With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". standing, it would have had to claim that the regulations thwarted some actual or potential interstate operation. The Court concludes that YVMH has prudential standing to sue for the alleged violations. The Complaint adequately alleges that the challenged regulations burden YVMH’s interstate business. Specifically, YVMH alleges that if it were allowed to perform elective PCI’s, it would 1) provide elective PCI to out-of-state residents; 2) buy necessary PCI equipment from out-of-state vendors; and 3) recruit physicians and staff from outside Washington to perform PCI. (Ct. Rec. 1 at 6.) If these facts are true, the Department burdened YVMH’s interest in participating in interstate commerce. Cf. Oregon v. Heavy Vehicle Elec. License Plate, Inc., 157 F.Supp.2d 1158, 1169-70 (D.Or.2001) (<HOLDING>). YVMH need only plead that it has interstate

A: holding that dormant commerce clause complaint by instate resident against municipality failed on merits because challenged rule regulated evenhandedly and did not burden interstate commerce
B: holding that state restrictions on electronic license plates might constitute an undue burden on interstate commerce so the claim fell within the zone of interests protected by the dormant commerce clause
C: holding that statute which prohibited gun possession near a school zone exceeded congresss authority under the commerce clause because the statute did not regulate activity that had a substantial effect on interstate commerce
D: holding that stock exchanges asserting their rights to engage in interstate commerce free of discriminatory taxes are within the zone of interests protected by the commerce clause
B.