Dear Katja and Herbert,
thank you very much for your comments/suggestions. Most of them are included in the new version of the reply letter as well as in the revised manuscript. Some of the raised issues  need a reply which you may find in the following. Once again thank you for your efforts.
============================================================================== ================================    Katja's comments  ============================   ==============================================================================
1. 
"page 1, last paragraph:
The paper where we first tried to interpret enlarged average pT and multiplicity
fluctuations, observed in Si+Si at 158A GeV, was QM2009 proceeding, it is 
K. Grebieszkow [for the NA49 Collab.], Nucl. Phys. A830, 547C (2009)"

The reference is included in the revised reply letter.

2. 
"page 3, 3rd paragraph, it is point 4)
In contrary to what referee says, NA49 never measured enlarged pT fluctuations at lower
energies (see PHYSICAL REVIEW C 79, 044904 (2009) for our energy dependence of pT
fluctuations). Enlarged fluctuations at low SPS were observed only for K/pi and K/p
fluctuations using sigma_dynamic measure. However, unfortunately sigma_dynamic is
not an intensive quantity (it is proportional to 1/sqrt(N_W)) and, in fact, it was noticed
quite recently (V. Koch, T. Schuster, Phys. Rev. C81, 034910 (2010)) that
sigma_dyn(K/pi) scales with multiplicities sigma_dyn \propto sqrt{1/N_K + 1/N_pi} (it
means that correlations do not change with energy). While such scaling works perfectly
for K/pi fluctuations, it fails for K/p fluctuations because sigma_dyn(K/p) changes
sign at middle SPS energies. Therefore, only K/p may be somehow connected with "crossing of
the first order transition line", as you write.  You can find some details (and plots) in my SQM talk (Vol. 43 (2012) ACTA PHYSICA POLONICA B, page 609) or in original Tim's paper (V. Koch, T. Schuster, Phys. Rev. C81, 034910 (2010)), if you need more details."

The text of Katja is included at the appropriate location in the revised reply letter.

============================================================================== =============================   Herbert's comments    ============================   ==============================================================================

"referee A

-first para, last sentence:
  "full phase space integration" is not the standard method. I propose
   to remove this sentence or deal with moments obtained from fractions
   of total phase space."

We have rephrased this sentence in the revised reply letter.

"
- second para, 1st sentence:
   Do you really KNOW what the referee meant?? Also avoid "not fully correct" and just state how you see the role of "other measurements" "

We have avoided the expression "not fully correct" and we have analysed more the role of other measurements in the revised reply letter. 

"
- third para: I propose to remove it completely, because it will be
   addressed later."

It is removed in the revised reply letter.

"
- I am not sure that paras 4 and 5 help to "convince" the referee and suggest to remove them (although they were helpful for me to judge on the referee's remarks)."

We think that we cannot remove paragraphs 4 and 5 since a justification for using Physical Review Letters to submit our work must be included in the reply letter. 

"
- Your reply reads well. Maybe you could add at the end that the collaboration in this case was fruitfull because the special intermittency methods and the detailed treatment of the experimental data were combined in order to ensure good quality of the analysis.
- Also, could you include a summary  of the first part into the paper (introduction)?" "

We have given an obvious answer to a rather philosophical comment of the referee. We do not think that a further discussion on the significance of our collaboration is needed. The discussion of global (integrated) vs. local observables is already included in the manuscript (page 2, left column, second paragraph). We have reformulated this paragraph in the revised manuscript. 

"Referee B

1)
- What about including the first sentence of your reply into the
   summary of the paper?" "

It is done.

"2)
- The last two sentences are not really needed (and offending), because
   of the reply to 4)."

They have been reformulated.

"3)
- can (should) we mention in the paper that finite systems will not
   produce "constant exponents"?  "

The discussion of the referee is too inprecise and we think that we should not unneccessarily extend it introducing new possible questions. Some of the issues raised by the referee are actually answered in the discussion of local vs. global observables. 

"4)
- 1st sentence: I propose to formulate differently:
   "We do not agree with the relations given by the referee. Our
    prescription of the subtraction procedure reads:..."
    Can you give a reference, even if it is a standard textbook? "

We have reformulated this sentence and we have added a reference.

"Second last referee comment (Si+Si vs peripheral Pb+Pb): You could add here that also the geometry of the small system is different from peripheral Pb+Pb, since the latter have some 
contribution from asymmetrc collision configurations."

We agree with the comment of Herbert. However adding it in the letter may bring confusion since the influence of the geometry of the collision on the critical properties of the “small system” is already included in the change of the thermodynamic state.