Dear Dr. Nakayama, 
 
    I have finally received a reply from the referee, who now recommends  
that the paper be published, in spite of a few open questions. I tend to  
agree, and would only ask that you modify the layout of the paper to  
reflect the style of Physics Letters B, in particular regarding the  
style of references. I would also like to ask you to think about the  
following points that came to my mind as I read through the paper: 
 
1) the composition of the non-NC1pi0 is only explained very late in the  
paper, as a result of the MC simulation. It would be useful to indicate  
early in the paper, at the first mention, that this composition will be  
determined later. 
 
2) It is not completely clear to me whether the determination of the  
fractions of NC1pi0 and non-NC1pi0 events is based solely on the MC, or  
whether some observable is used to differentiate between the two  
populations. Since the number of MC is normalized to the total number of  
neutrino events in the fidutial volume, it seems to me that the only  
cross check that the mix of the different processes in the MC is correct  
is the agreement in the shape of the pi0 momentum distribution in Fig. 4  
between data and MC. Is my understanding correct? 
 
3) a few editorial comments: 
 
- as you define several abbreviations in your paper, I would suggest  
only doing this if the abbreviation is used subsequently. In particular,  
PIMON does not appear after its definition. Also 'protons on target' are  
usually abbreviated 'p.o.t.', rather than 'POT', I believe. 
 
- on page [11], after figure 2, it should be "..to be 15 MeV/c for pi0's  
with *a* momentum ..." 
 
- two pages on, it should be: "...The Rein and Sehgal model .." (not:  
Sehgal's) in two instances. 
 
- and on the same page, it should be:"..generate the final state  
hadrons, *the* PYTHIA...is used for hadronic invariant masses W larger  
than..." (plural, no commas). 
 
 
   best regards - michael doser