the CGL of New York (as subsidiaries of the (second) Central GL. [Thus, the CGL of New York became the fourth entity to use the name of the Central GL.] [At the same time, however, the EGL of New England continued with the same name, because of its location, which was (and is) clearly eastern rather than central, and which was outside the territory of the NYC (railway) System.] In 1936 The Greyhound Corporation began to eliminate its multiple (and often complex) intermediate holding companies (between the parent firm and the operating companies) – to avoid a hugely increased federal income tax on the undistributed earnings of corporate subsidiaries – one under the Revenue Act of 1936, which the national Congress had passed as a means by which to cause (or force) a simplification of complex corporate structures in the public-utility industries (including the transportation industries). In that same year, 1936, Greyhound (by necessity) applied to the federal Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) for its mandatory approval to merge the EGL of New England (as a division) into The Greyhound Corporation and to merge both the CGL of Michigan and the CGL of New York (as divisions rather than subsidiaries) into the main (second) Central GL. The ICC approved. In 1936 Greyhound merged the EGL of New England as a division (formerly a subsidiary of the CGL, a subsidiary of The Greyhound Corporation) into the parent firm, thereby converting The Greyhound Corporation into an operating company (rather than merely a holding company). Thereby the parent firm, The Greyhound Corporation, became a carrier in its own right (for the first time) and with its own authority (with its own ICC-MC number). Also in that same year, 1936, Greyhound merged the CGL of Michigan into the main CGL, which continued as a subsidiary of the parent firm. However, the Public-service Commission (PSC) of the State of New York, which also held jurisdiction over the activities of the CGL of New York within the boundaries of its own state, withheld its approval – saying that the proposed merger would jeopardize its authority over operations within its state. Therefore, the CGL of New York remained (until the end of 1955) as a separate corporate entity and as a subsidiary (of the main second CGL), but as a subsidiary of a subsidiary (no longer as a subsidiary of a holding company). In December 1955 the New