protestant's authority is restricted to commodities listed therein, Coastal may not transport the involved commodity under such authority. It is well settled that the descriptive lists are allinclusive as to authority specifically restricted in this manner. See Sims M. Transport Lines, Inc., Revocation of Certificate, 66 M.C.C. 553 (reported in later volumes on reconsideration of other issues), wherein (at page 557) division 1, in referring to the Descriptions case, said: A grant of authority by reference to a list is specific and limited accordingly but a grant of "Iron and steel articles" without reference to the list whether made before or after the list was prescribed, is not so limited and may include other articles of this class even though not listed. The case cited by protestant (Consolidated Freightways Corp. of Del. Ext.-Petrochem., 92 M.C.C. 443) in support of its argument that the Descriptions case is only explanatory of the commodities which a carrier of petroleum products is authorized to transport, dealt with "petroleum products" authority unencumbered by reference to the list in appendix XIII, and concluded that such authority, so unencumbered, is a generic term which is not limited to a commodity which exists at the time authority is issued but extends to pertinent commodities that are developed after issuance of a certificate. In view of the fact that Coastal's "petroleum products" authority from Ashtabula to New York City and points in Maryland, Delaware, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and parts of New Jersey and Virginia is limited by reference to appendix XIII to the report in the Descriptions case, we conclude that protestant has no significant authority under which it may transport the traffic involved here. The applications accordingly will be granted. We find that the present and future public convenience and necessity require operation by applicants, in interstate of foreign commerce, as common carriers by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, of toluene di isocyanate, in bulk, in tank vehicles, from Ashtabula, Ohio, to the following points: (1) Nos. MC-110525 (Sub-No. 601) (Chemical Leaman Tank Lines, Inc.), MC-107403 (Sub-No. 510) (Matlack, Inc.), and MC-64932 (Sub-No. 335) (Rogers Cartage Co.), to points in Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wisconsin; and (2) No. MC-106223 (Sub-No. 65) (Greenleaf Motor Express, Inc.), to points in Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin; subject in each instance to the condition that such authority shall not be joined or combined directly or indirectly with any other authority held by applicant for the purpose of providing service from or to any points other than those specified above. In each application, we further find that the respective applicants are fit, willing, and able properly to perform such service and to conform to the requirements of the Interstate Commerce Act and the Commission's rules and regulations thereunder; and that appropriate certificates should be granted. Upon compliance by applicants with the requirements of sections 215, 217, and 221(c) of the act and with the Commission's rules and regulations thereunder within the time specified in the order entered concurrently herein, appropriate certificates will be issued. An appropriate order will be entered. 95 M.C.C. No. MC-114045 (SUB-NO. 107)1 TRANS-COLD EXPRESS, INC., EXTENSION - Decided June 10, 1964 1. In No. MC-114045 (Sub-No. 107), public convenience and necessity found not shown to require operation by applicant as a common carrier by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, of specified commodities from Suffolk, Va., to points in Texas. Application denied. 2. In No. MC-107515 (Sub-No. 433) and No. MC-94265 (Sub-No. 103), public convenience and necessity found to require operation by each applicant as a common carrier by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, of specified commodities, in vehicles equipped with mechanical refrigeration, from Suffolk, Va., to Dallas, Tex. Issuance of certificates approved upon compliance by each applicant with certain conditions, and applications in all other respects denied. Carl L. Phinney and Leroy Hallman for applicant in No. MC114045 (Sub-No. 107) and protestant in Nos. MC-107515 (SubNo. 433) and MC-94265 (Sub-No. 103). Paul M. Daniell and Otis E. Stovall for applicant in No. MC107515 (Sub-No. 433). Harry C. Ames, Jr., and E. Stephen Heisley for applicant in No. MC-94265 (Sub-No. 103). John S. Shannon for protestants in all proceedings. REPORT OF THE COMMISSION DIVISION 1, COMMISSIONERS HUTCHINSON, TIERNEY, AND BROWN TIERNEY, Commissioner: These applications were heard on a consolidated record and were the subject of a single report and recommended order of the examiner. As they involve related issues, they will be disposed of here in a single report. Exceptions to the order recommended by the examiner in each of these proceedings were 1This report also embraces No. MC-107515 (Sub-No. 433), Refrigerated Transport Co., Inc., Extension Suffolk, Va., and No. MC-94265 (Sub-No. 103), Bonney Motor Express, Inc., Extension Suffolk, Va. filed by Trans-Cold Express, Inc., applicant in No. MC-114045 (Sub-No. 107) and protestant in Nos. MC-107515 (Sub-No. 433) and MC-94265 (Sub-No. 103), and applicants in No. MC-107515 (SubNo. 