N-CSR

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM N-CSR

CERTIFIED SHAREHOLDER REPORT OF REGISTERED MANAGEMENT INVESTMENT COMPANIES

Investment Company Act file number 811-06540

Name of Fund: BlackRock MuniYield Insured Fund, Inc. (MYI)

Fund Address: 100 Bellevue Parkway, Wilmington, DE 19809

Name and address of agent for service: Anne F. Ackerley, Chief Executive Officer, BlackRock MuniYield Insured Fund, Inc., 55 East 52^nd Street, New York, NY 10055

Registrant’s telephone number, including area code: (800) 882-0052, Option 4

Date of fiscal year end: 07/31/2010

Date of reporting period: 07/31/2010

Item 1 – Report to Stockholders

July 31, 2010

Annual Report

BlackRock MuniHoldings Insured Fund II, Inc. (MUE)

BlackRock MuniYield California Insured Fund, Inc. (MCA)

BlackRock MuniYield Insured Fund, Inc. (MYI)

BlackRock MuniYield Michigan Insured Fund II, Inc. (MYM)

BlackRock MuniYield New York Insured Fund, Inc. (MYN)

Not FDIC Insured § No Bank Guarantee § May Lose Value

Table of Contents

	Page
Dear Shareholder	3
Annual Report:
Fund Summaries	4
The Benefits and Risks of Leveraging	9
Derivative Financial Instruments	9
Financial Statements:
Schedules of Investments	10
Statements of Assets and Liabilities	32
Statements of Operations	33
Statements of Changes in Net Assets	34
Statements of Cash Flows	37
Financial Highlights	38
Notes to Financial Statements	43
Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm	51
Important Tax Information	52
Disclosure of Investment Advisory Agreements and Sub-Advisory Agreements	53
Automatic Dividend Reinvestment Plans	57
Officers and Directors	58
Additional Information	61

2 ANNUAL REPORT JULY 31, 2010

Dear Shareholder

The global economy is continuing to slowly improve, with the United States and emerging markets leading the way; however global and US economic statistics show that the pace of economic growth has trailed off in recent months. Market volatility has remained elevated over the past several months as investors remain uncertain about the future direction of economic growth. The sovereign debt crisis in Europe, slowing growth in China and concerns over the possibility that the United States and other developed markets are heading for a double-dip recession have all acted to depress investor sentiment. It is our view that the recent soft patch of economic data is just that — a slowdown in the pace of recovery and not an indication that the economy is sliding back into recession. In the United States, we expect to see slightly slower economic growth over the next several quarters; however, true double-dip recessions are quite rare, and unless there is a major shock to the economy, we believe the recovery will continue.

Global equity markets have moved unevenly higher since bottoming out in early 2009 as investors were enticed by depressed valuations, improved corporate earnings, and their desire for higher yields. Several significant downturns, however, have occurred — primarily as a result of mixed economic data and concerns about the possibility of prolonged deflation (especially in Europe). As the period drew to a close, equity markets were staging a muted recovery. On a 12-month basis global equities were still showing positive returns thanks to improving corporate revenues and profits and a reasonably strong macro backdrop. From a geographic perspective, US equities have significantly outpaced their international counterparts over the past six and twelve months, as the domestic economic recovery has been more pronounced and credit-related issues have held European markets down. Within the United States, smaller cap stocks have outperformed large caps year-to-date.

In fixed income markets, yields have fluctuated significantly over the past year as economic data has been mixed. Over recent months, risk aversion and credit issues kept interest rates low and US Treasury yields have fallen significantly as investors favored “safe haven” assets. As the period drew to a close, higher-risk fixed income assets performed well due to strong earnings announcements and better-than-expected results on European bank stress tests. Meanwhile, tax-exempt municipal bonds slightly outperformed US investment grade bonds on a 12-month basis, but underperformed year-to-date as investors rotated to the relative safety of Treasuries.

Regarding cash investments, yields on money market securities remain near all-time lows (producing returns only marginally above zero percent), with the Federal Open Market Committee reiterating that economic circumstances are likely to necessitate an accommodative interest rate stance for an “extended period.”

Against this backdrop, the major market averages posted the following returns:

Total Returns as of July 31, 2010	6-month		12-month
US large cap equities (S&P 500 Index)	3.61	%	13.84	%
US small cap equities (Russell 2000 Index)	8.79		18.43
International equities (MSCI Europe, Australasia, Far East Index)	(0.62	)	6.26
3-month Treasury bill (BofA Merrill Lynch 3-Month Treasury Bill Index)	0.06		0.16
US Treasury securities (BofA Merrill Lynch 10-Year US Treasury Index)	7.67		8.34
US investment grade bonds (Barclays Capital US Aggregate Bond Index)	4.85		8.91
Tax-exempt municipal bonds (Barclays Capital Municipal Bond Index)	4.06		9.15
US high yield bonds (Barclays Capital US Corporate High Yield 2% Issuer Capped Index)	6.72		23.69

Past performance is no guarantee of future results. Index performance shown for illustrative purposes only. You cannot invest directly in an index.

Although conditions are certainly better than they were a couple of years ago, global financial markets continue to face high volatility while questions about the strength and sustainability of the recovery abound. Through periods of uncertainty, as ever, BlackRock’s full resources are dedicated to the management of our clients’ assets. For additional market perspective and investment insight, visit www.blackrock.com/shareholdermagazine, where you’ll find the most recent issue of our award-winning Shareholder^® magazine, as well as its quarterly companion newsletter, Shareholder Perspectives. We thank you for entrusting BlackRock with your investments, and we look forward to your continued partnership in the months and years ahead.

Sincerely,

Rob Kapito
President, BlackRock Advisors, LLC

THIS PAGE NOT PART OF YOUR FUND REPORT 3

Fund Summary as of July 31, 2010 BlackRock MuniHoldings Insured Fund II, Inc.

Fund Overview

BlackRock MuniHoldings Insured Fund II, Inc.’s (MUE) (the “Fund”) investment objective is to provide shareholders with current income exempt from federal income taxes. The Fund seeks to achieve its investment objective by investing primarily in long-term, investment grade municipal obligations exempt from federal income taxes (except that the interest may be subject to the federal alternative minimum tax). Under normal market conditions, the Fund invests at least 80% of its assets in municipal obligations with remaining maturities of one year or more that are covered by insurance guaranteeing the timely payment of principal at maturity and interest at the time of investment. The Fund may invest directly in such securities or synthetically through the use of derivatives.

No assurance can be given that the Fund’s investment objective will be achieved.

Performance

For the 12 months ended July 31, 2010, the Fund returned 33.51% based on market price, and 18.04% based on net asset value (“NAV”). For the same period, the closed-end Lipper Insured Municipal Debt Funds (Leveraged) category posted an average return of 24.23% based on market price, and 15.41% based on NAV. All returns reflect reinvestment of dividends. The Fund moved from a discount to NAV to a premium by period end, which accounts for the difference between performance based on market price and performance based on NAV. The following discussion relates to performance based on NAV. The Fund held health and housing bonds with maturities of 20 years and longer, which benefited performance as the municipal yield curve flattened over the last 12 months. The Fund’s exposure to insured issues with weak underlying credits detracted from performance as investor confidence in monoline insurers waned.

The views expressed reflect the opinions of BlackRock as of the date of this report and are subject to change based on changes in market, economic or other conditions. These views are not intended to be a forecast of future events and are no guarantee of future results.

Fund Information

Symbol on New York Stock Exchange (“NYSE”)	MUE
Initial Offering Date	February 26, 1999
Yield on Closing Market Price as of July 31, 2010 ($14.26)1	6.19%
Tax Equivalent Yield2	9.52%
Current Monthly Distribution per Common Share3	$0.0735
Current Annualized Distribution per Common Share3	$0.8820
Leverage as of July 31, 20104	39%

1	Yield on closing market price is calculated by dividing the current annualized distribution per share by the closing market price. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
2	Tax equivalent yield assumes the maximum federal tax rate of 35%.
3	The distribution is not constant and is subject to change.
4	Represents Auction Market Preferred Shares (“Preferred Shares”) and tender option bond trusts (“TOBs”) as a percentage of total managed assets, which is the total assets of the Fund, including any assets attributable to Preferred Shares and TOBs, minus the sum of accrued liabilities. For a discussion of leveraging techniques utilized by the Fund, please see The Benefits and Risks of Leveraging on page 9.

The table below summarizes the changes in the Fund’s market price and NAV per share:

	7/31/10		7/31/09		Change			High		Low
Market Price	$	14.26	$	11.40		25.09	%	$	14.32	$	11.40
Net Asset Value	$	13.57	$	12.27		10.59	%	$	13.88	$	12.26

The following charts show the sector and credit quality allocations of the Fund’s long-term investments:

Sector Allocations

	7/31/10		7/31/09
County/City/Special District/School District	28	%	29	%
Utilities	23		21
Transportation	23		23
State	11		10
Health	9		9
Housing	5		5
Corporate	1		2
Education	—		1

Credit Quality Allocations⁵

	7/31/10		7/31/09
AAA/Aaa	54	%	50	%
AA/Aa	24		19
A	20		27
BBB/Baa	1		2
Not Rated6	1		2

5	Using the higher of Standard & Poor’s (“S&P’s”) or Moody’s Investors Service (“Moody’s”) ratings.
6	The investment advisor has deemed certain of these non-rated securities to be of investment grade quality. As of July 31, 2010 and July 31, 2009, the market value of these securities was $3,925,265, representing 1% and $10,104,059, representing 2%, respectively, of the Fund’s long-term investments.

4 ANNUAL REPORT JULY 31, 2010

Fund Summary as of July 31, 2010 BlackRock MuniYield California Insured Fund, Inc.

Fund Overview

BlackRock MuniYield California Insured Fund, Inc.’s (MCA) (the “Fund”) investment objective is to provide shareholders with as high a level of current income exempt from federal and California income taxes as is consistent with its investment policies and prudent investment management. The Fund seeks to achieve its investment objective by investing at least 80% of its assets in municipal obligations exempt from federal income taxes (except that the interest may be subject to the federal alternative minimum tax) and California income taxes. Under normal market conditions, the Fund invests primarily in long-term municipal obligations that are investment grade quality at the time of investment and at least 80% of its assets in municipal obligations that are covered by insurance guaranteeing the timely payment of principal at maturity and interest when due. The Fund may invest directly in such securities or synthetically through the use of derivatives.

No assurance can be given that the Fund’s investment objective will be achieved.

Performance

For the 12 months ended July 31, 2010, the Fund returned 23.00% based on market price, and 15.69% based on NAV. For the same period, the closed-end Lipper Single-State Insured Municipal Debt Funds category posted an average return of 21.26% based on market price, and 14.03% based on NAV. All returns reflect reinvestment of dividends. The Fund’s discount to NAV, which narrowed during the period, accounts for the difference between performance based on market price and performance based on NAV. The following discussion relates to performance based on NAV. The Fund maintains a relatively generous degree of income accrual, which was a positive factor. The tightening of credit quality spreads in the uninsured basket of the Fund’s holdings also aided results. A fully-invested and slightly longer relative duration posture were additive, too, as rates declined over the period. The municipal market benefited from the Build America Bond Program, which effectively moved supply to the taxable market and, thus, alleviated supply pressure in the tax-exempt space. Management’s focus on the quality of underlying credits while the market placed less value on monoline insurance also aided relative performance. Secondary market demand for insured municipals weakened, resulting in limited liquidity and widening spreads on some sectors of insured bonds. Cash reserves held in the Fund during the period also detracted from performance as cash underperformed longer maturity coupon bonds in an environment of falling interest rates and tightening spreads.

The views expressed reflect the opinions of BlackRock as of the date of this report and are subject to change based on changes in market, economic or other conditions. These views are not intended to be a forecast of future events and are no guarantee of future results.

Fund Information

Symbol on NYSE	MCA
Initial Offering Date	October 30, 1992
Yield on Closing Market Price as of July 31, 2010 ($14.02)1	5.82%
Tax Equivalent Yield2	8.95%
Current Monthly Distribution per Common Share3	$0.068
Current Annualized Distribution per Common Share3	$0.816
Leverage as of July 31, 20104	40%

1	Yield on closing market price is calculated by dividing the current annualized distribution per share by the closing market price. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
2	Tax equivalent yield assumes the maximum federal tax rate of 35%.
3	The Monthly Distribution per Common Share declared on September 1, 2010 was increased to $0.0705. The Yield on Closing Market Price, Current Monthly Distribution per Common Share and Current Annualized Distribution per Common Share do not reflect the new distribution rate. The new distribution rate is not constant and is subject to change in the future.
4	Represents Preferred Shares and TOBs as a percentage of total managed assets, which is the total assets of the Fund, including any assets attributable to Preferred Shares and TOBs, minus the sum of accrued liabilities. For a discussion of leveraging techniques utilized by the Fund, please see The Benefits and Risks of Leveraging on page 9.

The table below summarizes the changes in the Fund’s market price and NAV per share:

	7/31/10		7/31/09		Change			High		Low
Market Price	$	14.02	$	12.08		16.06	%	$	14.05	$	12.03
Net Asset Value	$	14.66	$	13.43		9.16	%	$	14.92	$	13.42

The following charts show the sector and credit quality allocations of the Fund’s long-term investments:

Sector Allocations

	7/31/10		7/31/09
County/City/Special District/School District	55	%	44	%
Utilities	22		25
Transportation	11		13
Education	7		10
State	2		3
Health	2		3
Corporate	1		—
Housing	—		2

Credit Quality Allocations⁵

	7/31/10		7/31/09
AAA/Aaa	57	%	44	%
AA/Aa	29		28
A	14		27
BBB/Baa	—		1

⁵ Using the higher of S&P’s or Moody’s ratings.

ANNUAL REPORT JULY 31, 2010 5

Fund Summary as of July 31, 2010 BlackRock MuniYield Insured Fund, Inc.

Fund Overview

BlackRock MuniYield Insured Fund, Inc.’s (MYI) (the “Fund”) investment objective is to provide shareholders with as high a level of current income exempt from federal income taxes as is consistent with its investment policies and prudent investment management. The Fund seeks to achieve its investment objective by investing at least 80% of its assets in municipal obligations exempt from federal income taxes (except that the interest may be subject to the federal alternative minimum tax). Under normal market conditions, the Fund invests primarily in long-term municipal obligations that are investment grade quality at the time of investment and at least 80% of its assets in municipal obligations that are covered by insurance guaranteeing the timely payment of principal at maturity and interest when due. The Fund may invest directly in such securities or synthetically through the use of derivatives.

No assurance can be given that the Fund’s investment objective will be achieved.

Performance

For the 12 months ended July 31, 2010, the Fund returned 24.03% based on market price, and 18.19% based on NAV. For the same period, the closed-end Lipper Insured Municipal Debt Funds (Leveraged) category posted an average return of 24.23% based on market price, and 15.41% based on NAV. All returns reflect reinvestment of dividends. The Fund moved from a discount to NAV to a premium by period end, which accounts for the difference between performance based on market price and performance based on NAV. The following discussion relates to performance based on NAV. Overall the tax-exempt municipal market benefited from the Build America Bond Program, which made the taxable market accessible to municipal issuers. This alleviated supply pressure in the tax-exempt space, which, coupled with increased investor demand for municipals, resulted in a favorable supply-demand paradigm and strong performance. The Fund benefited from its modestly long duration positioning as interest rates declined over the period. The Fund’s exposure to the long end of the yield curve made a positive impact as prices of longer-dated bonds are most sensitive to declining interest rates. The Fund’s holdings of insured bonds with lower-rated underlying credits also aided results as credit quality spreads tightened over the period. Detracting from performance was the Fund’s exposure to zero-coupon bonds, which underperformed relative to the broader municipal bond market as spreads in this sector generally widened. The Fund’s exposure to bonds with shorter maturities and/or call dates also detracted as declining interest rates had less of an impact on the shorter end of the yield curve.

The views expressed reflect the opinions of BlackRock as of the date of this report and are subject to change based on changes in market, economic or other conditions. These views are not intended to be a forecast of future events and are no guarantee of future results.

Fund Information

Symbol on NYSE	MYI
Initial Offering Date	March 27, 1992
Yield on Closing Market Price as of July 31, 2010 ($14.17)1	6.01%
Tax Equivalent Yield2	9.25%
Current Monthly Distribution per Common Share3	$0.071
Current Annualized Distribution per Common Share3	$0.852
Leverage as of July 31, 20104	38%

1	Yield on closing market price is calculated by dividing the current annualized distribution per share by the closing market price. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
2	Tax equivalent yield assumes the maximum federal tax rate of 35%.
3	The Monthly Distribution per Common Share declared on September 1, 2010 was increased to $0.072. The Yield on Closing Market Price, Current Monthly Distribution per Common Share and Current Annualized Distribution per Common Share do not reflect the new distribution rate. The new distribution rate is not constant and is subject to change in the future.
4	Represents Preferred Shares and TOBs as a percentage of total managed assets, which is the total assets of the Fund, including any assets attributable to Preferred Shares and TOBs, minus the sum of accrued liabilities. For a discussion of leveraging techniques utilized by the Fund, please see The Benefits and Risks of Leveraging on page 9.

The table below summarizes the changes in the Fund’s market price and NAV per share:

	7/31/10		7/31/09		Change			High		Low
Market Price	$	14.17	$	12.12		16.91	%	$	14.26	$	11.46
Net Asset Value	$	13.67	$	12.27		11.41	%	$	13.88	$	12.25

The following charts show the sector and credit quality allocations of the Fund’s long-term investments:

Sector Allocations

	7/31/10		7/31/09
Transportation	27	%	31	%
County/City/Special District/School District	21		24
Utilities	17		17
Education	8		7
State	8		8
Health	7		6
Housing	6		5
Corporate	6		2

Credit Quality Allocations⁵

	7/31/10		7/31/09
AAA/Aaa	46	%	47	%
AA/Aa	29		23
A	20		25
BBB/Baa	5		5

⁵ Using the higher of S&P’s or Moody’s ratings.

6 ANNUAL REPORT JULY 31, 2010

Fund Summary as of July 31, 2010 BlackRock MuniYield Michigan Insured Fund II, Inc.

Fund Overview

BlackRock MuniYield Michigan Insured Fund II, Inc.’s (MYM) (the “Fund”) investment objective is to provide shareholders with as high a level of current income exempt from federal and Michigan income taxes as is consistent with its investment policies and prudent investment management. The Fund seeks to achieve its investment objective by investing at least 80% of its assets in municipal obligations exempt from federal income taxes (except that the interest may be subject to the federal alternative minimum tax) and Michigan income taxes. Under normal market conditions, the Fund invests primarily in long-term municipal obligations that are investment grade quality at the time of investment and at least 80% of its assets in municipal obligations that are covered by insurance guaranteeing the timely payment of principal at maturity and interest when due. The Fund may invest directly in such securities or synthetically through the use of derivatives.

          No assurance can be given that the Fund’s investment objective will be achieved.

Performance

For the 12 months ended July 31, 2010, the Fund returned 26.01% based on market price, and 14.62% based on NAV. For the same period, the closed-end Lipper Single-State Insured Municipal Debt Funds category posted an average return of 21.26% based on market price, and 14.03% based on NAV. All returns reflect reinvestment of dividends. The Fund’s discount to NAV, which narrowed during the period, accounts for the difference between performance based on market price and performance based on NAV. The following discussion relates to performance based on NAV. The Fund benefited from its allocation to the health sector, which performed well during the period. Positive investment income coupled with a low cost of leverage enabled the Fund to increase its dividend twice in 2010. Overall the Fund benefited from increasing bond prices in the declining interest rate environment, however, its exposure to pre-refunded and escrowed issues detracted from performance as the shorter maturity structure of these issues limited their upward price movement.

The views expressed reflect the opinions of BlackRock as of the date of this report and are subject to change based on changes in market, economic or other conditions. These views are not intended to be a forecast of future events and are no guarantee of future results.

Fund Information

Symbol on NYSE	MYM
Initial Offering Date	February 28, 1992
Yield on Closing Market Price as of July 31, 2010 ($13.67)1	6.28%
Tax Equivalent Yield2	9.66%
Current Monthly Distribution per Common Share3	$0.0715
Current Annualized Distribution per Common Share3	$0.8580
Leverage as of July 31, 20104	37%

1	Yield on closing market price is calculated by dividing the current annualized distribution per share by the closing market price. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
2	Tax equivalent yield assumes the maximum federal tax rate of 35%.
3	The distribution is not constant and is subject to change.
4	Represents Preferred Shares and TOBs as a percentage of total managed assets, which is the total assets of the Fund, including any assets attributable to Preferred Shares and TOBs, minus the sum of accrued liabilities. For a discussion of leveraging techniques utilized by the Fund, please see The Benefits and Risks of Leveraging on page 9.

The table below summarizes the changes in the Fund’s market price and NAV per share:

	7/31/10	7/31/09	Change	High	Low
Market Price	$ 13.67	$ 11.58	18.05%	$ 13.69	$ 11.45
Net Asset Value	$ 13.82	$ 12.87	7.38%	$ 14.11	$ 12.85

The following charts show the sector and credit quality allocations of the Fund’s long-term investments:

Sector Allocations
	7/31/10		7/31/09
County/City/Special District/School District	26	%	23	%
Health	15		16
State	13		11
Transportation	12		11
Utilities	12		12
Corporate	12		15
Education	8		10
Housing	2		2
Credit Quality Allocations5
	7/31/10		7/31/09
AAA/Aaa	40	%	28	%
AA/Aa	27		27
A	28		40
BBB/Baa	2		2
Not Rated	3	6	3

5	Using the higher of S&P’s or Moody’s ratings.
6	The investment advisor has deemed certain of these non-rated securities to be of investment grade quality. As of July 31, 2010, the market value of these securities was $4,382,645, representing 2% of the Fund’s long-term investments.

ANNUAL REPORT JULY 31, 2010 7

Fund Summary as of July 31, 2010 BlackRock MuniYield New York Insured Fund, Inc.

Fund Overview

BlackRock MuniYield New York Insured Fund, Inc.’s (MYN) (the “Fund”) investment objective is to provide shareholders with as high a level of current income exempt from federal income taxes and New York State and New York City personal income taxes as is consistent with its investment policies and prudent investment management. The Fund seeks to achieve its investment objective by investing at least 80% of its assets in municipal obligations exempt from federal income taxes (except that the interest may be subject to the federal alternative minimum tax) and New York State and New York City personal income taxes. Under normal market conditions, the Fund invests primarily in long-term municipal obligations that are investment grade quality at the time of investment and at least 80% of its assets in municipal obligations that are covered by insurance guaranteeing the timely payment of principal at maturity and interest when due. The Fund may invest directly in such securities or synthetically through the use of derivatives.

          No assurance can be given that the Fund’s investment objective will be achieved.

Performance

For the 12 months ended July 31, 2010, the Fund returned 26.36% based on market price, and 16.15% based on NAV. For the same period, the closed-end Lipper Single-State Insured Municipal Debt Funds category posted an average return of 21.26% based on market price, and 14.03% based on NAV. All returns reflect reinvestment of dividends. The Fund’s discount to NAV, which narrowed during the period, accounts for the difference between performance based on market price and performance based on NAV. The following discussion relates to performance based on NAV. The Fund’s outperformance relative to its peer group resulted more from its price appreciation than its distributions, which were below average for the period. On average, the Fund had a neutral-to-positive duration bias over the period. This positioning along with a low cash balance resulted in positive capital appreciation. Overall the tax-exempt municipal market benefited from the Build America Bond Program, which made the taxable market accessible to municipal issuers. This alleviated supply pressure in the tax-exempt space, which, coupled with increased investor demand for municipals, resulted in a favorable supply-demand paradigm and strong performance. Many of the Fund’s holdings began the period with depressed valuations resulting from their underperformance during the periods of dislocations in the credit market, which positioned them for more upward price movement potential as the market continued its recovery. We purchased a number of new issues structured with the goal of creating greater potential for price appreciation in response to declining interest rates. The Fund’s exposure to the health and housing sectors and Puerto Rico credits also added to performance. Detracting from performance was the Fund’s exposure to zero-coupon bonds, which underperformed as investors continued to favor the liquidity and defensiveness of current coupon bonds. The Fund’s concentration in the longer end of the yield curve benefited the portfolio while the Fund’s modest exposure to the short-term, high-grade, pre-refunded sector hindered performance.

The views expressed reflect the opinions of BlackRock as of the date of this report and are subject to change based on changes in market, economic or other conditions. These views are not intended to be a forecast of future events and are no guarantee of future results.

Fund Information
Symbol on NYSE	MYN
Initial Offering Date	February 28, 1992
Yield on Closing Market Price as of July 31, 2010 ($13.57)1	6.19%
Tax Equivalent Yield2	9.52%
Current Monthly Distribution per Common Share3	$0.07
Current Annualized Distribution per Common Share3	$0.84
Leverage as of July 31, 20104	37%

1	Yield on closing market price is calculated by dividing the current annualized distribution per share by the closing market price. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
2	Tax equivalent yield assumes the maximum federal tax rate of 35%.
3	The Monthly Distribution per Common Share declared on September 1, 2010 was increased to $0.071. The Yield on Closing Market Price, Current Monthly Distribution per Common Share and Current Annualized Distribution per Common Share do not reflect the new distribution rate. The new distribution rate is not constant and is subject to change in the future.
4	Represents Preferred Shares and TOBs as a percentage of total managed assets, which is the total assets of the Fund, including any assets attributable to Preferred Shares and TOBs, minus the sum of accrued liabilities. For a discussion of leveraging techniques utilized by the Fund, please see The Benefits and Risks of Leveraging on page 9.

The table below summarizes the changes in the Fund’s market price and NAV per share:

	7/31/10	7/31/09	Change	High	Low
Market Price	$ 13.57	$ 11.36	19.45%	$ 13.57	$ 11.32
Net Asset Value	$ 13.89	$ 12.65	9.80%	$ 13.98	$ 12.64

The following charts show the sector and credit quality allocations of the Fund’s long-term investments:

Sector Allocations
	7/31/10		7/31/09
Transportation	31	%	29	%
County/City/Special District/School District	29		31
State	11		11
Utilities	10		10
Education	7		5
Corporate	5		6
Health	4		4
Housing	2		3
Tobacco	1		1
Credit Quality Allocations5
	7/31/10		7/31/09
AAA/Aaa	44	%	45	%
AA/Aa	17		16
A	34		32
BBB/Baa	2		7
BB/Ba	3		—

⁵ Using the higher of S&P’s or Moody’s ratings.

8 ANNUAL REPORT JULY 31, 2010

The Benefits and Risks of Leveraging

The Funds may utilize leverage to seek to enhance the yield and NAV of their Common Shares. However, these objectives cannot be achieved in all interest rate environments.

To leverage, the Funds issue Preferred Shares, which pay dividends at prevailing short-term interest rates, and invest the proceeds in long-term municipal bonds. In general, the concept of leveraging is based on the premise that the financing cost of assets to be obtained from leverage will be based on short-term interest rates, which normally will be lower than the income earned by each Fund on its longer-term portfolio investments. To the extent that the total assets of each Fund (including the assets obtained from leverage) are invested in higher-yielding portfolio investments, each Fund’s Common Shareholders will benefit from the incremental net income.

To illustrate these concepts, assume a Fund’s Common Shares capitalization is $100 million and it issues Preferred Shares for an additional $50 million, creating a total value of $150 million available for investment in long-term municipal bonds. If prevailing short-term interest rates are 3% and long-term interest rates are 6%, the yield curve has a strongly positive slope. In this case, the Fund pays dividends on the $50 million of Preferred Shares based on the lower short-term interest rates. At the same time, the securities purchased by the Fund with assets received from the Preferred Shares issuance earn income based on long-term interest rates. In this case, the dividends paid to Preferred Shareholders are significantly lower than the income earned on the Fund’s long-term investments, and therefore the Common Shareholders are the beneficiaries of the incremental net income.

If short-term interest rates rise, narrowing the differential between short-term and long-term interest rates, the incremental net income pickup on the Common Shares will be reduced or eliminated completely. Furthermore, if prevailing short-term interest rates rise above long-term interest rates of 6%, the yield curve has a negative slope. In this case, the Fund pays dividends on the higher short-term interest rates whereas the Fund’s total portfolio earns income based on lower long-term interest rates.

Furthermore, the value of the Funds’ portfolio investments generally varies inversely with the direction of long-term interest rates, although other factors can influence the value of portfolio investments. In contrast, the redemption value of the Funds’ Preferred Shares does not fluctuate in relation to interest rates. As a result, changes in interest rates can influence the Funds’ NAV positively or negatively in addition to the impact on Fund performance from leverage from Preferred Shares discussed above.

The Funds may also leverage their assets through the use of tender option bond (“TOB”) programs, as described in Note 1 of the Notes to Financial Statements. TOB investments generally will provide the Funds with economic benefits in periods of declining short-term interest rates, but expose the Funds to risks during periods of rising short-term interest rates similar to those associated with Preferred Shares issued by the Funds, as described above. Additionally, fluctuations in the market value of municipal bonds deposited into the TOB trust may adversely affect each Fund’s NAV per share.

The use of leverage may enhance opportunities for increased returns to the Funds and Common Shareholders, but as described above, it also creates risks as short- or long-term interest rates fluctuate. Leverage also will generally cause greater changes in the Funds’ NAV, market price and dividend rate than a comparable portfolio without leverage. If the income derived from securities purchased with assets received from leverage exceeds the cost of leverage, the Funds’ net income will be greater than if leverage had not been used. Conversely, if the income from the securities purchased is not sufficient to cover the cost of leverage, the Funds’ net income will be less than if leverage had not been used, and therefore the amount available for distribution to Common Shareholders will be reduced. Each Fund may be required to sell portfolio securities at inopportune times or at distressed values in order to comply with regulatory requirements applicable to the use of leverage or as required by the terms of leverage instruments, which may cause a Fund to incur losses. The use of leverage may limit each Fund’s ability to invest in certain types of securities or use certain types of hedging strategies, such as in the case of certain restrictions imposed by ratings agencies that rate preferred shares issued by the Funds. Each Fund will incur expenses in connection with the use of leverage, all of which are borne by Common Shareholders and may reduce income to the Common Shares.

Under the Investment Company Act of 1940, the Funds are permitted to issue Preferred Shares in an amount of up to 50% of their total managed assets at the time of issuance. Under normal circumstances, each Fund anticipates that the total economic leverage from Preferred Shares and TOBs will not exceed 50% of its total managed assets at the time such leverage is incurred. As of July 31, 2010, the Funds had economic leverage from Preferred Shares and/or TOBs as a percentage of their total managed assets as follows:

	Percent of Leverage
MUE	39%
MCA	40%
MYI	38%
MYM	37%
MYN	37%

Derivative Financial Instruments

The Funds may invest in various derivative instruments, including financial futures contracts, as specified in Note 2 of the Notes to Financial Statements, which may constitute forms of economic leverage. Such instruments are used to obtain exposure to a market without owning or taking physical custody of securities or to hedge market and/or interest rate risks. Such derivative instruments involve risks, including the imperfect correlation between the value of a derivative instrument and the underlying asset, possible default of the counterparty to the transaction or illiquidity of the derivative instrument. Each Fund’s ability to successfully use a derivative instrument depends on the investment advisor’s ability to accurately predict pertinent market movements, which cannot be assured. The use of derivative instruments may result in losses greater than if they had not been used, may require a Fund to sell or purchase portfolio securities at inopportune times or for distressed values, may limit the amount of appreciation a Fund can realize on an investment, may result in lower dividends paid to shareholders or may cause a Fund to hold a security that it might otherwise sell. The Funds’ investments in these instruments are discussed in detail in the Notes to Financial Statements.

