Committee”).
The Company’s executive officers and certain other employees have been awarded options with different vesting criteria.
Option exercise prices for options granted by the Company under these plans equal the closing price on the NYSE of the Company’s common stock on the date of grant.
Option exercise prices for the options outstanding under the Tektronix Plans were based on the closing price of Tektronix common stock on the date of grant.
In connection with the Company’s assumption of these options, the number of shares underlying each option and exercise price of each option were adjusted to reflect the substitution of Danaher stock for the Tektronix stock underlying these awards.
RSUs issued under the 2007 Stock Incentive Plan and the 1998 Stock Option Plan provide for the issuance of a share of the Company’s common stock at no cost to the holder.
Most RSU awards granted prior to the third quarter of 2009 are subject to performance criteria determined by the Compensation Committee and vest (subject to satisfaction of the performance criteria) 50% on each of the fourth and fifth anniversaries of the grant date.
Most RSU awards granted during or after the third quarter of 2009 vest 1/3 on each of the third, fourth and fifth anniversaries of the grant date and, if the recipient is a member of the Company’s senior management, are generally also subject to performance criteria determined by the Compensation Committee.
Certain of the Company’s executive officers and other employees have been awarded RSUs with different vesting criteria.
Prior to vesting, RSUs do not have dividend equivalent rights, do not have voting rights and the shares underlying the RSUs are not considered issued and outstanding.
Restricted shares issued under the Tektronix 2005 Stock Incentive Plan were granted subject to certain time-based vesting restrictions such that the restricted share awards are fully vested after a period of five years.
Holders of restricted shares have the right to vote such shares and receive dividends.
The restricted shares are considered issued and outstanding at the date the award is granted.
The options, RSUs and restricted shares generally vest only if the employee is employed by the Company on the vesting date or in other limited circumstances and unvested options and RSUs are forfeited upon retirement before age 65 unless the Compensation Committee determines otherwise.
To cover the exercise of options and vesting of RSUs, the Company generally issues new shares from its authorized but unissued share pool, although it may instead issue treasury shares in certain circumstances.
At December 31, 2010, approximately 17.3 million shares of the Company’s common stock were reserved for issuance under the 2007 Stock Incentive Plan.
The Company accounts for stock-based compensation by measuring the cost of employee services received in exchange for all equity awards granted, including stock options, RSUs and restricted shares, based on the fair value of the award as of the grant date.
The Company recognizes the compensation expense over the requisite service period, which is generally the vesting period.
The fair value for RSU and restricted stock awards was calculated using the closing price of the Company’s common stock on the date of grant.
The fair value of the options granted was calculated using a Black-Scholes Merton option pricing model (Black-Scholes).
The following summarizes the assumptions used in the Black-Scholes model to value options granted during the years ended December 31, 2010, 2009 and 2008:
## Table 0 ##
The Black-Scholes model incorporates assumptions to value stock-based awards.
The risk-free rate of interest for periods within the contractual life of the option is based on a zero-coupon U. S.  government instrument whose maturity period equals or approximates the option’s expected term.
Expected volatility is based on implied volatility from traded options on the Company’s stock and historical volatility of the Company’s stock.
To estimate the option exercise timing to be used in the valuation model, in addition to considering the vesting period and contractual term of the option, the Company analyzes and considers actual historical exercise data for previously granted options.
The information below summarizes the Company’s market risks associated with long-term debt and derivative instruments outstanding as of December 31, 2004.
This information should be read in conjunction with Note 1, Note 6 and Note 8 to the Consolidated Financial Statements.
Long-Term Debt The table below presents the principal cash flows and related interest rates by maturity date for longterm debt, including the current portion, as of December 31, 2004.
The fair value of long-term debt was determined based upon quoted market prices for the same or similar debt issues.
## Table 1 ##
Interest rates on variable rate obligations were calculated using the rate in effect as of December 31, 2004.
Interest rates on certain long-term debt have been converted from variable to fixed rates as discussed under the heading Interest Rate Swaps below.
Interest Rate Swaps In order to minimize its financing costs and to manage interest rate exposure, the Company, from time to time, enters into interest rate swap agreements.
In October 2003, the Company entered into interest rate swap agreements to effectively convert interest payments on long-term debt from fixed to variable rates.
Interest payments on $200.0 million of 6.7% Notes due in October 2005 and $150.0 million of 6.95% Notes due in March 2007 were converted from the respective fixed rates to variable rates based on the London Interbank Offered Rate, LIBOR.
In March 2004, the Company terminated these agreements, resulting in cash receipts totaling $5.2 million, with a corresponding increase to the carrying value of the long-term debt.
