Opinion ID: 1237003
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Limited Driving Privileges Under a Commercial Driver's License [1]

Text: The appellant argues that, because his arrest for DWUI took place while he was in his private vehicle and not while he was operating a commercial motor vehicle, the hearing examiner should have granted him limited privileges to operate a commercial motor vehicle during the suspension of his private driver's license. At the hearing, the hearing examiner commented: We have a slight problem, Mr. Wilson, in that under Wyoming law, my office can issue what is called a probationary driver's license and under normal circumstances, we can issue you a license to drive to and from and at work. However, since the Commercial Driver's License Act went into effect in January of '90, there's a provision in there that says you cannot operate any commercial motor vehicle while your license is suspended. What that means is we can go ahead and give you the probationary license, but it's not going to be valid for commercial operation.... [T]he only thing I can tell you is we can go ahead and enter the order, grant you the privileges, and we can get you to and from work. But it's not going to be any good to drive over the road. The hearing examiner concluded that the Uniform Commercial Driver License Act, Wyo.Stat. §§ 31-17-101 to -120 (1989 & Supp.1992), limited the discretion otherwise provided to the hearing examiner under Wyo.Stat. § 31-7-105 (Supp.1990) [2] of the Driver's License Act, Wyo. Stat. §§ 31-7-101 to -140 (1989 & Supp.1992), and, therefore, he could not issue a probationary driver's license which would allow the appellant to operate commercial motor vehicles. When the district court reviewed the matter, it resolved the conflict between § 31-7-105 and the Uniform Commercial Driver License Act in favor of the Uniform Commercial Driver License Act because of its purpose. The district court found: Commercial motor vehicles do pose a higher degree of risk to the public and in an effort to deal with this higher risk, the legislature apparently found that the prohibition against driving a commercial motor vehicle while one's license was under suspension was needed. The court agrees with the State that higher standards for commercial motor vehicle operation serve a legitimate state interest in the regulation of such vehicles in order to promote public safety. In general, we review agency actions and the district court's review of those actions under the standard set forth in the Wyoming Administrative Procedure Act. Wyo. Stat. § 16-3-114(c) (1990), provides in relevant part: The reviewing court shall: .... (ii) Hold unlawful and set aside agency action, findings and conclusions found to be: (A) Arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion or otherwise not in accordance with law[.] The standard of review used when this Court reviews an agency's conclusion of law is straightforward. If the conclusion of law is in accordance with law, it is affirmed; if it is not, it is to be corrected. Employment Security Commission of Wyoming v. Western Gas Processors, Ltd., 786 P.2d 866, 871 (Wyo.1990) (citing Department of Revenue and Taxation of State of Wyoming v. Casper Legion Baseball Club, Inc., 767 P.2d 608 (Wyo.1989), and Rocky Mountain Oil & Gas Association v. State Board of Equalization, 749 P.2d 221 (Wyo.1987)). In order to determine whether the hearing examiner, and in turn the district court, reached the correct conclusion of law, we must construe § 31-17-105 of the Uniform Commercial Driver License Act against § 31-7-105 of the Driver's License Act. The Driver's License Act allows for an appeal once a driver has his or her private driver's license suspended. Section 31-7-105(d). After hearing the evidence, the hearing examiner was statutorily provided with several options. The relevant provision of the Driver's License Act in effect at the time of the appellant's suspension provided: Upon hearing, the hearing examiner shall either rescind or uphold the denial or order of suspension, revocation or cancellation or disqualification from driving a commercial motor vehicle or, good cause appearing therefor, may continue or modify a suspension of the license. The discretion to continue or modify any order of suspension so as to allow driving privileges is limited as follows: (i) It shall be extended only in cases where failure to do so would cause an undue hardship; (ii) It shall be extended only once to any person in a five (5) year period; (iii) It may be extended to a person convicted under W.S. 31-5-233 or other law prohibiting driving while under the influence only if: (A) Within the five (5) year period preceding the date of the most recent offense, the person has not been convicted under W.S. 31-5-233 or other law prohibiting driving while under the influence; and (B) The person agrees to pursue and completes an alcohol education or treatment program as the division prescribed. (iv) It shall not be granted in cases of: . . . . (F) A disqualification from driving a commercial motor vehicle under W.S. XX-XX-XXX and XX-XX-XXX. Section 31-7-105(d). The hearing examiner encountered a conflict between this provision and the Uniform Commercial Driver License Act. Wyoming adopted the Uniform Commercial Driver License Act in 1989. 