With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Court set forth the appropriate standard of judicial review of benefit determinations by fiduciaries or plan administrators in Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Bruch, 489 U.S. 101, 111, 109 S.Ct. 948, 103 L.Ed.2d 80 (1989). The Court held that a denial of benefits challenge under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)(B) should be reviewed under a de novo standard unless the benefit plan grants the administrator or fiduciary discretionary authority to determine eligibility for benefits or to construe the terms of the plan. Firestone, 489 U.S. at 115, 109 S.Ct. 948. When a plan grants such authority, the abuse of discretion standard applies. Id. Thus, Raytheon argues, under Firestone, deference should be given to the administrator’s determination that Ms. Hogan wa , 174 F.3d 606, 611 (5th Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>). Moreover, we agree with the district court

A: holding that the court should review de novo the administrators decision that a property settlement agreement constituted a qdro because it involves interpretation of a settlement agreement and statutory construction not interpretation of the plan
B: recognizing that the standard of review for issues of statutory interpretation and construction is de novo
C: holding that we review issues of statutory interpretation de novo
D: holding statutory interpretation is subject to de novo review
A.