ANNUAL REPORT JULY 31, 2010 9

Schedule of Investments July 31, 2010	BlackRock MuniHoldings Insured Fund II, Inc. (MUE)
	(Percentages shown are based on Net Assets)

Municipal Bonds	Par (000)		Value
Alabama — 2.9%
Birmingham Special Care Facilities Financing Authority, RB, Children’s Hospital (AGC), 6.00%, 6/01/39	$	5,225	$	5,705,647
County of Jefferson Alabama, RB, Series A, 5.50%, 1/01/22		3,580		3,101,569
				8,807,216
Arizona — 0.5%
State of Arizona, COP, Department of Administration, Series A (AGM):
5.25%, 10/01/28		1,175		1,221,730
5.00%, 10/01/29		305		309,688
				1,531,418
Arkansas — 4.1%
Arkansas Development Finance Authority, Refunding RB, Series C (NPFGC):
5.35%, 12/01/11 (a)		1,050		1,129,380
5.35%, 12/01/35		11,115		11,235,598
				12,364,978
California — 14.5%
City of Vista California, COP, Refunding, Community Projects (NPFGC), 5.00%, 5/01/37		5,400		5,124,978
County of Sacramento California, RB, Senior Series A (AGC), 5.50%, 7/01/41		3,500		3,695,055
Dixon Unified School District California, GO, Election of 2002 (AGM), 5.20%, 8/01/44		1,890		1,902,833
Los Angeles Community College District California, GO, Election of 2001, Series A (NPFGC), 5.00%, 8/01/32		5,000		5,121,600
Modesto Schools Infrastructure Financing Agency, Special Tax Bonds (AMBAC), 5.50%, 9/01/36		4,240		3,925,265
Oceanside Unified School District California, GO, Series A (AGC), 5.25%, 8/01/33		3,175		3,292,507
Port of Oakland, RB, Series K, AMT (NPFGC), 5.75%, 11/01/21		2,975		2,976,993
Port of Oakland, Refunding RB, Series M, AMT (NPFGC), 5.38%, 11/01/27		2,220		2,221,909
Roseville Joint Union High School District California, GO, Election of 2004, Series A (NPFGC), 5.00%, 8/01/29		2,985		3,055,565

Municipal Bonds	Par (000)		Value
California (concluded)
Sacramento City Financing Authority California, RB, Capital Improvement (AMBAC), 5.00%, 12/01/27	$	150	$	151,457
San Francisco City & County Airports Commission, RB, Special Facility Lease, SFO Fuel, Series A, AMT (AGM), 6.10%, 1/01/20		1,250		1,252,288
State of California, GO, Refunding, Veterans, Series BZ, AMT (NPFGC), 5.35%, 12/01/21		9,350		9,354,301
Stockton Public Financing Authority California, RB, Redevelopment Projects, Series A (Radian), 5.25%, 9/01/34		2,430		1,871,027
				43,945,778
Colorado — 1.3%
Colorado Health Facilities Authority, RB, Hospital, NCMC Inc. Project, Series B (AGM), 6.00%, 5/15/26		3,300		3,706,857
Colorado Housing & Finance Authority, Refunding RB, S/F Program, Senior Series A-2, AMT, 7.50%, 4/01/31		155		164,787
				3,871,644
District of Columbia — 0.8%
District of Columbia, RB, Deed Tax, Housing Production Trust Fund, Series A (NPFGC), 5.00%, 6/01/32		2,500		2,519,975
Florida — 20.3%
City of Miami Florida, RB (NPFGC), 5.00%, 1/01/37		300		303,510
City of Orlando Florida, RB, Senior, 6th Cent Contract Payments, Series A (AGC), 5.25%, 11/01/38		675		663,235
County of Miami-Dade Florida, RB:
CAB, Sub-Series A (NPFGC), 5.24%, 10/01/37 (b)		1,980		323,275
Miami International Airport, Series A, AMT (AGM), 5.25%, 10/01/41		13,785		13,838,486
Miami International Airport, Series A, AMT (AGM), 5.50%, 10/01/41		6,700		6,836,345
Series A, AMT (AGM), 5.00%, 10/01/33		6,730		6,567,134
Water & Sewer System (AGM), 5.00%, 10/01/39		11,010		11,327,749

Portfolio Abbreviations

To simplify the listings of portfolio holdings in the Schedules of Investments, the names and descriptions of many of the securities have been abbreviated according to the following list:

ACA	ACA Financial Guaranty Corp.
AGC	Assured Guaranty Corp.
AGM	Assured Guaranty Municipal Corp.
AMBAC	American Municipal Bond Assurance Corp.
AMT	Alternative Minimum Tax (subject to)
ARB	Airport Revenue Bonds
BHAC	Berkshire Hathaway Assurance Corp.
CAB	Capital Appreciation Bonds
CIFG	CDC IXIS Financial Guaranty
COP	Certificates of Participation
EDA	Economic Development Authority
EDC	Economic Development Corp.
ERB	Education Revenue Bonds
FGIC	Federal Guaranty Insurance Co.
FHA	Federal Housing Administration
GAN	Grant Anticipation Notes
GO	General Obligation Bonds
HDA	Housing Development Authority
HFA	Housing Finance Agency
HRB	Housing Revenue Bonds
IDRB	Industrial Development Revenue Bonds
ISD	Independent School District
MRB	Mortgage Revenue Bonds
NPFGC	National Public Finance Guarantee Corp.
PILOT	Payment in Lieu of Taxes
PSF-GTD	Permanent School Fund Guaranteed
RB	Revenue Bonds
S/F	Single Family
SBPA	Stand-by Bond Purchase Agreement
SONYMA	State of New York Mortgage Agency
VRDN	Variable Rate Demand Notes

See Notes to Financial Statements.
10	ANNUAL REPORT	JULY 31, 2010

Schedule of Investments (continued)	BlackRock MuniHoldings Insured Fund II, Inc. (MUE)
	(Percentages shown are based on Net Assets)

Municipal Bonds	Par (000)		Value
Florida (concluded)
County of Miami-Dade Florida, Refunding RB, Water & Sewer System (AGM), 5.00%, 10/01/29	$	3,000	$	3,151,140
County of St. John’s Florida, RB, CAB (AMBAC), 5.36%, 6/01/31 (b)		4,940		1,575,662
Jacksonville Port Authority, RB, AMT (AGC), 6.00%, 11/01/38		3,625		3,714,972
Orange County School Board, COP, Series A (AGC), 5.50%, 8/01/34		12,375		13,254,367
				61,555,875
Georgia — 2.8%
Gwinnett County Hospital Authority, Refunding RB, Gwinnett Hospital System, Series D (AGM), 5.50%, 7/01/41		3,425		3,504,803
Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority, RB, Third Indenture, Series B (AGM), 5.00%, 7/01/34		4,830		5,050,924
				8,555,727
Idaho — 0.1%
Idaho Housing & Finance Association, RB, S/F Mortgage, Series E, AMT, 6.00%, 1/01/32		260		274,760
Illinois — 7.6%
Chicago Board of Education Illinois, GO, Refunding, Chicago School Reform Board, Series A (NPFGC), 5.50%, 12/01/26		2,080		2,371,158
Chicago Transit Authority, RB, Federal Transit Administration Section 5309, Series A (AGC), 6.00%, 6/01/26		3,400		3,927,340
City of Chicago Illinois, GO, Refunding, Projects, Series A (AGM):
5.00%, 1/01/28		2,315		2,467,049
5.00%, 1/01/29		3,585		3,794,651
5.00%, 1/01/30		1,430		1,502,287
City of Chicago Illinois, RB, General, Third Lien, Series C (AGM), 5.25%, 1/01/35		2,085		2,161,749
City of Chicago Illinois, Refunding RB, Second Lien (NPFGC), 5.50%, 1/01/30		2,270		2,520,994
State of Illinois, RB, Build Illinois, Series B, 5.25%, 6/15/28		4,000		4,247,360
				22,992,588
Indiana — 3.5%
Indiana Municipal Power Agency, RB, Series A (NPFGC), 5.00%, 1/01/42		8,000		8,087,200
Indianapolis Local Public Improvement Bond Bank, Refunding RB, Waterworks Project, Series A (AGC), 5.50%, 1/01/38		2,370		2,583,016
				10,670,216
Iowa — 1.0%
Iowa Finance Authority, Refunding RB, Iowa Health System (AGC), 5.25%, 2/15/29		2,915		3,070,690
Kansas — 0.5%
Sedgwick & Shawnee Counties Kansas, MRB, Series A-2, AMT (Ginnie Mae), 6.20%, 12/01/33		1,585		1,609,631
Kentucky — 0.9%
Kentucky Economic Development Finance Authority, RB, Louisville Arena, Sub-Series A-1 (AGC), 6.00%, 12/01/38		1,000		1,091,170
Kentucky State Property & Buildings Commission, Refunding RB, Project No. 93 (AGC), 5.25%, 2/01/29		1,525		1,660,115
				2,751,285

Municipal Bonds	Par (000)		Value
Louisiana — 1.3%
Louisiana State Citizens Property Insurance Corp., RB, Series C-3 (AGC), 6.13%, 6/01/25	$	3,550	$	3,951,682
Maine — 0.9%
City of Portland Maine, RB, General (AGM), 5.25%, 1/01/35		2,795		2,891,427
Michigan — 11.0%
City of Detroit Michigan, RB:
Second Lien, Series B (NPFGC), 5.50%, 7/01/29		4,170		4,274,625
Senior Lien, Series B (AGM), 7.50%, 7/01/33		2,500		3,010,175
City of Detroit Michigan, Refunding RB:
Second Lien, Series C (BHAC), 5.75%, 7/01/27		2,600		2,841,566
Second Lien, Series E (BHAC), 5.75%, 7/01/31		5,060		5,407,723
Senior Lien, Series C-1 (AGM), 7.00%, 7/01/27		4,180		4,886,963
Senior Lien, Series C-2 (BHAC), 5.25%, 7/01/29		1,860		1,926,923
Michigan State Building Authority, Refunding RB, Facilities Program, Series I (AGC):
5.25%, 10/15/24		1,440		1,568,621
5.25%, 10/15/25		750		809,580
Michigan Strategic Fund, Refunding RB, AMT, Detroit Edison Co. (Syncora):
Pollution, Series C, 5.65%, 9/01/29		2,935		2,939,432
Project, Series A, 5.50%, 6/01/30		2,000		1,950,360
Royal Oak Hospital Finance Authority Michigan, Refunding RB, William Beaumont Hospital, 8.25%, 9/01/39		3,115		3,719,559
				33,335,527
Minnesota — 0.7%
City of Minneapolis Minnesota, Refunding RB, Fairview Health Services, Series B (AGC), 6.50%, 11/15/38		1,975		2,220,947
Nevada — 2.0%
County of Clark Nevada, RB, Las Vegas-McCarran International Airport, Series A (AGC), 5.25%, 7/01/39		5,765		5,880,646
Nevada Housing Division, Refunding RB, S/F Mortgage, Mezzanine, Series A-2, AMT (NPFGC), 6.30%, 4/01/22		95		96,516
				5,977,162
New Jersey — 6.0%
New Jersey EDA, RB, Motor Vehicle Surcharge, Series A (NPFGC), 5.25%, 7/01/33		11,000		11,209,880
New Jersey Health Care Facilities Financing Authority, RB, Virtua Health (AGC), 5.50%, 7/01/38		3,400		3,629,364
New Jersey Transportation Trust Fund Authority, RB, Transportation System, Series A (AGC), 5.63%, 12/15/28		2,930		3,292,470
				18,131,714
New York — 0.8%
New York City Transitional Finance Authority, RB, Fiscal 2009, Series S-3, 5.25%, 1/15/39		2,300		2,460,264
North Carolina — 0.3%
North Carolina HFA, RB, Home Ownership, Series 14A, AMT (AMBAC), 5.35%, 1/01/22		1,060		1,067,314
Pennsylvania — 2.0%
Delaware River Port Authority, RB, Series D (AGC), 5.00%, 1/01/40		3,000		3,083,850
Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission, RB, Sub-Series B (AGM), 5.25%, 6/01/39		3,000		3,151,200
				6,235,050

See Notes to Financial Statements.
	ANNUAL REPORT	JULY 31, 2010	11

Schedule of Investments (continued)	BlackRock MuniHoldings Insured Fund II, Inc. (MUE)
	(Percentages shown are based on Net Assets)

Municipal Bonds	Par (000)		Value
Puerto Rico — 1.3%
Puerto Rico Sales Tax Financing Corp., RB, First Sub-Series A, 6.38%, 8/01/39	$	3,500	$	3,864,140
South Carolina — 5.5%
South Carolina State Housing Finance & Development Authority, Refunding RB, Series A-2, AMT (AGM), 6.35%, 7/01/19		960		973,920
South Carolina State Public Service Authority, RB, Series A (AMBAC), 5.00%, 1/01/42		15,000		15,600,150
				16,574,070
Texas — 19.1%
City of Austin Texas, Refunding RB, Series A (AGM):
5.00%, 11/15/28		1,795		1,921,637
5.00%, 11/15/29		2,270		2,414,486
City of Dallas Texas, Refunding RB (AGC), 5.25%, 8/15/38		2,100		2,181,102
City of Houston Texas, Refunding RB, Combined, First Lien, Series A (AGC), 6.00%, 11/15/35		6,700		7,711,365
County of Bexar Texas, RB, Venue Project, Motor Vehicle Rental (BHAC), 5.00%, 8/15/39		1,805		1,867,760
Harris County Health Facilities Development Corp., Refunding RB, Memorial Hermann Healthcare System, Series B, 7.25%, 12/01/35		1,000		1,137,870
Lower Colorado River Authority, Refunding RB, LCRA Transmission Services Project (AGC), 5.50%, 5/15/36		2,935		3,124,043
Lubbock Cooper ISD Texas, GO, School Building (AGC), 5.75%, 2/15/42		1,250		1,348,738
North Texas Tollway Authority, RB, System, First Tier, Series K-2 (AGC), 6.00%, 1/01/38		1,000		1,113,750
North Texas Tollway Authority, Refunding RB System, First Tier (NPFGC):
5.75%, 1/01/40		14,750		15,353,865
Series A, 5.13%, 1/01/28		3,950		4,066,446
Series A, 5.63%, 1/01/33		10,975		11,471,399
Series B, 5.75%, 1/01/40		1,000		1,040,940
Tarrant County Cultural Education Facilities Finance Corp., Refunding RB, Christus Health, Series A (AGC), 6.50%, 7/01/37		3,000		3,293,040
				58,046,441
Utah — 1.4%
City of Riverton Utah, RB, IHC Health Services Inc., 5.00%, 8/15/41		4,085		4,180,385
Virginia — 0.8%
Virginia Public School Authority, RB, School Financing, 6.50%, 12/01/35		2,195		2,548,505
Washington — 1.9%
Chelan County Public Utility District No. 1, RB, Chelan Hydro System, Series A, AMT (AMBAC), 5.45%, 7/01/37		3,840		3,839,808
Washington Health Care Facilities Authority, Refunding RB, Providence Health, Series C (AGM), 5.25%, 10/01/33		1,830		1,916,687
				5,756,495
Total Municipal Bonds — 115.8%				351,762,904
Municipal Bonds Transferred to Tender Option Bond Trusts (c)
Alabama — 1.3%
Mobile Board of Water & Sewer Commissioners, RB (NPFGC), 5.00%, 1/01/31		3,750		3,821,100

Municipal Bonds Transferred to Tender Option Bond Trusts (c)	Par (000)		Value
California — 3.6%
City of San Jose California, GO, Libraries, Parks, and Public Safety Project (NPFGC), 5.00%, 9/01/30	$	3,805	$	3,932,669
San Diego Community College District California, GO, Election of 2002 (AGM), 5.00%, 5/01/30		1,486		1,531,262
Sequoia Union High School District California, GO, Refunding, Election of 2004, Series B (AGM), 5.50%, 7/01/35		5,189		5,450,384
				10,914,315
Colorado — 3.1%
Colorado Health Facilities Authority, RB, Catholic Health, Series C-3 (AGM), 5.10%, 10/01/41		9,410		9,535,435
District of Columbia — 0.6%
District of Columbia Water & Sewer Authority, RB, Series A, 6.00%, 10/01/35		1,700		1,921,227
Florida — 7.9%
City of St. Petersburg Florida, Refunding RB (NPFGC), 5.00%, 10/01/35		6,493		6,560,241
County of Miami-Dade Florida, GO, Building Better Communities Program, Series B-1, 6.00%, 7/01/38		12,500		13,966,375
Lee County Housing Finance Authority, RB, Multi-County Program, Series A-2, AMT (Ginnie Mae), 6.00%, 9/01/40		3,000		3,309,570
				23,836,186
Georgia — 2.2%
Augusta-Richmond County Georgia, RB (AGM), 5.25%, 10/01/34		6,290		6,564,307
Illinois — 6.4%
City of Chicago Illinois, RB, Series A, (AGM), 5.00%, 1/01/33		15,000		15,179,175
City of Chicago Illinois, Refunding RB, Second Lien (AGM), 5.25%, 11/01/33		3,969		4,230,986
				19,410,161
Kentucky — 0.8%
Kentucky State Property & Building Commission, Refunding RB, Project No. 93 (AGC), 5.25%, 2/01/27		2,304		2,519,346
Massachusetts — 1.7%
Massachusetts School Building Authority, RB, Series A (AGM), 5.00%, 8/15/30		4,994		5,238,548
Nevada — 6.7%
Clark County Water Reclamation District, GO:
Limited Tax, 6.00%, 7/01/38		10,000		11,237,500
Series B, 5.50%, 7/01/29		8,247		9,128,661
				20,366,161
New Jersey — 1.4%
New Jersey State Housing & Mortgage Finance Agency, RB, S/F Housing, Series CC, 5.25%, 10/01/29		3,941		4,102,214
New York — 2.4%
Sales Tax Asset Receivable Corp., RB, Series A (AMBAC), 5.25%, 10/15/27		6,751		7,349,069
Washington — 2.5%
City of Bellevue Washington, GO, Refunding (NPFGC), 5.50%, 12/01/39		6,883		7,601,709
Total Municipal Bonds Transferred to Tender Option Bond Trusts — 40.6%				123,179,778
Total Long-Term Investments (Cost — $460,007,768) — 156.4%				474,942,682

See Notes to Financial Statements.
12	ANNUAL REPORT	JULY 31, 2010

Schedule of Investments (concluded)	BlackRock MuniHoldings Insured Fund II, Inc. (MUE)
	(Percentages shown are based on Net Assets)

Short-Term Securities	Par (000)		Value
Florida — 0.4%
Jacksonville Health Facilities Authority VRDN, 0.25%, 8/02/10 (d)	$	1,115	$	1,115,000
	Shares
Money Market Fund — 5.7%
FFI Institutional Tax-Exempt Fund, 0.21% (e)(f)		17,366,850		17,366,850
Total Short-Term Securities (Cost — $18,481,850) — 6.1%				18,481,850
Total Investments (Cost — $478,489,618*) — 162.5%				493,424,532
Other Assets Less Liabilities — 1.3%				3,986,834
Liability for Trust Certificates, Including Interest Expense and Fees Payable — (20.7)%				(62,737,649	)
Preferred Shares, at Redemption Value — (43.1)%				(131,006,425	)
Net Assets Applicable to Common Shares — 100.0%			$	303,667,292

* The cost and unrealized appreciation (depreciation) of investments as of July 31, 2010, as computed for federal income tax purposes, were as follows:

Aggregate cost	$	415,974,538
Gross unrealized appreciation	$	17,911,774
Gross unrealized depreciation		(3,154,714	)
Net unrealized appreciation	$	14,757,060

(a)	US government securities, held in escrow, are used to pay interest on this security as well as to retire the bond in full at the date indicated, typically at a premium to par.
(b)	Represents a zero-coupon bond. Rate shown reflects the current yield as of report date.
(c)	Securities represent bonds transferred to a tender option bond trust in exchange for which the Fund acquired residual interest certificates. These securities serve as collateral in a financing transaction. See Note 1 of the Notes to Financial Statements for details of municipal bonds transferred to tender option bond trusts.
(d)	Variable rate security. Rate shown is as of report date and maturity shown is the date the principal owed can be recovered through demand.
(e)	Investments in companies considered to be an affiliate of the Fund during the year, for purposes of Section 2(a)(3) of the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended, were as follows:

Affiliate	Shares at July 31, 2009		Net Activity			Shares at July 31, 2010		Income
FFI Institutional Tax-Exempt Fund		17,593,090		(226,240	)		17,366,850	$	20,203

(f) Represents the current yield as of report date.

•	Fair Value Measurements — Various inputs are used in determining the fair value of investments, which are as follows:
	•	Level 1 — price quotations in active markets/exchanges for identical assets and liabilities
	•	Level 2 — other observable inputs (including, but not limited to: quoted prices for similar assets or liabilities in markets that are active, quoted prices for identical or similar assets or liabilities in markets that are not active, inputs other than quoted prices that are observable for the assets or liabilities (such as interest rates, yield curves, volatilities, prepayment speeds, loss severities, credit risks and default rates) or other market-corroborated inputs)
	•	Level 3 — unobservable inputs based on the best information available in the circumstances, to the extent observable inputs are not available (including the Fund’s own assumptions used in determining the fair value of investments)
	The inputs or methodologies used for valuing securities are not necessarily an indication of the risk associated with investing in those securities. For information about the Fund’s policy regarding valuation of investments and other significant accounting policies, please refer to Note 1 of the Notes to Financial Statements.
	The following table summarizes the inputs used as of July 31, 2010 in determining the fair valuation of the Fund’s investments:

Valuation Inputs	Level 1		Level 2		Level 3		Total
Assets:
Investments in Securities:
Long-Term Investments1		—	$	474,942,682		—	$	474,942,682
Short-Term Securities	$	17,366,850		1,115,000		—		18,481,850
Total	$	17,366,850	$	476,057,682		—	$	493,424,532

¹       See above Schedule of Investments for values in each state or political subdivision.

See Notes to Financial Statements.
	ANNUAL REPORT	JULY 31, 2010	13

Schedule of Investments July 31, 2010	BlackRock MuniYield California Insured Fund, Inc. (MCA)
	(Percentages shown are based on Net Assets)

Municipal Bonds	Par (000)		Value
California — 90.1%
Corporate — 0.9%
City of Chula Vista California, Refunding RB, San Diego Gas & Electric, Series A, 5.88%, 2/15/34	$	2,435	$	2,691,674
University of California, RB, Limited Project, Series B (AGM), 5.00%, 5/15/33		1,740		1,774,765
				4,466,439
County/City/Special District/ School District — 50.2%
Arcadia Unified School District California, GO, Election of 2006, Series A (AGM), 5.00%, 8/01/37		9,000		9,200,340
Bay Area Governments Association, Refunding RB, California Redevelopment Agency Pool, Series A (AGM), 6.00%, 12/15/24		255		259,452
Brentwood Infrastructure Financing Authority California, Special Assessment Bonds, Refunding, Series A (AGM), 5.20%, 9/02/29		3,980		4,032,417
Central Unified School District, GO, Election of 2008, Series A (AGC), 5.50%, 8/01/29		2,000		2,186,960
Chabot-Las Positas Community College District California, GO, CAB, Election of 2004, Series 4-B (AMBAC), 5.17%, 8/01/26 (a)		6,705		2,608,245
Chino Basin Desalter Authority, Refunding RB, Series A (AGC), 5.00%, 6/01/35		1,305		1,322,644
Chino Valley Unified School District, GO, Election of 2002, Series C (NPFGC), 5.25%, 8/01/30		3,000		3,064,770
City of Riverside California, COP (AMBAC), 5.00%, 9/01/28		3,000		3,025,440
City of San Jose California, GO, Libraries, Parks, and Public Safety Project (NPFGC), 5.00%, 9/01/27		7,910		8,239,847
County of Kern California, COP, Capital Improvements Projects, Series A (AGC), 6.00%, 8/01/35		2,000		2,227,960
Fairfield-Suisun Unified School District California, GO, Election of 2002 (NPFGC), 5.50%, 8/01/28		2,500		2,647,225
Fontana Unified School District California, GO, Series A (AGM), 5.25%, 8/01/31		3,000		3,144,840
Fremont Unified School District Alameda County California, GO, Series A (NPFGC), 5.50%, 8/01/26		10,755		11,381,049
Fresno Joint Powers Financing Authority California, RB, Series A (AGM), 5.75%, 6/01/26		3,295		3,389,336
Glendora Unified School District California, GO, Election of 2005, Series A (NPFGC):
5.00%, 8/01/27		1,350		1,430,271
5.25%, 8/01/30		2,730		2,889,596
Los Angeles Community Redevelopment Agency California, RB, Bunker Hill Project, Series A (AGM), 5.00%, 12/01/27		10,000		10,166,800
Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, Refunding RB, Proposition A, First Tier, Senior Series A (AMBAC):
5.00%, 7/01/27		5,240		5,546,068
5.00%, 7/01/35		6,825		7,062,100
Los Angeles Municipal Improvement Corp., Refunding RB, Real Property, Series B (AGC), 5.50%, 4/01/39		1,500		1,585,635
Los Angeles Unified School District California, GO:
Election of 2002, Series C (AGM), 5.00%, 7/01/32		10,000		10,204,700
Election of 2004, Series F (FGIC), 5.00%, 7/01/30		5,000		5,066,200
Los Gatos Union School District California, GO, Election of 2001, Series C (NPFGC), 5.13%, 8/01/32		1,075		1,103,832
Merced Community College District California, GO, School Facilities Improvement District No. 1 (NPFGC), 5.00%, 8/01/31		6,850		6,906,512
Municipal Bonds	Par (000)		Value
California (continued)
County/City/Special District/ School District (concluded)
Murrieta Valley Unified School District Public Financing Authority, Special Tax Bonds, Refunding, Series A (AGC), 5.13%, 9/01/26	$	8,000	$	8,477,200
Orange County Water District, COP, Refunding, 5.25%, 8/15/34		9,045		9,671,004
Orchard School District California, GO, Election of 2001, Series A (AGC), 5.00%, 8/01/34		7,490		7,658,899
Oxnard Union High School District California, GO, Refunding, Series A (NPFGC), 6.20%, 8/01/30		9,645		10,422,483
Peralta Community College District California, GO, Peralta Community College (AGM), 5.00%, 8/01/37		6,195		6,341,945
Pittsburg Unified School District, GO, Election of 2006, Series B (AGM):
5.50%, 8/01/34		2,000		2,131,780
5.63%, 8/01/39		4,500		4,830,795
Port of Oakland, Refunding RB, Series M, AMT (NPFGC), 5.38%, 11/01/27		16,930		16,944,560
Redlands Unified School District California, GO, Election of 2008 (AGM), 5.25%, 7/01/33		5,000		5,210,100
Riverside Unified School District California, GO, Series C (AGC), 5.00%, 8/01/32		5,010		5,126,082
Saddleback Valley Unified School District California, GO (AGM), 5.00%, 8/01/29		2,565		2,634,178
San Bernardino City Unified School District California, GO, Series A (AGM), 5.00%, 8/01/28		5,000		5,131,150
San Diego Community College District California, GO, Election of 2006 (AGM), 5.00%, 8/01/32		7,090		7,356,938
San Diego County Water Authority, COP, Refunding, Series 2008-A (AGM), 5.00%, 5/01/38		1,115		1,152,542
San Jose Redevelopment Agency California, Tax Allocation Bonds, Housing Set Aside Merged Area, Series E, AMT (NPFGC), 5.85%, 8/01/27		7,300		7,325,404
San Juan Unified School District California, GO, Election of 2002:
(AGM), 5.00%, 8/01/34		6,475		6,654,617
(NPFGC), 5.00%, 8/01/28		4,250		4,362,030
San Mateo County Transportation District California, Refunding RB, Series A (NPFGC), 5.00%, 6/01/29		4,350		4,547,099
Santa Rosa High School District California, GO, Election of 2002 (NPFGC), 5.00%, 8/01/28		2,500		2,526,350
Snowline Joint Unified School District, COP, Refunding, Refining Project (AGC), 5.75%, 9/01/38		5,600		6,240,864
South Tahoe Joint Powers Financing Authority, RB, South Tahoe Redevelopment Project Area No. 1, Series A (AGM), 5.00%, 10/01/29		1,645		1,661,516
Ventura County Community College District, GO, Refunding, Series A (NPFGC), 5.00%, 8/01/27		3,395		3,562,170
Vista Unified School District California, GO, Series B (NPFGC), 5.00%, 8/01/28		2,550		2,617,218
West Contra Costa Unified School District California, GO, Election of 2002, Series B (AGM), 5.00%, 8/01/32		6,690		6,693,746
Westminster Redevelopment Agency California, Tax Allocation Bonds, Subordinate, Commercial Redevelopment Project No. 1 (AGC), 6.25%, 11/01/39		4,300		4,918,985
				252,891,894

See Notes to Financial Statements.
14	ANNUAL REPORT	JULY 31, 2010

Schedule of Investments (continued)	BlackRock MuniYield California Insured Fund, Inc. (MCA)
	(Percentages shown are based on Net Assets)

Municipal Bonds	Par (000)		Value
California (continued)
Education — 4.4%
Chaffey Community College District, GO, Election of 2002, Series C (NPFGC):
5.00%, 6/01/27	$	1,000	$	1,041,630
5.00%, 6/01/32		1,600		1,639,904
Escondido Union High School District, COP (AGM), 5.00%, 6/01/37		1,250		1,238,975
Riverside Community College District, GO, Election of 2004, Series C (AGM), 5.00%, 8/01/32		8,750		9,010,313
University of California, RB, Limited Project, Series D:
(AGM), 5.00%, 5/15/37		2,775		2,871,653
(NPFGC), 5.00%, 5/15/37		5,340		5,510,186
(NPFGC), 5.00%, 5/15/41		1,000		1,026,560
				22,339,221
Health — 2.6%
California Health Facilities Financing Authority, Refunding RB, Catholic Healthcare West, Series A:
6.00%, 7/01/34		2,130		2,295,970
6.00%, 7/01/39		5,500		5,895,725
California Statewide Communities Development Authority, RB, Health Facility, Memorial Health Services, Series A, 6.00%, 10/01/23		3,685		3,853,146
California Statewide Communities Development Authority, Refunding RB, Catholic Healthcare West, Series D (BHAC), 5.50%, 7/01/31		1,010		1,067,600
				13,112,441
Housing — 0.1%
California Rural Home Mortgage Finance Authority, RB, AMT, Mortgage-Backed Securities Program (Ginnie Mae):
Series A, 6.35%, 12/01/29		100		108,923
Series B, 6.25%, 12/01/31		70		70,773
County of San Bernardino California, Refunding RB, Home Mortgage-Backed Securities, Series A-1, AMT (Ginnie Mae), 6.25%, 12/01/31		140		146,070
				325,766
State — 4.0%
California State Public Works Board, RB, Department of Education, Riverside Campus Project, Series B, 6.50%, 4/01/34		3,500		3,768,450
State of California, GO, Various Purpose:
6.00%, 3/01/33		5,000		5,412,500
6.50%, 4/01/33		9,875		11,105,524
				20,286,474
Transportation — 11.2%
City of San Jose California, RB, Series D (NPFGC), 5.00%, 3/01/28		4,575		4,610,639
County of Orange California, RB, Series B, 5.75%, 7/01/34		5,000		5,445,350
County of Sacramento California, RB:
Senior-Series B AMT (AGM), 5.25%, 7/01/33		7,500		7,514,100
Subordinated and PFC/Grant, Series C (AGC), 5.75%, 7/01/39		5,380		5,786,567
Port of Oakland, RB, Series K, AMT (NPFGC), 5.75%, 11/01/29		11,405		11,405,570
Municipal Bonds	Par (000)		Value
California (concluded)
Transportation (concluded)
San Francisco City & County Airports Commission, RB:
Series E, 6.00%, 5/01/39	$	9,650	$	10,657,556
Special Facility Lease, SFO Fuel, Series A AMT (AGM), 6.10%, 1/01/20		1,000		1,001,830
Special Facility Lease, SFO Fuel, Series A AMT (AGM), 6.13%, 1/01/27		985		986,015
San Francisco City & County Airports Commission, Refunding RB, Second Series 34E, AMT (AGM):
5.75%, 5/01/24		5,000		5,411,650
5.75%, 5/01/25		3,500		3,762,080
				56,581,357
Utilities — 16.7%
Castaic Lake Water Agency, COP, Refunding, 2001 Project, Series A (AGM), 5.00%, 8/01/30		1,000		1,030,160
City of Glendale California, RB (NPFGC), 5.00%, 2/01/32		4,390		4,431,047
City of Santa Clara California, RB, Sub-Series A (NPFGC), 5.00%, 7/01/28		5,500		5,556,265
Contra Costa Water District, Refunding RB:
Series L (AGM), 5.00%, 10/01/32		4,135		4,269,718
Series O (AMBAC), 5.00%, 10/01/24		1,735		1,866,201
East Bay Municipal Utility District, RB, Series A (NPFGC), 5.00%, 6/01/37		6,500		6,813,755
East Bay Municipal Utility District, Refunding RB, Sub-Series A (AMBAC), 5.00%, 6/01/33		4,125		4,344,161
El Centro Financing Authority California, RB, Series A (AGM), 5.25%, 10/01/35		1,100		1,106,248
Fortuna Public Financing Authority, RB (AGM), 5.00%, 10/01/36		1,500		1,507,005
Los Angeles Department of Water & Power, RB, Power System, Sub-Series A-1 (AGM):
5.00%, 7/01/35		3,000		3,088,110
5.00%, 7/01/37		13,500		13,937,535
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, RB, Series B-1 (NPFGC), 5.00%, 10/01/33		7,175		7,384,079
Oxnard Financing Authority, RB, Redwood Trunk Sewer & Headworks, Series A (NPFGC), 5.25%, 6/01/34		13,000		13,210,990
Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District, RB, Sacramento Regional County Sanitation (NPFGC), 5.00%, 12/01/27		7,070		7,408,158
San Diego County Water Authority, COP, Series A (AGM), 5.00%, 5/01 /31		3,000		3,080,130
Turlock Public Financing Authority California, RB, Series A (NPFGC), 5.00%, 9/15/33		3,000		3,041,370
Vallecitos Water District California, COP, Refunding, Series A (AGM), 5.00%, 7/01/27		2,000		2,082,960
				84,157,892
Total Municipal Bonds — 90.1%				454,161,484

See Notes to Financial Statements.
ANNUAL REPORT	JULY 31, 2010	15

Schedule of Investments (continued)	BlackRock MuniYield California Insured Fund, Inc. (MCA)
	(Percentages shown are based on Net Assets)

Municipal Bonds Transferred to Tender Option Bond Trusts (b)	Par (000)		Value
California — 67.7%
Corporate — 5.6%
San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District, Refunding RB, Series A (NPFGC), 5.00%, 7/01/30	$	19,630	$	20,596,385
University of California, RB, Series L, 5.00%, 5/15/40		7,398		7,620,716
				28,217,101
County/City/Special District/ School District — 32.4%
Desert Community College District California, GO, Series C (AGM), 5.00%, 8/01/37		12,150		12,387,168
Fremont Unified School District Alameda County California, GO, Election of 2002, Series B (AGM), 5.00%, 8/01/30		15,997		16,452,840
Lodi Unified School District California, GO, Election of 2002 (AGM), 5.00%, 8/01/29		10,260		10,428,469
Los Angeles Community College District California, GO, Series A:
Election of 2001 (AGM), 5.00%, 8/01/32		12,000		12,313,440
Election of 2001 (NPFGC), 5.00%, 8/01/32		26,438		27,080,496
Election of 2008, Series A, 6.00%, 8/01/33		9,596		10,826,270
Los Angeles Unified School District California, GO, Series I, 5.00%, 1/01/34		5,000		5,104,400
Ohlone Community College District, GO, Ohlone, Series B (AGM), 5.00%, 8/01/30		19,998		20,567,660
Poway Unified School District, GO, Election of 2002, Improvement District 02, Series 1-B (AGM), 5.00%, 8/01/30		10,000		10,297,600
San Bernardino Community College District California, GO, Election of 2002, Series C (AGM), 5.00%, 8/01/31		7,550		7,770,687
San Diego County Water Authority, COP, Series A (AGM), 5.00%, 5/01/30		7,350		7,565,355
San Francisco Bay Area Transit Financing Authority, Refunding RB, Series A (NPFGC), 5.00%, 7/01/34		10,497		10,904,287
San Jose Financing Authority, Refunding RB, Civic Center Project, Series B (AMBAC), 5.00%, 6/01/32		11,400		11,456,772
				163,155,444
Education — 6.7%
California State University, RB, Systemwide, Series A (AGM), 5.00%, 11/01/39		4,860		4,911,905
Los Angeles Community College District California, GO, Election of 2003, Series E (AGM), 5.00%, 8/01/31		7,497		7,692,763
University of California, RB:
Limited Project, Series D (AGM), 5.00%, 5/15/41		8,000		8,236,000
Series O, 5.75%, 5/15/34		11,190		12,637,538
				33,478,206
Utilities — 23.0%
Anaheim Public Financing Authority California, RB, Electric System Distribution Facilities, Series A (AGM), 5.00%, 10/01/31		3,568		3,585,381
City of Napa California, RB (AMBAC), 5.00%, 5/01/35		9,070		9,336,295
East Bay Municipal Utility District, RB, Sub-Series A (NPFGC), 5.00%, 6/01/35		15,000		15,546,000
East Bay Municipal Utility District, Refunding RB, Sub-Series A (AMBAC), 5.00%, 6/01/37		7,990		8,375,677
Los Angeles Department of Water & Power, RB:
Power System, Sub-Series A-1 (AGM), 5.00%, 7/01/31		5,007		5,192,815
Power System, Sub-Series A-1 (AMBAC), 5.00%, 7/01/37		5,029		5,192,301
System, Sub-Series A-2 (AGM), 5.00%, 7/01/35		7,500		7,720,200
Municipal Bonds Transferred to Tender Option Bond Trusts (b)	Par (000)		Value
California (concluded)
Utilities (concluded)
Los Angeles Department of Water & Power, Refunding RB, Power System, Sub-Series A-2 (NPFGC), 5.00%, 7/01/27	$	16,000	$	16,688,640
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, RB, Series A, 5.00%, 7/01/37		15,000		15,796,500
Rancho Water District Financing Authority, Refunding RB, Series A (AGM), 5.00%, 8/01/34		9,277		9,566,845
San Diego County Water Authority, COP, Refunding, Series 2008-A (AGM), 5.00%, 5/01/33		8,510		8,836,103
San Diego County Water Authority, COP, Series A (AGM), 5.00%, 5/01/31		10,000		10,267,100
				116,103,857
Total Municipal Bonds Transferred to Tender Option Bond Trusts — 67.7%				340,954,608
Total Long-Term Investments (Cost — $778,127,360) — 157.8%				795,116,092
Short-Term Securities	Shares
BIF California Municipal Money Fund, 0.04%, (c)(d)		39,049,939		39,049,939
Total Short-Term Securities (Cost — $39,049,939) — 7.8%				39,049,939
Total Investments (Cost — $817,177,299*) — 165.6%				834,166,031
Other Assets Less Liabilities — 1.5%				7,479,248
Liability for Trust Certificates, Including Interest Expense and Fees Payable — (34.0)%				(171,228,214	)
Preferred Shares, at Redemption Value — (33.1)%				(166,548,530	)
Net Assets Applicable to Common Shares — 100.0%			$	503,868,535

* The cost and unrealized appreciation (depreciation) of investments as of July 31, 2010, as computed for federal income tax purposes, were as follows:

Aggregate cost	$	646,442,072
Gross unrealized appreciation	$	19,105,839
Gross unrealized depreciation		(2,519,301	)
Net unrealized appreciation	$	16,586,538

(a)	Represents a zero-coupon bond. Rate shown reflects the current yield as of report date.
(b)	Securities represent bonds transferred to a tender option bond trust in exchange for which the Fund acquired residual interest certificates. These securities serve as collateral in a financing transaction. See Note 1 of the Notes to Financial Statements for details of municipal bonds transferred to tender option bond trusts.
(c)	Investments in companies considered to be an affiliate of the Fund during the year, for purposes of Section 2(a)(3) of the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended, were as follows:

Affiliate	Shares at July 31, 2009		Net Activity		Shares at July 31, 2010		Income
BIF California Municipal Money Fund		21,941,944		17,107,995		39,049,939	$	5,332

(d) Represents the current yield as of report date.