1989 Wyo. Sess. Laws ch. 176, § 1. Section 31-17-105 of the Uniform Commercial Driver License Act provides: (a) Except as provided by W.S. XX-XX-XXX or when driving under a commercial driver instruction permit, no person may drive a commercial motor vehicle unless the person has been issued and is in immediate possession of a commercial driver license and applicable endorsements valid for the vehicle they are driving. (b) No person may drive a commercial motor vehicle while: (i) His driving privilege is suspended, revoked or canceled; (ii) Subject to a disqualification; or (iii) Subject to an out-of-service order. The appellant contends that he should have been granted probationary privileges to drive commercial motor vehicles since the suspension concerned only his private driver's license. We disagree. Under the Uniform Commercial Driver License Act and the corresponding federal legislation, the appellant was required to notify his employer of the suspension even though it occurred while he was operating his personal vehicle. Section 31-17-103(a) & (b). See also 49 U.S.C. app. § 2702(b) (1988). Once this notification occurred, the employer could not allow the appellant to operate a commercial motor vehicle during the time of the suspension. [3] Section 31-17-104; 49 U.S.C. app. § 2703 (1988). Section 31-17-104 provides: (a) Each employer must require the applicant to provide the information required in W.S. XX-XX-XXX. (b) No employer may knowingly allow, permit or authorize a driver to drive a commercial motor vehicle during any period in which the driver has: (i) Not been licensed to drive a commercial vehicle; (ii) A driver license suspended, revoked or cancelled by a state; (iii) Lost the privilege to drive a commercial motor vehicle in a state; (iv) Been disqualified from driving a commercial motor vehicle; or (v) More than one (1) driver license. Section 31-17-104 makes it clear that the Legislature did not intend for commercial drivers to operate commercial motor vehicles while their private driver's licenses are suspended. That section fits into the overall scheme of the Uniform Commercial Driver License Act by closely regulating commercial motor vehicles because of the unique danger they pose to the public. The public safety purpose of the Uniform Commercial Driver License Act is made clear in the session laws, which state: (a) The purpose of this act is to implement the Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1986, 49 U.S.C. §§ 2701 through 2716 and to reduce or prevent commercial motor vehicle accidents, fatalities and injuries by: (i) Permitting commercial drivers to hold only one (1) license; (ii) Disqualifying commercial drivers who have committed certain serious traffic violations or other specified offenses; (iii) Strengthening license and test standards. (b) This act is a remedial law and shall be liberally construed to promote the public health, safety and welfare. To the extent that this act conflicts with general driver licensing provisions contained in W.S. 31-7-101 through 31-7-202, this act prevails. The general driver licensing provisions contained in W.S. 31-7-101 through 31-7-202 apply to persons licensed under this act to the extent there are no conflicting provisions in this act. 1989 Wyo. Sess. Laws ch. 176, § 4 (emphasis added). Statutes in pari materia are to be construed together. Halliburton Company v. McAdams, Roux and Associates, Inc., 773 P.2d 153, 155 (Wyo.1989) (citing Wyoming Department of Revenue and Taxation-Excise Tax Division v. First Wyoming Bank, N.A.-Kemmerer, 718 P.2d 31 (Wyo.1986)). A reading of the purpose statement of the Uniform Commercial Driver License Act in conjunction with §§ 31-7-105 and 31-17-105 leads to the inescapable conclusion that the Legislature intended that the hearing examiner's discretion to modify suspensions be limited and removed in the case of commercial motor vehicle drivers. The purpose statement requires that the Uniform Commercial Driver License Act be construed to prevail over the general Driver's License Act. Therefore, we conclude that the Uniform Commercial Driver License Act limits the hearing examiner's discretion to issue probationary driver's licenses during suspensions in that probationary driving privileges cannot extend to the operation of commercial motor vehicles. We must examine whether this legislative intent violates the equal protection guarantees of our state and federal constitutions.