Inasmuch as the underlying application is not opposed by other carriers and the required elements of public convenience and necessity have heretofore been sufficiently established, our affirmation here of the Administrative Law Judge's recommendation is contingent only upon the issue of applicant's fitness to perform the proposed operation. We shall, therefore, confine our discussion to this issue alone. The fitness of a carrier encompasses (a) its financial ability to perform the service it seeks to provide, (b) its willingness to adhere to the rules and regulations established pursuant to the Interstate Commerce Act, and (c) its ability to properly and safely perform the proposed service. Cf. Eagle Motor Lines, Inc., Invest. & Revoca. of Certif., 117 M.C.C. 30, 35 (1972). There is, of course, no inflexible rule by which an applicant's fitness can be determined. It is well settled, however, that in determining whether an applicant has satisfied its statutory burden of proof in establishing its fitness, consideration must ordinarily be given to (1) the nature and extent of its past violations, (2) the mitigating or extenuating circumstances surrounding the violations, (3) whether the carrier's conduct represents a flagrant and persistent disregard of this Commission's rules and regulations, (4) whether it has made sincere efforts to correct its past mistakes, and (5) whether applicant is willing and able to comport in the future with the statute and the applicable rules and regulations thereunder. Cf. Peoples Express Co., Ext.-Empty Containers, 118 M.C.C. 675, 678 (1973), and Sullivan's Motor Del., Inc., supra, p. 565. Each proceeding, however, must be determined on the basis of its own. particular facts and circumstances. L & L & M Express Co., Extension-Crewe, Va., 106 M.C.C. 334, 338 (1968); Distributors Service Co., Extension-Foods, 118 M.C.C. 322, 329 (1973). Substantial evidence was adduced at the hearing by the Bureau of Enforcement with respect to the egregious behavior of Associated in the conduct of its motor carrier obligations. It is apparent that the Administrative Law Judge, in weighing the aforementioned criteria, was impressed by the efforts of the "new management" to rectify the service and performance deficiencies and violations of the applicable regulations which had theretofore transpired. For example, he recognized that (a) the assumption of control by Eastern had alleviated the shortages of equipment so as to facilitate the handling of tendered traffic, (b) a series of accounting controls had been imposed so as to avoid continued billing and collecting irregularities, and (c) the "new management" had installed a new, partially computerized control procedure so as to regulate the flow of paperwork relating to c.o.d. shipments. Thus, the "new management" had made sincere efforts to correct the past mistakes of Associated and had demonstrated its willingness and ability to comport in the future with the statute and the applicable rules and regulations thereunder. However, the Administrative Law Judge's primary predicate for the grant of permanent authority (i.e., the assumption by Eastern of management control of Associated, and the efforts by the former to rectify the egregious behavior of the latter) has vanished with the failure of these carriers officially to consummate the approved merger. Moreover, and more significantly, Associated has been adjudged bankrupt and is presently in the process of being liquidated. It can no longer even provide the questionable quality of service it has heretofore performed. No reasonable person could seriously contend that a bankrupt carrier which is being liquidated could be considered either fit, willing, or able properly to perform the proposed operations. By no means could a bankrupt corporation be considered financially fit; and a corporation which is in the process of liquidation, and which has ceased to perform motor carrier operations, cannot be deemed able or willing properly to perform any transportation services. Nonissuance of a certificate based on a lack of carrier fitness is not a punitive measure. Fournier's Express, Inc., Ext.-Hartford, Conn., 108 M.C.C. 584, 585 (1969). Rather, it is an evaluation by the Commission of a carrier's willingness and ability to comport in the future with the applicable rules and regulations of this Commission. Spector Freight System, Inc., supra, p. 892-893; Ewen Brothers, Inc., Com. Car. Applic., 117 M.C.C. 101, 104 (1972); Leavitts Freight Service, Ext.-Saginaw, Oreg., 119 M.C.C. 467, 470 (1970). Certainly, it is not in the public interest to award grants of authority to carriers which have, for all practical purposes, ceased to exist. Associated, a bankrupt, liquidating corporation, is neither fit, willing, nor able properly to perform the proposed operations. Considering all the circumstances, we cannot find that petitioner is either fit, willing, or able to comply with the requirements of the Interstate Commerce Act and the applicable rules and regulations. thereunder. The petition must be denied. 