Seasonality Our business experiences seasonality that varies by product line.
Because more construction and do-it-yourself projects occur during the second and third calendar quarters of each year in the Northern Hemisphere, our security product sales, typically, are higher in those quarters than in the first and fourth calendar quarters.
However, our Interflex business typically experiences higher sales in the fourth calendar quarter due to project timing.
Revenue by quarter for the years ended December 31, 2016, 2015 and 2014 are as follows:
## Table 0 ##
Employees As of December 31, 2016, we had more than 9,400 employees.
Environmental Regulation We have a dedicated environmental program that is designed to reduce the utilization and generation of hazardous materials during the manufacturing process as well as to remediate identified environmental concerns.
As to the latter, we are currently engaged in site investigations and remediation activities to address environmental cleanup from past operations at current and former production facilities.
The Company regularly evaluates its remediation programs and considers alternative remediation methods that are in addition to, or in replacement of, those currently utilized by the Company based upon enhanced technology and regulatory changes.
We are sometimes a party to environmental lawsuits and claims and have received notices of potential violations of environmental laws and regulations from the U. S.  Environmental Protection Agency (the "EPA") and similar state authorities.
We have also been identified as a potentially responsible party ("PRP") for cleanup costs associated with off-site waste disposal at federal Superfund and state remediation sites.
For all such sites, there are other PRPs and, in most instances, our involvement is minimal.
In estimating our liability, we have assumed that we will not bear the entire cost of remediation of any site to the exclusion of other PRPs who may be jointly and severally liable.
The ability of other PRPs to participate has been taken into account, based on our understanding of the parties’ financial condition and probable contributions on a per site basis.
Additional lawsuits and claims involving environmental matters are likely to arise from time to time in the future.
We incurred $23.3 million, $4.4 million, and $2.9 million of expenses during the years ended December 31, 2016, 2015, and 2014, respectively, for environmental remediation at sites presently or formerly owned or leased by us.
As of December 31, 2016 and 2015, we have recorded reserves for environmental matters of $30.6 million and $15.2 million.
Of these amounts $9.6 million and $2.8 million, respectively, relate to remediation of sites previously disposed by us.
Given the evolving nature of environmental laws, regulations and technology, the ultimate cost of future compliance is uncertain.
Available Information We are required to file annual, quarterly, and current reports, proxy statements, and other documents with the U. S.  Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC").
The public may read and copy any materials filed with the SEC at the SEC’s Public Reference Room at 100 F Street, N. E. , Washington, D. C.  20549.
The public may obtain information on the operation of the Public Reference Room by calling the SEC at 1-800-SEC-0330.
Also, the SEC maintains an Internet website that contains reports, proxy and information statements, and other information regarding issuers that file electronically with the SEC.
The public can obtain any documents that are filed by us at http://www.
sec.
gov.
In addition, this Annual Report on Form 10-K, as well as future quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, current reports on Form 8-K and any amendments to all of the foregoing reports, are made available free of charge on our Internet website (http://www.
allegion.
com) as soon as reasonably practicable after such reports are electronically filed with or furnished to the SEC.
The contents of our website are not incorporated by reference in this report.
Pension Plans with ABO and PBO in excess of plan assets as of December 31, 2010 and 2009 are presented in the table below.
These plans primarily represent non-qualified plans not subject to ERISA or non-U.
S.  pension plans where funding strategies vary due to legal requirements and local practices.
## Table 1 ##
(1) There were no Qualified Pension Plans with ABO or PBO in excess of plan assets at December 31, 2010 and 2009.
Net periodic benefit cost (income) for 2010, 2009 and 2008 included the following components.
## Table 2 ##
Nonqualified and Other Pension Plans
## Table 3 ##
n/a = not applicable The net periodic benefit cost (income) for each of the plans in 2010 and 2009 includes Merrill Lynch.
The net periodic benefit cost (income) of the Merrill Lynch Nonqualified and Other Pension Plans, and Postretirement Health and Life Plans was $(20) million and $18 million in 2009 using a blended discount rate of 5.59 percent at January 1, 2009.
Net periodic postretirement health and life expense was determined using the “projected unit credit” actuarial method.
Gains and losses for all benefits except postretirement health care are recognized in accordance with the standard amortization provisions of the applicable accounting guidance.
For the Postretirement Health Care Plans, 50 percent of the unrecognized gain or loss at the beginning of the fiscal year (or at subsequent remeasurement) is recognized on a level basis during the year.
The discount rate and expected return on plan assets impact the net periodic benefit cost (income) recorded for the plans.
With all other assumptions held constant, a 25-basis point decline in the discount rate and expected return on plan assets would result in an increase of approximately $50 million and $41 million, respectively, for the Qualified Pension Plans.
For the Non-U.
S.  Pension Plans, the Nonqualified and Other Pension Plans, and Postretirement Health and Life Plans, the 25-basis point decline in rates would not have a significant impact.
Reform Act and the U. S.  banking regulators’ subsequent Notice of Proposed Rulemaking published by the Federal Reserve on December 14, 2010 propose however that the current three-year transitional floors under Basel II be replaced with a permanent risk based capital floor as defined under Basel I.
