KT & G Corp. v. Att'y Gen. of Okla., 535 F.3d 1114, 1143 (10th Cir.) (interior quote markings omitted).
Although Quik Payday treats the necessity for nationwide uniformity as yet another ground for determining that a situation legislation violates the Commerce Clause, issues about nationwide uniformity are merely the main Pike burden/benefit balancing analysis. Whenever evaluating the responsibility of a situation law on interstate business, вЂњthe practical aftereffect of the statute should be assessed not just by thinking about the effects associated with the statute it self, but in addition by considering how a challenged statute may connect to the genuine regulatory regimes of other States and exactly exactly what effect would arise or even one, however, many or any, State adopted similar legislation.вЂќ Healy, 491 U.S. at 336, 109 S.Ct. 2491. For instance, in Southern Pacific Co. v. Arizona ex rel. Sullivan, 325 U.S. 761, 65 S.Ct. 1515, 89 L.Ed. 1915 (1945), the Supreme Court declared that states may well not вЂњregulate those stages associated with the nationwide business which, due to the need of national uniformity, demand that their legislation, if any, be recommended by just one authority.вЂќ Id. at 767, 65 S.Ct. 1515. But its holding that the state legislation could maybe not restrict train lengths had been sustained by what amounts to Pike balancing-namely, (1) a comprehensive analysis associated with issues that could be created for interstate railroad transportation if each state could manage train lengths and (2) an assessment that such state legislation would confer small, if any, neighborhood advantage. Id. at 771-79, 65 S.Ct. 1515; cf. ACLU v. Johnson, 194 F.3d 1149, 1160 (10th Cir.1999) ( вЂњThe Supreme Court has very long recognized that one forms of business are uniquely suitable for nationwide, in place of state, regulation.вЂќ).