125 M.C.C. FINDINGS We find that applicant has failed to show that it is fit, willing, and able properly to perform the proposed service or to conform to the requirements of the Interstate Commerce Act and our rules and regulations thereunder; that this decision is not a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment within the meaning of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969; and that the petition should be denied. An appropriate order will be entered. APPENDIX The factual portion of the Administrative Law Judge's initial decision (with minor editorial changes). Associated is a major motor common carrier of general freight operating over an extensive network of regular routes within a 26-State area ranging from Maine to Chicago to Tennessee, Georgia, and the Carolinas. Its operations have been managed by Eastern Freight Ways, Inc., since September 1974 pursuant to temporary authority issued by the ICC. By an order entered on November 12, 1974, in lead docket No. MC-F-11626, Eastern Freight Ways, Inc.-Investigation of Control-Associated Transport, Inc., the Commission has approved the acquisition of control of Associated by Eastern Freight Ways, subject to a series of specified conditions. Associated has been providing regular and continuous service to the Sequoyah plant of the TVA for the past several years pursuant to the authority granted by this Commission. Officials of the plant express need for continuation of that service and urge this Commission to make permanent Associated's authority to serve the plant. The Bureau presented evidence at the hearing regarding several types of violations of the Commission's regulations: (a) the extension of credit to a shipper on the payment of transportation charges for periods in excess of the time permitted under the Commission's credit regulations, codified at 49 CFR 1322; (b) the failure to present pertinent freight bills to a shipper for transportation charges within a 7-day period as required under the ICC's credit regulations; (c) the failure to remit c.o.d. collections to shippers within 10 days of delivery of such shipments, as required by Commission regulations codified at 49 CFR 1052; and (d) the failure or refusal to accept certain shipments of freight tendered to it. (a) Credit Extensions. The Commission's field staff conducted an investigation of Associated's operations beginning in May 1974 at which time it discovered that Associated frequently was extending credit for extensive periods of time to the Chrysler Corporation. The investigation disclosed about 1,000 such instances during the study. The staff documented some 60 such instances occurring during the first 6 months of 1974, and at the hearing listed the details of 15 such instances. In 11 of these detailed instances, Associated did not take payment from the Chrysler Corporation until more than 4 months had elapsed beyond the lawful payment period. (b) Delayed Presentation of Freight Bills. The Bureau staff investigators also discovered some 1,000 instances during the January-June 1974 study period in which Associated failed to present its freight bills for transportation charges to the Chrysler Corporation within the 7-day period following delivery required under the Commission's credit regulations. In the eight specific instances detailed at the hearing, Associated's billing was rendered more than 3 weeks late, on average, with specific instances ranging between 2 weeks and 7 weeks late. (c) C.O.D. Collections. The pertinent ICC regulations, 49 CFR 1052.3, require a carrier to remit its c.o.d. collections to the consignor within 10 days of delivery of the c.o.d. shipment. The Commission's staff in early 1975 investigated Associated's 1974 operations and discovered some 700 instances in which Associated had failed to remit its c.o.d collections within the time period specified in the rule. The study showed 25 such instances occurring during December 1974, and 11 of these instances were detailed on the record. The 11 instances showed collection amounts ranging between $88 on a shipment of fluorescent fixtures from a consignor at Reading, Pa., to a consignee at Bath, Maine (22 days late in violation of the c.o.d. rule); to a shipment amounting to $435.64 in c.o.d. charges on a movement of records from Cincinnati, Ohio to Portsmouth, Va. (39 days late in violation of the c.o.d. rule); and a charge of $1,540.56 on a movement of paint from a consignor at Chicago, Ill., to a consignee in Manchester, N. H. (52 days late in violation of the c.o.d. rule). (d) Service Failures. Associated and the Bureau of Enforcement agreed on a stipulation at the hearing that the records of the Commission's New York City office showed that during the period from December 1972 through November 1974, a total of 73 telephone calls were received from either consignors or consignees alleging failure by Associated to pick up their shipments for transportation in interstate commerce. No other data was presented as to particular facts of these situations. The Bureau