On December 16, 2010, U. S.  regulators issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on the Risk-Based Capital Guidelines for Market Risk (Market Risk Rules), reflecting partial adoption of the Basel Committee’s July 2009 consultative document on the topic.
We anticipate U. S.  regulators will adopt the Market Risk Rules in mid-2011.
This change is expected to significantly increase the capital requirements for our trading assets and liabilities, including derivatives exposures which meet the definition established by the regulatory agencies.
We continue to evaluate the capital impact of the proposed rules and currently anticipate being fully compliant with any final rules by the projected implementation date of year-end 2011.
On December 16, 2010, the Basel Committee issued “Basel III: A global regulatory framework for more resilient banks and banking systems” (Basel III), proposing a January 2013 implementation date for Basel III.
If implemented by U. S.  regulators as proposed, Basel III could significantly increase our capital requirements.
Basel III and the Financial Reform Act propose the disqualification of trust preferred securities from Tier 1 capital, with the Financial Reform Act proposing the disqualification be phased in from 2013 to 2015.
Basel III also proposes the deduction of certain assets from capital (deferred tax assets, MSRs, investments in financial firms and pension assets, among others, within prescribed limitations), the inclusion of other comprehensive income in capital, increased capital for counterparty credit risk, and new minimum capital and buffer requirements.
The phase-in period for the capital deductions is proposed to occur in 20 percent increments from 2014 through 2018 with full implementation by December 31, 2018.
The increase in capital requirements for counterparty credit risk is proposed to be effective January 2013.
The phase-in period for the new minimum capital requirements and related buffers is proposed to occur between 2013 and 2019.
U. S.  regulators are expected to begin the final rulemaking processes for Basel III in early 2011 and have indicated a goal to adopt final rules by year-end 2011 or early 2012.
For additional information on our MSRs, refer to Note 25 – Mortgage Servicing Rights to the Consolidated Financial Statements.
For additional information on deferred tax assets, refer to Note 21 – Income Taxes to the Consolidated Financial Statements.
If Basel III is implemented in the U. S.  consistent with Basel Committee rules, beginning in January 2013, we would be required to maintain minimum capital ratio requirements of 6.0 percent for Tier 1 capital and 8.0 percent for Total capital.
Basel III also includes a proposed minimum requirement for common equity Tier 1 capital of 3.5 percent beginning in 2013 which would increase to 4.5 percent in 2015.
Basel III also includes three capital buffers which would be phased in over time and impact all three capital ratios.
These buffers include a capital conservation buffer that would start at 0.63 percent in 2016 and increase to 2.5 percent in 2019.
Thus, the minimum capital ratio requirements including the capital conservation buffer in 2019 would be 7.0 percent for common equity Tier 1 capital, 8.5 percent for Tier 1 capital and 10.5 percent for Total capital.
If ratios fall below the minimum requirement plus the capital conservation buffer, such as 10.5 percent for Total capital, an institution would be required to restrict dividends, share repurchases and discretionary bonuses.
Additionally, Basel III also includes a countercyclical buffer of up to 2.5 percent that regulators could require in periods of excess credit growth.
The countercyclical buffer is to be comprised of loss-absorbing capital, such as common equity, and is meant to retain additional capital during periods of excess credit growth providing incremental protection in the event of a material market downturn.
The ratios presented above do not include the third buffer requirement for systemically important financial institutions, which the Basel Committee continues to assess and has not yet quantified.
The countercyclical and systemic buffers are scheduled to be phased in from 2013 through 2019.
U. S.  regulators are expected to begin the rulemaking processes for Basel III in early 2011 and have indicated a goal to adopt final rules by the end of 2011 or early 2012.
These regulatory changes also require approval by the agencies of analytical models used as part of our capital measurement and assessment, especially in the case of more complex models.
If these more complex models are not approved, it could require financial institutions to hold additional capital, which in some cases could be significant.
We expect to maintain a Tier 1 common capital ratio in excess of eight percent as the regulatory rule changes are implemented without needing to raise new equity capital.
We have made the implementation and mitigation of these regulatory changes a strategic priority.
We also note there remains significant uncertainty on the final impacts as the U. S.  has issued final rules only for Basel II and a Notice of Proposal Rulemaking for the Market Risk Rules at this time.
Impacts may change as the U. S.  finalizes rules and the regulatory agencies interpret the final rules for Basel III during the implementation process.
Bank of America, N. A.  and FIA Card Services, N. A.
Regulatory Capital The table below presents regulatory capital information for Bank of America N. A.  and FIA Card Services, N. A.  at December 31, 2010 and 2009.
The goodwill impairment charges recognized in 2010 did not impact the regulatory capital ratios.