See Notes to Financial Statements.
16	ANNUAL REPORT	JULY 31, 2010

Schedule of Investments (concluded) BlackRock MuniYield California Insured Fund, Inc. (MCA)

• For Fund compliance purposes, the Fund’s sector classifications refer to any one or more of the sector sub-classifications used by one or more widely recognized market indexes or rating group indexes, and/or as defined by Fund management. This definition may not apply for purposes of this report, which may combine such sector sub-classifications for reporting ease.

• Financial futures contracts sold as of July 31, 2010 were as follows:

Contracts	Issue	Expiration Date	Notional Value		Unrealized Depreciation
42	10-Year U.S. Treasury Bond	September 2010	$	5,110,126	$	(89,999	)

•	Fair Value Measurements — Various inputs are used in determining the fair value of investments and derivatives, which are as follows:
	•	Level 1 — price quotations in active markets/exchanges for identical assets and liabilities
	•	Level 2 — other observable inputs (including, but not limited to: quoted prices for similar assets or liabilities in markets that are active, quoted prices for identical or similar assets or liabilities in markets that are not active, inputs other than quoted prices that are observable for the assets or liabilities (such as interest rates, yield curves, volatilities, prepayment speeds, loss severities, credit risks and default rates) or other market-corroborated inputs)
	•	Level 3 — unobservable inputs based on the best information available in the circumstances, to the extent observable inputs are not available (including the Fund’s own assumptions used in determining the fair value of investments and derivatives)
	The inputs or methodologies used for valuing securities are not necessarily an indication of the risk associated with investing in those securities. For information about the Fund’s policy regarding valuation of investments and other significant accounting policies, please refer to Note 1 of the Notes to Financial Statements.
	The following tables summarize the inputs used as of July 31, 2010 in determining the fair valuation of the Fund’s investments and derivatives:

Valuation Inputs	Level 1		Level 2		Level 3		Total
Assets:
Investments in Securities:
Long-Term Investments1		—	$	795,116,092		—	$	795,116,092
Short-Term Securities	$	39,049,939		—		—		39,049,939
Total	$	39,049,939	$	795,116,092		—	$	834,166,031

¹ See above Schedule of Investments for values in each sector.

Derivative Financial Instruments2
Valuation Inputs	Level 1			Level 2		Level 3		Total
Liabilities:
Interest rate contracts	$	(89,999	)		—		—	$	(89,999	)

² Derivative financial instruments are financial futures contracts which are shown at the unrealized appreciation/depreciation on the instrument.

See Notes to Financial Statements.
ANNUAL REPORT	JULY 31, 2010	17

Schedule of Investments July 31, 2010	BlackRock MuniYield Insured Fund, Inc. (MYI)
	(Percentages shown are based on Net Assets)

Municipal Bonds	Par (000)		Value
Alabama — 0.4%
Birmingham Special Care Facilities Financing Authority, RB, Children’s Hospital (AGC), 6.00%, 6/01/39	$	3,605	$	3,936,624
Alaska — 1.3%
Borough of Matanuska-Susitna Alaska, RB, Goose Creek Correctional Center (AGC), 6.00%, 9/01/28		10,150		11,758,775
Arizona — 2.8%
Downtown Phoenix Hotel Corp., RB, Senior Series A (FGIC), 5.00%, 7/01/36		21,355		17,882,463
Maricopa County & Phoenix Industrial Development Authorities, Refunding RB, S/F, Series A-2, AMT (Ginnie Mae), 5.80%, 7/01/40		2,430		2,476,826
State of Arizona, COP, Department of Administration, Series A (AGM):
5.00%, 10/01/27		3,725		3,835,223
5.25%, 10/01/28		1,600		1,663,632
				25,858,144
California — 13.7%
Alameda Corridor Transportation Authority, Refunding RB, CAB, Subordinate Lien, Series A (AMBAC), 5.47%, 10/01/24 (a)		10,000		8,232,400
California HFA, RB, Home Mortgage, Series K, AMT, 5.50%, 2/01/42		5,835		5,971,422
California Health Facilities Financing Authority, Refunding RB, St. Joseph Health System, Series A, 5.75%, 7/01/39		1,550		1,621,409
California State University, RB, Systemwide, Series A (NPFGC), 5.00%, 11/01/32		9,865		9,980,519
California State University, Refunding RB, Systemwide, Series A (AGM), 5.00%, 11/01/37		3,545		3,579,103
California Statewide Communities Development Authority, RB (AGM):
St. Joseph Health System, Series E, 5.25%, 7/01/47		10,000		10,150,300
Sutter Health, Series D, 5.05%, 8/15/38		3,750		3,809,362
City of Redding California, COP, Refunding, Series A (AGM), 5.00%, 6/01/30		1,900		1,950,673
City of San Jose California, Refunding RB, Series A, AMT (AMBAC), 5.50%, 3/01/32		11,965		12,155,722
County of Sacramento California, RB, Senior Series A (AGM), 5.00%, 7/01/41		15,000		15,116,400
Fairfield-Suisun Unified School District California, GO, Election of 2002 (NPFGC), 5.50%, 8/01/28		5,800		6,141,562
Los Angeles Municipal Improvement Corp., RB, Series B1 (NPFGC), 4.75%, 8/01/37		15,000		14,340,600
Mendocino-Lake Community College District, GO, Election of 2006, Series A (NPFGC), 5.00%, 8/01/31		1,485		1,498,974
Norwalk-La Mirada Unified School District California, GO, Refunding, CAB, Election of 2002, Series E (AGC), 6.47%, 8/01/38 (b)		7,620		1,298,524
Oceanside Unified School District California, GO, Series A (AGC), 5.25%, 8/01/33		2,500		2,592,525
Port of Oakland, RB, Series K, AMT (NPFGC), 5.75%, 11/01/29		3,645		3,645,182
Port of Oakland, Refunding RB, Series M, AMT (NPFGC), 5.38%, 11/01/27		7,530		7,536,476
Riverside County Public Financing Authority, Tax Allocation Bonds, Redevelopment Projects (Syncora), 5.00%, 10/01/35		10,000		8,270,500
State of California, GO, Series 2007-2 (NPFGC), 5.50%, 4/01/30		10		10,132
Stockton Public Financing Authority California, RB, Parking & Capital Projects (NPFGC), 5.25%, 9/01/34		5,000		4,899,350
West Valley-Mission Community College District, GO, Election of 2004, Series A (AGM), 5.00%, 8/01/30		3,600		3,720,528
				126,521,663
Municipal Bonds	Par (000)		Value
District of Columbia — 1.1%
Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority, RB, Series B, AMT (AMBAC), 5.00%, 10/01/32	$	10,000	$	10,077,200
Florida — 16.4%
Broward County School Board Florida, COP, Series A (AGM), 5.25%, 7/01/33		15,000		15,489,600
City of Orlando Florida, RB, Senior, 6th Cent Contract Payments, Series A (AGC), 5.25%, 11/01/38		14,250		14,001,623
City of Tallahassee Florida, RB (NPFGC), 5.00%, 10/01/32		3,300		3,385,701
Collier County School Board, COP (AGM), 5.00%, 2/15/23		5,000		5,215,450
County of Broward Florida, RB, Series A, 5.25%, 10/01/34		2,250		2,354,760
County of Miami-Dade Florida, GO, Building Better Communities Program:
Series B, 6.38%, 7/01/28		6,000		6,882,120
Series B-1, 5.75%, 7/01/33		3,700		3,999,996
County of Miami-Dade Florida, RB:
Jackson Health System (AGC), 5.75%, 6/01/39		5,200		5,508,204
Miami International Airport, AMT (NPFGC), 5.38%, 10/01/25		10,650		10,719,438
Miami International Airport, AMT (NPFGC), 5.38%, 10/01/27		1,000		1,003,270
Miami International Airport, Series A, AMT (AGM), 5.50%, 10/01/41		19,020		19,407,057
Water & Sewer System (AGM), 5.00%, 10/01/39		11,700		12,037,662
County of Miami-Dade Florida, Refunding RB:
(AGM), 5.00%, 7/01/35		2,800		2,866,052
Miami International Airport, AMT, (AGC), 5.00%, 10/01/40		11,000		10,715,100
Miami International Airport, AMT, Series A (AGC), 5.00%, 10/01/35		2,100		2,052,792
Series C (BHAC), 6.00%, 10/01/23		20,095		23,613,233
County of Orange Florida, Refunding RB, Series B (NPFGC), 5.13%, 1/01/32		2,000		2,026,440
Miami-Dade County School Board, COP, Refunding, Series B (AGC), 5.25%, 5/01/31		4,125		4,284,266
Sarasota County Public Hospital District, RB, Sarasota Memorial Hospital Project, Series A, 5.63%, 7/01/39		5,135		5,344,713
				150,907,477
Georgia — 1.6%
City of Atlanta Georgia, RB, General, Series B (AGM), 5.25%, 1/01/33		12,500		12,846,500
Gwinnett County Hospital Authority, Refunding RB, Gwinnett Hospital System, Series D (AGM), 5.50%, 7/01/41		2,275		2,328,008
				15,174,508
Illinois — 15.0%
Chicago Board of Education Illinois, GO, Refunding, CAB, School Reform, Series A (NPFGC), 5.39%, 12/01/22 (b)		10,515		5,865,582
City of Chicago Illinois, ARB, General, Third Lien, Series B-2, AMT (NPFGC):
5.25%, 1/01/27		16,685		16,850,348
6.00%, 1/01/27		26,230		27,286,020
City of Chicago Illinois, GO, CAB, City Colleges (NPFGC), 5.55%, 1/01/29 (b)		5,000		1,894,100
City of Chicago Illinois, GO, Refunding, Series B (AGM), 5.00%, 1/01/24		12,950		13,736,324
City of Chicago Illinois, Refunding ARB, General, Third Lien, Series C-2, AMT (AGM), 5.25%, 1/01/30		16,400		16,455,104
County of Cook Illinois, GO, Refunding, Series A, 5.25%, 11/15/33		3,700		3,898,246
Illinois Finance Authority, Refunding RB, Northwestern Memorial Hospital, Series A, 6.00%, 8/15/39		5,250		5,743,868

See Notes to Financial Statements.

18 ANNUAL REPORT JULY 31, 2010

Schedule of Investments (continued)	BlackRock MuniYield Insured Fund, Inc. (MYI)
	(Percentages shown are based on Net Assets)

Municipal Bonds	Par (000)		Value
Illinois (concluded)
Illinois Municipal Electric Agency, RB, Series A (NPFGC):
5.00%, 2/01/35	$	21,200	$	21,636,084
5.25%, 2/01/35		15,000		15,406,950
Kane, Kendall, Etc. Counties Community College District No. 516 Illinois, GO, CAB, Series E (NPFGC), 5.21%, 12/15/25 (b)		8,750		4,037,950
Regional Transportation Authority, RB, Series C (NPFGC), 7.75%, 6/01/20		1,000		1,300,980
State of Illinois, RB, Build Illinois, Series B, 5.25%, 6/15/34		3,500		3,617,635
				137,729,191
Indiana — 1.7%
City of Indianapolis Indiana, Refunding RB, Second Lien, Series B (AGC), 5.25%, 8/15/27		5,000		5,397,550
Indiana Municipal Power Agency, RB:
Series A (NPFGC), 5.00%, 1/01/37		9,200		9,330,732
Series B, 5.75%, 1/01/34		1,050		1,120,235
				15,848,517
Iowa — 1.5%
Iowa Finance Authority, RB, Series A (AGC), 5.63%, 8/15/37		12,650		13,379,399
Kentucky — 1.6%
Kentucky State Property & Buildings Commission, Refunding RB, Project No. 93 (AGC), 5.25%, 2/01/28		4,000		4,366,440
Louisville & Jefferson County Metropolitan Sewer District Kentucky, RB, Series A (NPFGC), 5.25%, 5/15/37		10,000		10,549,100
				14,915,540
Louisiana — 1.5%
New Orleans Aviation Board Louisiana, RB, New Orleans Aviation, Series A, AMT (AGM), 5.25%, 1/01/32		13,335		13,383,139
Maryland — 0.5%
Maryland Community Development Administration, Refunding RB, Residential, Series A, AMT, 5.75%, 9/01/39		4,650		4,936,301
Massachusetts — 5.3%
Massachusetts HFA, RB:
S/F Housing, Series 128 AMT (AGM), 4.88%, 12/01/38 (c)		12,405		11,934,354
Series B, 7.00%, 12/01/38		3,440		3,851,768
Massachusetts HFA, Refunding RB:
Housing Development, Series B (NPFGC), 5.40%, 12/01/28		1,835		1,803,438
Rental Housing, Series A, AMT (AGM), 5.15%, 7/01/26		18,245		18,540,387
Massachusetts Port Authority, Refunding RB, BOSFUEL Project, AMT (NPFGC), 5.00%, 7/01/38		12,925		12,583,004
				48,712,951
Michigan — 7.9%
City of Detroit Michigan, RB, Series B (AGM):
Second Lien, 6.25%, 7/01/36		1,075		1,178,802
Second Lien, 7.00%, 7/01/36		500		577,850
Senior Lien, 7.50%, 7/01/33		1,800		2,167,326
City of Detroit Michigan, Refunding RB:
Senior Lien, Series C-1 (AGM), 7.00%, 7/01/27		1,500		1,753,695
Senior Lien, Series D (AGM), 5.00%, 7/01/23		9,085		9,370,814
Series C (NPFGC), 5.00%, 7/01/22		5,540		5,695,286
Series D (NPFGC), 5.00%, 7/01/33		5,000		4,929,350
Municipal Bonds	Par (000)		Value
Michigan (concluded)
Michigan Higher Education Student Loan Authority, RB, Student Loan, Series XVII-Q, AMT (AMBAC), 5.00%, 3/01/31	$	4,325	$	4,126,915
Michigan State Building Authority, Refunding RB, Facilities Program, Series I:
6.25%, 10/15/38		3,125		3,460,438
(AGC), 5.25%, 10/15/24		1,750		1,906,310
(AGC), 5.25%, 10/15/25		3,250		3,508,180
Michigan Strategic Fund, Refunding RB, AMT, Detroit Edison Co. (Syncora):
Pollution, Series C, 5.65%, 9/01/29		2,935		2,939,432
Project, Series A, 5.50%, 6/01/30		8,000		7,801,440
State of Michigan, RB, GAN (AGM):
5.25%, 9/15/22		10,000		11,016,500
5.25%, 9/15/26		6,650		7,118,027
Wayne County Airport Authority, Refunding RB, AMT (AGC), 5.38%, 12/01/32		5,000		4,759,400
				72,309,765
Minnesota — 0.7%
City of Minneapolis Minnesota, Refunding RB, Fairview Health Services, Series B (AGC), 6.50%, 11/15/38		5,500		6,184,915
Missouri — 0.00%
Missouri Housing Development Commission, RB, S/F Homeowner Loan, Series C-1, AMT (Ginnie Mae), 7.15%, 3/01/32		75		77,133
Nevada — 5.5%
City of Las Vegas Nevada, GO, Limited Tax, Performing Arts Center, 6.00%, 4/01/34		2,250		2,491,605
County of Clark Nevada, RB:
Las Vegas-McCarran International Airport, Series A (AGC), 5.25%, 7/01/39		5,170		5,273,710
Southwest Gas Corp. Project, Series A, AMT (AMBAC), 5.25%, 7/01/34		12,675		11,542,489
Subordinate Lien, Series A-2 (NPFGC), 5.00%, 7/01/30		20,000		20,133,400
Subordinate Lien, Series A2 (BHAC), 5.00%, 7/01/30		750		768,450
Las Vegas Convention & Visitors Authority, RB (AMBAC), 5.00%, 7/01/37		10,000		9,984,900
				50,194,554
New Jersey — 3.3%
New Jersey EDA, RB, Cigarette Tax, 5.75%, 6/15/34		4,000		3,903,360
New Jersey EDA, Refunding RB, School Facilities Construction, Series N-1:
(AMBAC), 5.50%, 9/01/24		10,000		11,463,300
(NPFGC), 5.50%, 9/01/28		2,165		2,425,147
New Jersey Transportation Trust Fund Authority, RB, Transportation System:
CAB, Series C (AGC), 5.70%, 12/15/25 (b)		15,735		7,222,837
Series A (NPFGC), 5.75%, 6/15/25		4,400		5,207,708
				30,222,352
New York — 2.6%
City of New York New York, GO:
Series J, 5.25%, 5/15/24		10,000		10,914,500
Series M (AGC), 5.00%, 4/01/30		5,000		5,236,850
New York City Transitional Finance Authority, RB, Fiscal 2009, Series S-4, 5.50%, 1/15/34		7,250		7,958,325
				24,109,675

See Notes to Financial Statements.

ANNUAL REPORT JULY 31, 2010 19

Schedule of Investments (continued)	BlackRock MuniYield Insured Fund, Inc. (MYI)
	(Percentages shown are based on Net Assets)

Municipal Bonds	Par (000)		Value
Ohio — 0.3%
Ohio Higher Educational Facility Commission, Refunding RB, Summa Health System, 2010 Project (AGC), 5.25%, 11/15/40	$	2,775	$	2,800,808
Pennsylvania — 3.0%
Pennsylvania HFA, RB, S/F Mortgage, Series 70A, AMT, 5.80%, 4/01/27		4,740		4,742,844
Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission, RB:
Series A (AMBAC), 5.50%, 12/01/31		15,600		16,551,444
Sub-Series C (AGC), 6.25%, 6/01/38		5,695		6,541,277
				27,835,565
Puerto Rico — 2.7%
Puerto Rico Public Buildings Authority, Refunding RB, Government Facilities, Series M-3 (NPFGC):
6.00%, 7/01/26		3,325		3,526,694
6.00%, 7/01/27		4,235		4,480,588
6.00%, 7/01/28		2,750		2,902,130
Puerto Rico Sales Tax Financing Corp., RB, First Sub-Series A, 6.38%, 8/01/39		10,195		11,255,688
Puerto Rico Sales Tax Financing Corp., Refunding RB:
CAB, Series A (NPFGC), 5.70%, 8/01/41 (b)		7,500		1,128,675
First Sub-Series C, 6.00%, 8/01/39		1,180		1,273,916
				24,567,691
South Carolina — 1.0%
Charleston Educational Excellence Finance Corp., RB, Charleston County School (AGC):
5.25%, 12/01/28		3,895		4,097,968
5.25%, 12/01/29		3,215		3,365,301
5.25%, 12/01/30		1,160		1,209,729
South Carolina State Housing Finance & Development Authority, Refunding RB, Series A-2, AMT (AGM), 6.35%, 7/01/19		505		512,323
				9,185,321
Tennessee — 0.2%
Tennessee Housing Development Agency, Refunding RB, Homeownership Program, Series A, AMT (AGM), 5.35%, 1/01/26		1,605		1,613,490
Texas — 16.0%
City of Houston Texas, RB, Combined, First Lien, Series A (AGM), 5.00%, 11/15/36		10,000		10,344,900
City of Houston Texas, Refunding RB, Combined, First Lien, Series A (AGC):
6.00%, 11/15/35		5,700		6,560,415
5.38%, 11/15/38		3,650		3,973,536
Dallas ISD, GO, School Building (PSF-GTD), 6.38%, 2/15/34		10,000		12,078,600
Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport Facilities Improvement Corp., Refunding RB, Joint Series A, AMT (NPFGC), 5.63%, 11/01/26		15,000		15,171,150
Grand Prairie ISD Texas, GO, Refunding, CAB, 6.58%, 8/15/28 (b)		10,000		3,386,700
Harris County Hospital District, RB, Senior Lien, Series A (NPFGC), 5.25%, 2/15/37		9,650		9,636,007
Harris County-Houston Sports Authority, Refunding RB, Senior Lien, Series G (NPFGC):
5.75%, 11/15/19		265		270,348
5.75%, 11/15/20		3,500		3,561,880
5.25%, 11/15/30		9,800		9,306,668
Judson ISD Texas, GO, School Building (AGC), 5.00%, 2/01/37		10,000		10,290,500
Matagorda County Navigation District No. 1 Texas, Refunding RB, Central Power & Light Co. Project, AMT (NPFGC), 5.20%, 5/01/30 (c)		6,150		6,059,902
Municipal Bonds	Par (000)		Value
Texas (concluded)
North Texas Tollway Authority, Refunding RB, First Tier:
Series A, 6.00%, 1/01/28	$	6,275	$	6,859,391
System, Series A (NPFGC), 5.13%, 1/01/28		21,750		22,391,190
System, Series B (NPFGC), 5.75%, 1/01/40		10,000		10,409,400
Texas Department of Housing & Community Affairs, MRB, Series A, AMT (NPFGC), 5.45%, 9/01/23		4,045		4,097,464
Texas State Turnpike Authority, RB, First Tier, Series A (AMBAC):
5.50%, 8/15/39		5,500		5,555,770
5.00%, 8/15/42		8,000		7,667,360
				147,621,181
Utah — 2.2%
Utah Transit Authority, Refunding RB, CAB, Sub-Series A (b):
(AGC), 5.38%, 6/15/20		15,930		10,453,107
(NPFGC), 4.88%, 6/15/23		5,000		2,709,600
(NPFGC), 5.21%, 6/15/24		13,930		7,086,330
				20,249,037
Vermont — 0.3%
Vermont HFA, HRB, Series 12B, AMT (AGM), 6.30%, 11/01/19		305		311,292
Vermont HFA, Refunding RB, Multiple Purpose, Series C, AMT (AGM), 5.50%, 11/01/38 (c)		2,695		2,760,327
				3,071,619
Washington — 4.5%
Chelan County Public Utility District No. 1, RB, Chelan Hydro System, Series A, AMT (AMBAC), 5.45%, 7/01/37		3,030		3,029,849
Chelan County Public Utility District No. 1, Refunding RB, Chelan Hydro System, Series C, AMT (NPFGC), 5.65%, 7/01/32		6,000		6,047,340
Radford Court Properties Washington, RB (NPFGC), 5.75%, 6/01/32		10,000		10,124,800
Seattle Housing Authority Washington, RB, Capital Fund Program, High Rise Rehabilitation, Series III, AMT (AGM), 5.15%, 11/01/27		6,255		6,391,109
Washington Health Care Facilities Authority, Series A, RB:
Providence Health & Services, 5.00%, 10/01/39		1,125		1,134,371
Providence Health & Services, 5.25%, 10/01/39		2,725		2,799,665
Providence Health System (NPFGC), 5.25%, 10/01/21		5,575		5,778,933
Washington Health Care Facilities Authority, Refunding RB, Catholic Health Initiatives, Series D, 6.38%, 10/01/36		5,400		5,968,782
				41,274,849
Wisconsin — 0.8%
Wisconsin Health & Educational Facilities Authority, RB:
Ascension Health Senior Credit Group, 5.00%, 11/15/33		3,745		3,809,077
SynergyHealth Inc., 6.00%, 11/15/32		3,395		3,495,254
				7,304,331
Total Municipal Bonds — 115.4%				1,061,761,715

See Notes to Financial Statements.

20 ANNUAL REPORT JULY 31, 2010

Schedule of Investments (continued)	BlackRock MuniYield Insured Fund, Inc. (MYI)
	(Percentages shown are based on Net Assets)

Municipal Bonds Transferred to Tender Option Bond Trusts (d)	Par (000)		Value
Arizona — 1.2%
Arizona School Facilities Board, COP (AGC), 5.13%, 9/01/21	$	10,000	$	10,849,500
California — 12.3%
Alameda County Joint Powers Authority, Refunding RB, Lease (AGM), 5.00%, 12/01/34		6,990		6,989,511
California State University, RB, Systemwide, Series A (AGM), 5.00%, 11/01/33		7,996		8,113,924
California State University, Refunding RB, Systemwide, Series A (AGM), 5.00%, 11/01/37		18,435		18,612,386
City of Riverside California, RB, Issue D (AGM), 5.00%, 10/01/38		20,000		20,212,400
Foothill-De Anza Community College District, GO, Election of 1999, Series C (NPFGC), 5.00%, 8/01/36		7,500		7,662,975
Las Virgenes Unified School District California, GO, Series A (AGM), 5.00%, 8/01/31		10,000		10,292,444
Los Angeles Community College District California, GO, Election of 2008, Series A, 6.00%, 8/01/33		5,248		5,920,617
Orange County Sanitation District, COP, Series B (AGM), 5.00%, 2/01/37		10,780		11,247,636
San Diego Community College District California, GO, Election of 2002, 5.25%, 8/01/33		1,047		1,115,888
San Diego County Water Authority, COP, Refunding, Series 2008-A (AGM), 5.00%, 5/01/33		9,370		9,729,058
San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District, RB (AGM), 5.00%, 7/01/36		10,000		10,304,350
University of California, RB, Series O, 5.75%, 5/15/34		2,205		2,490,239
				112,691,428
Colorado — 0.3%
Colorado Health Facilities Authority, Refunding RB, Catholic Healthcare, Series A, 5.50%, 7/01/34		2,469		2,634,118
Connecticut — 0.6%
Connecticut State Health & Educational Facility Authority, RB, Yale University, Series T-1, 4.70%, 7/01/29		5,010		5,291,311
District of Columbia — 0.8%
District of Columbia, RB, Series A, 5.50%, 12/01/30		2,595		2,938,864
District of Columbia Water & Sewer Authority, RB, Series A, 6.00%, 10/01/35		4,281		4,836,971
				7,775,835
Florida — 0.4%
Florida State Board of Education, GO, Series D, 5.00%, 6/01/37		3,299		3,439,475
Georgia — 1.1%
Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority, RB, Third Indenture, Series B (AGM), 5.00%, 7/01/37		10,000		10,433,214
Hawaii — 1.1%
Honolulu City & County Board of Water Supply, RB, Series A (NPFGC), 5.00%, 7/01/33		9,830		10,075,455
Illinois — 2.6%
City of Chicago Illinois, GO, Refunding, Series A (AGC), 5.25%, 1/01/24		11,000		12,187,340
Illinois Finance Authority, RB, University of Chicago, Series B, 6.25%, 7/01/38		10,000		11,580,100
				23,767,440
Municipal Bonds Transferred to Tender Option Bond Trusts (d)	Par (000)		Value
Kentucky — 0.7%
Kentucky State Property & Building Commission, Refunding RB, Project No. 93 (AGC), 5.25%, 2/01/27	$	5,985	$	6,543,756
Louisiana — 1.1%
State of Louisiana, RB, Series A (AGM), 5.00%, 5/01/36		10,000		10,327,000
Nevada — 0.6%
Clark County Water Reclamation District, GO, Series B:
5.50%, 7/01/29		510		564,317
5.75%, 7/01/34		4,813		5,371,174
				5,935,491
New Jersey — 1.3%
Garden State Preservation Trust, RB, Election of 2005, Series A (AGM), 5.75%, 11/01/28		10,000		12,280,400
New York — 4.7%
New York City Municipal Water Finance Authority, RB, Series DD, 5.00%, 6/15/37		17,567		18,392,724
Port Authority of New York & New Jersey, RB, Consolidated, 155th Series, AMT (AGM), 5.13%, 7/15/30		19,500		19,966,635
Triborough Bridge & Tunnel Authority, RB, General, Series A-2, 5.25%, 11/15/34		4,500		4,860,360
				43,219,719
North Carolina — 1.1%
North Carolina HFA, RB, Series 31-A, AMT, 5.25%, 7/01/38		9,996		10,047,310
Ohio — 0.7%
County of Montgomery Ohio, RB, Catholic Health, Series C-1 (AGM), 5.00%, 10/01/41		4,990		5,024,680
State of Ohio, RB, Cleveland Clinic Health, Series B, 5.50%, 1/01/34		1,520		1,622,190
				6,646,870
South Carolina — 0.6%
South Carolina State Housing Finance & Development Authority, Refunding RB, Series B-1, 5.55%, 7/01/39		4,928		5,103,551
Texas — 3.8%
Friendswood ISD Texas, GO, Schoolhouse (PSF-GTD), 5.00%, 2/15/37		12,955		13,670,389
Houston ISD, GO, Schoolhouse (PSF-GTD), 5.00%, 2/15/33		10,000		10,541,000
Texas State University Systems, Refunding RB, 5.25%, 3/15/26		10,000		11,000,300
				35,211,689
Virginia — 0.5%
University of Virginia, Refunding RB, General, 5.00%, 6/01/40		3,950		4,205,052
Washington — 6.0%
Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority, RB, Series A (AGM), 5.00%, 11/01/34		16,770		17,906,754
County of King Washington, RB (AGM), 5.00%, 1/01/37		15,785		16,468,702
Port of Seattle Washington, Refunding RB, Series B, AMT (NPFGC), 5.20%, 7/01/29		20,565		20,630,198
				55,005,654

See Notes to Financial Statements.

ANNUAL REPORT JULY 31, 2010 21

Schedule of Investments (concluded)	BlackRock MuniYield Insured Fund, Inc. (MYI)
	(Percentages shown are based on Net Assets)

Municipal Bonds Transferred to Tender Option Bond Trusts (d)	Par (000)		Value
Wisconsin — 0.4%
Wisconsin Health & Educational Facilities Authority, Refunding RB, Froedtert & Community Health Inc., 5.25%, 4/01/39	$	3,959	$	4,072,662
Total Municipal Bonds Transferred to Tender Option Bond Trusts — 41.9%				385,556,930
Total Long-Term Investments (Cost — $1,404,553,836) — 157.3%				1,447,318,645
Short-Term Securities	Shares
FFI Institutional Tax-Exempt Fund, 0.21% (e)(f)		11,426,470		11,426,470
Total Short-Term Securities (Cost — $11,426,470) — 1.2%				11,426,470
Total Investments (Cost — $1,415,980,306*) — 158.5%				1,458,745,115
Other Assets Less Liabilities — 1.5%				13,772,404
Liability for Trust Certificates, Including Interest Expense and Fees Payable — (21.3)%				(195,779,820	)
Preferred Shares, at Redemption Value — (38.7)%				(356,503,871	)
Net Assets Applicable to Common Shares — 100.0%			$	920,233,828

* The cost and unrealized appreciation (depreciation) of investments as of July 31, 2010, as computed for federal income tax purposes, were as follows:

Aggregate cost	$	1,225,558,409
Gross unrealized appreciation	$	53,451,438
Gross unrealized depreciation		(15,927,953	)
Net unrealized appreciation	$	37,523,485

(a)	Represents a step-up bond that pays an initial coupon rate for the first period and then a higher coupon rate for the following periods. Rate shown reflects the current yield as of report date.
(b)	Represents a zero-coupon bond. Rate shown reflects the current yield as of report date.
(c)	Variable rate security. Rate shown is as of report date.
(d)	Securities represent bonds transferred to a tender option bond trust in exchange for which the Fund acquired residual interest certificates. These securities serve as collateral in a financing transaction. See Note 1 of the Notes to Financial Statements for details of municipal bonds transferred to tender option bond trusts.
(e)	Investments in companies considered to be an affiliate of the Fund during the year, for purposes of Section 2(a)(3) of the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended, were as follows:

Affiliate	Shares at July 31, 2009		Net Activity			Shares at July 31, 2010		Income
FFI Institutional Tax-Exempt Fund		33,611,786		(22,185,316	)		11,426,470	$	40,593

(f) Represents the current yield as of report date.