This increase is being amortized over the remaining term of the respective long-term debt as a reduction to interest expense.
In February 2001, the Company entered into interest rate swap agreements that effectively converted variable-interest-rate payments on certain leases from a variable to a fixed rate of 6.1%.
The fair value of interest rate swaps is defined as the difference in the present values of cash flows calculated at the contracted interest rates and at current market interest rates at the end of the period.
The fair value of the swap agreements is calculated quarterly based upon the quoted market price for the same or similar financial instruments.
The fair value of the variable to fixed interest rate swaps was a liability of $1.7 million and $5.2 million as of December 31, 2004 and 2003, respectively.
The potential net loss in fair value of interest rate swaps of ten percent resulting from a hypothetical near-term adverse change in market rates was $.2 million and $.5 million as of December 31, 2004 and 2003, respectively.
The Company’s risk related to the interest rate swap agreements is limited to the cost of replacing the agreements at prevailing market rates.
Foreign Exchange Forward Contracts and Options The Company enters into foreign exchange forward contracts and options to hedge transactions primarily related to firm commitments to purchase or forecasted purchases of equipment, certain raw materials and finished goods denominated in foreign currencies and to hedge payment of forecasted intercompany transactions with its subsidiaries outside the United States.
These contracts reduce currency risk from exchange rate movements.
Foreign currency price risks are hedged generally for periods from 3 to 24 months.
Foreign exchange forward contracts and options are intended to be and are effective as hedges of identifiable, foreign currency commitments.
Foreign exchange forward contracts are designated as cash flow hedging derivatives and the fair value of such contracts is recorded on the Consolidated Balance Sheets as either an asset or liability.
Gains and losses on these contracts are recorded as
The following table sets forth regulatory capital ratios for PNC and its significant bank subsidiaries, PNC Bank, N. A.  and National City Bank.
Regulatory Capital
## Table 2 ##
(a) Acquired on December 31, 2008.
NM—Not meaningful.
The principal source of parent company cash flow is the dividends it receives from its subsidiary banks, which may be impacted by the following: ?
Capital needs, ?
Laws and regulations, ?
Corporate policies, ?
Contractual restrictions, and ?
Other factors.
Also, there are statutory and regulatory limitations on the ability of national banks to pay dividends or make other capital distributions.
The amount available for dividend payments to the parent company by PNC Bank, N. A.  without prior regulatory approval was approximately $351 million at December 31, 2008.
National City Bank had no statutory dividend capacity as of December 31, 2008.
Under federal law, bank subsidiaries generally may not extend credit to the parent company or its non-bank subsidiaries on terms and under circumstances that are not substantially the same as comparable extensions of credit to nonaffiliates.
No extension of credit may be made to the parent company or a non-bank subsidiary which is in excess of 10% of the capital stock and surplus of such bank subsidiary or in excess of 20% of the capital and surplus of such bank subsidiary as to aggregate extensions of credit to the parent company and its non-bank subsidiaries.
Such extensions of credit, with limited exceptions, must be fully collateralized by certain specified assets.
In certain circumstances, federal regulatory authorities may impose more restrictive limitations.
Federal Reserve Board regulations require depository institutions to maintain cash reserves with the Federal Reserve Bank (“FRB”).
At December 31, 2008, the balance outstanding at the FRB was $14 billion.
NOTE 24 LEGAL PROCEEDINGS National City Matters In December 2008, we completed the acquisition of National City through the merger of National City into The PNC Financial Services Group, Inc.  As a result, we are now responsible for litigation pending against National City and its subsidiaries at that time.
We will also be responsible for future litigation arising out of the conduct of the business of National City and its subsidiaries before the acquisition.
The lawsuits and other matters described below arise from National City’s business prior to the merger.
We may be responsible for indemnifying individual defendants in these lawsuits and other matters.
See also “National City Acquisition-Related Litigation” below for information regarding litigation filed against PNC and National City relating to the merger and “Regulatory and Governmental Inquiries” for information regarding regulatory matters with respect to National City.
Visa.
Beginning in June 2005, a series of antitrust lawsuits were filed against Visa?, MasterCard?, and several major financial institutions, including cases naming National City (since merged into PNC) and its subsidiary, National City Bank of Kentucky, since merged into National City Bank.
The cases, which were brought as class actions on behalf of all persons or business entities who have accepted Visa?
or MasterCard?, have been consolidated for pretrial proceedings in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York.
The plaintiffs, merchants operating commercial businesses throughout the U. S.  and trade associations, allege that the defendants conspired to fix the prices for general purpose card network services, resulting in the payment of inflated interchange fees, in violation of the antitrust laws.
