ITEM 8 / NOTE 5.
INVESTMENTS We consider severe price declines in our assessment of potential credit impairments.
We may also modify our model inputs when we determine that price movements in certain sectors are indicative of factors not captured by the cash flow models.
In periods subsequent to the recognition of an other-than-temporary impairment charge for available for sale fixed maturity securities that is not foreign exchange related, we prospectively accrete into earnings the difference between the new amortized cost and the expected undiscounted recoverable value over the remaining expected holding period of the security.
Credit Impairments The following table presents a rollforward of the cumulative credit losses in other-than-temporary impairments recognized in earnings for available for sale fixed maturity securities:
## Table 0 ##
* Represents both accretion recognized due to changes in cash flows expected to be collected over the remaining expected term of the credit impaired securities and the accretion due to the passage of time.
Equity Securities We evaluate our available for sale equity securities for impairment by considering such securities as candidates for other-thantemporary impairment if they meet any of the following criteria: ?
The security has traded at a significant (25 percent or more) discount to cost for an extended period of time (nine consecutive months or longer); ?
A discrete credit event has occurred resulting in (i) the issuer defaulting on a material outstanding obligation; (ii) the issuer seeking protection from creditors under the bankruptcy laws or any similar laws intended for court-supervised reorganization of insolvent enterprises; or (iii) the issuer proposing a voluntary reorganization pursuant to which creditors are asked to exchange their claims for cash or securities having a fair value substantially lower than the par value of their claims; or ?
We have concluded that we may not realize a full recovery on our investment, regardless of the occurrence of one of the foregoing events.
The determination that an equity security is other-than-temporarily impaired requires the judgment of management and consideration of the fundamental condition of the issuer, its near-term prospects and all the relevant facts and circumstances.
In addition to the above criteria, all equity securities that have been in a continuous decline in value below cost over twelve months are impaired.
We also consider circumstances of a rapid and severe market valuation decline (50 percent or more) discount to cost, in which we could not reasonably assert that the impairment period would be temporary (severity losses).
Other Invested Assets Our equity and cost method investments in private equity funds, hedge funds and other entities are evaluated for impairment similar to the evaluation of equity securities for impairments as discussed above.
Such evaluation considers market conditions,
The following table presents the components of net periodic benefit cost with respect to pensions and other postretirement benefits:
## Table 1 ##
The estimated net loss and prior service credit that will be amortized from Accumulated other comprehensive income into net periodic benefit cost over the next fiscal year are $32 million and $1 million, respectively, for our combined defined benefit pension plans.
For the defined benefit postretirement plans, the estimated amortization from Accumulated other comprehensive income for net loss and prior service credit that will be amortized into net periodic benefit cost over the next fiscal year is a $9 million credit in the aggregate.
At the end of 2015, we changed the method used to measure interest costs for pension and postretirement benefits for our U. S.  plans and largest non-U.
S.  plans.
Previously, we measured interest costs utilizing a single weighted-average discount rate derived from the yield curve used to measure the benefit obligations.
For 2016, interest costs will be measured by applying the specific spot rates along the yield curve to the plans’ corresponding discounted cash flows that comprise the obligation (i. e. , the Spot Rate Approach).
The new method provides a more precise measurement of interest costs by aligning the timing of the plans’ discounted cash flows to the corresponding spot rates on the yield curve; the measurement of our pension and postretirement benefit obligations is not affected.
We have accounted for this change as a change in accounting estimate, which is applied prospectively.
Consequently, combined estimated 2016 pension expense for the AIG U. S.  and nonU.
S.  defined benefit pension plans under the Spot Rate Approach is approximately $86 million, which is a $52 million reduction when compared to the prior approach.
A 100 basis point increase in the discount rate or expected long-term rate of return would decrease the 2016 expense by approximately $56 million and $45 million, respectively, with all other items remaining the same.
Conversely, a 100 basis point decrease in the discount rate or expected long-term rate of return would increase the 2016 expense by approximately $71 million and $45 million, respectively, with all other items remaining the same.
AMERICAN TOWER CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS Mexico Litigation—One of the Company’s subsidiaries, SpectraSite Communications, Inc.  (“SCI”), is involved in a lawsuit brought in Mexico against a former Mexican subsidiary of SCI (the subsidiary of SCI was sold in 2002, prior to the Company’s merger with SCI’s parent in 2005).
The lawsuit concerns a terminated tower construction contract and related agreements with a wireless carrier in Mexico.
The primary issue for the Company is whether SCI itself can be found liable to the Mexican carrier.
The trial and lower appellate courts initially found that SCI had no such liability in part because Mexican courts do not have the necessary jurisdiction over SCI.
Following several decisions by Mexican appellate courts, including the Supreme Court of Mexico, and related appeals by both parties, an intermediate appellate court issued a new decision that would, if enforceable, reimpose liability on SCI in September 2010.
In its decision, the intermediate appellate court identified potential damages of approximately $6.7 million, and on October 14, 2010, the Company filed a new constitutional appeal to again dispute the decision.
As a result, at this stage of the proceeding, the Company is unable to determine whether the liability imposed on SCI by the September 2010 decision will survive or to estimate its share, if any, of that potential liability if the decision survives the pending appeal.
XCEL Litigation—On June 3, 2010, Horse-Shoe Capital (“Horse-Shoe”), a company formed under the laws of the Republic of Mauritius, filed a complaint in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County, with respect to Horse-Shoe’s sale of XCEL to American Tower Mauritius (“AT Mauritius”), the Company’s wholly-owned subsidiary formed under the laws of the Republic of Mauritius.
