OPINION

Appellant sought the renewal of his driver’s license, but failed to pass the eye test required by NRS 483.380(1 ).1 Despite this deficiency, appellant requested that respondents give him a driving test. After a hearing on the matter, respondents refused his request, and the district court affirmed respondents’ decision. Here, appellant contends respondents’ refusal to test his ability to drive is arbitrary, capricious, and an abuse of discretion. We disagree.

The function of this court in reviewing the decision of an administrative agency is to “ascertain whether that body acted arbitrarily or capriciously and, therefore, abused its discretion.” Bd. Chiropractic Exam’rs v. Babtkis, 83 Nev. 385, 387, 432 *307P.2d 498, 499 (1967). Even if the driving test was administered, respondents would be precluded by statute from issuing appellant a license due to his failure to pass the necessary eye examination. NRS 483.250(6).2 Under such circumstances, respondents did not abuse their discretion by refusing appellant’s request.

Affirmed.