With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". the issues presented on this appeal involve the application of a statutory standard to undisputed facts, the appropriate standard of review is de novo.”). We note, however, that our ruling would not be different under a clearly erroneous standard. 12 . Quoting Paschall v. Kansas City Star Co., 695 F.2d 322, 338-39 (8th Cir.1982), Amex suggests that if an expert's findings prove "to be so 'crucial' and 'indispensable' that an arbitrator determines that the case absolutely could not have been pursued without them, the arbitrator might award such costs.” Amex Brief at 28 We are skeptical, however, that an arbitrator might follow Paschall because it appears unlikely that its holding survives Crawford Fitting Co. See Gilbert v. City of Little Rock, Ark., 709 F.Supp. 856, 862 (E.D.Ark.1987) (<HOLDING>). 13 . The plaintiffs’ counsel has submitted a

A: holding that fees for fees are not reimbursable under 28 usc  593f1
B: holding that courts may not tax expert witness fees against the losing party beyond the 30 per day authorized in 28 usc  1821b unless otherwise authorized by statute
C: holding that where jurisdiction was based on 28 usc  2201 venue was determined as per 28 usc  1391
D: holding that paschall is inconsistent with the holding of crawford fitting to the effect that expert witness fees are to be determined solely in accordance with 28 usc  1821b
D.