• Financial futures contracts sold as of July 31, 2010 were as follows:

Contracts	Issue	Expiration Date		Notional Value		Unrealized Depreciation
185	10-Year U.S. Treasury Bond	September 2010	$	22,505,999	$	(399,313	)

•	Fair Value Measurements — Various inputs are used in determining the fair value of investments and derivatives, which are as follows:
	•	Level 1 — price quotations in active markets/exchanges for identical assets and liabilities
	•	Level 2 — other observable inputs (including, but not limited to: quoted prices for similar assets or liabilities in markets that are active, quoted prices for identical or similar assets or liabilities in markets that are not active, inputs other than quoted prices that are observable for the assets or liabilities (such as interest rates, yield curves, volatilities, prepayment speeds, loss severities, credit risks and default rates) or other market-corroborated inputs)
	•	Level 3 — unobservable inputs based on the best information available in the circumstances, to the extent observable inputs are not available (including the Fund’s own assumptions used in determining the fair value of investments and derivatives)
	The inputs or methodologies used for valuing securities are not necessarily an indication of the risk associated with investing in those securities. For information about the Fund’s policy regarding valuation of investments and other significant accounting policies, please refer to Note 1 of Notes to Financial Statements.
	The following table summarizes the inputs used as of July 31, 2010 in determining the fair valuation of the Fund’s investments and derivatives:

Valuation Inputs	Level 1		Level 2		Level 3		Total
Assets:
Investments in Securities:
Long-Term Investments1		—	$	1,447,318,645		—	$	1,447,318,645
Short-Term Securities	$	11,426,470		—		—		11,426,470
Total	$	11,426,470	$	1,447,318,645		—	$	1,458,745,115

¹ See above Schedule of Investments for values in each state or political subdivision.

	Derivative Financial Instruments2
Valuation Inputs	Level 1			Level 2		Level 3		Total
Liabilities:
Interest rate contracts	$	(399,313	)		—		—	$	(399,313	)

² Derivative financial instruments are financial futures contracts which are shown at the unrealized appreciation/depreciation on the instrument.

See Notes to Financial Statements.

22 ANNUAL REPORT JULY 31, 2010

Schedule of Investments July 31, 2010	BlackRock MuniYield Michigan Insured Fund II, Inc. (MYM)
	(Percentages shown are based on Net Assets)

Municipal Bonds	Par (000)		Value
Michigan — 132.3%
Corporate — 13.4%
Delta County EDC, Refunding RB, Mead Westvaco- Escanaba, Series A, 6.25%, 4/15/12 (a)	$	2,420	$	2,660,645
Dickinson County EDC Michigan, Refunding RB, International Paper Co. Project, Series A, 5.75%, 6/01/16		2,500		2,566,525
Michigan Strategic Fund, Refunding RB, Detroit Edison Co. Project, Series A, AMT (NPFGC), 5.55%, 9/01/29		9,500		9,512,350
Monroe County EDC Michigan, Refunding RB, Detroit Edison Co. Project, Series AA (NPFGC), 6.95%, 9/01/22		6,500		7,697,560
				22,437,080
County/City/Special District/ School District — 35.2%
Adrian City School District Michigan, GO (AGM), 5.00%, 5/01/14 (a)		2,400		2,766,408
Allendale Public School District Michigan, GO, School Building and Site, Series A (AGM), 5.50%, 5/01/16		1,000		1,168,770
Bay City School District Michigan, GO, School Building & Site (AGM), 5.00%, 5/01/36		2,915		2,980,529
Charter Township of Canton Michigan, GO, Capital Improvement (AGM):
5.00%, 4/01/25		1,250		1,323,225
5.00%, 4/01/26		1,250		1,315,000
5.00%, 4/01/27		500		530,490
City of Oak Park Michigan, GO, Street Improvement (NPFGC), 5.00%, 5/01/30		600		619,314
County of Genesee Michigan, GO, Refunding, Series A (NPFGC), 5.00%, 5/01/19		400		428,752
County of Genesee Michigan, GO, Water Supply System (NPFGC), 5.13%, 11/01/33		500		505,100
County of Wayne Michigan, GO, Airport Hotel, Detroit Metropolitan Airport, Series A (NPFGC), 5.00%, 12/01/30		1,180		1,100,020
Dearborn Brownfield Redevelopment Authority, GO, Limited Tax, Redevelopment, Series A (AGC), 5.50%, 5/01/39		2,000		2,115,040
Detroit City School District Michigan, GO, School Building & Site Improvement (FGIC):
Series A, 5.38%, 5/01/13 (a)		1,480		1,669,292
Series B, 5.00%, 5/01/28		1,900		1,901,311
Eaton Rapids Public Schools Michigan, GO, School Building & Site (AGM), 5.25%, 5/01/23		2,000		2,160,360
Gibraltar School District Michigan, GO, School Building & Site:
(FGIC), 5.00%, 5/01/14 (a)		3,065		3,524,352
(NPFGC), 5.00%, 5/01/28		585		598,198
Grand Blanc Community Schools Michigan, GO (NPFGC):
5.63%, 5/01/17		1,000		1,051,240
5.63%, 5/01/18		1,000		1,049,950
5.63%, 5/01/19		1,100		1,153,537
Grand Rapids Building Authority Michigan, RB, Series A (AMBAC) (a):
5.50%, 10/01/12		535		593,631
5.50%, 10/01/12		130		144,247

Municipal Bonds		Par (000)	Value
Michigan (continued)
County/City/Special District/ School District (concluded)
Harper Creek Community School District Michigan, GO, Refunding (AGM), 5.00%, 5/01/22	$	1,000	$	1,080,300
Harper Woods School District Michigan, GO, Refunding, School Building & Site:
(FGIC), 5.00%, 5/01/14 (a)		215		247,824
(NPFGC), 5.00%, 5/01/34		10		10,122
Haslett Public School District Michigan, GO, Building & Site (NPFGC), 5.63%, 11/01/11 (a)		1,275		1,359,545
Jonesville Community Schools Michigan, GO, Refunding (NPFGC), 5.00%, 5/01/29		1,085		1,106,971
L’Anse Creuse Public Schools Michigan, GO, School Building & Site (AGM):
5.00%, 5/01/12		400		428,212
5.00%, 5/01/25		1,000		1,057,020
5.00%, 5/01/26		1,050		1,104,253
5.00%, 5/01/35		2,000		2,046,520
Lincoln Consolidated School District Michigan, GO, Refunding (NPFGC), 4.63%, 5/01/28		2,325		2,348,831
Livonia Public Schools School District Michigan, GO, Refunding, Series A (NPFGC), 5.00%, 5/01/24		500		521,535
Ludington Area School District Michigan, GO (NPFGC), 5.25%, 5/01/23		1,440		1,558,382
Michigan State Building Authority, RB, Facilities Program, Series H (AGM), 5.00%, 10/15/26		3,000		3,121,050
Michigan State Building Authority, Refunding RB, Facilities Program, Series I (AGM):
5.50%, 10/15/10		4,110		4,153,525
5.50%, 10/15/10 (b)		390		394,286
New Haven Community Schools Michigan, GO, Refunding, School Building & Site (AGM), 5.00%, 5/01/23		500		531,590
New Lothrop Area Public Schools Michigan, GO, School Building & Site (AGM), 5.00%, 5/01/35		1,200		1,222,092
Pontiac Tax Increment Finance Authority Michigan, Tax Allocation Bonds, Refunding, Tax Increment Development (ACA), 5.38%, 6/01/12 (a)		640		702,502
Reed City Public Schools Michigan, GO, School Building & Site (AGM), 5.00%, 5/01/14 (a)		1,000		1,152,670
Southfield Public Schools Michigan, GO, School Building & Site, Series B (AGM), 5.00%, 5/01/14 (a)		1,000		1,145,480
Sparta Area Schools Michigan, GO, School Building & Site (FGIC), 5.00%, 5/01/14 (a)		1,000		1,147,870
Thornapple Kellogg School District Michigan, GO, School Building & Site (NPFGC), 5.00%, 5/01/32		1,500		1,537,890
Van Dyke Public Schools Michigan, GO, School Building & Site (AGM), 5.00%, 5/01/28		750		787,283
Zeeland Public Schools Michigan, GO, School Building & Site (NPFGC), 5.00%, 5/01/29		1,230		1,256,039
				58,720,558
Education — 8.4%
Ferris State University, Refunding RB, General (AGM):
4.50%, 10/01/23		1,360		1,430,652
4.50%, 10/01/24		1,595		1,660,762
4.50%, 10/01/25		1,405		1,452,489
Michigan Higher Education Facilities Authority, RB, Limited Obligation, Hillsdale College Project, 5.00%, 3/01/35		1,125		1,086,356
Michigan Higher Education Facilities Authority, Refunding RB, Limited Obligation, Creative Studies (a):
5.85%, 6/01/12		550		603,037
5.90%, 6/01/12		1,000		1,097,340

See Notes to Financial Statements.

ANNUAL REPORT JULY 31, 2010 23

Schedule of Investments (continued)	BlackRock MuniYield Michigan Insured Fund II, Inc. (MYM)
	(Percentages shown are based on Net Assets)

Municipal Bonds	Par (000)		Value
Michigan (continued)
Education (concluded)
Michigan Higher Education Student Loan Authority, RB, Student Loan, AMT (AMBAC):
Series XVII-B, 5.40%, 6/01/18	$	3,000	$	3,002,460
Series XVII-Q, 5.00%, 3/01/31		500		477,100
Michigan State Building Authority, RB, Facilities Program, Series II (AMBAC), 4.84%, 10/15/10 (b)(c)		1,675		1,673,442
Saginaw Valley State University Michigan, Refunding RB, General (NPFGC), 5.00%, 7/01/24		1,450		1,502,069
				13,985,707
Health — 23.6%
Dickinson County Healthcare System, Refunding RB, Series A (ACA), 5.80%, 11/01/24		2,170		2,146,998
Flint Hospital Building Authority Michigan, Refunding RB, Hurley Medical Center (ACA):
6.00%, 7/01/20		695		689,336
Series A, 5.38%, 7/01/20		385		364,048
Kent Hospital Finance Authority Michigan, RB, Spectrum Health, Series A (NPFGC), 5.50%, 7/15/11 (a)		3,000		3,177,480
Michigan State Hospital Finance Authority, RB:
Ascension Health Senior Credit Group, 5.00%, 11/15/25		2,300		2,443,842
Hospital, MidMichigan Obligation Group, Series A (AMBAC), 5.50%, 4/15/18		1,000		1,024,470
McLaren Health Care, Series C, 5.00%, 8/01/35		1,585		1,558,340
Mercy Health Services, Series R (AMBAC), 5.38%, 8/15/26 (b)		2,000		2,006,700
Michigan State Hospital Finance Authority, Refunding RB:
Hospital, Crittenton, Series A, 5.63%, 3/01/27		1,300		1,303,172
Hospital, Oakwood Obligation Group, Series A, 5.00%, 7/15/25		2,470		2,451,697
Hospital, Oakwood Obligation Group, Series A, 5.00%, 7/15/37		3,340		3,054,130
Hospital, Sparrow Obligated, 5.00%, 11/15/31		1,595		1,528,345
McLaren Health Care, 5.75%, 5/15/38		1,500		1,557,030
Trinity Health Credit, Series C, 5.38%, 12/01/23		1,000		1,016,470
Trinity Health Credit, Series C, 5.38%, 12/01/30		1,950		1,954,719
Trinity Health Credit, Series D, 5.00%, 8/15/34		1,650		1,618,287
Trinity Health, Series A, 6.00%, 12/01/20		1,400		1,424,248
Trinity Health, Series A, 6.13%, 12/01/23		940		1,047,207
Trinity Health, Series A, 6.25%, 12/01/28		570		634,467
Trinity Health, Series A, 6.50%, 12/01/33		1,400		1,564,976
Trinity Health, Series A (AMBAC), 6.00%, 12/01/10 (a)		65		66,789
Trinity Health, Series A (AMBAC), 6.00%, 12/01/27		5,435		5,517,123
Royal Oak Hospital Finance Authority Michigan, Refunding RB, William Beaumont Hospital, 8.25%, 9/01/39		1,000		1,194,080
				39,343,954
Housing — 3.3%
Michigan State HDA, RB:
Deaconess Tower, AMT (Ginnie Mae), 5.25%, 2/20/48		1,000		1,009,840
Series A, 6.00%, 10/01/45		4,280		4,444,609
Series A, AMT (NPFGC), 5.30%, 10/01/37		20		20,030
				5,474,479

Municipal Bonds	Par (000)		Value
Michigan (concluded)
State — 14.2%
Michigan Municipal Bond Authority, Refunding RB, Local Government, Charter County Wayne, Series B (AGC):
5.00%, 11/01/14	$	1,500	$	1,703,205
5.00%, 11/01/15		1,000		1,124,410
5.00%, 11/01/16		500		568,605
5.38%, 11/01/24		125		138,175
Michigan State Building Authority, Refunding RB:
Facilities Program, Series I, 6.25%, 10/15/38		2,350		2,602,249
Facilities Program, Series I (AGC), 5.25%, 10/15/24		2,000		2,178,640
Facilities Program, Series I (AGC), 5.25%, 10/15/25		1,500		1,619,160
Facilities Program, Series I (AGC), 5.25%, 10/15/26		400		428,616
Facilities Program, Series II (NPFGC), 5.00%, 10/15/29		2,000		2,014,580
Series IA (NPFGC), 5.00%, 10/15/32		2,500		2,513,050
State of Michigan, COP, Refunding, New Center Development Inc. (NPFGC), 5.75%, 9/01/11 (b)		5,045		5,343,311
State of Michigan, RB, GAN (AGM), 5.25%, 9/15/27		3,250		3,443,732
				23,677,733
Transportation — 16.4%
County of Wayne Michigan, RB, Detroit Metropolitan, Wayne County, Series A, AMT (NPFGC), 5.38%, 12/01/15		6,500		6,545,175
State of Michigan, Refunding RB (AGM), 5.25%, 5/15/19		1,000		1,167,060
Wayne County Airport Authority, RB, Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County Airport, AMT (NPFGC):
5.25%, 12/01/25		4,475		4,364,288
5.25%, 12/01/26		3,700		3,566,097
5.00%, 12/01/34		5,200		4,520,568
Wayne County Airport Authority, Refunding RB, AMT (AGC):
5.75%, 12/01/26		3,060		3,143,263
5.38%, 12/01/32		4,300		4,093,084
				27,399,535
Utilities — 17.8%
City of Detroit Michigan, RB:
Second Lien, Series B (AGM), 7.00%, 7/01/36		2,000		2,311,400
Second Lien, Series B (NPFGC), 5.00%, 7/01/13 (a)		1,780		1,998,032
Second Lien, Series B (NPFGC), 5.00%, 7/01/34		2,620		2,573,260
Senior Lien, Series A (AGM), 5.00%, 7/01/25		3,460		3,527,297
Senior Lien, Series A (FGIC), 5.75%, 7/01/11 (a)		1,000		1,056,420
Senior Lien, Series A (NPFGC), 5.00%, 7/01/34		4,600		4,505,516
City of Detroit Michigan, Refunding RB, Second Lien, Series C (AGM), 5.00%, 7/01/29		6,475		6,540,786
City of Grand Rapids Michigan, Refunding RB, Series A (NPFGC), 5.50%, 1/01/22		1,500		1,746,525
City of Wyoming Michigan, RB (NPFGC), 5.00%, 6/01/30		5,300		5,397,573
				29,656,809
Total Municipal Bonds in Michigan				220,695,855
Guam — 0.6%
Utilities — 0.6%
Guam Power Authority, Refunding RB, Series A (AGM), 5.00%, 10/01/37		955		956,442

See Notes to Financial Statements.

24 ANNUAL REPORT JULY 31, 2010

Schedule of Investments (continued)	BlackRock MuniYield Michigan Insured Fund II, Inc. (MYM)
	(Percentages shown are based on Net Assets)

Municipal Bonds	Par (000)		Value
Puerto Rico — 9.6%
County/City/Special District/ School District — 2.1%
Puerto Rico Sales Tax Financing Corp., Refunding RB, First Sub-Series C (AGM), 5.13%, 8/01/42	$	3,400	$	3,516,994
State — 5.5%
Puerto Rico Public Buildings Authority, Refunding RB, Government Facilities, Series M-3 (NPFGC), 6.00%, 7/01/27		4,200		4,443,558
Puerto Rico Sales Tax Financing Corp., Refunding RB, CAB, Series A (NPFGC) (c):
5.19%, 8/01/43		12,500		1,610,750
4.99%, 8/01/46		30,000		3,153,300
				9,207,608
Transportation — 2.0%
Puerto Rico Highway & Transportation Authority, Refunding RB, Series CC (AGC), 5.50%, 7/01/31		3,000		3,225,570
Total Municipal Bonds in Puerto Rico				15,950,172
Total Municipal Bonds — 142.5%				237,602,469
Municipal Bonds Transferred to Tender Option Bond Trusts (d)
Michigan — 10.8%
Corporate — 4.9%
Wayne State University, Refunding RB, General (AGM), 5.00%, 11/15/35		7,790		8,111,260
County/City/Special District/ School District — 2.6%
Lakewood Public Schools Michigan, GO, School Building & Site (AGM), 5.00%, 5/01/37		3,970		4,291,054
Education — 3.3%
Portage Public Schools Michigan, GO, School Building & Site (AGM), 5.00%, 5/01/31		2,850		2,972,521
Saginaw Valley State University, Refunding RB, General (AGM), 5.00%, 7/01/31		2,500		2,602,700
				5,575,221
Total Municipal Bonds Transferred to Tender Option Bond Trusts — 10.8%				17,977,535
Total Long-Term Investments (Cost — $251,641,200) — 153.3%				255,580,004
Short-Term Securities
Puerto Rico — 3.0%
State — 3.0%
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, GO, Refunding, VRDN, Series B-4 (AGM, Dexia Credit Local SBPA), 0.25%, 8/09/10 (e)		5,000		5,000,000

Short-Term Securities	Shares		Value
Money Market Fund — 0.3%
BIF Michigan Municipal Money Fund, 0.00% (f)(g)		605,019	$	605,019
Total Short-Term Securities (Cost — $5,605,019) — 3.3%				5,605,019
Total Investments (Cost — $257,246,219*) — 156.6%				261,185,023
Other Assets Less Liabilities — 1.2%				1,979,760
Liability for Trust Certificates, Including Interest Expense and Fees Payable — (5.4)%				(9,035,192	)
Preferred Shares, at Redemption Value — (52.4)%				(87,356,716	)
Net Assets Applicable to Common Shares — 100.0%			$	166,772,875

* The cost and unrealized appreciation (depreciation) of investments as of July 31, 2010, as computed for federal income tax purposes, were as follows:

Aggregate cost	$	247,994,088
Gross unrealized appreciation	$	9,077,356
Gross unrealized depreciation		(4,916,421	)
Net unrealized appreciation	$	4,160,935

(a)	US government securities, held in escrow, are used to pay interest on this security as well as to retire the bond in full at the date indicated, typically at a premium to par.
(b)	Security is collateralized by Municipal or US Treasury obligations.
(c)	Represents a zero-coupon bond. Rate shown reflects the current yield as of report date.
(d)	Securities represent bonds transferred to a tender option bond trust in exchange for which the Fund acquired residual interest certificates. These securities serve as collateral in a financing transaction. See Note 1 of the Notes to Financial Statements for details of municipal bonds transferred to tender option bond trusts.
(e)	Variable rate security. Rate shown is as of report date and maturity shown is the date the principal owed can be recovered through demand.
(f)	Investments in companies considered to be an affiliate of the Fund during the year, for purposes of Section 2(a)(3) of the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended, are as follows:

Affiliate	Shares at July 31, 2009	Net Activity	Shares at July 31, 2010	Income
BIF Michigan Municipal Money Fund	4,115,561	(3,510,542)	605,019	$	607

(g) Represents the current yield as of report date.

See Notes to Financial Statements.

ANNUAL REPORT JULY 31, 2010 25

Schedule of Investments (concluded) BlackRock MuniYield Michigan Insured Fund II, Inc. (MYM)

• For Fund compliance purposes, the Fund’s sector classifications refer to any one or more of the sector sub-classifications used by one or more widely recognized market indexes or rating group indexes, and/or as defined by Fund management. This definition may not apply for purposes of this report, which may combine such sector sub-classifications for reporting ease.

• Fair Value Measurements — Various inputs are used in determining the fair value of investments, which are as follows:

• Level 1 — price quotations in active markets/exchanges for identical assets and liabilities

• Level 2 — other observable inputs (including, but not limited to: quoted prices for similar assets or liabilities in markets that are active, quoted prices for identical or similar assets or liabilities in markets that are not active, inputs other than quoted prices that are observable for the assets or liabilities (such as interest rates, yield curves, volatilities, prepayment speeds, loss severities, credit risks and default rates) or other market-corroborated inputs)

• Level 3 — unobservable inputs based on the best information available in the circumstances, to the extent observable inputs are not available (including the Fund’s own assumptions used in determining the fair value of investments)

The inputs or methodologies used for valuing securities are not necessarily an indication of the risk associated with investing in those securities. For information about the Fund’s policy regarding valuation of investments and other significant accounting policies, please refer to Note 1 of the Notes to Financial Statements.

The following table summarizes the inputs used as of July 31, 2010 in determining the fair valuation of the Fund’s investments:

Valuation Inputs	Level 1		Level 2		Level 3		Total
Assets:
Investments in Securities:
Long-Term Investments1		—	$	255,580,004		—	$	255,580,004
Short-Term Securities	$	605,019		5,000,000		—		5,605,019
Total	$	605,019	$	260,580,004		—	$	261,185,023

¹ See above Schedule of Investments for values in each sector.

See Notes to Financial Statements.

26 ANNUAL REPORT JULY 31, 2010

Schedule of Investments July 31, 2010	BlackRock MuniYield New York Insured Fund, Inc. (MYN)
	(Percentages shown are based on Net Assets)

Municipal Bonds	Par (000)		Value
New York — 112.0%
Corporate — 8.4%
New York City Industrial Development Agency, Refunding RB, Terminal One Group Association Project, AMT, 5.50%, 1/01/24 (a)	$	1,500	$	1,537,305
New York Liberty Development Corp., RB, Goldman Sachs Headquarters, 5.25%, 10/01/35		900		918,306
New York State Energy Research & Development Authority, RB, Lilco Project, Series A (NPFGC), 5.15%, 3/01/16		3,000		3,088,230
New York State Energy Research & Development Authority, Refunding RB, Brooklyn Union Gas/Keyspan, Series A, AMT (FGIC), 4.70%, 2/01/24		10,750		10,864,165
Suffolk County Industrial Development Agency New York, RB, KeySpan, Port Jefferson, AMT, 5.25%, 6/01/27		4,625		4,588,925
Suffolk County Industrial Development Agency New York, Refunding RB, Ogden Martin System Huntington, AMT (AMBAC):
6.00%, 10/01/10		8,530		8,600,628
6.15%, 10/01/11		9,170		9,669,031
6.25%, 10/01/12		6,470		7,041,172
				46,307,762
County/City/Special District/ School District — 34.4%
Amherst Development Corp., RB, UBF Faculty-Student Housing Corp., Series A (AGM), 4.63%, 10/01/40		2,000		1,974,240
City of Buffalo New York, GO, School, Series D (NPFGC):
5.50%, 12/15/14		1,250		1,315,263
5.50%, 12/15/16		1,500		1,560,180
City of New York New York, GO, Refunding, Series 02-B (AMBAC), 7.00%, 2/01/18		70		70,333
City of New York New York, GO, Series B (NPFGC):
5.75%, 8/01/10 (b)		915		924,287
5.75%, 8/01/13		365		370,172
City of Niagara Falls New York, GO, Water Treatment Plant, AMT (NPFGC), 7.25%, 11/01/10		1,000		1,017,410
Dutchess County Resource Recovery Agency New York, RB, Solid Waste System, Series A (NPFGC), 5.40%, 1/01/13		1,700		1,749,096
Erie County Industrial Development Agency, RB, City of Buffalo Project (AGM), 5.75%, 5/01/20		1,900		2,033,741
Hudson Yards Infrastructure Corp., RB, Series A:
(FGIC), 5.00%, 2/15/47		12,150		11,757,798
(NPFGC), 4.50%, 2/15/47		17,525		16,066,044
New York City Industrial Development Agency, RB, PILOT:
CAB, Yankee Stadium (AGC), 6.50%, 3/01/39 (c)		5,000		935,550
CAB, Yankee Stadium, (AGC), 6.45%, 3/01/43 (c)		5,830		828,035
Queens Baseball Stadium, (AGC), 6.38%, 1/01/39		1,000		1,107,980
Queens Baseball Stadium, (AMBAC), 5.00%, 1/01/36		11,800		10,610,088
Queens Baseball Stadium, (AMBAC), 5.00%, 1/01/39		5,250		4,681,583
Queens Baseball Stadium, (AMBAC), 5.00%, 1/01/46		8,050		7,064,116
Yankee Stadium, (FGIC), 5.00%, 3/01/46		9,650		9,231,286
Yankee Stadium, (NPFGC), 5.00%, 3/01/36		3,500		3,474,870
New York City Transit Authority/Metropolitan Transit Authority/Triborough Bridge & Tunnel Authority, COP, Series A (AMBAC), 5.63%, 1/01/12		1,020		1,033,831
Municipal Bonds	Par (000)		Value
New York (continued)
County/City/Special District/ School District (concluded)
New York City Transitional Finance Authority, RB:
Fiscal 2008, Series S-1, 4.50%, 1/15/38	$	1,700	$	1,686,723
Fiscal 2009, Series S-1 (AGC), 5.50%, 7/15/38		6,000		6,565,380
Fiscal 2009, Series S-4 (AGC), 5.50%, 1/15/39		1,500		1,648,800
Future Tax Secured, Series C (FGIC), 5.00%, 2/01/33		12,395		12,759,661
Future Tax Secured, Series E (NPFGC), 5.25%, 2/01/22		2,500		2,684,700
Series S-2 (AGM), 5.00%, 1/15/37		5,000		5,184,050
Series S-2 (NPFGC), 4.25%, 1/15/34		5,980		5,863,211
New York City Transitional Finance Authority, Refunding RB, Series A (FGIC), 5.00%, 11/15/26		1,000		1,049,370
New York Convention Center Development Corp., RB, Hotel Unit Fee Secured (AMBAC):
5.00%, 11/15/30		1,500		1,517,955
5.00%, 11/15/35		33,000		33,180,180
5.00%, 11/15/44		13,470		13,512,430
North Country Development Authority, Refunding RB (AGM), 6.00%, 5/15/15		980		1,088,525
Sales Tax Asset Receivable Corp., RB, Series A (AMBAC), 5.00%, 10/15/32		11,200		11,770,416
Syracuse Industrial Development Agency New York, RB, Carousel Center Project, Series A, AMT (Syncora), 5.00%, 1/01/36		11,500		8,233,655
Town of Huntington New York, GO, Refunding (AMBAC):
5.50%, 4/15/12		460		500,204
5.50%, 4/15/13		455		513,854
Town of North Hempstead New York, GO, Refunding, Series B (NPFGC):
6.40%, 4/01/13		1,745		1,999,299
6.40%, 4/01/17		555		690,076
				188,254,392
Education — 8.7%
City of Troy New York, Refunding RB, Rensselaer Polytechnic, Series A, 5.13%, 9/01/40		1,225		1,244,723
Madison County Industrial Development Agency New York, RB, Colgate University Project, Series A (AMBAC):
5.00%, 7/01/30		5,410		5,614,985
5.00%, 7/01/35		2,675		2,754,742
New York City Industrial Development Agency, Refunding RB:
Nightingale-Bamford School (AMBAC), 5.25%, 1/15/18		1,275		1,374,679
Polytechnic University Project (ACA), 5.25%, 11/01/37		2,480		2,278,252
New York City Transitional Finance Authority, RB, Fiscal 2009, Series S-4 (AGC), 5.50%, 1/15/33		5,500		6,099,500
New York State Dormitory Authority, RB:
Mount Sinai School of Medicine, 5.13%, 7/01/39		2,500		2,518,575
Mount Sinai School of Medicine at New York University (NPFGC), 5.00%, 7/01/35		7,100		7,107,952
New York University, Series 1 (AMBAC), 5.50%, 7/01/40		4,580		5,472,413
Rensselaer County Industrial Development Agency New York, RB, Polytechnic Institute, Series B (AMBAC), 5.50%, 8/01/22		1,255		1,265,542

See Notes to Financial Statements.

ANNUAL REPORT JULY 31, 2010 27

Schedule of Investments (continued)	BlackRock MuniYield New York Insured Fund, Inc. (MYN)
	(Percentages shown are based on Net Assets)

Municipal Bonds	Par (000)		Value
New York (continued)
Education (concluded)
Trust for Cultural Resources, RB, Carnegie Hall, Series A:
4.75%, 12/01/39	$	3,550	$	3,579,110
5.00%, 12/01/39		2,150		2,209,619
Trust for Cultural Resources, Refunding RB, American Museum of Natural History, Series A (NPFGC):
5.00%, 7/01/36		5,250		5,436,270
5.00%, 7/01/44		500		511,395
				47,467,757
Health — 6.2%
New York City Industrial Development Agency, RB, Royal Charter, New York Presbyterian (AGM), 5.75%, 12/15/29		7,970		8,493,151
New York State Dormitory Authority, MRB, Montefiore Hospital (NPFGC), 5.00%, 8/01/33		1,500		1,517,460
New York State Dormitory Authority, RB:
Hudson Valley Hospital (BHAC), 5.00%, 8/15/36		6,000		6,304,800
New York & Presbyterian Hospital (AGM), 5.25%, 2/15/31		3,000		3,148,890
New York & Presbyterian Hospital (AGM), 5.00%, 8/15/36		5,000		5,095,050
New York State Rehabilitation Association, Series A (CIFG), 5.25%, 7/01/19		1,180		1,218,739
New York State Rehabilitation Association, Series A (CIFG), 5.13%, 7/01/23		1,000		1,010,890
North Shore-Long Island Jewish Health System, Series A, 5.50%, 5/01/37		2,075		2,144,678
Series B (NPFGC), 6.50%, 2/15/11 (d)		1,000		1,034,140
New York State Dormitory Authority, Refunding RB, St. Luke’s Roosevelt Hospital (FHA), 4.90%, 8/15/31		2,900		2,878,105
Oneida County Industrial Development Agency New York, RB, Civic Facility, Mohawk Valley, Series a (AGM), 5.20%, 2/01/13		1,050		1,067,168
				33,913,071
Housing — 2.9%
Monroe County Industrial Development Agency, IDRB, Southview Towers Project, AMT (SONYMA):
6.13%, 2/01/20		1,125		1,137,971
6.25%, 2/01/31		1,125		1,137,195
New York City Housing Development Corp., RB, AMT:
Series C, 5.00%, 11/01/26		1,500		1,519,230
Series C, 5.05%, 11/01/36		2,000		1,926,640
Series H-1, 4.70%, 11/01/40		1,340		1,253,208
New York Mortgage Agency, Refunding RB, AMT:
Homeowner Mortgage, Series 97, 5.50%, 4/01/31		1,020		1,023,040
Series 133, 4.95%, 10/01/21		520		529,350
Series 143, 4.90%, 10/01/37		990		959,577
Series 143 (NPFGC), 4.85%, 10/01/27		2,485		2,493,275
New York State HFA, RB, St. Philip’s Housing, Series A, AMT (Fannie Mae), 4.65%, 11/15/38		1,500		1,480,140
Yonkers Industrial Development Agency New York, RB, Monastery Manor Associates LP Project, AMT (SONYMA), 5.25%, 4/01/37		2,445		2,420,575
				15,880,201
Municipal Bonds	Par (000)		Value
New York (continued)
State — 8.3%
New York State Dormitory Authority, RB:
Master BOCES Program Lease (AGC), 5.00%, 8/15/28	$	1,750	$	1,838,252
Mental Health Facilities, Series B, 5.25%, 2/15/14 (b)		1,570		1,782,217
Mental Health Services Facilities, Series C, AMT (AGM), 5.40%, 2/15/33		6,460		6,552,313
School Districts Financing Program, Series A (AGM), 5.00%, 10/01/35		550		569,388
School Districts Financing Program, Series C (AGM), 5.00%, 10/01/37		4,050		4,187,700
School Districts Financing Program, Series E (NPFGC), 5.75%, 10/01/30		6,900		7,316,277
New York State Dormitory Authority, Refunding RB, School Districts Financing Program, Series B (AGM), 5.00%, 4/01/36		5,000		5,183,300
New York State Thruway Authority, RB:
Second General, Series B, 5.00%, 4/01/27		1,500		1,610,985
Series A (AMBAC), 5.00%, 4/01/26		4,380		4,661,678
New York State Urban Development Corp., RB (NPFGC):
Personal Income Tax, Series C-1, 5.00%, 3/15/13 (b)		3,000		3,356,130
State Personal Income Tax, State Facilities, Series A-1, 5.00%, 3/15/29		5,000		5,196,050
New York State Urban Development Corp., Refunding RB, Correctional Capital Facilities, Series A (AGM), 6.50%, 1/01/11		3,190		3,269,654
				45,523,944
Tobacco — 1.8%
Tobacco Settlement Financing Corp. New York, RB, Asset-Backed:
Series A-1 (AMBAC), 5.25%, 6/01/20		5,000		5,435,900
Series A-1 (AMBAC), 5.25%, 6/01/22		2,000		2,161,180
Series B-1C, 5.50%, 6/01/22		1,900		2,078,999
				9,676,079
Transportation — 30.2%
Hudson Yards Infrastructure Corp., RB:
(AGC), 5.00%, 2/15/47		4,300		4,389,311
Series A (AGC), 5.00%, 2/15/47		550		561,424
Series A (AGM), 5.00%, 2/15/47		3,000		3,062,310
Metropolitan Transportation Authority, RB:
Series 2008-C, 6.50%, 11/15/28		3,200		3,735,008
Transportation, Series A (NPFGC), 5.00%, 11/15/32		1,295		1,309,387
Metropolitan Transportation Authority, Refunding RB:
Series A, 5.13%, 1/01/29		1,450		1,492,790
Series A (AGM), 5.00%, 11/15/32		1,015		1,051,012
Series A (AGM), 5.75%, 11/15/32		29,300		31,183,990
Series A (NPFGC), 5.13%, 11/15/22		1,390		1,472,580
Series A (NPFGC), 5.00%, 11/15/30		6,600		6,839,118
Series A (NPFGC), 5.25%, 11/15/31		2,500		2,574,500
Series C (AGM), 5.13%, 7/01/12 (b)		1,640		1,791,995
Transportation, Series F (NPFGC), 5.25%, 11/15/12 (b)		6,235		6,926,399
Transportation, Series F (NPFGC), 5.00%, 11/15/31		5,000		5,052,450

See Notes to Financial Statements.

