actions did not amount to the unlawful use of unindexed authorities. The commissioner used the OSHA instruction and the standard interpretation as an aid in interpreting whether the City’s inaction was governed by the general industry safety and health standards contained in 29 C.F.R. part 1910. Accordingly, the administrator did not use the OSHA instruction and standard interpretation to establish a rule of law in this proceeding. In making the determination whether the general industry safety and health standards, as contained in 29 C.F.R. part 1910, governed the City’s inaction, the commissioner only applied the OSHA instruction and standard interpretation as relevant to this factual situation. Cf. Anderson v. Iowa Dep’t of Human Servs., 368 N.W.2d 104, 107-08 (Iowa 1985) (<HOLDING>). V. Due Process. The City claims the
holding that a report relied upon by agency in determining whether or not to award a grant had not been adopted as there is no indication in the record that in funding the  grant the agency expressly adopted the reasoning of the report holding that when an agency has not reached an issue the proper course is to remand to the agency to address in the first instance holding that when an agency has not reached an issue the proper course is to remand to the agency in the first instance to address holding that when an agency has not reached an issue the proper course is to remand to the agency to address it in the first instance holding an agency could not use a policy found in a departments employee manual as the rule of law to determine a contested issue because the agency never adopted a rule containing such a policy