>     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: 
 
  We are glad to hear the news. 
 
  We modified the layout of the paper by using the LaTeX class file 
  (elsart.cls) and the Bib-TeX style file (elsart-num.bst) distributed 
  in elsevier.com. 
 
 
> 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. 
 
  We think that it was difficult to read the last paragraph in page 7. 
  We modified the last paragraph in page 7 taking your suggestion into 
  account. In addition, we changed the last sentense in page 6 a little 
  because we found that the definition of the single pi0 sample was missing. 
 
 
> 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? 
 
  The determination of the fractions of NC1pi0 and non-NC1pi0 events 
  is based solely on the MC. In the paper, the cross section and its 
  uncertainty of each interaction are appropriately evaluated based on 
  past measurements. 
 
 
> 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). 
 
  We modified the paper according to your comments.