433) and No. MC-94265 (Sub-No. 103) replied. In the title proceeding, by application filed February 23, 1963, as amended, Trans-Cold Express, Inc., of Dallas, Tex., hereinafter called Trans-Cold, seeks a certificate of public convenience and necessity authorizing operation, in interstate or foreign commerce, as a common carrier by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, of confectionery products, peanut butter, processed peanuts, and related products, from Suffolk, Va., to points in Texas. In No. MC-107515 (Sub-No. 433), by application filed February 28, 1963, as amended, Refrigerated Transport Co., Inc., of Atlanta, Ga., hereinafter called Refrigerated, seeks a certificate of public convenience and necessity authorizing operation, in interstate or foreign commerce, as a common carrier by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, of peanuts, shelled, salted or not salted; nuts, edible, shelled, salted or not salted; peanuts, roasted in shell; liquid peanut oil; candy and confectionery; peanut butter; bakery products; and dehydrated sweet potatoes, in vehicles equipped with mechanical refrigeration, from Suffolk, Va., to Dallas, Tex. In No. MC-94265 (Sub-No. 103), by application filed April 1, 1963, Bonney Motor Express, Inc., of Norfolk, Va., hereinafter called Bonney, seeks a certificate of public convenience and necessity authorizing operation in interstate or foreign commerce, as a common carrier by motor vehicle, over irregular routes, of edible nuts, candy and confectionery, liquid peanut oil, peanut butter, peanut butter sandwiches, bakery products, and dehydrated sweet potatoes, from Suffolk, Va., to Dallas, Tex. Each of these applications is opposed by Norfolk and Western Railway Company, Southern Pacific Company, The Atchinson, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company, and the Texas Railroad Association on behalf of its member carriers. In addition, TransCold opposes the applications of Refrigerated and Bonney. The examiner concluded that there was sufficient traffic to justify the granting of authority to two of the three motor carriers involved and recommended that the applications of Refrigerated and Bonney be granted but that the application of Trans-Cold be denied. On exceptions Trans-Cold objects to the examiner's characterization of its behavior in actively prosecuting this application as fraudulent and asserts that the admonition which was directed by the examiner at this applicant was completely unwarranted. It argues that shipper-supported applicants do not automatically prevail over nonsupported applicants, citing Western Auto Transports, Inc., Ext. - St. Louis County. Mo., 81 M.C.C. 291, 305, and contends that the examiner erred in denying its application while granting those of Refrigerated and Bonney. It points out that the proposed service would logically fit into its existing operations inasmuch as it is presently participating in authorized movements from Texas to Virginia and has a significant amount of idle equipment available for handling outbound traffic from Virginia. In reply both Refrigerated and Bonney contend that the findings of the examiner were amply supported by the evidence and should be affirmed. Refrigerated also notes that the exceptions of Trans-Cold contain no specific reference or objection to its recommended grant of authority. The evidence, the examiner's recommendations, the exceptions, and the replies thereto have been considered. The facts of record as set forth in the examiner's report are not subject to dispute and need not be repeated in the body of this report. Pertinent excerpts thereof have been reproduced in the appendix attached hereto. We find the examiner's full statement of facts to be complete and accurate in all material respects and hereby adopt it as our own. Our review of the evidence presented convinces us that a need does exist for a service of the type proposed herein and that the volume of traffic generated by the shipper is sufficient to justify the authorization of two motor carriers to perform this service. Accordingly, we shall adopt the findings of the examiner in this regard and confine our discussion to those matters raised on exceptions. Turning first to the question of the propriety of Trans-Cold's conduct in this proceeding, we believe that the examiner was unduly harsh in his criticism of this applicant. The examiner was of the opinion that Trans-Cold filed its application without the approval of the supporting shipper and that it knew or should have known that the shipper would not testify on its behalf. He concluded that Trans-Cold had not acted in good faith and strongly castigated this carrier for engaging in such practices. The evidence reveals, however, that prior to the filing of any of the applications with which we are here concerned, a conversation took place at the 1962 annual dinner of the New York Traffic |