The Court agrees with White Dairy that its activities fall within the interstate commerce exception of section 14-2-1501(b)(11). A foreign corporation is not transacting business if its activities are exclusively or predominantly interstate in nature. See id. at 372 (citing DeKalb Cablevision Corp. v. Press Ass'n, Inc., 141 Ga. App. 1, 232 S.E.2d 353, 354 (1977)). "It is only where the `local activities of the foreign corporation are not merely ancillary to the interstate features, but constitute a substantial local and domestic business separate from its interstate business . . .'" that the foreign corporation is deemed to be transacting business within Georgia.

The inquiry must also, of course, be conducted with due regard for the principle that the States should have considerable leeway in analyzing local evils and in prescribing appropriate cures." Toomer v. Witsell, 334 U.S. 385, 396 ( 68 S.C. 1156, 92 LE 1460) (1948); see Canadian Northern R. Co. v. Eggen, 252 U.S. 553 ( 40 S.C. 402, 64 LE 713) (1920); Ownbey v. Morgan, 256 U.S. 94 ( 41 S.C. 433, 65 LE 837) (1921); Hawes v. Club Ecuestre El Comandante, 535 F.2d 140 (1st Cir. 1976); Brewster v. North Am. Van Lines, 461 F.2d 649 (7th Cir. 1972); see also DeKalb Cablevision Corp. v. Press Assn., Inc., 141 Ga. App. 1 ( 232 S.E.2d 353) (1977); Winston Corp. v. Park Electric Co., 126 Ga. App. 489 ( 191 S.E.2d 340) (1972). These enumerations are without merit.

The purpose of the interstate and foreign commerce exclusion is to prohibit a state from discriminatory legislation that excludes, obstructs, burdens, regulates, or interferes with a foreign corporation's right to engage in interstate and foreign commerce, because the "commerce clause" of the federal constitution preempted such exercise of control. DeKalb Cablevision Corp. v. Press Asso., Inc., 141 Ga. App. 1, 2-3 ( 232 S.E.2d 353) (1977). Where the transaction sued upon by the non-certified foreign corporation arose out of foreign or interstate commerce, an action may be pursued even where the foreign corporation would be required to obtain a certificate of authority for other transactions which occurred intrastate.

Union Brokerage Co. v. Jensen, 322 U.S. 202 ( 64 SC 967, 88 LE 1227); Eli Lilly Co. v. Sav-On-Drugs, Inc., 366 U.S. 276 ( 81 SC 1316, 6 L.Ed.2d 288); Hayes Wheel Co. v. American Distributing Co., 257 F 881 (2) (6th Cir. 1919), cert. den. 250 U.S. 672 ( 40 SC 12, 63 LE 1200)." DeKalb Cablevision Corp. v. Press Assn., 141 Ga. App. 1, 3 ( 232 S.E.2d 353) (1977). The only service which the foreign corporation provided to the defendant in the DeKalb Cablevision case consisted of the daily transmission of a news summary from New York to the defendant's business in Georgia.

[Cits.]" DeKalb Cablevision Corp. v. Press Assn., 141 Ga. App. 1, 3 ( 232 S.E.2d 353). It follows that the judge erred in dismissing the complaint of Record Data, Inc. See also Ellison v. Labor Pool of America, Inc., 228 Ga. 147 (2) ( 184 S.E.2d 572). Judgment reversed. Smith and Banke, JJ., concur.

A. S. International Corp., supra at 126-27. The plaintiff has failed to show that it fits within any of the statutorily enumerated exceptions to the certificate of authority requirement and the fact that the plaintiff was actually conducting a manufacturing operation within the State immediately prior to the commencement of this action indicates that the plaintiff was transacting business within Georgia. Ga. Code Ann. § 22-1401; DeKalb Cablevision Corp. v. Press Association, Inc., 141 Ga. App. 1, 232 S.E.2d 353 (1977); A. B. R. Metals Services, Inc. v. Roach-Russell, Inc., 135 Ga. App. 193, 217 S.E.2d 447 (1975). Although the plaintiff contends that any activity in which it was engaged in Georgia was just "a link in an unbroken chain of interstate sales transactions", the allegations of the complaint demonstrate that this entire action is based on a local manufacturing operation which the plaintiff itself conducted in Georgia and the business relations between the plaintiff and the defendants in connection with that operation.