report and the Army Safety Center Report. Appellants argue that both documents are admissible hearsay under the government report exception in Fed.R.Evid. 803(8). Rule 803(8)(C) allows as an exception to the hearsay rule the admission of “Records, reports, state ments, or data compilations, in any form, of public offices or agencies, setting forth ... in civil actions and proceedings ... factual findings resulting from an investigation made pursuant to authority granted by law.” Fed.R.Evid. 803(8)(C). First, the district court was within its discretion when it excluded the memorandum from Major General Harrison. His comments do not form a part of the CIB report and therefore fall outside the scope of Rule 803(8)(C). Cf. City of New York v. Pullman Inc., 662 F.2d 910, 915 (2d Cir.1981) (<HOLDING>). Also, as the district court noted, Major
holding that chevron deference is due only to a reasonable interpretation made by the administrator of an agency holding that interim staff report of the urban mass transit administration which was ultimately rejected by the umta administrator did not embody the findings of an agency holding that a court may not substitute its own construction of a statutory provision for a reasonable interpretation made by the administrator of an agency 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 it was not wrong for the administrator to rely on the findings of an independent reviewing physician