28 ANNUAL REPORT JULY 31, 2010

Schedule of Investments (continued)	BlackRock MuniYield New York Insured Fund, Inc. (MYN)
	(Percentages shown are based on Net Assets)

Municipal Bonds	Par (000)		Value
New York (concluded)
Transportation (concluded)
New York State Thruway Authority, RB:
Series F (AMBAC), 5.00%, 1/01/30	$	6,000	$	6,184,260
Series G (AGM), 4.75%, 1/01/29		7,250		7,457,785
Series G (AGM), 4.75%, 1/01/30		9,000		9,217,620
Series G (AGM), 5.00%, 1/01/30		2,000		2,084,820
Series G (AGM), 5.00%, 1/01/32		1,030		1,066,709
Niagara Falls Bridge Commission, Refunding RB, Bridge System, Series A (AGC), 4.00%, 10/01/19		3,900		4,217,967
Niagara Frontier Transportation Authority New York, RB, Buffalo Niagara International Airport, Series B (NPFGC), 5.50%, 4/01/19		2,705		2,722,528
Port Authority of New York & New Jersey, RB:
Consolidated, 116th Series, 4.13%, 9/15/32		2,700		2,657,880
Consolidated, 161st Series, 4.50%, 10/15/37		1,000		1,012,740
Special Project, JFK International Air Terminal, Series 6, AMT (NPFGC), 6.25%, 12/01/10		14,750		14,888,060
Special Project, JFK International Air Terminal, Series 6, AMT (NPFGC), 6.25%, 12/01/11		7,175		7,409,049
Special Project, JFK International Air Terminal, Series 6, AMT (NPFGC), 6.25%, 12/01/13		4,425		4,712,846
Special Project, JFK International Air Terminal, Series 6, AMT (NPFGC), 6.25%, 12/01/14		7,380		7,898,076
Special Project, JFK International Air Terminal, Series 6, AMT (NPFGC), 5.75%, 12/01/22		10,160		10,170,770
Special Project, JFK International Air Terminal, Series 6, AMT (NPFGC), 5.75%, 12/01/25		3,500		3,505,005
Triborough Bridge & Tunnel Authority, RB:
Sub-Series A (NPFGC), 5.25%, 11/15/30		6,000		6,355,260
Subordinate Bonds (AMBAC), 5.00%, 11/15/28		2,465		2,556,353
				165,560,002
Utilities — 11.1%
Buffalo Sewer Authority New York, Refunding RB, Series F (NPFGC), 6.00%, 7/01/13		3,315		3,541,050
Long Island Power Authority, RB, Series A (AMBAC), 5.00%, 9/01/29		7,000		7,176,260
Long Island Power Authority, Refunding RB:
General, Series A (AGC), 6.00%, 5/01/33		1,500		1,724,385
General, Series B (AGM), 5.00%, 12/01/35		4,000		4,128,360
Series A (AGC), 5.75%, 4/01/39		1,015		1,140,028
New York City Municipal Water Finance Authority, RB:
Series A (AMBAC), 5.00%, 6/15/35		3,500		3,587,325
Series A (NPFGC), 5.75%, 6/15/11 (b)		24,650		25,840,841
Series DD (AGM), 4.50%, 6/15/39		1,000		999,950
New York City Municipal Water Finance Authority, Refunding RB:
Fiscal 2004, Series C (NPFGC), 5.00%, 6/15/35		975		1,007,156
Series A (AGM), 4.25%, 6/15/39		500		490,030
Series A (NPFGC), 5.13%, 6/15/34		1,250		1,298,225
Series D (AGM), 5.00%, 6/15/37		9,000		9,309,960
Series F (AGM), 5.00%, 6/15/29		500		504,750
				60,748,320
Total Municipal Bonds in New York				613,331,528
Guam — 1.3%
Transportation — 0.8%
Guam International Airport Authority, Refunding RB, General, Series C, AMT (NPFGC):
5.25%, 10/01/21		2,240		2,242,912
5.25%, 10/01/22		2,050		2,052,009
				4,294,921
Municipal Bonds	Par (000)		Value
Guam (concluded)
Utilities — 0.5%
Guam Power Authority, Refunding RB, Series A (AGM), 5.00%, 10/01/37	$	2,730	$	2,734,122
Total Municipal Bonds in Guam				7,029,043
Puerto Rico — 15.2%
County/City/Special District/ School District — 0.7%
Puerto Rico Sales Tax Financing Corp., RB, First Sub-Series A (AGM), 5.00%, 8/01/40		2,100		2,147,838
Puerto Rico Sales Tax Financing Corp., Refunding RB, CAB, Series A (NPFGC), 5.78%, 8/01/41 (c)		12,800		1,926,272
				4,074,110
Housing — 0.7%
Puerto Rico Housing Finance Authority, Refunding RB, Subordinate, Capital Fund Modernization, 5.13%, 12/01/27		4,000		4,038,920
State — 7.3%
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, GO, Refunding:
Public Improvement, Series A (NPFGC), 5.50%, 7/01/20		2,000		2,162,700
Public Improvement, Series A (NPFGC), 5.50%, 7/01/21		3,000		3,203,040
Public Improvement, Series A-4 (AGM), 5.25%, 7/01/30		2,150		2,212,522
Sub-Series C-7 (NPFGC), 6.00%, 7/01/27		2,000		2,136,120
Sub-Series C-7 (NPFGC), 6.00%, 7/01/28		4,775		5,083,895
Puerto Rico Commonwealth Infrastructure Financing Authority, RB, CAB, Series A (c):
(AMBAC), 4.67%, 7/01/35		3,900		744,354
(AMBAC), 5.02%, 7/01/43		8,000		848,880
(FGIC), 4.62%, 7/01/31		22,030		5,615,447
Puerto Rico Convention Center Authority, RB, Series A (AMBAC), 5.00%, 7/01/31		4,000		3,888,600
Puerto Rico Highway & Transportation Authority, Refunding RB, Series CC (AGM):
5.50%, 7/01/31		5,000		5,375,950
5.25%, 7/01/32		1,000		1,035,730
Puerto Rico Public Buildings Authority, Refunding RB, Government Facilities, Series M-3 (NPFGC), 6.00%, 7/01/28		2,850		3,007,662
Puerto Rico Sales Tax Financing Corp., RB, First Sub-Series A, 5.75%, 8/01/37		4,500		4,709,070
				40,023,970
Transportation — 3.9%
Puerto Rico Highway & Transportation Authority, RB:
Series G (FGIC), 5.25%, 7/01/13 (b)		655		745,259
Series G (FGIC), 5.25%, 7/01/19		2,265		2,345,679
Series G (FGIC), 5.25%, 7/01/21		345		349,778
Series Y (AGM), 6.25%, 7/01/21		6,275		7,109,073
Puerto Rico Highway & Transportation Authority, Refunding RB:
Series AA-1 (AGM), 4.95%, 7/01/26		1,250		1,294,563
Series CC (AGM), 5.25%, 7/01/33		1,000		1,035,220
Series CC (AGM), 5.25%, 7/01/36		4,750		4,935,345
Series D, 5.75%, 7/01/12 (b)		3,000		3,296,820
				21,111,737

See Notes to Financial Statements.

ANNUAL REPORT JULY 31, 2010 29

Schedule of Investments (continued)	BlackRock MuniYield New York Insured Fund, Inc. (MYN)
	(Percentages shown are based on Net Assets)

Municipal Bonds	Par (000)		Value
Puerto Rico (concluded)
Utilities — 2.6%
Puerto Rico Aqueduct & Sewer Authority, RB, Senior Lien, Series A (AGC), 5.13%, 7/01/47	$	10,980	$	11,084,859
Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority, Refunding RB, Series VV (NPFGC), 5.25%, 7/01/30		3,000		3,109,170
				14,194,029
Total Municipal Bonds in Puerto Rico				83,442,766
Total Municipal Bonds — 128.5%				703,803,337
Municipal Bonds Transferred to Tender Option Bond Trusts (e)
New York — 28.3%
County/City/Special District/ School District — 11.2%
City of New York New York, GO:
Series J, 5.00%, 5/15/23		6,750		7,259,017
Sub-Series C-3 (AGC), 5.75%, 8/15/28		14,400		16,397,712
New York State Dormitory Authority, RB, State University Dormitory Facilities, Series A, 5.25%, 7/01/29		6,000		6,553,080
Sales Tax Asset Receivable Corp., RB, Series A (AMBAC):
5.25%, 10/15/27		13,000		14,007,435
5.00%, 10/15/32		16,000		17,239,920
				61,457,164
Education — 1.3%
New York State Dormitory Authority, RB, New York University, Series A, 5.00%, 7/01/38		6,498		6,791,687
State — 1.6%
New York State Dormitory Authority, ERB, Series B, 5.75%, 3/15/36		7,850		8,935,419
Transportation — 12.8%
Metropolitan Transportation Authority, RB, Series A (NPFGC), 5.00%, 11/15/31		3,901		4,045,583
Metropolitan Transportation Authority, Refunding RB, Series A (AGM), 5.00%, 11/15/30		8,460		8,710,585
New York State Thruway Authority, RB, Series G (AGM), 5.00%, 1/01/32		16,000		16,570,240
New York State Thruway Authority, Refunding RB, Series H (AGM), 5.00%, 1/01/37		10,000		10,388,800
Port Authority of New York & New Jersey, RB, Consolidated, 155th Series, AMT (AGM), 5.13%, 7/15/30		2,500		2,559,825
Triborough Bridge & Tunnel Authority, Refunding RB (NPFGC):
5.25%, 11/15/23		7,000		7,472,430
5.00%, 11/15/32		19,677		20,541,906
				70,289,369
Utilities — 1.4%
New York City Municipal Water Finance Authority, RB:
Fiscal 2009, Series A, 5.75%, 6/15/40		4,094		4,635,821
Series FF-2, 5.50%, 6/15/40		2,759		3,081,134
				7,716,955
Total Municipal Bonds Transferred to Tender Option Bond Trusts — 28.3%				155,190,594
Total Long-Term Investments (Cost — $842,256,608) — 156.8%				858,993,931
Short-Term Securities	Shares		Value
BIF New York Municipal Money Fund, 0.00% (f)(g)		8,174,307	$	8,174,307
Total Short-Term Securities (Cost — $8,174,307) — 1.5%				8,174,307
Total Investments (Cost — $850,430,915*) — 158.3%				867,168,238
Other Assets Less Liabilities — 1.3%				7,039,770
Liability for Trust Certificates, Including Interest Expense and Fees Payable — (14.4)%				(78,668,293	)
Preferred Shares, at Redemption Value — (45.2)%				(247,727,761	)
Net Assets Applicable to Common Shares — 100.0%			$	547,811,954

* The cost and unrealized appreciation (depreciation) of investments as of July 31, 2010, as computed for federal income tax purposes, were as follows:

Aggregate cost	$	772,433,192
Gross unrealized appreciation	$	32,025,791
Gross unrealized depreciation		(15,905,549	)
Net unrealized appreciation	$	16,120,242

(a)	Variable rate security. Rate shown is as of report date.
(b)	US government securities, held in escrow, are used to pay interest on this security as well as to retire the bond in full at the date indicated, typically at a premium to par.
(c)	Represents a zero-coupon bond. Rate shown reflects the current yield as of report date.
(d)	Security is collateralized by Municipal or US Treasury obligations.
(e)	Securities represent bonds transferred to a tender option bond trust in exchange for which the Fund acquired residual interest certificates. These securities serve as collateral in a financing transaction. See Note 1 of the Notes to Financial Statements for details of municipal bonds transferred to tender option bond trusts.
(f)	Investments in companies considered to be an affiliate of the Fund during the year, for purposes of Section 2(a)(3) of the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended, are as follows:

	Affiliate	Shares at July 31, 2009	Net Activity	Shares at July 31, 2010	Income
	BIF New York Municipal Money Fund	12,807,239	(4,632,932)	8,174,307	$1,864
(g)	Represents the current yield as of report date.

See Notes to Financial Statements.

30 ANNUAL REPORT JULY 31, 2010

Schedule of Investments (concluded) BlackRock MuniYield New York Insured Fund, Inc. (MYN)

• For Fund compliance purposes, the Fund’s sector classifications refer to any one or more of the sector sub-classifications used by one or more widely recognized market indexes or rating group indexes, and/or as defined by Fund management. This definition may not apply for purposes of this report, which may combine such sector sub-classifications for reporting ease.

• Financial futures contracts sold as of July 31, 2010 were as follows:

Contracts	Issue	Expiration Date	Notional Value	Unrealized Depreciation
110	10-Year U.S. Treasury Bond	September 2010	$13,478,196	$(141,179)

•	Fair Value Measurements — Various inputs are used in determining the fair value of investments and derivatives, which are as follows:
	•	Level 1 — price quotations in active markets/exchanges for identical assets and liabilities
	•	Level 2 — other observable inputs (including, but not limited to: quoted prices for similar assets or liabilities in markets that are active, quoted prices for identical or similar assets or liabilities in markets that are not active, inputs other than quoted prices that are observable for the assets or liabilities (such as interest rates, yield curves, volatilities, prepayment speeds, loss severities, credit risks and default rates) or other market-corroborated inputs)
	•	Level 3 — unobservable inputs based on the best information available in the circumstances, to the extent observable inputs are not available (including the Fund’s own assumptions used in determining the fair value of investments and derivatives) The inputs or methodologies used for valuing securities are not necessarily an indication of the risk associated with investing in those securities. For information about the Fund’s policy regarding valuation of investments and other significant accounting policies, please refer to Note 1 of the Notes to Financial Statements.
	The following table summarize the inputs used as of July 31, 2010 in determining the fair valuation of the Fund’s investments and derivatives:

Valuation Inputs	Level 1		Level 2		Level 3		Total
Assets:
Investments in Securities:
Long-Term Investments1		—	$	858,993,931		—	$	858,993,931
Short-Term Securities	$	8,174,307		—		—		8,174,307
Total	$	8,174,307	$	858,993,931		—	$	867,168,238

¹ See above Schedule of Investments for values in each sector.

	Derivative Financial Instruments2
Valuation Inputs	Level 1			Level 2		Level 3		Total
Liabilities:
Interest rate contracts	$	(141,179	)		—		—	$	(141,179	)

² Derivative financial instruments are financial futures contracts which are shown at the unrealized appreciation/depreciation on the instrument.

See Notes to Financial Statements.

ANNUAL REPORT JULY 31, 2010 31

Statements of Assets and Liabilities

July 31, 2010		BlackRock MuniHoldings Insured Fund II, Inc. (MUE)			BlackRock MuniYield California Insured Fund, Inc. (MCA)			BlackRock MuniYield Insured Fund, Inc. (MYI)			BlackRock MuniYield Michigan Insured Fund II, Inc. (MYM)			BlackRock MuniYield New York Insured Fund, Inc. (MYN)
Assets
Investments at value — unaffiliated1		$	476,057,682		$	795,116,092		$	1,447,318,645		$	260,580,004		$	858,993,931
Investments at value — affiliated2			17,366,850			39,049,939			11,426,470			605,019			8,174,307
Interest receivable			5,178,163			10,200,712			16,926,873			2,989,970			9,799,144
Investments sold receivable			728,642			—			3,269,094			—			416,126
Cash pledged as collateral for financial futures contracts			—			72,000			288,600			—			160,000
Income receivable — affiliated			—			298			538			—			322
Prepaid expenses			17,761			32,868			52,110			9,639			30,216
Other assets			—			81,449			147,199			—			87,939
Total assets			499,349,098			844,553,358			1,479,429,529			264,184,632			877,661,985
Accrued Liabilities
Income dividends payable — Common Shares			1,644,855			2,336,562			4,781,213			862,985			2,761,217
Investment advisory fees payable			207,323			349,684			640,858			114,720			380,120
Interest expense and fees payable			44,715			90,793			116,599			5,192			53,489
Bank overdraft			1,580			—			—			—			257
Officer’s and Directors’ fees payable			517			83,233			149,541			555			90,156
Investments purchased payable			—			—			1,035,157			—			—
Margin variation payable			—			30,188			132,970			—			79,063
Other affiliates payable			3,036			4,888			9,190			1,652			5,496
Other accrued expenses payable			80,421			103,524			163,081			39,937			137,668
Total accrued liabilities			1,982,447			2,998,872			7,028,609			1,025,041			3,507,466
Other Liabilities
Trust certificates3			62,692,934			171,137,421			195,663,221			9,030,000			78,614,804
Total Liabilities			64,675,381			174,136,293			202,691,830			10,055,041			82,122,270
Preferred Shares at Redemption Value
$25,000 per share liquidation preference, plus unpaid dividends4,5			131,006,425			166,548,530			356,503,871			87,356,716			247,727,761
Net Assets Applicable to Common Shareholders		$	303,667,292		$	503,868,535		$	920,233,828		$	166,772,875		$	547,811,954
Net Assets Applicable to Common Shareholders Consist of
Paid-in capital6		$	298,489,577		$	497,660,786		$	950,073,268		$	163,265,826		$	550,614,764
Undistributed net investment income			5,775,447			7,131,653			15,893,163			2,891,775			9,642,252
Accumulated net realized loss			(15,532,646	)		(17,822,637	)		(88,098,099	)		(3,323,530	)		(29,041,206	)
Net unrealized appreciation/depreciation			14,934,914			16,898,733			42,365,496			3,938,804			16,596,144
Net Assets Applicable to Common Shareholders		$	303,667,292		$	503,868,535		$	920,233,828		$	166,772,875		$	547,811,954
Net asset value per Common Share		$	13.57		$	14.66		$	13.67		$	13.82		$	13.89
1	Investments at cost — unaffiliated	$	461,122,768		$	778,127,360		$	1,404,553,836		$	256,641,200		$	842,256,608
2	Investments at cost — affiliated	$	17,366,850		$	39,049,939		$	11,426,470		$	605,019		$	8,174,307
3	Represents short-term floating rate certificates issued by tender option bond trusts.
4	Preferred Shares outstanding:
	Par value $0.05 per share		—			—			—			1,941			9,908
	Par value $0.10 per share		5,240			6,661			14,258			1,553			—
5	Preferred Shares authorized		8,180			11,000			22,800			3,960			12,160
6	Common Shares outstanding, 200 million shares authorized, $0.10 par value		22,378,982			34,361,200			67,341,031			12,069,721			39,445,962

See Notes to Financial Statements.
32	ANNUAL REPORT	JULY 31, 2010

Statements of Operations

Year Ended July 31, 2010	BlackRock MuniHoldings Insured Fund II, Inc. (MUE)			BlackRock MuniYield California Insured Fund, Inc. (MCA)			BlackRock MuniYield Insured Fund, Inc. (MYI)			BlackRock MuniYield Michigan Insured Fund II, Inc. (MYM)			BlackRock MuniYield New York Insured Fund, Inc. (MYN)
Investment Income
Interest	$	23,861,814		$	35,367,445		$	69,970,645		$	12,754,991		$	41,487,339
Income — affiliated		20,203			11,158			51,026			607			8,102
Total income		23,882,017			35,378,603			70,021,671			12,755,598			41,495,441
Expenses
Investment advisory		2,685,496			3,830,077			7,110,537			1,297,170			4,265,789
Commissions for Preferred Shares		197,045			247,092			533,484			125,357			369,631
Accounting services		129,214			202,931			364,022			61,220			250,156
Professional		71,025			77,278			107,444			49,599			80,898
Transfer agent		48,842			73,197			130,330			42,117			79,992
Officer and Directors		32,850			67,581			122,074			18,420			72,701
Custodian		25,659			36,692			59,255			15,045			38,665
Printing		16,882			26,841			50,309			10,382			32,866
Registration		9,330			11,926			23,358			9,330			13,690
Miscellaneous		97,105			114,688			166,388			69,576			121,334
Total expenses excluding interest expense and fees		3,313,448			4,688,303			8,667,201			1,698,216			5,325,722
Interest expense and fees1		476,296			778,231			1,246,969			60,661			562,878
Total expenses		3,789,744			5,466,534			9,914,170			1,758,877			5,888,600
Less fees waived by advisor		(377,122	)		(41,394	)		(18,525	)		(11,844	)		(22,804	)
Total expenses after fees waived		3,412,622			5,425,140			9,895,645			1,747,033			5,865,796
Net investment income		20,469,395			29,953,463			60,126,026			11,008,565			35,629,645
Realized and Unrealized Gain (Loss)
Net realized gain (loss) from:
Investments		813,164			235,183			(353,293	)		999,481			94,856
Financial futures contracts		35,900			(89,360	)		336,701			(45,754	)		5,668
		849,064			145,823			(16,592	)		953,727			100,524
Net change in unrealized appreciation/depreciation on:
Investments		27,313,334			39,486,177			88,362,379			9,751,120			42,259,782
Financial futures contracts		—			(89,999	)		(399,313	)		—			(141,179	)
		27,313,334			39,396,178			87,963,066			9,751,120			42,118,603
Total realized and unrealized gain		28,162,398			39,542,001			87,946,474			10,704,847			42,219,127
Dividends to Preferred Shareholders From
Net investment income		(546,058	)		(982,980	)		(2,350,328	)		(458,167	)		(1,419,084	)
Net Increase in Net Assets Applicable to Common Shareholders Resulting from Operations	$	48,085,735		$	68,512,484		$	145,722,172		$	21,255,245		$	76,429,688

¹ Related to tender option bond trusts.

See Notes to Financial Statements.
	ANNUAL REPORT	JULY 31, 2010	33

Statements of Changes in Net Assets BlackRock MuniHoldings Insured Fund II, Inc. (MUE)

	Year Ended July 31,
Increase (Decrease) in Net Assets Applicable to Common Shareholders:	2010			2009
Operations
Net investment income	$	20,469,395		$	20,160,412
Net realized gain (loss)		849,064			(11,811,410	)
Net change in unrealized appreciation/depreciation		27,313,334			(4,009,106	)
Dividends to Preferred Shareholders from net investment income		(546,058	)		(2,736,892	)
Net increase in net assets applicable to Common Shareholders resulting from operations		48,085,735			1,603,004
Dividends to Common Shareholders From
Net investment income		(19,116,579	)		(14,193,791	)
Capital Share Transactions
Net increase in net assets derived from capital share transactions		355,807			—
Net Assets Applicable to Common Shareholders
Total increase (decrease) in net assets applicable to Common Shareholders		29,324,963			(12,590,787	)
Beginning of year		274,342,329			286,933,116
End of year	$	303,667,292		$	274,342,329
Undistributed net investment income	$	5,775,447		$	4,985,202

BlackRock MuniYield California Insured Fund, Inc. (MCA)

	Year Ended July 31,
Increase (Decrease) in Net Assets Applicable to Common Shareholders:	2010			2009
Operations
Net investment income	$	29,953,463		$	29,423,972
Net realized gain (loss)		145,823			(7,354,130	)
Net change in unrealized appreciation/depreciation		39,396,178			(10,184,886	)
Dividends to Preferred Shareholders from net investment income		(982,980	)		(4,039,487	)
Net increase in net assets applicable to Common Shareholders resulting from operations		68,512,484			7,845,469
Dividends to Common Shareholders From
Net investment income		(26,148,873	)		(22,575,308	)
Net Assets Applicable to Common Shareholders
Total increase (decrease) in net assets applicable to Common Shareholders		42,363,611			(14,729,839	)
Beginning of year		461,504,924			476,234,763
End of year	$	503,868,535		$	461,504,924
Undistributed net investment income	$	7,131,653		$	4,323,219

See Notes to Financial Statements.
34	ANNUAL REPORT	JULY 31, 2010

Statements of Changes in Net Assets BlackRock MuniYield Insured Fund, Inc. (MYI)

	Year Ended July 31,
Increase (Decrease) in Net Assets Applicable to Common Shareholders:	2010			2009
Operations
Net investment income	$	60,126,026		$	58,754,948
Net realized loss		(16,592	)		(45,344,504	)
Net change in unrealized appreciation/depreciation		87,963,066			793,742
Dividends to Preferred Shareholders from net investment income		(2,350,328	)		(8,128,538	)
Net increase in net assets applicable to Common Shareholders resulting from operations		145,722,172			6,075,648
Dividends to Common Shareholders From
Net investment income		(51,624,188	)		(45,900,731	)
Capital Share Transactions
Net increase in net assets derived from capital share transactions		514,005			—
Net Assets Applicable to Common Shareholders
Total increase (decrease) in net assets applicable to Common Shareholders		94,611,989			(39,825,083	)
Beginning of year		825,621,839			865,446,922
End of year	$	920,233,828		$	825,621,839
Undistributed net investment income	$	15,893,163		$	9,882,417

BlackRock MuniYield Michigan Insured Fund II, Inc. (MYM)

	Year Ended July 31,
Increase (Decrease) in Net Assets Applicable to Common Shareholders:	2010			2009
Operations
Net investment income	$	11,008,565		$	11,238,595
Net realized gain		953,727			129,790
Net change in unrealized appreciation/depreciation		9,751,120			(5,910,336	)
Dividends to Preferred Shareholders from net investment income		(458,167	)		(1,734,047	)
Net increase in net assets applicable to Common Shareholders resulting from operations		21,255,245			3,724,002
Dividends to Common Shareholders From
Net investment income		(9,842,858	)		(8,122,923	)
Net Assets Applicable to Common Shareholders
Total increase (decrease) in net assets applicable to Common Shareholders		11,412,387			(4,398,921	)
Beginning of year		155,360,488			159,759,409
End of year	$	166,772,875		$	155,360,488
Undistributed net investment income	$	2,891,775		$	2,181,937

See Notes to Financial Statements.
	ANNUAL REPORT	JULY 31, 2010	35

Statements of Changes in Net Assets BlackRock MuniYield New York Insured Fund, Inc. (MYN)

	Year Ended July 31,
Increase (Decrease) in Net Assets Applicable to Common Shareholders:	2010			2009
Operations
Net investment income	$	35,629,645		$	34,156,457
Net realized gain (loss)		100,524			(4,120,078	)
Net change in unrealized appreciation/depreciation		42,118,603			(19,596,751	)
Dividends to Preferred Shareholders from net investment income		(1,419,084	)		(5,209,900	)
Net increase in net assets applicable to Common Shareholders resulting from operations		76,429,688			5,229,728
Dividends to Common Shareholders From
Net investment income		(27,710,788	)		(25,048,659	)
Net Assets Applicable to Common Shareholders
Total increase (decrease) in net assets applicable to Common Shareholders		48,718,900			(19,818,931	)
Beginning of year		499,093,054			518,911,985
End of year	$	547,811,954		$	499,093,054
Undistributed net investment income	$	9,642,252		$	3,184,321

See Notes to Financial Statements.
36	ANNUAL REPORT	JULY 31, 2010

Statements of Cash Flows

Year Ended July 31, 2010	BlackRock MuniHoldings Insured Fund II, Inc. (MUE)			BlackRock MuniYield California Insured Fund, Inc. (MCA)			BlackRock MuniYield Insured Fund, Inc. (MCA)
Cash Provided by Operating Activities
Net increase in net assets resulting from operations, excluding dividends to Preferred Shareholders	$	48,631,793		$	69,495,464		$	148,072,500
Adjustments to reconcile net increase in net assets resulting from operations to net cash provided by operating activities:
(Increase) decrease in interest receivable		164,089			753,339			(485,312	)
Decrease in prepaid expenses		17,188			25,218			43,579
Increase in other assets		—			(33,932	)		(61,854	)
(Increase) decrease in income receivable — affiliated		—			319			(163	)
Increase in investment advisory fees payable		16,171			32,985			42,175
Increase in other affiliates payable		213			509			1,171
Increase in margin variation payable		—			30,188			132,970
Increase in cash held as collateral in connection with futures		—			(72,000	)		(288,600	)
Increase in other accrued expenses payable		15,518			13,888			9,516
Increase (decrease) in Officer’s and Directors’ fees payable		(94	)		34,454			62,369
Decrease in interest expense and fees payable		(145,569	)		(163,943	)		(313,504	)
Net realized and unrealized gain		(28,126,498	)		(39,755,292	)		(88,070,940	)
Amortization of premium and discount on investments		954,398			2,297,142			(131,853	)
Proceeds from sales of long-term investments		98,950,625			222,234,751			183,988,829
Purchases of long-term investments		(103,200,092	)		(283,799,792	)		(255,616,070	)
Net proceeds from sales (purchases) of short-term securities		2,411,240			(17,107,995	)		32,185,316
Cash provided by operating activities		19,688,982			(46,014,697	)		19,570,129
Cash Used for Financing Activities
Payments on redemption of Preferred Shares		—			—			(2,175,000	)
Cash receipts from trust certificates		3,846,106			80,436,952			36,873,984
Cash payments for trust certificates		(4,440,000	)		(7,575,000	)		(3,633,309	)
Cash dividends paid to Common Shareholders		(18,624,706	)		(25,908,344	)		(50,434,461	)
Cash dividends paid to Preferred Shareholders		(548,428	)		(987,633	)		(2,358,248	)
Increase in bank overdraft		1,580			—			—
Cash used for financing activities		(19,765,448	)		45,965,975			(21,727,034	)
Cash
Net decrease in cash		(76,466	)		(48,722	)		(2,156,905	)
Cash at beginning of year		76,466			48,722			2,156,905
Cash at end of year		—			—			—
Cash Flow Information
Cash paid during the year for interest	$	621,865		$	942,174		$	1,560,473
Noncash Financing Activities
Capital shares issued in reinvestment of dividends paid to Common Shareholders	$	355,807			—		$	514,005

A Statement of Cash Flows is presented when a Fund had a significant amount of borrowing during the period, based on the average borrowing outstanding in relation to average total assets.

See Notes to Financial Statements.
	ANNUAL REPORT	JULY 31, 2010	37

Financial Highlights BlackRock MuniHoldings Insured Fund II, Inc. (MUE)

							Period October 1, 2007 to July 31, 2008
	Year Ended
	July 31,									Year Ended September 30,
	2010			2009						2007			2006			2005
Per Share Operating Performance
Net asset value, beginning of period	$	12.27		$	12.84		$	13.72		$	14.15		$	14.23		$	14.41
Net investment income1		0.92			0.90			0.78			0.97			0.93			0.97
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss)		1.26			(0.71	)		(0.91	)		(0.45	)		0.03			(0.09	)
Dividends to Preferred Shareholders from net investment income		(0.02	)		(0.12	)		(0.25	)		(0.33	)		(0.29	)		(0.18	)
Net increase (decrease) from investment operations		2.16			0.07			(0.38	)		0.19			0.67			0.70
Dividends to Common Shareholders from net investment income		(0.86	)		(0.64	)		(0.50	)		(0.62	)		(0.75	)		(0.88	)
Net asset value, end of period	$	13.57		$	12.27		$	12.84		$	13.72		$	14.15		$	14.23
Market price, end of period	$	14.26		$	11.40		$	11.30		$	12.39		$	12.96		$	13.90
Total Investment Return2
Based on net asset value		18.04	%		1.58	%		(2.41	)%3		1.73	%		5.19	%		5.35	%
Based on market price		33.51	%		7.24	%		(4.89	)%3		0.31	%		(1.37	)%		11.92	%
Ratios to Average Net Assets Applicable to Common Shareholders
Total expenses4		1.28	%		1.66	%		1.55	%5		1.61	%		1.64	%		1.38	%
Total expenses after fees waived and paid indirectly4		1.15	%		1.45	%		1.45	%5		1.54	%		1.57	%		1.32	%
Total expenses after fees waived and paid indirectly and excluding interest expense and fees4,6		0.99	%		1.04	%		1.15	%5		1.17	%		1.16	%		1.15	%
Net investment income4		6.92	%		7.61	%		6.74	%5		6.94	%		6.70	%		6.72	%
Dividends to Preferred Shareholders		0.18	%		1.03	%		2.19	%5		2.37	%		2.10	%		1.27	%
Net investment income to Common Shareholders		6.74	%		6.58	%		4.55	%5		4.57	%		4.60	%		5.45	%
Supplemental Data
Net assets applicable to Common Shareholders, end of period (000)	$	303,667		$	274,342		$	286,933		$	306,769		$	316,216		$	318,044
Preferred Shares outstanding at $25,000 liquidation preference, end of period (000)	$	131,000		$	131,000		$	145,300		$	204,500		$	204,500		$	204,500
Portfolio turnover		20	%		37	%		43	%		43	%		35	%		46	%
Asset coverage, end of period per $1,000	$	3,3188	7	$	3,094	7	$	2,975	7	$	2,500	7	$	2,546	7	$	2,555

1	Based on average Common Shares outstanding.
2	Total investment returns based on market value, which can be significantly greater or lesser than the net asset value, may result in substantially different returns. Where applicable, total investment returns exclude the effects of any sales charges and include the reinvestment of dividends and distributions.
3	Aggregate total investment return.
4	Do not reflect the effect of dividends to Preferred Shareholders.
5	Annualized.
6	Interest expense and fees relate to tender option bond trusts. See Note 1 of the Notes to Financial Statements for details of municipal bonds transferred to tender option bond trusts.
7	Asset coverage per preferred share at $25,000 liquidation preference for the periods ended 2010, 2009, 2008, 2007 and 2006 were $82,953, $77,357, $74,376, $62,514 and $63,667, respectively.

