Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
markets. South-Central Timber Dev., Inc. v. Wunnicke, 467 U.S. 82, 97, 104 S.Ct. 2237, 2245, 81 L.Ed.2d 71 (1984). 16 . The Supreme Court has acknowledged that there is no bright line separating the cases receiving strict scrutiny from those in which the scrutiny is less strict. Brown-Forman Distillers Corp. v. New York State Liquor Auth., 476 U.S. 573, 579, 106 S.Ct. 2080, 2084, 90 L.Ed.2d 552 (1986). 17 . The statute struck down in Fort Gratiot Landfill v. Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources read, in relevant part: A person shall not accept for disposal solid waste ... that is not generated in the county in which the disposal area is located unless the acceptance of solid waste ... that is not generated in the county is expli e Disposal Auth., 814 F.Supp. 1566, 1580 (M.D.Ala.1993) . 18 . MMWAC argues that the ordinance is
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding manufacturing exception to pennsylvanias capital stock and franchise taxes unconstitutional because it facially discriminated against interstate commerce
B. holding that ordinance requiring all municipal solid waste generated within county to be delivered to a particular facility discriminated against interstate commerce
C. holding that the government can satisfy the hobbs act interstate commerce requirement by showing that the robbery resulted in the closure of a business engaged in interstate commerce
D. holding that three municipal flow control ordinances similar to the one here at issue discriminated against interstate commerce
E. holding that mere reference to the interlocal agreement in the citys ordinances even assuming the interlocal agreement impermissibly burdens interstate commerce by restricting the flow of solid waste is not enough to render those ordinances invalid
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.