The complaint names AT Mauritius, ATI and the Company as defendants, and the dispute concerns the timing and amount of distributions to be made by AT Mauritius to Horse-Shoe from a $7.5 million holdback escrow account and a $15.7 million tax escrow account, each established by the transaction agreements at closing.
The complaint seeks release of the entire holdback escrow account, plus an additional $2.8 million, as well as the release of approximately $12.0 million of the tax escrow account.
The complaint also seeks punitive damages in excess of $69.0 million.
The Company filed an answer to the complaint in August 2010, disputing both the amounts alleged to be owed under the escrow agreements as well as the timing of the escrow distributions.
The Company also asserted in its answer that the demand for punitive damages is meritless.
The parties have filed cross-motions for summary judgment concerning the release of the tax escrow account and in January 2011 the court granted the Company’s motion for summary judgment, finding no obligation for the Company to release the disputed portion of the tax escrow until 2013.
Other claims are pending.
The Company is vigorously defending the lawsuit.
Lease Obligations—The Company leases certain land, office and tower space under operating leases that expire over various terms.
Many of the leases contain renewal options with specified increases in lease payments upon exercise of the renewal option.
Escalation clauses present in operating leases, excluding those tied to CPI or other inflation-based indices, are recognized on a straight-line basis over the non-cancellable term of the lease.
Future minimum rental payments under non-cancellable operating leases include payments for certain renewal periods at the Company’s option because failure to renew could result in a loss of the applicable tower site and related revenues from tenant leases, thereby making it reasonably assured that the Company will renew the lease.
Such payments in effect at December 31, 2010 are as follows (in thousands):
## Table 2 ##

<table><tr><td><i>(in millions)</i></td><td>2015</td><td>2014</td><td>2013</td></tr><tr><td>Balance, beginning of year</td><td>$2,659</td><td>$3,872</td><td>$5,164</td></tr><tr><td>Increases due to:</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Credit impairments on new securities subject to impairment losses</td><td>111</td><td>49</td><td>47</td></tr><tr><td>Additional credit impairments on previously impaired securities</td><td>109</td><td>85</td><td>78</td></tr><tr><td>Reductions due to:</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Credit impaired securities fully disposed for which there was no</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>prior intent or requirement to sell</td><td>-399</td><td>-613</td><td>-643</td></tr><tr><td>Credit impaired securities for which there is a current intent or</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>anticipated requirement to sell</td><td>2</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Accretion on securities previously impaired due to credit<sup>*</sup></td><td>-735</td><td>-725</td><td>-774</td></tr><tr><td>Other</td><td>-</td><td>-9</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Balance, end of year</td><td>$1,747</td><td>$2,659</td><td>$3,872</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td></td><td colspan="6">Pension</td><td colspan="6">Postretirement</td></tr><tr><td></td><td colspan="3">U.S. Plans</td><td colspan="3">Non-U.S. Plans</td><td colspan="3">U.S. Plans</td><td colspan="3">Non-U.S. Plans</td></tr><tr><td><i>(in millions)</i></td><td>2015</td><td>2014</td><td>2013</td><td>2015</td><td>2014</td><td>2013</td><td>2015</td><td>2014</td><td>2013</td><td>2015</td><td>2014</td><td>2013</td></tr><tr><td>Components of net periodic benefit cost:</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Service cost</td><td>$192</td><td>$173</td><td>$205</td><td>$43</td><td>$42</td><td>$47</td><td>$5</td><td>$4</td><td>$5</td><td>$3</td><td>$2</td><td>$3</td></tr><tr><td>Interest cost</td><td>220</td><td>228</td><td>201</td><td>25</td><td>29</td><td>29</td><td>8</td><td>9</td><td>8</td><td>3</td><td>2</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>Expected return on assets</td><td>-295</td><td>-288</td><td>-257</td><td>-25</td><td>-22</td><td>-19</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Amortization of prior service credit</td><td>-22</td><td>-33</td><td>-33</td><td>-2</td><td>-3</td><td>-3</td><td>-11</td><td>-11</td><td>-11</td><td>-1</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Amortization of net loss</td><td>92</td><td>42</td><td>138</td><td>9</td><td>7</td><td>13</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>1</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Curtailment (gain) loss</td><td>-179</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-1</td><td>1</td><td>-1</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-2</td></tr><tr><td>Settlement loss</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>1</td><td>-</td><td>5</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Other</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>1</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Net periodic benefit cost</td><td>$8</td><td>$122</td><td>$254</td><td>$50</td><td>$54</td><td>$72</td><td>$2</td><td>$2</td><td>$3</td><td>$5</td><td>$4</td><td>$3</td></tr><tr><td>Total recognized in Accumulated other comprehensive income (loss)</td><td>$143</td><td>$-793</td><td>$823</td><td>$38</td><td>$-40</td><td>$103</td><td>$12</td><td>$-21</td><td>$30</td><td>$-9</td><td>$-11</td><td>$16</td></tr><tr><td>Total recognized in net periodic benefit cost and other comprehensive income (loss)</td><td>$135</td><td>$-915</td><td>$569</td><td>$-12</td><td>$-94</td><td>$31</td><td>$10</td><td>$-23</td><td>$27</td><td>$-14</td><td>$-15</td><td>$13</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td>2011</td><td>$257,971</td></tr><tr><td>2012</td><td>254,575</td></tr><tr><td>2013</td><td>251,268</td></tr><tr><td>2014</td><td>246,392</td></tr><tr><td>2015</td><td>238,035</td></tr><tr><td>Thereafter</td><td>2,584,332</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>$3,832,573</td></tr></table>

Question: In the year with lowest amount of amortization of net loss in pension of US Plans, what's the increasing rate ofInterest cost in pension of US Plans? (in million)