In January 2009, the plaintiffs filed amended and supplemental complaints adding, among other things, allegations that the restructuring of Visa and MasterCard, each of which included an initial public offering, violated the antitrust laws.
The plaintiffs seek injunctive relief, actual and treble damages and attorneys’ fees.
National City and National City Bank entered into judgment and loss sharing agreements with Visa and other financial institutions with respect to this litigation.
On January 8, 2008, the district court dismissed plaintiffs’ claims for damages incurred prior to January 1, 2004.
This litigation is also subject to the indemnification obligations described in Note 25 Commitments and Guarantees.
PNC Bank, N. A.  is not named a defendant in any of this litigation nor is it a party to the judgment or loss sharing agreements but is subject to these indemnification obligations.
Merrill Lynch.
In December 2006, National City Bank completed the sale of its First Franklin nonprime mortgage origination and servicing platform to Merrill Lynch Bank & Trust Co. , FSB.
By letters dated April 10, 2008 and June 16, 2008, Merrill Lynch notified National City Bank of its indemnification claim pursuant to the purchase agreement.
As of December 31, 2016, the Company determined that a total valuation allowance of $26.0 million was necessary to reduce U. S.  deferred tax assets by $8.7 million and foreign deferred tax assets by $17.3 million, where it was more likely than not that some portion or all of such deferred tax assets will not be realized.
As of December 31, 2016, based on the Company’s estimates of future taxable income and any applicable tax-planning strategies within various tax jurisdictions, the Company believes that it is more likely than not that the remaining net deferred tax assets will be realized.
The Company recognizes in the consolidated financial statements only those tax positions determined to be “more likely than not” of being sustained upon examination based on the technical merits of the positions.
A reconciliation of the beginning and ending amount of unrecognized tax benefits is as follows (in thousands):

<table><tr><td></td><td colspan="3"> Year Ended December 31,</td></tr><tr><td></td><td> 2010</td><td> 2009</td><td> 2008</td></tr><tr><td>Risk-free interest rate</td><td>1.39 – 3.41%</td><td>2.08 – 3.68%</td><td>2.75 – 3.80%</td></tr><tr><td>Weighted average volatility</td><td>28%</td><td>31%</td><td>27%</td></tr><tr><td>Dividend yield</td><td>0.2%</td><td>0.2%</td><td>0.2%</td></tr><tr><td>Expected years until exercise</td><td>6 – 8.5</td><td>6 – 9.5</td><td>6 – 9.5</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td></td><td colspan="8">Maturity Date (In thousands of dollars except for rates)</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>2005</td><td>2006</td><td>2007</td><td>2008</td><td>2009</td><td>Thereafter</td><td>Total</td><td>FairValue</td></tr><tr><td>Long-termDebt</td><td>$279,043</td><td>$142</td><td>$191,008</td><td>$147</td><td>$150</td><td>$499,155</td><td>$969,645</td><td>$1,094,281</td></tr><tr><td>Interest Rate</td><td>5.9%</td><td>2.0%</td><td>6.3%</td><td>2.0%</td><td>2.0%</td><td>7.4%</td><td>6.8%</td><td></td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td></td><td colspan="2">Amount</td><td colspan="2">Ratios</td></tr><tr><td> December 31 Dollars in millions </td><td> 2008</td><td>2007</td><td>2008</td><td>2007</td></tr><tr><td>Risk-based capital</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Tier 1</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>PNC</td><td>$24,287</td><td>$7,815</td><td>9.7%</td><td>6.8%</td></tr><tr><td>PNC Bank, N.A.</td><td>8,338</td><td>7,851</td><td>7.1</td><td>7.6</td></tr><tr><td>National City Bank (a)</td><td>12,567</td><td></td><td>10.1</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>PNC</td><td>33,116</td><td>11,803</td><td>13.2</td><td>10.3</td></tr><tr><td>PNC Bank, N.A.</td><td>12,104</td><td>10,616</td><td>10.3</td><td>10.2</td></tr><tr><td>National City Bank (a)</td><td>17,208</td><td></td><td>13.8</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Leverage</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>PNC</td><td>NM</td><td>NM</td><td>17.5</td><td>6.2</td></tr><tr><td>PNC Bank, N.A.</td><td>NM</td><td>NM</td><td>6.3</td><td>6.8</td></tr><tr><td>National City Bank (a)</td><td>NM</td><td></td><td>8.8</td><td></td></tr></table>

Question: What was the total amount of PNC in the range of 1 and 1000000 in 2008 and 2007 for amount? (in million)