general:  With the core saturated, we should be able to provide lower limits
on the NGC3034 flux, at least at 24 and 160 microns.  It seems like lower
limits would be better than nothing.

--I agree.  This has been added to the data table and the SED figure.

tab. 1:  For the benefit of those who don't read the whole paper or who are
referring back to the table after a long period away from the paper, a table
ought to be able to stand on its own.  In that light, the table needs a
footnote explaining where columns 2-6 come from.  Additional explanation might
be needed for columns 7-10 - e.g., did you pick a certain surface brightness
to define the aperture?

--OK, I've added this information for columns 2-6.

tab. 2:  Should "optical near-infrared" be, simply, "near-infrared?"

--Yes, thanks.

fig. 1:  The caption should explain what the reader is looking at.  I don't
know, myself, or I'd give you some text.  I think you need something like
"Schematic representation of the observing strategy, overlaid on <something>."
Where <something> is whatever the grayscale image is.

--This has been fixed.

fig. 2:  The caption doesn't make clear whether the solid line is the total,
or is (total - ANGST).

--Fixed

fig. 3:  How is the top panel different from the upper-right panel of Fig. 2?
(I.e., they're both histograms of the apparent B mangnitude.)

--They're not.  But per Evan's suggestion I've also added absolute magnitude.  My goal here is to show the sensibleness of our m_B~15.5 mag cut-off for the outer-tier of the survey--it's tough to have MIPS detections for these types of sources that appear in the inner-tier. 

fig. 4:  The GALEX data appear here for the first time (i.e., they're not in
Table 2), so it would be appropriate to cite a reference for them here.

--Done

fig. 6:  Is L[TIR:3-1100um] the same as TIR in Figure 5?  If so, they ought to
use the same notation.

--Fixed

sec. 1:  In paragraph 2, is it fair to describe 11HUGS as "volume-limited"
when it's really not?

--Well, we do qualify by saying "approximately volume-limited".

sec. 3.2:  The 10-40 day gap between epochs is far more than is needed for
asteroids to move out of the field (which takes hours).  Mainly, the gap is
there to allow the field-of-view time to rotate and thereby provide better
cancellation of array-dependent artifacts.  You might instead say "...to allow
time for the field-of-view to rotate and for asteroids to move out of the
field."

--Thanks

sec. 3.2:  It's worth pointing out that the methods you describe were also
used for the largest non-GTO galaxies, specifically the Magellanic Clouds
which are also included in LVL.

--Done

sec. 3.2:  The new 70um nonlinearity code (which you'll get soon) has modified
parameters.  The threshold is 44 MJy/sr, and the form is
f_true = 0.502*f_meas^1.182.

--I eagerly await the updated code!

sec. 3.3:  It's more correct to say the reduction is the same as for the new
data, except for the asteroid rejection in the cases where only one epoch was
measured.  This applies to ~12 of the MIPS targets.

--Done

sec. 4.2.1:  You probably will need to cite sources for the calibration
uncertainties you quote.  For MIPS, they are Engelbracht et al., Gordon et
al., and Stansberry et al. 2007, at 24, 70, and 160um, respectively.

--Thanks!