in a county which has referenced landfilling will not have to establish the trust fund requirements if the landfill is Subtitle D compliant for new facilities nor will the arranger be required to indemnify the generator of the waste. Therefore, simply due to the preference that is accorded the local choice, a Subtitle D new facility is not as environmentally inferior as it was when the county preferred waste processing. The exception for the local preference has several implications. First, excluding the local choice, in conjunction with the realities of the Minnesota waste market, alleviates any burden that in-state waste management entities may feel under the application of Section 115A.47. See Government Suppliers Consolidating Serv. Inc. v. Bayh, 975 F.2d 1267, 1279 (7th Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>). Second, the exclusion constitutes substantial
holding that pma process is not specific regulation because the requirements are not contained in formal regulation holding that the regulation was discriminatory as instate entities were generally unaffected by the regulation and outofstate entities were substantially burdened holding that the challenge to a university regulation was moot because the regulation had been substantially amended holding that interpretation of regulation by va that conflicted with plain meaning of regulation not entitled to deference holding that where a regulation could not fairly be read to have spoken at all on an issue an agencys proposed interpretation of the regulation as it pertained to that issue was not a reasonable interpretation of the regulation