Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
to confirmation of an arbitration award under the New York Convention, we may look to authority under the FAA. Parsons & Whittemore, 508 F.2d at 974. III. We may decline enforcement of an arbitral award on the basis that “the arbitral procedure was not in accordance with the agreement of the parties.” 21 U.S.T. 2517, Art. V, § (l)(d). To determine whether the procedure used was contrary to the parties’ agreed arbitral procedures, we must begin with the language of the parties’ arbitration agreement. See Encyclopaedia Universalis S.A. v. Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc., 403 F.3d 85, 91 (2d Cir.2005); Coast Trading Co. v. Pac. Molasses Co., 681 F.2d 1195, 1198 (9th Cir. 1982); cf. generally Howsam v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 537 U.S. 79, 84, 123 S.Ct. 588, 154 L.Ed.2d 491 (2002) ; Simula, Inc. v. Autoliv, Inc., 175 F.3d 716,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that in the context of an arbitrability determination the court reviews the contract de novo
B. holding appellate court reviews legal conclusions de novo
C. holding that statutory construction is a question of law which this court reviews de novo
D. holding that an appellate court reviews a trial courts grant of a summary judgment motion de novo because it is a question of law
E. recognizing that appellate court reviews questions of law de novo
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.