See Notes to Financial Statements.
38	ANNUAL REPORT	JULY 31, 2010

Financial Highlights BlackRock MuniYield California Insured Fund, Inc. (MCA)

							Period November 1, 2007 to July 31, 2008
	Year Ended
	July 31,									Year Ended October 31,
	2010			2009						2007			2006			2005
Per Share Operating Performance
Net asset value, beginning of period	$	13.43		$	13.86		$	14.63		$	15.09		$	14.82		$	15.23
Net investment income1		0.87			0.86			0.68			0.92			0.96			0.95
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss)		1.15			(0.51	)		(0.75	)		(0.42	)		0.35			(0.33	)
Dividends to Preferred Shareholders from net investment income		(0.03	)		(0.12	)		(0.20	)		(0.28	)		(0.24	)		(0.13	)
Net increase (decrease) from investment operations		1.99			0.23			(0.27	)		0.22			1.07			0.49
Dividends to Common Shareholders from net investment income		(0.76	)		(0.66	)		(0.50	)		(0.68	)		(0.80	)		(0.88	)
Capital charges with respect to issuance of Preferred Shares		—			—			—			—			(0.00	)2		(0.02	)
Net asset value, end of period	$	14.66		$	13.43		$	13.86		$	14.63		$	15.09		$	14.82
Market price, end of period	$	14.02		$	12.08		$	12.33		$	13.16		$	14.64		$	14.16
Total Investment Return3
Based on net asset value		15.69	%		3.03	%		(1.54	)%4		1.76	%		7.57	%		3.55	%
Based on market price		23.00	%		4.17	%		(2.63	)%4		(5.65	)%		9.22	%		9.75	%
Ratios to Average Net Assets Applicable to Common Shareholders
Total expenses5		1.11	%		1.40	%		1.38	%6		1.53	%		1.60	%		1.27	%
Total expenses after fees waived and paid indirectly5		1.10	%		1.38	%		1.36	%6		1.53	%		1.59	%		1.27	%
Total expenses after fees waived and paid indirectly and excluding interest expense and fees5,7		0.95	%		1.02	%		1.04	%6		1.03	%		1.03	%		0.96	%
Net investment income5		6.10	%		6.60	%		6.15	%6		6.22	%		6.46	%		6.29	%
Dividends to Preferred Shareholders		0.20	%		0.91	%		1.78	%6		1.87	%		1.62	%		0.84	%
Net investment income to Common Shareholders		5.90	%		5.69	%		4.37	%6		4.35	%		4.84	%		5.45	%
Supplemental Data
Net assets applicable to Common Shareholders, end of period (000)	$	503,869		$	461,505		$	476,235		$	502,855		$	518,667		$	509,066
Preferred Shares outstanding at $25,000 liquidation preference, end of period (000)	$	166,525		$	166,525		$	192,300		$	275,000		$	275,000		$	275,000
Portfolio turnover		30	%		25	%		25	%		25	%		27	%		39	%
Asset coverage per Preferred Share at $25,000 liquidation preference, end of period	$	100,648		$	94,289		$	86,933		$	70,733		$	72,170		$	71,280

1	Based on average Common Shares outstanding.
2	Amount is less than $(0.01) per share.
3	Total investment returns based on market value, which can be significantly greater or lesser than the net asset value, may result in substantially different returns. Where applicable, total investment returns exclude the effects of any sales charges and include the reinvestment of dividends and distributions.
4	Aggregate total investment return.
5	Do not reflect the effect of dividends to Preferred Shareholders.
6	Annualized.
7	Interest expense and fees relate to tender option bond trusts. See Note 1 of the Notes to Financial Statements for details of municipal bonds transferred to tender option bond trusts.

See Notes to Financial Statements.
ANNUAL REPORT	JULY 31, 2010	39

Financial Highlights BlackRock MuniYield Insured Fund, Inc. (MYI)

							Period November 1, 2007 to July 31, 2008
	Year Ended July 31,
										Year Ended October 31,
	2010			2009						2007			2006			2005
Per Share Operating Performance
Net asset value, beginning of period	$	12.27		$	12.86		$	14.57		$	15.30		$	15.27		$	15.59
Net investment income1		0.89			0.87			0.70			1.04			0.98			1.04
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss)		1.31			(0.66	)		(1.69	)		(0.79	)		0.46			(0.22	)
Dividends and distributions to Preferred Shareholders from:
Net investment income		(0.03	)		(0.12	)		(0.22	)		(0.31	)		(0.25	)		(0.16	)
Net realized gain		—			—			—			—			(0.04	)		(0.02	)
Net increase (decrease) from investment operations		2.17			0.09			(1.21	)		(0.06	)		1.15			0.64
Dividends and distributions to Common Shareholders from:
Net investment income		(0.77	)		(0.68	)		(0.50	)		(0.67	)		(0.78	)		(0.95	)
Net realized gain		—			—			—			—			(0.34	)		(0.01	)
Total dividends and distributions to Common Shareholders		(0.77	)		(0.68	)		(0.50	)		(0.67	)		(1.12	)		(0.96	)
Capital charges with respect to issuance of Preferred Shares		—			—			—			—			—			(0.00	)2
Net asset value, end of period	$	13.67		$	12.27		$	12.86		$	14.57		$	15.30		$	15.27
Market price, end of period	$	14.17		$	12.12		$	12.22		$	13.04		$	14.36		$	14.70
Total Investment Return3
Based on net asset value		18.19	%		1.70	%		(8.22	)%4		(0.06	)%		8.09	%		4.54	%
Based on market price		24.03	%		5.72	%		(2.55	)%4		(4.70	)%		5.38	%		7.69	%
Ratios to Average Net Assets Applicable to Common Shareholders
Total expenses5		1.11	%		1.46	%		1.64	%6		1.71	%		1.67	%		1.60	%
Total expenses after fees waived and paid indirectly5		1.11	%		1.45	%		1.63	%6		1.71	%		1.67	%		1.60	%
Total expenses after fees waived and paid indirectly and excluding interest expense and fees5,7		0.97	%		1.06	%		1.06	%6		1.03	%		1.02	%		1.01	%
Net investment income5		6.73	%		7.52	%		6.51	%6		6.94	%		6.52	%		6.62	%
Dividends to Preferred Shareholders		0.26	%		1.04	%		2.03	%6		2.06	%		1.67	%		1.05	%
Net investment income to Common Shareholders		6.47	%		6.48	%		4.48	%6		4.88	%		4.85	%		5.57	%
Supplemental Data
Net assets applicable to Common Shareholders, end of period (000)	$	920,234		$	825,622		$	865,447		$	980,741		$	1,030,048		$	1,028,022
Preferred Shares outstanding at $25,000 liquidation preference, end of period (000)	$	356,450		$	358,625		$	377,175		$	570,000		$	570,000		$	570,000
Portfolio turnover		13	%		30	%		70	%		117	%		95	%		105	%
Asset coverage, end of period per $1,000	$	3,581	8	$	3,302	8	$	3,295	8	$	2,721	8	$	2,807	8	$	2,804

1	Based on average Common Shares outstanding.
2	Amount is less than $(0.01) per share.
3	Total investment returns based on market value, which can be significantly greater or lesser than the net asset value, may result in substantially different returns. Where applicable, total investment returns exclude the effects of any sales charges and include the reinvestment of dividends and distributions.
4	Aggregate total investment return.
5	Do not reflect the effect of dividends to Preferred Stock shareholders.
6	Annualized.
7	Interest expense and fees relate to tender option bond trusts. See Note 1 of the Notes to Financial Statements for details of municipal bonds transferred to tender option bond trusts.
8	Asset coverage per preferred share at $25,000 liquidation preference for the periods ended 2010, 2009, 2008, 2007 and 2006 were $89,545, $82,559, $82,381, $68,039 and $70,198, respectively.

See Notes to Financial Statements.
40	ANNUAL REPORT	JULY 31, 2010

Financial Highlights BlackRock MuniYield Michigan Insured Fund II, Inc. (MYM)

							Period November 1, 2007 to July 31, 2008
	Year Ended July 31,
										Year Ended October 31,
	2010			2009						2007			2006			2005
Per Share Operating Performance
Net asset value, beginning of period	$	12.87		$	13.24		$	14.13		$	14.60		$	14.54		$	15.21
Net investment income1		0.91			0.93			0.70			0.97			0.97			0.99
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss)		0.90			(0.49	)		(0.88	)		(0.47	)		0.13			(0.58	)
Dividends to Preferred Shareholders from net investment income		(0.04	)		(0.14	)		(0.21	)		(0.29	)		(0.26	)		(0.15	)
Net increase (decrease) from investment operations		1.77			0.30			(0.39	)		0.21			0.84			0.26
Dividends to Common Shareholders from net investment income		(0.82	)		(0.67	)		(0.50	)		(0.68	)		(0.78	)		(0.91	)
Capital charges with respect to issuance of Preferred Shares		—			—			—			—			0.00	2		(0.02	)
Net asset value, end of period	$	13.82		$	12.87		$	13.24		$	14.13		$	14.60		$	14.54
Market price, end of period	$	13.67		$	11.58		$	11.63		$	12.61		$	13.97		$	14.41
Total Investment Return3
Based on net asset value		14.62	%		3.81	%		(2.48	)%4		1.78	%		6.09	%		1.73	%
Based on market price		26.01	%		6.34	%		(4.01	)%4		(5.07	)%		2.42	%		5.47	%
Ratios to Average Net Assets Applicable to Common Shareholders
Total expenses5		1.08	%		1.28	%		1.48	%6		1.69	%		1.65	%		1.47	%
Total expenses after fees waived5		1.07	%		1.26	%		1.45	%6		1.68	%		1.64	%		1.46	%
Total expenses after fees waived and excluding interest expense and fees5,7		1.03	%		1.12	%		1.14	%6		1.14	%		1.13	%		1.07	%
Net investment income5		6.74	%		7.43	%		6.61	%6		6.77	%		6.72	%		6.57	%
Dividends to Preferred Shareholders		0.28	%		1.15	%		1.98	%6		2.05	%		1.78	%		0.97	%
Net investment income to Common Shareholders		6.46	%		6.28	%		4.63	%6		4.72	%		4.94	%		5.60	%
Supplemental Data
Net assets applicable to Common Shareholders, end of period (000)	$	166,773		$	155,360		$	159,759		$	170,559		$	176,216		$	175,264
Preferred Shares outstanding at $25,000 liquidation preference, end of period (000)	$	87,350		$	87,350		$	87,350		$	99,000		$	99,000		$	99,000
Portfolio turnover		18	%		9	%		20	%		10	%		14	%		19	%
Asset coverage per Preferred Share at $25,000 liquidation preference, end of period	$	72,733		$	69,467		$	70,730		$	68,076		$	69,507		$	69,269

1	Based on average Common Shares outstanding.
2	Amount is less than $0.01 per share.
3	Total investment returns based on market value, which can be significantly greater or lesser than the net asset value, may result in substantially different returns. Where applicable, total investment returns exclude the effects of any sales charges and include the reinvestment of dividends and distributions.
4	Aggregate total investment return.
5	Do not reflect the effect of dividends to Preferred Shareholders.
6	Annualized.
7	Interest expense and fees relate to tender option bond trusts. See Note 1 of the Notes to Financial Statements for details of municipal bonds transferred to tender option bond trusts.

See Notes to Financial Statements.

ANNUAL REPORT JULY 31, 2010 41

Financial Highlights BlackRock MuniYield New York Insured Fund, Inc. (MYN)

							Period November 1, 2007 to July 31, 2008
	Year Ended July 31,
										Year Ended October 31,
	2010			2009						2007			2006			2005
Per Share Operating Performance
Net asset value, beginning of period	$	12.65		$	13.16		$	13.94		$	14.40		$	14.26		$	14.81
Net investment income1		0.90			0.87			0.66			0.84			0.92			0.94
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss)		1.08			(0.61	)		(0.77	)		(0.38	)		0.23			(0.50	)
Dividends to Preferred Shareholders from net investment income		(0.04	)		(0.13	)		(0.19	)		(0.27	)		(0.24	)		(0.13	)
Net increase (decrease) from investment operations		1.94			0.13			(0.30	)		0.19			0.91			0.31
Dividends to Common Shareholders from net investment income		(0.70	)		(0.64	)		(0.48	)		(0.65	)		(0.77	)		(0.84	)
Capital charges with respect to issuance of Preferred Shares		—			—			—			—			(0.00	)2		(0.02	)
Net asset value, end of period	$	13.89		$	12.65		$	13.16		$	13.94		$	14.40		$	14.26
Market price, end of period	$	13.57		$	11.36		$	11.80		$	12.80		$	14.10		$	13.17
Total Investment Return3
Based on net asset value		16.15	%		2.29	%		(1.86	)%4		1.66	%		6.71	%		2.53	%
Based on market price		26.36	%		2.44	%		(4.16	)%4		(4.67	)%		13.13	%		6.24	%
Ratios to Average Net Assets Applicable to Common Shareholders
Total expenses5		1.11	%		1.34	%		1.48	%6		1.64	%		1.56	%		1.31	%
Total expenses after fees waived5		1.10	%		1.32	%		1.46	%6		1.63	%		1.56	%		1.31	%
Total expenses after fees waived and excluding interest expense and fees5,7		1.00	%		1.06	%		1.04	%6		1.04	%		1.03	%		0.96	%
Net investment income5		6.69	%		7.11	%		6.36	%6		5.96	%		6.50	%		6.37	%
Dividends to Preferred Shareholders		0.27	%		1.09	%		1.82	%6		1.88	%		1.68	%		0.87	%
Net investment income to Common Shareholders		6.42	%		6.02	%		4.54	%6		4.08	%		4.82	%		5.50	%
Supplemental Data
Net assets applicable to Common Shareholders, end of period (000)	$	547,812		$	499,093		$	518,912		$	549,910		$	567,954		$	562,474
Preferred Shares outstanding at $25,000 liquidation preference, end of period (000)	$	247,700		$	247,700		$	259,475		$	304,000		$	304,000		$	304,000
Portfolio turnover		7	%		22	%		17	%		25	%		43	%		35	%
Asset coverage per Preferred Share at $25,000 liquidation preference, end of period	$	80,293		$	75,376		$	75,011		$	70,242		$	71,725		$	71,259

1	Based on average Common Shares outstanding.
2	Amount is less than $(0.01) per share.
3	Total investment returns based on market value, which can be significantly greater or lesser than net asset value, may result in substantially different returns. Where applicable, total investment returns exclude the effects of any sales charges and include the reinvestment of dividends and distributions.
4	Aggregate total investment return.
5	Do not reflect the effect of dividends to Preferred Shareholders.
6	Annualized.
7	Interest expense and fees relate to tender option bond trusts. See Note 1 of the Notes to Financial Statements for details of municipal bonds transferred to tender option bond trusts.

See Notes to Financial Statements.
42	ANNUAL REPORT	JULY 31, 2010

Notes to Financial Statements

1. Organization and Significant Accounting Policies:

BlackRock MuniHoldings Insured Fund II, Inc. (“MUE”), BlackRock MuniYield California Insured Fund, Inc. (“MCA”), BlackRock MuniYield Insured Fund, Inc. (“MYI”), BlackRock MuniYield Michigan Insured Fund II, Inc. (“MYM”) and BlackRock MuniYield New York Insured Fund, Inc. (“MYN”) (collectively, the “Funds” or individually as a “Fund”), are registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “1940 Act”), as non-diversified, closed-end management investment companies. The Funds are organized as Maryland corporations. The Funds’ financial statements are prepared in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“US GAAP”), which may require management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. Actual results could differ from those estimates. The Funds determine, and make available for publication the net asset value of their Common Shares on a daily basis.

The following is a summary of significant accounting policies followed by the Funds:

Valuation: The Funds fair value their financial instruments at market value using independent dealers or pricing services under policies approved by the Board of Directors (the “Board”). Municipal investments (including commitments to purchase such investments on a “when-issued” basis) are valued on the basis of prices provided by dealers or pricing services. In determining the value of a particular investment, pricing services may use certain information with respect to transactions in such investments, quotations from dealers, pricing matrixes, market transactions in comparable investments and information with respect to various relationships between investments. Financial futures contracts traded on exchanges are valued at their last sale price. Short-term securities with remaining maturities of 60 days or less may be valued at amortized cost, which approximates fair value. Investments in open-end investment companies are valued at net asset value each business day.

In the event that application of these methods of valuation results in a price for an investment which is deemed not to be representative of the market value of such investment or is not available, the investment will be valued in accordance with a policy approved by the Board as reflecting fair value (“Fair Value Assets”). When determining the price for Fair Value Assets, the investment advisor and/or the sub-advisor seeks to determine the price that each Fund might reasonably expect to receive from the current sale of that asset in an arm’s-length transaction. Fair value determinations shall be based upon all available factors that the investment advisor and/or sub-advisor deems relevant. The pricing of all Fair Value Assets is subsequently reported to the Board or a committee thereof.

Forward Commitments and When-Issued Delayed Delivery Securities: The Funds may purchase securities on a when-issued basis and may purchase or sell securities on a forward commitment basis. Settlement of such transactions normally occurs within a month or more after the purchase or sale commitment is made. The Funds may purchase securities under such conditions with the intention of actually acquiring them, but may enter into a separate agreement to sell the securities before the settlement date. Since the value of securities purchased may fluctuate prior to settlement, the Funds may be required to pay more at settlement than the security is worth. In addition, the purchaser is not entitled to any of the interest earned prior to settlement. When purchasing a security on a delayed delivery basis, the Funds assume the rights and risks of ownership of the security, including the risk of price and yield fluctuations. In the event of default by the counter-party, the Funds’ maximum amount of loss is the unrealized appreciation of unsettled when-issued transactions, which is shown on the Schedules of Investments, if any.

Municipal Bonds Transferred to Tender Option Bond Trusts: The Funds leverage their assets through the use of tender option bond trusts (“TOBs”). A TOB is established by a third party sponsor forming a special purpose entity, into which one or more funds, or an agent on behalf of the funds, transfers municipal bonds. Other funds managed by the investment advisor may also contribute municipal bonds to a TOB into which a Fund has contributed bonds. A TOB typically issues two classes of beneficial interests: short-term floating rate certificates, which are sold to third party investors, and residual certificates (“TOB Residuals”), which are generally issued to the participating funds that made the transfer. The TOB Residuals held by a Fund include the right of a Fund (1) to cause the holders of a proportional share of the short-term floating rate certificates to tender their certificates at par, including during instances of a rise in short-term interest rates, and (2) to transfer, within seven days, a corresponding share of the municipal bonds from the TOB to a Fund. The TOB may also be terminated without the consent of a Fund upon the occurrence of certain events as defined in the TOB agreements. Such termination events may include the bankruptcy or default of the municipal bond, a substantial downgrade in credit quality of the municipal bond, the inability of the TOB to obtain quarterly or annual renewal of the liquidity support agreement, a substantial decline in market value of the municipal bond or the inability to remarket the short-term floating rate certificates to third party investors.

The cash received by the TOB from the sale of the short-term floating rate certificates, less transaction expenses, is paid to a Fund, which typically invests the cash in additional municipal bonds. Each Fund’s transfer of the municipal bonds to a TOB is accounted for as a secured borrowing, therefore the municipal bonds deposited into a TOB are presented in the Funds’ Schedules of Investments and the proceeds from the issuance of the short-term floating rate certificates are shown as trust certificates in the Statements of Assets and Liabilities.

ANNUAL REPORT JULY 31, 2010 43

Notes to Financial Statements (continued)

Interest income from the underlying municipal bonds is recorded by the Funds on an accrual basis. Interest expense incurred on the secured borrowing and other expenses related to remarketing, administration and trustee services to a TOB are shown as interest expense and fees in the Statements of Operations. The short-term floating rate certificates have interest rates that generally reset weekly and their holders have the option to tender certificates to the TOB for redemption at par at each reset date. At July 31, 2010, the aggregate value of the underlying municipal bonds transferred to TOBs, the related liability for trust certificates and the range of interest rates on the liability for trust certificates were as follows:

	Underlying Municipal Bonds Transferred to TOBs		Liability for Trust Certificates		Range of Interest Rates
MUE	$	123,179,778	$	62,692,934		0.27% – 0.43%
MCA	$	340,954,608	$	171,137,421		0.27% – 0.30%
MYI	$	385,556,930	$	195,663,221		0.27% – 0.43%
MYM	$	17,977,535	$	9,030,000		0.28% – 0.31%
MYN	$	155,190,594	$	78,614,804		0.28% – 0.41%

For the year ended July 31, 2010, the Funds’ average trust certificates outstanding and the daily weighted average interest rate, including fees, were as follows:

	Average Trust Certificates Outstanding		Daily Weighted Average Interest Rate
MUE	$	62,311,240		0.76%
MCA	$	108,937,028		0.71%
MYI	$	174,492,447		0.71%
MYM	$	9,030,000		0.67%
MYN	$	73,663,074		0.76%

Should short-term interest rates rise, the Funds’ investments in TOBs may adversely affect the Funds’ net investment income and dividends to Common Shareholders. Also, fluctuations in the market values of municipal bonds deposited into the TOB may adversely affect the Funds’ net asset values per share.

Zero-Coupon Bonds: The Funds may invest in zero-coupon bonds, which are normally issued at a significant discount from face value and do not provide for periodic interest payments. Zero-coupon bonds may experience greater volatility in market value than similar maturity debt obligations which provide for regular interest payments.

Segregation and Collateralization: In cases in which the 1940 Act and the interpretive positions of the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) require that the Funds either deliver collateral or segregate assets in connection with certain investments (e.g., financial futures contracts), the Funds will, consistent with SEC rules and/or certain interpretive letters issued by the SEC, segregate collateral or designate on their books and records cash or other liquid securities having a market value at least equal to the amount that would otherwise be required to be physically segregated. Furthermore, based on requirements and agreements with certain exchanges and third party broker-dealers, each party has requirements to deliver/deposit securities as collateral for certain investments.

Investment Transactions and Investment Income: For financial reporting purposes, investment transactions are recorded on the dates the transactions are entered into (the trade dates). Realized gains and losses on investment transactions are determined on the identified cost basis. Dividend income is recorded on the ex-dividend dates. Interest income, including amortization of premium and accretion of discount on debt securities, is recognized on the accrual basis.

Dividends and Distributions: Dividends from net investment income are declared and paid monthly. Distributions of capital gains, are recorded on the ex-dividend dates. The amount and timing of dividends and distributions are determined in accordance with federal income tax regulations, which may differ from US GAAP. Dividends and distributions to Preferred Shareholders are accrued and determined as described in Note 7.

Income Taxes: It is each Fund’s policy to comply with the requirements of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, applicable to regulated investment companies and to distribute substantially all of its taxable income to its shareholders. Therefore, no federal income tax provision is required.

Each Fund files US federal and various state and local tax returns. No income tax returns are currently under examination. The statute of limitations on the Funds’ US federal tax returns remains open for each of the four periods ended July 31, 2010, 2009, 2008 and October 31, 2007 (September 30, 2007 for MUE). The statutes of limitations on the Funds’ state and local tax returns may remain open for an additional year depending upon the jurisdiction. There are no uncertain tax positions that require recognition of a tax liability.

Deferred Compensation and BlackRock Closed-End Share Equivalent Investment Plan: Under the deferred compensation plan approved by each Fund’s Board, non-interested Directors (“Independent Directors”) may defer a portion of their annual complex-wide compensation. Deferred amounts earn an approximate return as though equivalent dollar amounts had been invested in common shares of other certain BlackRock Closed-End Funds selected by the Independent Directors. This has approximately the same economic effect for the Independent Directors as if the Independent Directors had invested the deferred amounts directly in other certain BlackRock Closed-End Funds.

The deferred compensation plan is not funded and obligations thereunder represent general unsecured claims against the general assets of each Fund. Each Fund may, however, elect to invest in common shares of other certain BlackRock Closed-End Funds selected by the Independent Directors in order to match its deferred compensation obligations. Investments to cover each Fund’s deferred compensation liability, if any, are included in other assets in the Statements of Assets and Liabilities. Dividends and distributions from the BlackRock Closed-End Fund investments under the plan are included in income — affiliated in the Statements of Operations.

44 ANNUAL REPORT JULY 31, 2010

Notes to Financial Statements (continued)

Other: Expenses directly related to a Fund are charged to that Fund. Other operating expenses shared by several funds are pro rated among those funds on the basis of relative net assets or other appropriate methods. The Funds have an arrangement with the custodian whereby fees may be reduced by credits earned on uninvested cash balances, which, if applicable, are shown as fees paid indirectly in the Statements of Operations. The custodian imposes fees on overdrawn cash balances, which can be offset by accumulated credits earned or may result in additional custody charges.

2. Derivative Financial Instruments:

The Funds engage in various portfolio investment strategies using derivative contracts both to increase the returns of the Funds and to economically hedge, or protect, their exposure to certain risks such as interest rate risk. These contracts may be transacted on an exchange.

Losses may arise if the value of the contract decreases due to an unfavorable change in the market rates or values of the underlying instrument or if the counterparty does not perform under the contract. Counterparty risk related to exchange-traded financial futures contracts is minimal because of the protection against defaults by the exchange on which they trade.

Financial Futures Contracts: The Funds purchase or sell financial futures contracts and options on financial futures contracts to gain exposure to, or economically hedge against, changes in interest rates (interest rate risk). Financial futures contracts are contracts for delayed delivery of securities at a specific future date and at a specific price or yield. Pursuant to the contract, the Funds agree to receive from or pay to the broker an amount of cash equal to the daily fluctuation in value of the contract. Such receipts or payments are known as margin variation and are recognized by the Funds as unrealized gains or losses. When the contract is closed, the Funds record a realized gain or loss equal to the difference between the value of the contract at the time it was opened and the value at the time it was closed. The use of financial futures transactions involves the risk of an imperfect correlation in the movements in the price of financial futures contracts, interest rates and the underlying assets.

Derivative Instruments Categorized by Risk Exposure:

	Fair Values of Derivative Instruments as of July 31, 2010
		Liabilities Derivatives
			MCA		MYI		MYN
		Statement of Assets and Liabilities Location				Value
Interest rate contracts		Net unrealized appreciation/depreciation*	$	89,999	$	399,313	$	141,179

* Includes cumulative appreciation/depreciation of financial futures contracts as reported in the Schedule of Investments. Only current day’s margin variation is reported within the Statements of Assets and Liabilities.

The Effect of Derivative Instruments on the Statement of Operations Year Ended July 31, 2010
	Net Realized Gain (Loss) from
	MUE		MCA			MYI		MYM			MYN
Interest rate contracts:
Financial futures contracts	$	35,900	$	(89,360	)	$	336,701	$	(45,754	)	$	5,668

	Net Change in Unrealized Appreciation/Depreciation on
	MCA			MYI			MYN
Interest rate contracts:
Financial futures contracts	$	(89,999	)	$	(399,313	)	$	(141,179	)

For the year ended July 31, 2010, the average quarterly balance of outstanding derivative financial instruments was as follows:

	MUE		MCA		MYI		MYM		MYN
Financial futures contracts:
Average number of contracts purchased		6		—		—		3		—
Average number of contracts sold		6		11		46		42		28
Average notional value of contracts purchased	$	632,512		—		—	$	373,757		—
Average notional value of contracts sold	$	670,129	$	1,277,532	$	5,626,500	$	5,070,098	$	3,369,549

3. Investment Advisory Agreement and Other Transactions with Affiliates:

The PNC Financial Services Group, Inc. (“PNC”), Bank of America Corporation (“BAC”) and Barclays Bank PLC (“Barclays”) are the largest stockholders of BlackRock, Inc. (“BlackRock”). Due to the ownership structure, PNC is an affiliate of the Funds for 1940 Act purposes, but BAC and Barclays are not.

Each Fund entered into an Investment Advisory Agreement with BlackRock Advisors, LLC (the “Manager”), the Funds’ investment advisor, an indirect, wholly owned subsidiary of BlackRock, to provide investment advisory and administration services. The Manager is responsible for the management of each Fund’s portfolio and provides the necessary personnel, facilities, equipment and certain other services necessary to the operations of each Fund. For such services, each Fund pays the Manager a monthly fee at the following annual rates of each Fund’s average daily net assets as follows:

MUE	0.55	%
MCA	0.50	%
MYI	0.50	%
MYM	0.50	%
MYN	0.50	%

Average daily net assets is the average daily value of each Fund’s total assets minus the sum of its accrued liabilities.

ANNUAL REPORT JULY 31, 2010 45

Notes to Financial Statements (continued)

For MUE, the Manager voluntarily agreed to waive its investment advisory fee on the proceeds of Preferred Shares and TOBs that exceeds 35% of the Fund’s average daily net assets. This amount is included in fees waived by advisor in the Statements of Operations. For the year ended July 31, 2010, the waiver was $368,396.

The Manager voluntarily agreed to waive its investment advisory fees by the amount of investment advisory fees each Fund pays to the Manager indirectly through its investment in affiliated money market funds, however, the Manager does not waive its investment advisory fees by the amount of investment advisory fees paid through its investment in other affiliated investment companies, if any. These amounts are shown as, or included in, fees waived by advisor in the Statements of Operations. For the year ended July 31, 2010, the amounts waived were as follows:

MUE	$	8,726
MCA	$	41,394
MYI	$	18,525
MYM	$	11,844
MYN	$	22,804

The Manager entered into a separate sub-advisory agreement with BlackRock Investment Management, LLC (“BIM”), an affiliate of the Manager. The Manager pays BIM for services it provides, a monthly fee that is a percentage of the investment advisory fees paid by each Fund to the Manager.

For the year ended July 31, 2010, the Funds reimbursed the Manager for certain accounting services, which are included in accounting services in the Statements of Operations. The reimbursements were as follows:

MUE	$	9,590
MCA	$	15,113
MYI	$	28,199
MYM	$	4,938
MYN	$	16,265

Certain officers and/or directors of the Funds are officers and/or directors of BlackRock or its affiliates. The Funds reimburse the Manager for compensation paid to the Funds’ Chief Compliance Officer.

4. Investments:

Purchases and sales of investments, excluding short-term securities, for the year ended July 31, 2010, were as follows:

	Purchases		Sales
MUE	$	97,003,104	$	99,398,108
MCA	$	283,799,792	$	222,234,751
MYI	$	241,360,523	$	176,754,714
MYM	$	45,479,053	$	45,724,194
MYN	$	94,690,816	$	54,633,250

5. Income Tax Information:

Reclassifications: US GAAP require that certain components of net assets be adjusted to reflect permanent differences between financial and tax reporting. These reclassifications have no effect on net assets or net asset values per share. The following permanent differences as of July 31, 2010 attributable to amortization methods on fixed income securities, the expiration of capital loss carryforwards, distributions received from a regulated investment company and the sale of bonds received from tender option bond trusts were reclassified to the following accounts:

	MUE			MCA			MYI			MYM			MYN
Paid-in capital	$	(44,491	)		—		$	(92,735	)	$	(587,859	)	$	(3,007,157	)
Undistributed net investment income	$	(16,513	)	$	(13,176	)	$	(140,764	)	$	2,298		$	(41,842	)
Accumulated net realized loss	$	61,004		$	13,176		$	233,499		$	585,561		$	3,048,999

The tax character of distributions paid during the fiscal years ended July 31, 2009 and July 31, 2010 were as follows:

	MUE		MCA		MYI		MYM		MYN
Tax-exempt income
7/31/2010	$	19,662,637	$	27,131,853	$	53,974,516	$	10,301,025	$	29,129,872
7/31/2009		16,930,683		26,614,795		54,029,269		9,856,970		29,967,696
Ordinary income
7/31/2009		—		—		—		—		290,863
Total distributions
7/31/2010	$	19,662,637	$	27,131,853	$	53,974,516	$	10,301,025	$	29,129,872
7/31/2009	$	16,930,683	$	26,614,795	$	54,029,269	$	9,856,970	$	30,258,559

46 ANNUAL REPORT JULY 31, 2010

Notes to Financial Statements (continued)

As of July 31, 2010, the tax components of undistributed gains (accumulated losses) were as follows:

	MUE			MCA			MYI			MYM			MYN
Undistributed tax-exempt income	$	5,692,712		$	7,067,574		$	13,280,572		$	2,575,139		$	9,421,599
Undistributed ordinary income		647			5,122			9,177			2,538			6,184
Capital loss carryforwards		(15,255,658	)		(17,153,861	)		(80,247,305	)		(2,365,850	)		(27,686,923	)
Net unrealized gains*		14,740,014			16,288,914			37,118,116			3,295,222			15,456,330
Total	$	5,177,715		$	6,207,749		$	(29,839,440	)	$	3,507,049		$	(2,802,810	)

* The differences between book-basis and tax-basis net unrealized gains is attributable primarily to the tax deferral of losses on wash sales, the tax deferral of losses on straddles, the amortization methods for premiums and discounts on fixed income securities, the realization for tax purposes of unrealized gains/losses on certain futures contracts, the deferral of post-October capital losses for tax purposes, the deferral of compensation to directors and the treatment of residual interests in tender option bond trusts.

As of July 31, 2010, the Funds had capital loss carryforwards available to offset future realized capital gains through the indicated expiration dates:

Expires July 31,	MUE		MCA		MYI		MYM		MYN
2011		—	$	4,417,434		—		—		—
2012	$	306,103		2,675,948		—	$	1,288,851	$	16,583,200
2014		—		—	$	1,489,118		—		3,107,506
2015		—		1,362,395		5,979,955		—		—
2016		—		—		25,066,903		823,067		2,330,288
2017		8,936,425		2,753,866		21,251,301		253,932		2,295,738
2018		6,013,130		5,944,218		26,460,028		—		3,370,191
Total	$	15,255,658	$	17,153,861	$	80,247,305	$	2,365,850	$	27,686,923

6. Concentration, Market and Credit Risk:

MCA, MYM, and MYN invest a substantial amount of their assets in issuers located in a single state or limited number of states. Please see the Schedules of Investments for concentrations in specific states.

