. 889 (1970); Radke Extension-Various Commodities, 113 M.C.C. 89 (1971); S. T. L. Transport, Inc., Extension-New York Points, 115 M.C.C. 14 (1972); Consolidated Carriers Corp., Com. Car. Applic., 118 M.C.C. 695 (1973); Allied Delivery System, Inc.. Ext.-Michigan. 120 M.C.C. 110 (1974); and Sullivan's Motor Del., Inc., Ext.-Small Shipments, 123 M.C.C. 559 (1975). |