<table><tr><td></td><td>First Quarter</td><td>Second Quarter</td><td>Third Quarter</td><td>Fourth Quarter</td></tr><tr><td>2016</td><td>22%</td><td>26%</td><td>26%</td><td>26%</td></tr><tr><td>2015</td><td>22%</td><td>25%</td><td>26%</td><td>27%</td></tr><tr><td>2014</td><td>22%</td><td>25%</td><td>26%</td><td>27%</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td></td><td colspan="2"> Non-U.S.   Pension Plans</td><td colspan="2"> Nonqualified   and Other   Pension Plans</td></tr><tr><td>(Dollars in millions)</td><td> 2010</td><td>2009</td><td> 2010</td><td>2009</td></tr><tr><td> Plans with ABO in excess of plan assets<sup>-1</sup></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>PBO</td><td>$249</td><td>$221</td><td>$1,200</td><td>$1,216</td></tr><tr><td>ABO</td><td>242</td><td>214</td><td>1,199</td><td>1,214</td></tr><tr><td>Fair value of plan assets</td><td>106</td><td>72</td><td>2</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td> Plans with PBO in excess of plan assets<sup>-1</sup></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>PBO</td><td>$414</td><td>$1,473</td><td>$1,200</td><td>$1,216</td></tr><tr><td>Fair value of plan assets</td><td>230</td><td>1,266</td><td>2</td><td>2</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td></td><td colspan="3">Qualified Pension Plans</td><td colspan="3"> Non-U.S. Pension Plans</td></tr><tr><td>(Dollars in millions)</td><td>2010</td><td>2009</td><td>2008</td><td>2010</td><td>2009</td><td>2008</td></tr><tr><td> Components of net periodic benefit cost (income)</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Service cost</td><td>$397</td><td>$387</td><td>$343</td><td>$30</td><td>$30</td><td>$–</td></tr><tr><td>Interest cost</td><td>748</td><td>740</td><td>837</td><td>79</td><td>76</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td>Expected return on plan assets</td><td>-1,263</td><td>-1,231</td><td>-1,444</td><td>-88</td><td>-74</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td>Amortization of prior service cost (credits)</td><td>28</td><td>39</td><td>33</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td>Amortization of net actuarial loss</td><td>362</td><td>377</td><td>83</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td>Recognized loss (gain) due to settlements and curtailments</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>-2</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td>Recognized termination benefit costs</td><td>–</td><td>36</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td> Net periodic benefit cost (income)</td><td>$272</td><td>$348</td><td>$-148</td><td>$21</td><td>$30</td><td>$–</td></tr><tr><td> Weighted-average assumptions used to determine net cost for years ended December 31</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Discount rate</td><td>5.75%</td><td>6.00%</td><td>6.00%</td><td>5.40%</td><td>5.55%</td><td>n/a</td></tr><tr><td>Expected return on plan assets</td><td>8.00</td><td>8.00</td><td>8.00</td><td>6.82</td><td>6.78</td><td>n/a</td></tr><tr><td>Rate of compensation increase</td><td>4.00</td><td>4.00</td><td>4.00</td><td>4.69</td><td>4.61</td><td>n/a</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td></td><td colspan="3">Nonqualified and Other Pension Plans</td><td colspan="3">Postretirement Health and Life Plans</td></tr><tr><td>(Dollars in millions)</td><td>2010</td><td>2009</td><td>2008</td><td>2010</td><td>2009</td><td>2008</td></tr><tr><td> Components of net periodic benefit cost (income)</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Service cost</td><td>$3</td><td>$4</td><td>$7</td><td>$14</td><td>$16</td><td>$16</td></tr><tr><td>Interest cost</td><td>163</td><td>167</td><td>77</td><td>92</td><td>93</td><td>87</td></tr><tr><td>Expected return on plan assets</td><td>-138</td><td>-148</td><td>–</td><td>-9</td><td>-8</td><td>-13</td></tr><tr><td>Amortization of transition obligation</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>31</td><td>31</td><td>31</td></tr><tr><td>Amortization of prior service cost (credits)</td><td>-8</td><td>-8</td><td>-8</td><td>6</td><td>–</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td>Amortization of net actuarial loss (gain)</td><td>10</td><td>5</td><td>14</td><td>-49</td><td>-77</td><td>-81</td></tr><tr><td>Recognized loss (gain) due to settlements and curtailments</td><td>17</td><td>2</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>–</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td> Net periodic benefit cost (income)</td><td>$47</td><td>$22</td><td>$90</td><td>$85</td><td>$55</td><td>$40</td></tr><tr><td> Weighted-average assumptions used to determine net cost for years ended December 31</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Discount rate</td><td>5.75%</td><td>6.00%</td><td>6.00%</td><td>5.75%</td><td>6.00%</td><td>6.00%</td></tr><tr><td>Expected return on plan assets</td><td>5.25</td><td>5.25</td><td>n/a</td><td>8.00</td><td>8.00</td><td>8.00</td></tr><tr><td>Rate of compensation increase</td><td>4.00</td><td>4.00</td><td>4.00</td><td>n/a</td><td>n/a</td><td>n/a</td></tr></table>

Question: What is the difference between the greatest Components of net periodic benefit cost (income) of Qualified Pension Plans in 2010 and 2009？ (in millions)