Many municipalities insure repayment of their bonds, which may reduce the potential for loss due to credit risk. The market value of these bonds may fluctuate for other reasons, including market perception of the value of such insurance, and there is no guarantee that the insurer will meet its obligation.

In the normal course of business, the Funds invest in securities and enter into transactions where risks exist due to fluctuations in the market (market risk) or failure of the issuer of a security to meet all its obligations (issuer credit risk). The value of securities held by the Funds may decline in response to certain events, including those directly involving the issuers whose securities are owned by the Funds; conditions affecting the general economy; overall market changes; local, regional or global political, social or economic instability; and currency and interest rate and price fluctuations. Similar to issuer credit risk, the Funds may be exposed to counterparty credit risk, or the risk that an entity with which the Funds have unsettled or open transactions may default. The Funds manage counterparty credit risk by entering into transactions only with counterparties that they believe have the financial resources to honor their obligations and by monitoring the financial stability of those counterparties. Financial assets, which potentially expose the Funds to market, issuer and counterparty credit risks, consist principally of financial instruments and receivables due from counterparties. The extent of the Funds’ exposure to market, issuer and counterparty credit risks with respect to these financial assets is generally approximated by their value recorded in the Funds’ Statements of Assets and Liabilities, less any collateral held by the Funds.

MUE invests a significant portion of its assets in the County/City/Special District/School District, Utilities and Transportation sectors. MCA invests a significant portion of its assets in securities in the County/City/Special District/School District and Utilities sectors. MYI and MYN invest a significant portion of their assets in securities in the County/City/Special District/School District and Transportation sectors. MYM invests a significant portion of its assets in securities in the County/City/Special District/School District sector. Changes in economic conditions affecting the County/City/Special District/School District, Transportation and Utilities sectors would have a greater impact on the Funds, and could affect the value, income and/or liquidity of positions in such securities.

ANNUAL REPORT JULY 31, 2010 47

Notes to Financial Statements (continued)

7. Capital Share Transactions:

Each Fund is authorized to issue 200 million shares, including Preferred Shares, par value $0.10 for MUE, MCA, MYI and MYM and par value $0.05 for MYM and MYN, all of which were initially classified as Common Shares. Each Fund’s Board is authorized, however, to reclassify any unissued shares of Common Shares without approval of Common Shareholders.

Common Shares

For the year ended shown, shares issued and outstanding increased by the following amounts as a result of dividend reinvestment:

	Year Ended July 31, 2010		Year Ended July 31, 2009
MUE		26,556		—
MYI		37,906		—

Shares issued and outstanding remained constant for MCA, MYM and MYN for the years ended July 31, 2010 and 2009.

Preferred Shares

The Preferred Shares are redeemable at the option of each Fund, in whole or in part, on any dividend payment date at their liquidation preference per share plus any accumulated and unpaid dividends whether or not declared. The Preferred Shares are also subject to mandatory redemption at their liquidation preference plus any accumulated and unpaid dividends, whether or not declared, if certain requirements relating to the composition of the assets and liabilities of a Fund, as set forth in each Fund’s Articles Supplementary Statement of Preferences (the “Governing Instrument”) are not satisfied.

From time to time in the future, each Fund may effect repurchases of its Preferred Shares at prices below their liquidation preference as agreed upon by the Fund and seller. Each Fund also may redeem its Preferred Shares from time to time as provided in the applicable Governing Instrument. Each Fund intends to effect such redemptions and/or repurchases to the extent necessary to maintain applicable asset coverage requirements or for such other reasons as the Board may determine.

The holders of Preferred Shares have voting rights equal to the holders of Common Shares (one vote per share) and will vote together with holders of Common Shares (one vote per share) as a single class. However, the holders of Preferred Shares, voting as a separate class, are also entitled to elect two Directors for each Fund. In addition, the 1940 Act requires that along with approval by shareholders that might otherwise be required, the approval of the holders of a majority of any outstanding Preferred Shares, voting separately as a class would be required to (a) adopt any plan of reorganization that would adversely affect the Preferred Shares, (b) change a Fund’s sub-classification as a closed-end investment company or change its fundamental investment restrictions or (c) change its business so as to cease to be an investment company.

The Funds had the following series of Preferred Shares outstanding, effective yields and reset frequency as of July 31, 2010:

	Series		Preferred Shares		Effective Yield		Reset Frequency Days
MUE		A	1,345	1	0.41	%	7
		B	1,345	1	0.43	%	7
		C	2,550	1	0.43	%	7
MCA		A	1,090	1	0.41	%	28
		B	1,090	1	0.41	%	7
		C	969	1	0.43	%	7
		D	1,211	1	0.37	%	28
		E	1,211	1	0.41	%	7
		F	1,090	2	1.49	%	7
MYI		A	1,376	1	0.44	%	28
		B	1,376	1	0.43	%	28
		C	1,376	1	0.38	%	28
		D	1,376	1	0.40	%	28
		E	2,502	1	0.43	%	7
		F	1,501	1	0.35	%	28
		G	1,501	1	0.44	%	7
		H	1,625	2	1.47	%	7
		I	1,625	2	1.47	%	7
MYM		A	1,941	1	0.44	%	7
		B	1,200	1	0.43	%	7
		C	353	2	1.49	%	7
MYN		A	1,385	1	0.40	%	28
		B	1,385	1	0.44	%	7
		C	2,282	1	0.41	%	7
		D	1,597	1	0.43	%	7
		E	1,793	1	0.40	%	28
		F	1,466	2	1.47	%	7

1	The maximum applicable rate on this series of Preferred Shares is the higher of 110% of the AA commercial paper rate or 110% of 90% of the Kenny S&P 30-day High Grade Index rate divided by 1.00 minus the marginal tax rate.
2	The maximum applicable rate on this series of Preferred Shares is the higher of 110% plus or times (i) the Telerate/BAA LIBOR or (ii) 90% of Kenny S&P 30-day High Grade Index rate divided by 1.00 minus the marginal tax rate.

48 ANNUAL REPORT JULY 31, 2010

Notes to Financial Statements (continued)

Dividends on seven-day and 28-day Preferred Shares are cumulative at a rate, which is reset every seven or 28 days, respectively, based on the results of an auction. If the Preferred Shares fail to clear the auction on an auction date, each Fund is required to pay the maximum applicable rate on the Preferred Shares to holders of such shares for successive dividend periods until such time as the shares are successfully auctioned. The maximum applicable rate on all series of Preferred Shares is footnoted as applicable on the above chart. The low, high and average dividend rates on the Preferred Shares for each Fund for the year ended July 31, 2010 were as follows:

	Series	Low		High		Average
MUE	A	0.24	%	0.58	%	0.41	%
	B	0.26	%	0.58	%	0.42	%
	C	0.26	%	0.58	%	0.42	%
MCA	A	0.26	%	0.58	%	0.44	%
	B	0.24	%	0.58	%	0.41	%
	C	0.26	%	0.58	%	0.42	%
	D	0.34	%	0.50	%	0.43	%
	E	0.24	%	0.58	%	0.41	%
	F	1.34	%	1.63	%	1.48	%
MYI	A	0.27	%	0.55	%	0.42	%
	B	0.26	%	0.58	%	0.42	%
	C	0.32	%	0.50	%	0.43	%
	D	0.32	%	0.53	%	0.42	%
	E	0.26	%	0.58	%	0.42	%
	F	0.26	%	0.58	%	0.42	%
	G	0.24	%	0.58	%	0.42	%
	H	1.32	%	1.63	%	1.48	%
	I	1.32	%	1.63	%	1.48	%
MYM	A	0.24	%	0.58	%	0.42	%
	B	0.26	%	0.58	%	0.42	%
	C	1.34	%	1.63	%	1.48	%
MYN	A	0.31	%	0.53	%	0.42	%
	B	0.24	%	0.52	%	0.42	%
	C	0.26	%	0.58	%	0.42	%
	D	0.26	%	0.58	%	0.42	%
	E	0.32	%	0.53	%	0.42	%
	F	1.32	%	1.63	%	1.48	%

Since February 13, 2008, the Preferred Shares of the Funds failed to clear any of their auctions. As a result, the Preferred Shares dividend rates were reset to the maximum applicable rate, which ranged from 0.24% to 1.63% for the year ended July 31, 2010. A failed auction is not an event of default for the Funds but it has a negative impact on the liquidity of Preferred Shares. A failed auction occurs when there are more sellers of a Fund’s auction rate preferred shares than buyers. It is impossible to predict how long this imbalance will last. A successful auction for the Funds’ Preferred Shares may not occur for some time, if ever, and even if liquidity does resume, holders of the Preferred Shares may not have the ability to sell the Preferred Shares at their liquidation preference.

The Funds may not declare dividends or make other distributions on Common Shares or purchase any such shares if, at the time of the declaration, distribution or purchase, asset coverage with respect to the outstanding Preferred Shares is less than 200%.

The Funds pay commissions of 0.25% on the aggregate principal amount of all shares that successfully clear their auctions and 0.15% on the aggregate principal amount of all shares that fail to clear their auctions. Certain broker dealers have individually agreed to reduce commissions for failed auctions.

Preferred Shares issued and outstanding remained constant for the year ended July 31, 2010 for MUE, MCA, MYM and MYN. Preferred Shares issued and outstanding decreased by 87 shares for MYI for the year ended July 31, 2010.

During the year ended July 31, 2009, certain Funds announced the following redemptions of Preferred Shares at a price of $25,000 per share plus any accrued and unpaid dividends through the redemption date:

	Series	Redemption Date	Shares Redeemed	Aggregate Principal
MUE	A	7/06/09	147	$	3,675,000
	B	7/09/09	147	$	3,675,000
	C	7/08/09	278	$	6,950,000
MCA	A	7/31/09	169	$	4,225,000
	B	7/13/09	169	$	4,225,000
	C	7/08/09	150	$	3,750,000
	D	7/10/09	187	$	4,675,000
	E	7/06/09	187	$	4,675,000
	F	7/09/09	169	$	4,225,000
MYI	A	7/23/09	80	$	2,000,000
	B	7/30/09	80	$	2,000,000
	C	7/09/09	80	$	2,000,000
	D	7/16/09	80	$	2,000,000
	E	7/09/09	145	$	3,625,000
	F	8/04/09	87	$	2,175,000
	G	7/14/09	87	$	2,175,000
	H	7/06/09	95	$	2,375,000
	I	7/06/09	95	$	2,375,000
MYN	A	7/21/09	66	$	1,650,000
	B	6/30/09	66	$	1,650,000
	C	7/06/09	108	$	2,700,000
	D	7/08/09	76	$	1,900,000
	E	7/16/09	85	$	2,125,000
	F	7/06/09	70	$	1,750,000

The Funds financed the Preferred Share redemptions with cash received from TOB transactions.

Preferred Shares outstanding remained constant for MYM during the year ended July 31, 2009.

ANNUAL REPORT JULY 31, 2010 49

Notes to Financial Statements (concluded)

8. Restatement Information:

During the year ended September 30, 2006 for MUI and October 31, 2006 for MYI, the Funds determined that the criteria for sale accounting in ASC 860 (formerly FAS 140) had not been met for certain transfers of municipal bonds related to investments in TOB Residuals, and that these transfers should have been accounted for as secured borrowings rather than as sales. As a result, certain financial highlights for the period ended September 30, 2005 with respect to MUE, and for the period ended October 31, 2005 with respect to MYI, have been restated to give effect to recording the transfers of the municipal bonds as secured borrowings, including recording interest on the bonds as interest income and interest on the secured borrowings as interest expense.

Financial Highlights for MUE For the Year Ended September 30, 2005
	2005
	Previously Reported			Restated
Total expenses, net of waiver1		1.15	%		1.32	%
Total expenses1		1.21	%		1.38	%
Portfolio turnover		58.19	%		46	%

¹ Do not reflect the effect of dividends to Preferred Shareholders.

Financial Highlights for MYI For the Year Ended October 31, 2005
	2005
	Previously Reported			Restated
Total expenses, net of waiver1		1.01	%		1.60	%
Total expenses1		1.01	%		1.60	%
Portfolio turnover		123.85	%		105	%

¹ Do not reflect the effect of dividends to Preferred Shareholders.

9. Subsequent Events:

Management’s evaluation of the impact of all subsequent events on the Funds’ financial statements was completed through the date the financial statements were issued and the following items were noted:

Each Fund paid a net investment income dividend on September 1, 2010 to Common Shareholders of record on August 16, 2010 as follows:

	Common Dividend Per Share
MUE	$	0.0735
MCA	$	0.0680
MYI	$	0.0710
MYM	$	0.0715
MYN	$	0.0700

On September 1, 2010, the following Funds declared a dividend to Common Shareholders of record on September 15, 2010 in the following amounts:

	Common Dividend Per Share
MUE	$	0.0735
MCA	$	0.0705
MYI	$	0.0720
MYM	$	0.0715
MYN	$	0.0710

The dividends declared on Preferred Shares for the period August 1, 2010 to August 31, 2010 were as follows:

	Series	Dividends Declared
MUE	A	$	11,475
	B	$	11,662
	C	$	22,165
MCA	A	$	9,269
	B	$	9,196
	C	$	8,423
	D	$	9,108
	E	$	10,331
	F	$	33,212
MYI	A	$	12,685
	B	$	12,220
	C	$	10,777
	D	$	11,190
	E	$	21,695
	F	$	12,657
	G	$	12,860
	H	$	49,332
	I	$	49,195
MYM	A	$	16,630
	B	$	10,431
	C	$	10,756
MYN	A	$	11,690
	B	$	11,866
	C	$	19,253
	D	$	13,881
	E	$	14,582
	F	$	44,505

50 ANNUAL REPORT JULY 31, 2010

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

To the Shareholders and Board of Directors of
BlackRock MuniHoldings Insured Fund II, Inc.
BlackRock MuniYield California Insured Fund, Inc.
BlackRock MuniYield Insured Fund, Inc.
BlackRock MuniYield Michigan Insured Fund II, Inc.
BlackRock MuniYield New York Insured Fund, Inc.
(collectively the “Funds”):

We have audited the accompanying statement of assets and liabilities of BlackRock MuniHoldings Insured Fund II, Inc., including the schedule of investments, as of July 31, 2010, the related statements of operations and cash flows for the year then ended, the statements of changes in net assets for each of the two years in the period then ended, and the financial highlights for each of the two years in the period ended July 31, 2010, for the period October 1, 2007 to July 31, 2008, and for each of the two years in the period ended September 30, 2007. We have also audited the accompanying statement of assets and liabilities of BlackRock MuniYield California Insured Fund, Inc., including the schedule of investments, as of July 31, 2010, the related statements of operations and cash flows for the year then ended, the statements of changes in net assets for each of the two years in the period then ended, and the financial highlights for the periods presented. We have also audited the accompanying statement of assets and liabilities of BlackRock MuniYield Insured Fund, Inc., including the schedule of investments, as of July 31, 2010, the related statements of operations and cash flows for the year then ended, the statements of changes in net assets for each of the two years in the period then ended, and the financial highlights for each of the two years in the period ended July 31, 2010, for the period November 1, 2007 to July 31, 2008, and for each of the two years in the period ended October 31, 2007. We have also audited the accompanying statements of assets and liabilities of BlackRock MuniYield Michigan Insured Fund II, Inc. and BlackRock MuniYield New York Insured Fund, Inc., including the schedules of investments, as of July 31, 2010, the related statements of operations for the year then ended, the statements of changes in net assets for each of the two years in the period then ended, and the financial highlights for the periods presented. These financial statements and financial highlights are the responsibility of the Funds’ management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements and financial highlights based on our audits. The financial highlights of BlackRock MuniHoldings Insured Fund II, Inc. for the year ended September 30, 2005 (before the restatement described in Note 8) were audited by other auditors whose report, dated November 9, 2005, expressed a qualified opinion on those financial highlights because of the errors described in Note 8. The financial highlights of BlackRock MuniYield Insured Fund, Inc. for the year ended October 31, 2005 (before the restatement described in Note 8) were audited by other auditors whose report, dated December 9, 2005, expressed a qualified opinion on those financial highlights because of the errors described in Note 8.

We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements and financial highlights are free of material misstatement. The Funds are not required to have, nor were we engaged to perform, an audit of their internal control over financial reporting. Our audits included consideration of internal control over financial reporting as a basis for designing audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the Funds’ internal control over financial reporting. Accordingly, we express no such opinion. An audit also includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements, assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. Our procedures included confirmation of securities owned as of July 31, 2010, by correspondence with the custodian and brokers; where replies were not received from brokers, we performed other auditing procedures. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion, the financial statements and financial highlights referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of BlackRock MuniHoldings Insured Fund II, Inc. as of July 31, 2010, the results of its operations and its cash flows for the year then ended, the changes in its net assets for each of the two years in the period then ended, and the financial highlights for each of the two years in the period then ended, for the period October 1, 2007 to July 31, 2008 and for each of the two years in the period ended September 30, 2007, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. Additionally, in our opinion, the financial statements and financial highlights referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of BlackRock MuniYield California Insured Fund, Inc. as of July 31, 2010, the results of its operations and its cash flows for the year then ended, the changes in its net assets for each of the two years in the period then ended, and the financial highlights for the periods presented, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. Additionally, in our opinion, the financial statements and financial highlights referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of BlackRock MuniYield Insured Fund, Inc. as of July 31, 2010, the results of its operations and its cash flows for the year then ended, the changes in its net assets for each of the two years in the period then ended, and the financial highlights for each of the two years in the period then ended, for the period November 1, 2007 to July 31, 2008 and for each of the two years in the period ended October 31, 2007, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. Additionally, in our opinion, the financial statements and financial highlights referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial positions of BlackRock MuniYield Michigan Insured Fund II, Inc. and BlackRock MuniYield New York Insured Fund, Inc. as of July 31, 2010, the results of their operations for the year then ended, the changes in their net assets for each of the two years in the period then ended, and the financial highlights for the periods presented, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.

We have audited the adjustments, applied by management, to restate certain BlackRock MuniHoldings Insured Fund II, Inc. (“Insured Fund II”) financial highlights for the period ended September 30, 2005 to correct the errors described in Note 8. We have also audited the adjustments, applied by management, to restate certain BlackRock MuniYield Insured Fund, Inc. (“Insured Fund”) financial highlights for the period ended October 31, 2005

ANNUAL REPORT JULY 31, 2010 51

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm (concluded)

to correct the errors described in Note 8. These adjustments are the responsibility of the Funds’ management. The audit procedures that we performed with respect to the adjustments included such tests as we considered necessary in the circumstances and were designed to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the adjustments are appropriate and have been properly applied, in all material respects, to the restated information in Insured Fund II’s financial highlights for the year ended September 30, 2005 and Insured Fund’s financial highlights for the year ended October 31, 2005. We did not perform any audit procedures designed to assess whether any additional adjustments or disclosures to Insured Fund II’s or Insured Fund’s financial highlights for the years ended September 30, 2005 and October 31, 2005, respectively, might be necessary in order for such financial highlights to be presented in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. In our opinion, the adjustments to the financial highlights of Insured Fund II’s or Insured Fund’s financial highlights for the years ended September 30, 2005 and October 31, 2005, respectively, for the restatements described in Note 8 are appropriate and have been properly applied, in all material respects. However, we were not engaged to audit, review, or apply any procedures to the Insured Fund II’s or Insured Fund’s financial highlights for the years ended September 30, 2005 and October 31, 2005, respectively, other than with respect to the adjustments described in Note 8 and, accordingly, we do not express an opinion or any other form of assurance on the Insured Fund II’s or Insured Fund’s financial highlights for the years ended September 30, 2005 and October 31, 2005, respectively.

Deloitte & Touche LLP
Princeton, New Jersey
September 27, 2010

Important Tax Information (Unaudited)

All of the net investment income distributions paid by MUE, MCA, MYI, MYM and MYN during the taxable year ended July 31, 2010 qualify as tax-exempt interest dividends for federal income tax purposes.

52 ANNUAL REPORT JULY 31, 2010

Disclosure of Investment Advisory Agreements and Sub-Advisory Agreements

The Board of Directors (each, a “Board,” and, collectively, the “Boards,” and the members of which are referred to as “Board Members”) of each of BlackRock MuniHoldings Insured Fund II, Inc. (“MUE”), BlackRock MuniYield California Insured Fund, Inc. (“MCA”), BlackRock MuniYield Insured Fund, Inc. (“MYI”), BlackRock MuniYield Michigan Insured Fund II, Inc. (“MYM”) and BlackRock New York Insured Fund, Inc. (“MYN” and, together with MUE, MCA, MYI and MYM, each a “Fund,” and, collectively, the “Funds”) met on April 8, 2010 and May 13 – 14, 2010 to consider the approval of each Fund’s investment advisory agreement (each, an “Advisory Agreement”) with BlackRock Advisors, LLC (the “Manager”), each Fund’s investment advisor. Each Board also considered the approval of the sub-advisory agreement (each, a “Sub-Advisory Agreement”) between the Manager and BlackRock Investment Management, LLC (the “Sub-Advisor”) with respect to its Fund. The Manager and the Sub-Advisor are referred to herein as “BlackRock.” The Advisory Agreements and the Sub-Advisory Agreements are referred to herein as the “Agreements.”

Activities and Composition of the Board

The Board of each Fund consists of ten individuals, eight of whom are not “interested persons” of such Fund as defined in the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “1940 Act”) (the “Independent Board Members”). The Board Members are responsible for the oversight of the operations of each Fund and perform the various duties imposed on the directors of investment companies by the 1940 Act. The Independent Board Members have retained independent legal counsel to assist them in connection with their duties. The Chairman of the Boards is an Independent Board Member. The Boards have established five standing committees: an Audit Committee, a Governance and Nominating Committee, a Compliance Committee, a Performance Oversight Committee and an Executive Committee, each of which is composed of Independent Board Members (except for the Executive Committee, which also has one interested Board Member) and is chaired by an Independent Board Member. The Boards also have two ad hoc committees, the Joint Product Pricing Committee, which consists of Independent Board Members and the directors/trustees of the boards of certain other BlackRock-managed funds, who are not “interested persons” of their respective funds, and the Ad Hoc Committee on Auction Market Preferred Shares.

The Agreements

Pursuant to the 1940 Act, the Boards are required to consider the continuation of the Agreements on an annual basis. In connection with this process, the Boards assessed, among other things, the nature, scope and quality of the services provided to the Funds by the personnel of BlackRock and its affiliates, including investment management, administrative and shareholder services, oversight of fund accounting and custody, marketing services and assistance in meeting applicable legal and regulatory requirements.

From time to time throughout the year, each Board, acting directly and through its committees, considered at each of its meetings factors that are relevant to its annual consideration of the renewal of the Agreements, including the services and support provided by BlackRock to the respective Fund and its shareholders. Among the matters the Board considered were: (a) investment performance for one-, three- and five-year periods, as applicable, against peer funds, and applicable benchmarks, if any, as well as senior management’s and portfolio managers’ analysis of the reasons for any over performance or underperformance against a Fund’s peers and/or benchmark, as applicable; (b) fees, including advisory, and other amounts paid to BlackRock and its affiliates by each Fund for services such as call center and fund accounting; (c) each Fund’s operating expenses; (d) the resources devoted to and compliance reports relating to each Fund’s investment objective, policies and restrictions; (e) each Fund’s compliance with its Code of Ethics and compliance policies and procedures; (f) the nature, cost and character of non-investment management services provided by BlackRock and its affiliates; (g) BlackRock’s and other service providers’ internal controls; (h) BlackRock’s implementation of the proxy voting policies approved by the Boards; (i) execution quality of portfolio transactions; (j) BlackRock’s implementation of each Fund’s valuation and liquidity procedures; (k) an analysis of contractual and actual management fees for products with similar investment objectives across the open-end fund, closed-end fund and institutional account product channels, as applicable; and (l) periodic updates on BlackRock’s business.

Board Considerations in Approving the Agreements

The Approval Process: Prior to the April 8, 2010 meeting, the Boards requested and received materials specifically relating to the Agreements. The Boards are engaged in a process with BlackRock to periodically review the nature and scope of the information provided to better assist their deliberations. The materials provided in connection with the April meeting included: (a) information independently compiled and prepared by Lipper, Inc. (“Lipper”) on Fund fees and expenses, and the investment performance of each Fund as compared with a peer group of funds as determined by Lipper and a customized peer group selected by BlackRock, as applicable (collectively, “Peers”); (b) information on the profitability of the Agreements to BlackRock and a discussion of fall-out benefits to BlackRock and its affiliates and significant shareholders; (c) a general analysis provided by BlackRock concerning investment advisory fees charged to other clients, such as institutional clients and open-end funds, under similar investment mandates; (d) the impact of economies of scale; (e) a summary of aggregate amounts paid by each Fund to BlackRock; and (f) if applicable, a comparison of management fees to similar BlackRock closed-end funds, as classified by Lipper.

At an in-person meeting held on April 8, 2010, the Boards reviewed materials relating to their consideration of the Agreements. As a result of the discussions that occurred during the April 8, 2010 meeting, the Boards presented BlackRock with questions and requests for additional information and BlackRock responded to these requests with additional written information in advance of the May 13 – 14, 2010 Board meeting.

At an in-person meeting held on May 13 – 14, 2010, each Fund’s Board, including the Independent Board Members, unanimously approved the continuation of the Advisory Agreement between the Manager and each respective Fund and the Sub-Advisory Agreement between the Manager and the Sub-Advisor with respect to each Fund, each for a one-year term ending June 30, 2011. In approving the continuation of the Agreements, the Boards considered: (a) the nature, extent and quality of the services provided by BlackRock; (b) the investment performance of each Fund and BlackRock; (c) the advisory fee and the cost of the services and profits to be realized by BlackRock and its affiliates from their relationship with each Fund; (d) economies of scale; and (e) other factors deemed relevant by the Board Members.

ANNUAL REPORT JULY 31, 2010 53

Disclosure of Investment Advisory Agreements and Sub-Advisory Agreements (continued)

The Boards also considered other matters they deemed important to the approval process, such as services related to the valuation and pricing of each Fund’s portfolio holdings, direct and indirect benefits to BlackRock and its affiliates and significant shareholders from their relationship with each Fund and advice from independent legal counsel with respect to the review process and materials submitted for the Boards’ review. The Boards noted the willingness of BlackRock personnel to engage in open, candid discussions with the Boards. The Boards did not identify any particular information as controlling, and each Board Member may have attributed different weights to the various items considered.

A. Nature, Extent and Quality of the Services Provided by BlackRock: The Boards, including the Independent Board Members, reviewed the nature, extent and quality of services provided by BlackRock, including the investment advisory services and the resulting performance of each Fund. Throughout the year, the Boards compared each Fund’s performance to the performance of a comparable group of closed-end funds, and the performance of a relevant benchmark, if any. The Boards met with BlackRock’s senior management personnel responsible for investment operations, including the senior investment officers. The Boards also reviewed the materials provided by each Fund’s portfolio management team discussing each Fund’s performance and each Fund’s investment objective, strategies and outlook.

The Boards considered, among other factors, the number, education and experience of BlackRock’s investment personnel generally and each Fund’s portfolio management team, investments by portfolio managers in the funds they manage, BlackRock’s portfolio trading capabilities, BlackRock’s use of technology, BlackRock’s commitment to compliance, BlackRock’s credit analysis capabilities, BlackRock’s risk analysis capabilities and BlackRock’s approach to training and retaining portfolio managers and other research, advisory and management personnel. The Boards also reviewed a general description of BlackRock’s compensation structure with respect to each Fund’s portfolio management team and BlackRock’s ability to attract and retain high-quality talent.

In addition to advisory services, the Boards considered the quality of the administrative and non-investment advisory services provided to each Fund. BlackRock and its affiliates and significant shareholders provide each Fund with certain administrative and other services (in addition to any such services provided to each Fund by third parties) and officers and other personnel as are necessary for the operations of each Fund. In addition to investment advisory services, BlackRock and its affiliates provide each Fund with other services, including: (i) preparing disclosure documents, such as the prospectus and the statement of additional information in connection with the initial public offering and periodic shareholder reports; (ii) preparing communications with analysts to support secondary market trading of each Fund; (iii) assisting with daily accounting and pricing; (iv) preparing periodic filings with regulators and stock exchanges; (v) overseeing and coordinating the activities of other service providers; (vi) organizing Board meetings and preparing the materials for such Board meetings; (vii) providing legal and compliance support; and (viii) performing other administrative functions necessary for the operation of each Fund, such as tax reporting, fulfilling regulatory filing requirements, and call center services. The Boards reviewed the structure and duties of BlackRock’s fund administration, accounting, legal and compliance departments and considered BlackRock’s policies and procedures for assuring compliance with applicable laws and regulations.

B. The Investment Performance of the Funds and BlackRock: The Boards, including the Independent Board Members, also reviewed and considered the performance history of each Fund. In preparation for the April 8, 2010 meeting, the Boards were provided with reports, independently prepared by Lipper, which included a comprehensive analysis of each Fund’s performance. The Boards also reviewed a narrative and statistical analysis of the Lipper data that was prepared by BlackRock, which analyzed various factors that affect Lipper’s rankings. In connection with their review, the Boards received and reviewed information regarding the investment performance of each Fund as compared to a representative group of similar funds as determined by Lipper and to all funds in each Fund’s applicable Lipper category and in the case of MCA and MYN, a customized peer group selected by BlackRock. The Boards were provided with a description of the methodology used by Lipper to select peer funds. The Boards regularly review the performance of each Fund throughout the year.

The Board of MUE noted that MUE performed below the median of its Lipper Performance Composite in the three- and five-year periods reported, but that MUE performed better than or equal to the median of its Lipper Performance Composite in the one-year period reported. The Board of MUE and BlackRock reviewed the reasons for MUE’s underperformance during the three- and five-year periods compared with its Peers. The Board of MUE was informed that, among other things, MUE’s performance was hindered by its short duration posture during a period when interest rates were decreasing.

The Board of MCA noted that MCA performed below the median of its Customized Lipper Peer Group Composite in each of the one-, three- and five-year periods reported. The Board of MCA and BlackRock reviewed the reasons for MCA’s underperformance during these periods compared with its Peers. The Board of MCA was informed that, among other things, performance detractors for MCA have included exposure to lesser rated underlying holdings and specific exposure to zero coupon structures.

The Board of MYI noted that MYI performed below the median of its Lipper Performance Composite in the three- and five-year periods reported, but that MYI performed better than or equal to the median of its Lipper Performance Composite in the one-year period reported. The Board of MYI and BlackRock reviewed the reasons for MYI’s underperformance during the three- and five-year periods compared with its Peers. The Board of MYI was informed that, among other things, there were four primary factors that impacted performance: constructive positioning with respect to the market during a period of increasing yields; above average exposure to the long-end of the municipal curve, which underperformed as the yield curve steepened out; an overweight of spread product during a period of significant widening of credit spreads (specifically insured bonds now trading to their underlying value); and the underperformance of municipal cash relative to MYI’s Bond Market Association hedges (which were completely unwound in the 4th quarter of 2008).

54 ANNUAL REPORT JULY 31, 2010

Disclosure of Investment Advisory Agreements and Sub-Advisory Agreements (continued)

The Board of MYN noted that MYN performed below the median of its Customized Lipper Peer Group Composite in the three- and five-year periods reported, but that MYN performed better than or equal to the median of its Customized Lipper Peer Group Composite in the one-year period reported. The Board of MYN and BlackRock reviewed the reasons for MYN’s underperformance during the three- and five-year periods compared with its Peers. The Board of MYN was informed that, among other things, MYN’s heavy weighting in longer dated and discount coupon bonds detracted from performance.

The Boards of MUE, MCA, MYI and MYN and BlackRock discussed BlackRock’s strategy for improving each respective Fund’s performance and BlackRock’s commitment to providing the resources necessary to assist each Fund’s portfolio managers and to improve each Fund’s performance.

The Board of MYM noted that, in general, MYM performed better than its Peers in that MYM’s performance was at or above the median of its Lipper Performance Composite in two of the one-, three- and five-year periods reported.

The Boards noted that BlackRock has made changes to the organization of the overall fixed income group management structure designed to result in a strengthened leadership team with clearer accountability.

C. Consideration of the Advisory Fees and the Cost of the Services and Profits to be Realized by BlackRock and its Affiliates from their Relationship with the Funds: The Boards, including the Independent Board Members, reviewed each Fund’s contractual advisory fee rate compared with the other funds in its Lipper category. The Boards also compared each Fund’s total expenses, as well as actual management fees, to those of other funds in its Lipper category. The Boards considered the services provided and the fees charged by BlackRock to other types of clients with similar investment mandates, including separately managed institutional accounts.

The Boards received and reviewed statements relating to BlackRock’s financial condition and profitability with respect to the services it provided each Fund. The Boards were also provided with a profitability analysis that detailed the revenues earned and the expenses incurred by BlackRock for services provided to each Fund. The Boards reviewed BlackRock’s profitability with respect to each Fund and other funds the Boards currently oversee for the year ended December 31, 2009 compared to available aggregate profitability data provided for the year ended December 31, 2008. The Boards reviewed BlackRock’s profitability with respect to other fund complexes managed by the Manager and/or its affiliates. The Boards reviewed BlackRock’s assumptions and methodology of allocating expenses in the profitability analysis, noting the inherent limitations in allocating costs among various advisory products. The Boards recognized that profitability may be affected by numerous factors including, among other things, fee waivers and expense reimbursements by the Manager, the types of funds managed, expense allocations and business mix, and the difficulty of comparing profitability as a result of those factors.