also presented specific evidence concerning Associated's failure to pick up shipments of flagpoles tendered by American Flagpole, Inc., of East Setauket, Long Island, N. Y., during 1974. An ICC transportation rate and tariff specialist assigned to the Commission's New York City office made a personal survey of the dispatching operations and recordkeeping of Associated at its West Babylon terminal, about 40 miles from downtown Manhattan, and also of the records and operations of American Flagpole at its East Setauket plant. This investigation was conducted on several days during November 1974. The Commission's transportation specialist prepared a detailed study correlating the availability of Associated's equipment in the area of the American Flagpole plant and Associated performance in providing this shipper its needed service. The study was designed to determine the times, frequencies, and results of the shipper's requests for service from Associated. The East Setauket plant of American Flagpole is located approximately 14 miles from Associated's West Babylon Terminal. The Commission study shows, for example, that on January 2, 1974, American Flagpole made the first of a series of frequent calls during January to Associated's West Babylon terminal requesting the pickup of a shipment of flagpoles. American Flagpole's records show a total of 13 telephone calls to Associated during this period requesting service. The shipment finally was picked up on January 29. As shown by Associated's dispatch records for this period of time, the carrier had 40-foot trailers, making deliveries in the general area of the East Setauket plant—that is making deliveries to consignees at communities within about a 15-mile radius of East Setauket on virtually every working day of the month of January. On two dates, four such trailers were delivering in this area; on three other dates, three trailers were so available; and on five other dates, two trailers were available. The 40-foot trailers are adequate for the handling of the shipper's flagpole shipments. This general pattern-a long delay in providing the service requested, punctuated by frequent calls from the shipper requesting service-was repeated on the seven additional shipments made by American Flagpole via Associated between February and October 1974. Usually the request for service was made early in the month and service was provided toward the end of the month. On most intervening working days there were trailers making deliveries to consignees from the West Babylon terminal, using 40-foot trailers in such service. American Flagpole is a manufacturer of flagpoles who ships them around the country, and around the world. Its traffic manager testified at the hearing as to the difficulties she has encountered in trying to get service from Associated. Beginning in late 1973 she began keeping a calendar-diary record of here attempts to get her shipments picked up. The pattern of responses from Associated shows stalling tactics, not outright refusals to pick up the freight. She would take pains to be sure that the destinations involved for her shipments were ones served by Associated, and that she had enough volume for a pickup before calling Associated's West Babylon terminal for the pickup. She was asked what transpired in those repetitive telephone calls she made to Associated's terminals: Q. And when you made these recalls, what did you usually-what kind of information did you give them on the recall? A. This is American Flagpole, I am waiting for my pickup, when will we get it. And they might ask when do you close, and we go all through the whole thing again, how many pieces, the weight, what time do you close, and you know, sometimes I would be given a promise yes, we will be there this afternoon, and would come and go and there's no pickup. Then, as to a shipment for which pickup was initially requested on June 24, 1974, she testified: I recalled on July 2nd and I was told they would try for Monday. I called again in the afternoon, and I was told they would try tomorrow. I recalled on the 26th and was told they'd be in that afternoon. I called again in the afternoon, and I was told not today, first thing next week. And finally on the 29th [July 1974] they made pickup. This witness testified that American Flagpole has been using eight different motor common carriers to pick up its flagpole shipments, with each of them being tendered about one shipment per month. She characterized the service that she had been receiving from these other carriers over the past two years as a "fairly reasonable" service, that is, she said: “When I call for a pickup, they are in within a couple of days and usually not more than a week's time passes before they do come." She would regard Associated's service as adequate if it regularly would make its pickup within a week or so after the initial request for service. The traffic manager for American Flagpole agreed at the hearing that during 1975 Associated was responding to her requests for pickup service within a "fairly |