“factual findings resulting from an investigation made pursuant to authority granted by law” unless those findings lack trustworthiness. If mem-oranda reflecting the preliminary opinions of agency staff members were admissible under Rule 803(8)(A), then Rule' 803(8)(C)’s limitations would be meaningless. We further conclude that the memoranda do not satisfy Rule 803(8)(C). The memoranda do not reflect “factual findings” of the NHTSA. Rather, they embody the positions and opinions of individual staff members, which the agency ultimately declined to accept. Our conclusion is in accord with other circuits that have held that interim agency reports or preliminary memoranda do not satisfy Rule 803(8)(C)’s requirements. See Figures y. Board of Pub. Util., 967 F.2d 357, 360 (10th Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Gray, 852 F.2d 136,139 (4th
holding absolutely privileged a communication to an administrative agency designed to prompt action by that agency holding an agency decision is not final during the time the agency considers a petition for review holding that a draft of a proposed letter from an area director of a government agency to a municipal administrative agency was properly excluded because it did not represent an agency finding holding that it was not an abuse of discretion for the trial court to exclude an agency finding of no discrimination on the ground that the report would suggest to the jury that it should reach the same conclusion as the agency 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