The Boards noted that, in general, individual fund or product line profitability of other advisors is not publicly available. Nevertheless, to the extent such information was available, the Boards considered BlackRock’s overall operating margin, in general, compared to the operating margin for leading investment management firms whose operations include advising closed-end funds, among other product types. That data indicates that operating margins for BlackRock with respect to its registered funds are generally consistent with margins earned by similarly situated publicly traded competitors. In addition, the Boards considered, among other things, certain third party data comparing BlackRock’s operating margin with that of other publicly traded asset management firms. That third party data indicates that larger asset bases do not, in themselves, translate to higher profit margins.

In addition, the Boards considered the cost of the services provided to each Fund by BlackRock, and BlackRock’s and its affiliates’ profits relating to the management and distribution of each Fund and the other funds advised by BlackRock and its affiliates. As part of their analysis, the Boards reviewed BlackRock’s methodology in allocating its costs to the management of each Fund. The Boards also considered whether BlackRock has the financial resources necessary to attract and retain high-quality investment management personnel to perform its obligations under the Agreements and to continue to provide the high quality of services that is expected by the Boards.

The Board of each Fund noted that its Fund’s contractual management fee rate was lower than or equal to the median contractual management fee rate paid by the Fund’s Peers, in each case, before taking into account any expense reimbursements or fee waivers.

D. Economies of Scale: The Boards, including the Independent Board Members, considered the extent to which economies of scale might be realized as the assets of each Fund increase. The Boards also considered the extent to which each Fund benefits from such economies and whether there should be changes in the advisory fee rate or structure in order to enable each Fund to participate in these economies of scale, for example through the use of breakpoints in the advisory fee based upon the asset level of each Fund.

The Boards noted that most closed-end fund complexes do not have fund level breakpoints because closed-end funds generally do not experience substantial growth after the initial public offering and each fund is managed independently consistent with its own investment objectives. The Boards noted that only one closed-end fund in the Fund Complex has breakpoints in its fee structure. Information provided by Lipper also revealed that only one closed-end fund complex with total closed-end fund nets assets exceeding $10 billion, as of December 31, 2009, used a complex level breakpoint structure.

ANNUAL REPORT JULY 31, 2010 55

Disclosure of Investment Advisory Agreements and Sub-Advisory Agreements (concluded)

E. Other Factors Deemed Relevant by the Board Members: The Boards, including the Independent Board Members, also took into account other ancillary or “fall-out” benefits that BlackRock or its affiliates and significant shareholders may derive from their respective relationships with the Funds, both tangible and intangible, such as BlackRock’s ability to leverage its investment professionals who manage other portfolios, an increase in BlackRock’s profile in the investment advisory community, and the engagement of BlackRock’s affiliates and significant shareholders as service providers to each Fund, including for administrative and distribution services. The Boards also considered BlackRock’s overall operations and its efforts to expand the scale of, and improve the quality of, its operations. The Boards also noted that BlackRock may use and benefit from third party research obtained by soft dollars generated by certain mutual fund transactions to assist in managing all or a number of its other client accounts. The Boards further noted that BlackRock completed the acquisition of a complex of exchange-traded funds (“ETFs”) on December 1, 2009, and that BlackRock’s funds may invest in such ETFs without any offset against the management fees payable by the funds to BlackRock.

In connection with its consideration of the Agreements, the Boards also received information regarding BlackRock’s brokerage and soft dollar practices. The Boards received reports from BlackRock which included information on brokerage commissions and trade execution practices throughout the year.

The Boards noted the competitive nature of the closed-end fund marketplace, and that shareholders are able to sell their respective Fund’s shares in the secondary market if they believe that the Fund’s fees and expenses are too high or if they are dissatisfied with the performance of the Fund.

Conclusion

The Boards, including the Independent Board Members, unanimously approved the continuation of the Advisory Agreement between the Manager and each Fund for a one-year term ending June 30, 2011 and the Sub-Advisory Agreement between the Manager and the Sub-Advisor with respect to each Fund for a one-year term ending June 30, 2011. As part of its approval, each Board considered the discussions of BlackRock’s fee structure, as it applies to its respective Fund, being conducted by the ad hoc Joint Product Pricing Committee. Based upon its evaluation of all of the aforementioned factors in their totality, the Boards, including the Independent Board Members, were satisfied that the terms of the Agreements were fair and reasonable and in the best interest of each Fund and its shareholders. In arriving at a decision to approve the Agreements, the Boards did not identify any single factor or group of factors as all-important or controlling, but considered all factors together, and different Board Members may have attributed different weights to the various factors considered. The Independent Board Members were also assisted by the advice of independent legal counsel in making this determination. The contractual fee arrangements for each Fund reflect the results of several years of review by the Board Members and predecessor Board Members, and discussions between such Board Members (and predecessor Board Members) and BlackRock. Certain aspects of the arrangements may be the subject of more attention in some years than in others, and the Board Members’ conclusions may be based in part on their consideration of these arrangements in prior years.

56 ANNUAL REPORT JULY 31, 2010

Automatic Dividend Reinvestment Plans

Pursuant to each Fund’s Dividend Reinvestment Plan (the “Plan”), common shareholders are automatically enrolled to have all distributions of dividends and capital gains reinvested by BNY Mellon Shareowner Services for MYM and MYN and Computershare Trust Company, N.A. for MUE, MCA and MYI (individually, the “Plan Agent” or together, the “Plan Agents”) in the respective Fund’s shares pursuant to the Plan. Shareholders who do not participate in the Plan will receive all distributions in cash paid by check and mailed directly to the shareholders of record (or if the shares are held in street or other nominee name, then to the nominee) by the Plan Agent, which serves as agent for the shareholders in administering the Plan.

After the Funds declare a dividend or determine to make a capital gain distribution, the Plan Agent will acquire shares for the participants’ accounts, depending upon the following circumstances, either (i) through receipt of unissued but authorized shares from the Fund (“newly issued shares”) or (ii) by purchase of outstanding shares on the open market or on the Fund’s primary exchange (“open-market purchases”). If, on the dividend payment date, the net asset value per share (“NAV”) is equal to or less than the market price per share plus estimated brokerage commissions (such condition often referred to as a “market premium”), the Plan Agent will invest the dividend amount in newly issued shares on behalf of the participants. The number of newly issued shares to be credited to each participant’s account will be determined by dividing the dollar amount of the dividend by the NAV on the date the shares are issued. However, if the NAV is less than 95% of the market price on the payment date, the dollar amount of the dividend will be divided by 95% of the market price on the payment date. If, on the dividend payment date, the NAV is greater than the market value per share plus estimated brokerage commissions (such condition often referred to as a “market discount”), the Plan Agent will invest the dividend amount in shares acquired on behalf of the participants in open-market purchases. If the Plan Agents are unable to invest the full dividend amount in open market purchases, or if the market discount shifts to a market premium during the purchase period, the Plan Agents will invest any un-invested portion in newly issued shares.

Participation in the Plan is completely voluntary and may be terminated or resumed at any time without penalty by notice if received and processed by the Plan Administrator prior to the dividend record date; otherwise such termination or resumption will be effective with respect to any subsequently declared dividend or other distribution.

The Plan Agent’s fees for the handling of the reinvestment of dividends and distributions will be paid by each Fund. However, each participant will pay a pro rata share of brokerage commissions incurred with respect to the Plan Agent’s open market purchases in connection with the reinvestment of dividends and distributions. The automatic reinvestment of dividends and distributions will not relieve participants of any federal income tax that may be payable on such dividends or distributions.

Each Fund reserves the right to amend or terminate the Plan. There is no direct service charge to participants in the Plan; however, each Fund reserves the right to amend the Plan to include a service charge payable by the participants. Participants that request a sale of shares through Computershare Trust Company, N.A. are subject to a $2.50 sales fee and a $0.15 per share sold brokerage commission. Participants that request a sale of shares through BNY Mellon Shareowner Services are subject to a $0.02 per share sold brokerage commission. All correspondence concerning the Plan should be directed to the respective Plan Agent: BNY Mellon Shareowner Services, P.O. Box 358035, Pittsburgh, PA 15252-8035, Telephone: (866) 216-0242 for shareholders of MYM and MYN or Computershare Trust Company, N.A., P.O. Box 43078, Providence, RI 02940-3078, Telephone: (800) 699-1BFM or overnight correspondence should be directed to the Plan Agent at 250 Royall Street, Canton, MA 02021 for shareholders of MUE, MCA and MYI.

ANNUAL REPORT JULY 31, 2010 57

Officers and Directors

Name, Address and Year of Birth	Position(s) Held with Funds	Length of Time Served as a Director2	Principal Occupation(s) During Past Five Years	Number of BlackRock- Advised Registered Investment Companies (“RICs”) Consisting of Investment Portfolios (“Portfolios”) Overseen	Public Directorships
Non-Interested Directors1
Richard E. Cavanagh 55 East 52nd Street New York, NY 10055 1946	Chairman of the Board and Director	Since 2007	Trustee, Aircraft Finance Trust from 1999 to 2009; Director, The Guardian Life Insurance Company of America since 1998; Trustee, Educational Testing Service from 1997 to 2009 and Chairman thereof from 2005 to 2009; Senior Advisor, The Fremont Group since 2008 and Director thereof since 1996; Adjunct Lecturer, Harvard University since 2007; President and Chief Executive Officer, The Conference Board, Inc. (global business research organization) from 1995 to 2007.	99 RICs consisting of 97 Portfolios	Arch Chemical (chemical and allied products)
Karen P. Robards 55 East 52nd Street New York, NY 10055 1950	Vice Chair of the Board, Chair of the Audit Committee and Director	Since 2007	Partner of Robards & Company, LLC (financial advisory firm) since 1987; Co-founder and Director of the Cooke Center for Learning and Development (a not-for-profit organization) since 1987; Director of Care Investment Trust, Inc. (health care real estate investment trust) from 2007 to 2010; Director of Enable Medical Corp. from 1996 to 2005; Investment Banker at Morgan Stanley from 1976 to 1987.	99 RICs consisting of 97 Portfolios	AtriCure, Inc. (medical devices)
Frank J. Fabozzi 55 East 52nd Street New York, NY 10055 1948	Director and Member of the Audit Committee	Since 2007	Consultant/Editor of The Journal of Portfolio Management since 2006; Professor in the Practice of Finance and Becton Fellow, Yale University, School of Management, since 2006; Adjunct Professor of Finance and Becton Fellow, Yale University from 1994 to 2006.	99 RICs consisting of 97 Portfolios	None
Kathleen F. Feldstein 55 East 52nd Street New York, NY 10055 1941	Director	Since 2007	President of Economics Studies, Inc. (private economic consulting firm) since 1987; Chair, Board of Trustees, McLean Hospital from 2000 to 2008 and Trustee Emeritus thereof since 2008; Member of the Board of Partners Community Healthcare, Inc. from 2005 to 2009; Member of the Corporation of Partners HealthCare since 1995; Trustee, Museum of Fine Arts, Boston since 1992; Member of the Visiting Committee to the Harvard University Art Museum since 2003; Director, Catholic Charities of Boston since 2009.	99 RICs consisting of 97 Portfolios	The McClatchy Company (publishing); BellSouth (telecommunications); Knight Ridder (publishing)
James T. Flynn 55 East 52nd Street New York, NY 10055 1939	Director and Member of the Audit Committee	Since 2007	Chief Financial Officer of JPMorgan & Co., Inc. from 1990 to 1995.	99 RICs consisting of 97 Portfolios	None
Jerrold B. Harris 55 East 52nd Street New York, NY 10055 1942	Director	Since 2007	Trustee, Ursinus College since 2000; Director, Troemner LLC (scientific equipment) since 2000; Director of Delta Waterfowl Foundation since 2001; President and Chief Executive Officer, VWR Scientific Products Corporation from 1990 to 1999.	99 RICs consisting of 97 Portfolios	BlackRock Kelso Capital Corp. (business development)

58 ANNUAL REPORT JULY 31, 2010

Officers and Directors (continued)

Name, Address and Year of Birth	Position(s) Held with Funds	Length of Time Served as a Director2	Principal Occupation(s) During Past Five Years	Number of BlackRock- Advised Registered Investment Companies (“RICs”) Consisting of Investment Portfolios (“Portfolios”) Overseen	Public Directorships
Non-Interested Directors1 (concluded)
R. Glenn Hubbard 55 East 52nd Street New York, NY 10055 1958	Director	Since 2007	Dean, Columbia Business School since 2004; Columbia faculty member since 1988; Co-Director, Columbia Business School’s Entrepreneurship Program from 1997 to 2004; Chairman, US Council of Economic Advisers under the President of the United States from 2001 to 2003; Chairman, Economic Policy Committee of the OECD from 2001 to 2003.	99 RICs consisting of 97 Portfolios	ADP (data and information services); KKR Financial Corporation (finance); Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (insurance)
W. Carl Kester 55 East 52nd Street New York, NY 10055 1951	Director and Member of the Audit Committee	Since 2007	George Fisher Baker Jr. Professor of Business Administration, Harvard Business School; Deputy Dean for Academic Affairs from 2006 to 2010; Unit Head, Finance, Harvard Business School from 2005 to 2006; Senior Associate Dean and Chairman of the MBA Program of Harvard Business School from 1999 to 2005; Member of the faculty of Harvard Business School since 1981; Independent Consultant since 1978.	99 RICs consisting of 97 Portfolios	None

1

Directors serve until their resignation, removal or death, or until December 31 of the year in which they turn 72.

2

Date shown is the earliest date a person has served for the Funds covered by this annual report. Following the combination of Merrill Lynch Investment Managers, L.P. (“MLIM”) and BlackRock, Inc. (“BlackRock”) in September 2006, the various legacy MLIM and legacy BlackRock Fund boards were realigned and consolidated into three new Fund boards in 2007. As a result, although the chart shows directors as joining the Fund’s board in 2007, each director first became a member of the board of directors of other legacy MLIM or legacy BlackRock Funds as follows: Richard E. Cavanagh, 1994; Frank J. Fabozzi, 1988; Kathleen F. Feldstein, 2005; James T. Flynn, 1996; Jerrold B. Harris, 1999; R. Glenn Hubbard, 2004; W. Carl Kester, 1995 and Karen P. Robards, 1998.

Interested Directors3
Richard S. Davis 55 East 52nd Street New York, NY 10055 1945	Director	Since 2007	Managing Director, BlackRock, Inc. since 2005; Chief Executive Officer, State Street Research & Management Company from 2000 to 2005; Chairman of the Board of Trustees, State Street Research Mutual Funds from 2000 to 2005.	169 RICs consisting of 292 Portfolios	None
Henry Gabbay 55 East 52nd Street New York, NY 10055 1947	Director	Since 2007	Consultant, BlackRock, Inc. from 2007 to 2008; Managing Director, BlackRock, Inc. from 1989 to 2007; Chief Administrative Officer, BlackRock Advisors, LLC from 1998 to 2007; President of BlackRock Funds and BlackRock Bond Allocation Target Shares from 2005 to 2007; Treasurer of certain closed-end funds in the BlackRock fund complex from 1989 to 2006.	169 RICs consisting of 292 Portfolios	None

³ Mr. Davis is an “interested person,” as defined in the Investment Company Act of 1940, of the Funds based on his positions with BlackRock, Inc. and its affiliates. Mr. Gabbay is an “interested person” of the Funds based on his former positions with BlackRock, Inc. and its affiliates as well as his ownership of BlackRock, Inc. and The PNC Financial Services Group, Inc. securities. Directors serve until their resignation, removal or death, or until December 31 of the year in which they turn 72.

ANNUAL REPORT JULY 31, 2010 59

Officers and Directors (concluded)

Name, Address and Year of Birth	Position(s) Held with Funds	Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During Past Five Years
Funds Officers1
Anne Ackerley 55 East 52nd Street New York, NY 10055 1962	President and Chief Executive Officer	Since 20092	Managing Director of BlackRock, Inc. since 2000; Vice President of the BlackRock-advised Funds from 2007 to 2009; Chief Operating Officer of BlackRock’s Global Client Group (GCG) since 2009; Chief Operating Officer of BlackRock’s US Retail Group from 2006 to 2009; Head of BlackRock’s Mutual Fund Group from 2000 to 2006.
Brendan Kyne 55 East 52nd Street New York, NY 10055 1977	Vice President	Since 2009	Managing Director of BlackRock, Inc. since 2010; Director of BlackRock, Inc. from 2008 to 2009; Head of Product Development and Management for BlackRock’s US Retail Group since 2009, Co-head thereof from 2007 to 2009; Vice President of BlackRock, Inc. from 2005 to 2008.
Neal Andrews 55 East 52nd Street New York, NY 10055 1966	Chief Financial Officer	Since 2007	Managing Director of BlackRock, Inc. since 2006; Senior Vice President and Line of Business Head of Fund Accounting and Administration at PNC Global Investment Servicing (US) Inc. from 1992 to 2006.
Jay Fife 55 East 52nd Street New York, NY 10055 1970	Treasurer	Since 2007	Managing Director of BlackRock, Inc. since 2007 and Director in 2006; Assistant Treasurer of the Merrill Lynch Investment Managers, L.P. (“MLIM”) and Fund Asset Management, L.P.-advised funds from 2005 to 2006; Director of MLIM Fund Services Group from 2001 to 2006.
Brian Kindelan 55 East 52nd Street New York, NY 10055 1959	Chief Compliance Officer	Since 2007	Chief Compliance Officer of the BlackRock-advised funds since 2007; Managing Director and Senior Counsel of BlackRock, Inc. since 2005; Director and Senior Counsel of BlackRock Advisors, LLC from 2001 to 2004.
Howard Surloff 55 East 52nd Street New York, NY 10055 1965	Secretary	Since 2007	Managing Director of BlackRock, Inc. and General Counsel of US Funds at BlackRock, Inc. since 2006; General Counsel (US) of Goldman Sachs Asset Management, L.P. from 1993 to 2006.

1	Officers of the Funds serve at the pleasure of the Board of Directors.
2	Ms. Ackerley has been President and Chief Executive Officer since 2009 and was Vice President from 2007 to 2009.

Investment Advisor

BlackRock Advisors, LLC

Wilmington, DE 19809

Sub-Advisor

BlackRock Investment Management, LLC

Plainsboro, NJ 08536

Custodians

State Street Bank and Trust Company³

Boston, MA 02101

The Bank of New York Mellon⁴

New York, NY 10286

Transfer Agents

Common Shares

Computershare Trust Company, N.A. ³

Providence, RI 02490

BNY Mellon Shareowner Services⁴

Jersey City, NJ 07310

Auction Agent

Preferred Shares

BNY Mellon Shareowner Services

Jersey City, NJ 07310

Accounting Agent

State Street Bank and Trust Company

Princeton, NJ 08540

Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

Deloitte & Touche LLP

Princeton, NJ 08540

Legal Counsel

Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP

New York, NY 10036

Address of the Funds

100 Bellevue Parkway

Wilmington, DE 19809

³ For MUE, MCA and MYI.

⁴ For MYM and MYN.

Effective March 31, 2010, G. Nicholas Beckwith, III, a Director of the Funds, resigned. The Funds’ Board extends its best wishes to Mr. Beckwith.

60 ANNUAL REPORT JULY 31, 2010

Additional Information

Board Approvals

On September 1, 2010, the Board of Directors (the “Boards”) of MUE, MCA, MYI, MYM and MYN (the “Funds”) have approved changes to certain investment policies of the Funds.

Historically, under normal market conditions, each Fund has been required to invest at least 80% of its assets in municipal bonds either (i) insured under an insurance policy purchased by the Fund or (ii) insured under an insurance policy obtained by the issuer of the municipal bond or any other party. In September 2008, the Funds adopted an amended investment policy of purchasing only municipal bonds insured by insurance providers with claims-paying abilities rated investment grade at the time of investment (the “Insurance Policy”).

Following the onset of the credit and liquidity crises, the claims-paying ability rating of most of the municipal bond insurance providers has been lowered by the rating agencies. These downgrades have called into question the long-term viability of the municipal bond insurance market, which has the potential to severely limit the ability of BlackRock Advisors, LLC, the Fund’s investment advisor (the “Manager”), to manage the Funds under the Insurance Policy.

As a result, on September 1, 2010, the Manager recommended, and the Boards approved, the removal of the Insurance Policy. As a result of this investment policy change, the Funds would not be required to dispose of assets currently held within the Funds. The Funds will maintain, and have no current intention to amend, their investment policy of, under normal market conditions, generally investing in municipal obligations rated investment grade at the time of investment.

As each Fund increases the amount of its assets that are invested in municipal obligations that are not insured, the Fund’s shareholders will be exposed to the risk of the failure of such securities’ issuers to pay interest and repay principal and will not have the benefit of protection provided under municipal bond insurance policies. As a result, shareholders will be more dependent on the analytical ability of the Manager to evaluate the credit quality of issuers of municipal obligations in which the Fund invests. The Boards believe that the amended investment policy is in the best interests of each Fund and its shareholders because it believes that the potential benefits from increased flexibility outweigh the potential increase in risk from the lack of insurance policies provided by weakened insurance providers. Of course, the new investment policy cannot assure that each Fund will achieve its investment objective.

As disclosed in each Fund’s prospectus, each Fund is required to provide shareholders 60 days notice of a change to the Insurance Policy. Accordingly, a notice describing the changes discussed above was mailed to shareholders of record as of September 1, 2010. The new investment policy is expected to take effect on November 9, 2010. After the amended policy takes effect, the Manager anticipates that it will gradually reposition each Fund’s portfolios over time, and that during such period, each Fund may continue to hold a substantial portion of its assets in insured municipal bonds. At this time, it is uncertain how long it may take to reposition each Fund’s portfolio once the amended policy takes effect, and the Funds may continue to be subject to risks associated with investing a substantial portion of their assets in insured municipal bonds until the repositioning is complete. No action is required by shareholders of the Funds in connection with this change.

In connection with this change in non-fundamental policy, each of the Funds will undergo a name change to reflect its new portfolio characteristics. The new names of the Funds will be announced at or prior to the expiration of the 60-day notice period. Each Fund will continue to trade on New York Stock Exchange under its current ticker symbol.

The approved changes will not alter any Fund’s investment objective.

Dividend Policy

The Funds’ dividend policy is to distribute all or a portion of their net investment income to their shareholders on a monthly basis. In order to provide shareholders with a more stable level of dividend distributions, the Funds may at times pay out less than the entire amount of net investment income earned in any particular month and may at times in any particular month pay out such accumulated but undistributed income in addition to net investment income earned in that month. As a result, the dividends paid by the Funds for any particular month may be more or less than the amount of net investment income earned by the Funds during such month. The Funds’ current accumulated but undistributed net investment income, if any, is disclosed in the Statements of Assets and Liabilities, which comprises part of the financial information included in this report.

ANNUAL REPORT JULY 31, 2010 61

Additional Information (continued)

General Information

On June 10, 2010, BlackRock Advisors, LLC, the Trusts’ investment advisor (the “Manager”), announced that MUE received a demand letter from a law firm on behalf of MUE’s common shareholders. The demand letter alleges that the Manager and MUE’s officers and Board of Directors (the “Board”) breached their fiduciary duties by redeeming at par certain of MUE’s Preferred Shares, and demanded that the Board take action to remedy those alleged breaches. In response to the demand letter, the Board established a Demand Review Committee (the “Committee”) of the independent Directors to investigate the claims made in the demand letter with the assistance of independent counsel. Based upon its investigation, the Committee recommended that the Board reject the demand specified in the demand letter. After reviewing the findings of the Committee, the Board unanimously adopted the Committee’s recommendation and unanimously voted to reject the demand.

On August 11, 2010, BlackRock Advisors, LLC, the Trusts’ investment advisor (the “Manager”), announced that a shareholder derivative complaint was filed on August 3, 2010 in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County with respect to MCA and MYI, which had previously received a demand letter from a law firm on behalf of each fund’s common shareholders. The complaint was filed against the Manager, BlackRock, Inc., MCA, MYI and certain of the directors, officers and portfolio managers (collectively, the “BlackRock Parties”) in connection with the redemption of auction-market preferred shares, auction rate preferred securities, auction preferred shares and auction rate securities (collectively, “AMPS”). The complaint alleges, among other things, that the BlackRock Parties breached their fiduciary duties to the common shareholders of MCA and MYI (the “Shareholders”) by redeeming AMPS at their liquidation preference and alleges that such redemptions caused losses to the Shareholders. The plaintiffs are seeking monetary damages for the alleged losses suffered and to enjoin MCA and MYI from future redemptions of AMPS at their liquidation preference. The BlackRock Parties believe that the claims asserted in the complaint are without merit and intend to vigorously defend themselves in the litigation.

Electronic Delivery

Electronic copies of most financial reports are available on the Funds’ website or shareholders can sign up for e-mail notifications of quarterly statements, annual and semi-annual reports by enrolling in the Funds’ electronic delivery program.

Shareholders Who Hold Accounts with Investment Advisors, Banks or Brokerages:

Please contact your financial advisor to enroll. Please note that not all investment advisors, banks or brokerages may offer this service.

Householding

The Funds will mail only one copy of shareholder documents, including annual and semi-annual reports and proxy statements, to shareholders with multiple accounts at the same address. This practice is commonly called “householding” and is intended to reduce expenses and eliminate duplicate mailings of shareholder documents. Mailings of your shareholder documents may be householded indefinitely unless you instruct us otherwise. If you do not want the mailing of these documents to be combined with those for other members of your household, please call (800) 441-7762.

Availability of Quarterly Portfolio Schedule of Investments

Each Fund files its complete schedule of portfolio holdings with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) for the first and third quarters of each fiscal year on Form N-Q. The Funds’ Forms N-Q are available on the SEC’s website at http://www.sec.gov and may also be reviewed and copied at the SEC’s Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. Information on the operation of the Public Reference Room may be obtained by calling (800) SEC-0330. Each Fund’s Forms N-Q may also be obtained upon request and without charge by calling (800) 441-7762.

Availability of Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures

A description of the policies and procedures that the Funds use to determine how to vote proxies relating to portfolio securities is available (1) without charge, upon request, by calling (800) 441-7762; (2) at http://www.blackrock.com; and (3) on the SEC’s website at http://www.sec.gov.

Availability of Proxy Voting Record

Information about how the Funds voted proxies relating to securities held in the Funds’ portfolios during the most recent 12-month period ended June 30 is available upon request and without charge (1) at http://www.blackrock.com or by calling (800) 441-7762 and (2) on the SEC’s website at http://www.sec.gov.

Fund Certification

The Funds are listed for trading on the New York Stock Exchange (“NYSE”) and have filed with the NYSE their annual chief executive officer certification regarding compliance with the NYSE’s listing standards. The Funds filed with the SEC the certification of their chief executive officer and chief financial officer required by section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act.

62 ANNUAL REPORT JULY 31, 2010

Additional Information (concluded)

BlackRock Privacy Principles

BlackRock is committed to maintaining the privacy of its current and former fund investors and individual clients (collectively, “Clients”) and to safeguarding their non-public personal information. The following information is provided to help you understand what personal information BlackRock collects, how we protect that information and why in certain cases we share such information with select parties.

If you are located in a jurisdiction where specific laws, rules or regulations require BlackRock to provide you with additional or different privacy-related rights beyond what is set forth below, then BlackRock will comply with those specific laws, rules or regulations.

BlackRock obtains or verifies personal non-public information from and about you from different sources, including the following: (i) information we receive from you or, if applicable, your financial intermediary, on applications, forms or other documents; (ii) information about your transactions with us, our affiliates, or others; (iii) information we receive from a consumer reporting agency; and (iv) from visits to our websites.

BlackRock does not sell or disclose to non-affiliated third parties any non-public personal information about its Clients, except as permitted by law or as is necessary to respond to regulatory requests or to service Client accounts. These non-affiliated third parties are required to protect the confidentiality and security of this information and to use it only for its intended purpose.

We may share information with our affiliates to service your account or to provide you with information about other BlackRock products or services that may be of interest to you. In addition, BlackRock restricts access to non-public personal information about its Clients to those BlackRock employees with a legitimate business need for the information. BlackRock maintains physical, electronic and procedural safeguards that are designed to protect the non-public personal information of its Clients, including procedures relating to the proper storage and disposal of such information.

ANNUAL REPORT JULY 31, 2010 63

This report is transmitted to shareholders only. It is not a prospectus. Past performance results shown in this report should not be considered a representation of future performance. The Funds have leveraged their Common Shares, which creates risks for Common Shareholders, including the likelihood of greater volatility of net asset value and market price of the Common Shares and the risk that fluctuations in the short-term dividend rates of the Preferred Shares, currently set at the maximum reset rate as a result of failed auctions, may reduce the Common Shares’ yield. Statements and other information herein are as dated and are subject to change.

#MHMYINS5-7/10

Item 2 –	Code of Ethics – The registrant (or the “Fund”) has adopted a code of ethics, as of the end of the period covered by this report, applicable to the registrant’s principal executive officer, principal financial officer and principal accounting officer, or persons performing similar functions. During the period covered by this report, there have been no amendments to or waivers granted under the code of ethics. A copy of the code of ethics is available without charge at www.blackrock.com.
Item 3 –	Audit Committee Financial Expert – The registrant’s board of directors or trustees, as applicable (the “board of directors”), has determined that (i) the registrant has the following audit committee financial experts serving on its audit committee and (ii) each audit committee financial expert is independent:
	Kent Dixon (retired effective December 31, 2009)
	Frank J. Fabozzi
	James T. Flynn
	W. Carl Kester
	Karen P. Robards
	The registrant’s board of directors has determined that W. Carl Kester and Karen P. Robards qualify as financial experts pursuant to Item 3(c)(4) of Form N-CSR.
	Prof. Kester has a thorough understanding of generally accepted accounting principles, financial statements and internal control over financial reporting as well as audit committee functions. Prof. Kester has been involved in providing valuation and other financial consulting services to corporate clients since 1978. Prof. Kester’s financial consulting services present a breadth and level of complexity of accounting issues that are generally comparable to the breadth and complexity of issues that can reasonably be expected to be raised by the registrant’s financial statements.
	Ms. Robards has a thorough understanding of generally accepted accounting principles, financial statements and internal control over financial reporting as well as audit committee functions. Ms. Robards has been President of Robards & Company, a financial advisory firm, since 1987. Ms. Robards was formerly an investment banker for more than 10 years where she was responsible for evaluating and assessing the performance of companies based on their financial results. Ms. Robards has over 30 years of experience analyzing financial statements. She also is a member of the audit committee of one publicly held company and a non-profit organization.
	Under applicable securities laws, a person determined to be an audit committee financial expert will not be deemed an “expert” for any purpose, including without limitation for the purposes of Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933, as a result of being designated or identified as an audit committee financial expert. The designation or identification as an audit committee financial expert does not impose on such person any duties, obligations, or liabilities greater than the duties, obligations, and liabilities imposed on such person as a member of the audit committee and board of directors in the absence of such designation or identification.

Item 4 – Principal Accountant Fees and Services

	(a) Audit Fees		(b) Audit-Related Fees1		(c) Tax Fees2		(d) All Other Fees3
Entity Name	Current Fiscal Year End	Previous Fiscal Year End	Current Fiscal Year End	Previous Fiscal Year End	Current Fiscal Year End	Previous Fiscal Year End	Current Fiscal Year End	Previous Fiscal Year End
BlackRock MuniYield Insured Fund, Inc.	$36,000	$39,200	$3,500	$3,500	$6,100	$6,100	$0	$1,028

1 The nature of the services include assurance and related services reasonably related to the performance of the audit of financial statements not included in Audit Fees.

2 The nature of the services include tax compliance, tax advice and tax planning.

3 The nature of the services include a review of compliance procedures and attestation thereto.

(e)(1) Audit Committee Pre-Approval Policies and Procedures:

The registrant’s audit committee (the “Committee”) has adopted policies and procedures with regard to the pre-approval of services. Audit, audit-related and tax compliance services provided to the registrant on an annual basis require specific pre-approval by the Committee. The Committee also must approve other non-audit services provided to the registrant and those non-audit services provided to the registrant’s affiliated service providers that relate directly to the operations and the financial reporting of the registrant. Certain of these non-audit services that the Committee believes are a) consistent with the SEC’s auditor independence rules and b) routine and recurring services that will not impair the independence of the independent accountants may be approved by the Committee without consideration on a specific case-by-case basis (“general pre-approval”). The term of any general pre-approval is 12 months from the date of the pre-approval, unless the Committee provides for a different period. Tax or other non-audit services provided to the registrant which have a direct impact on the operation or financial reporting of the registrant will only be deemed pre-approved provided that any individual project does not exceed $10,000 attributable to the registrant or $50,000 per project. For this purpose, multiple projects will be aggregated to determine if they exceed the previously mentioned cost levels.

Any proposed services exceeding the pre-approved cost levels will require specific pre-approval by the Committee, as will any other services not subject to general pre-approval (e.g., unanticipated but permissible services). The Committee is informed of each service approved subject to general pre-approval at the next regularly scheduled in-person board meeting. At this meeting, an analysis of such services is presented to the Committee for ratification. The Committee may delegate to the Committee Chairman the authority to approve the provision of and fees for any specific engagement of permitted non-audit services, including services exceeding pre-approved cost levels.

(e)(2) None of the services described in each of Items 4(b) through (d) were approved by the audit committee pursuant to paragraph (c)(7)(i)(C) of Rule 2-01 of Regulation S-X.

(f) Not Applicable

(g) Affiliates’ Aggregate Non-Audit Fees:

Entity Name	Current Fiscal Year End	Previous Fiscal Year End
BlackRock MuniYield Insured Fund, Inc.	$20,377	$413,128

	(h) The registrant’s audit committee has considered and determined that the provision of non-audit services that were rendered to the registrant’s investment adviser (not including any non-affiliated sub-adviser whose role is primarily portfolio management and is subcontracted with or overseen by the registrant’s investment adviser), and any entity controlling, controlled by, or under common control with the investment adviser that provides ongoing services to the registrant that were not pre-approved pursuant to paragraph (c)(7)(ii) of Rule 2-01 of Regulation S-X is compatible with maintaining the principal accountant’s independence.
	Regulation S-X Rule 2-01(c)(7)(ii) – $10,777, 0%
Item 5 –	Audit Committee of Listed Registrants

(a)	The following individuals are members of the registrant’s separately-designated standing audit committee established in accordance with Section 3(a)(58)(A) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(58)(A)):
	Kent Dixon (retired effective December 31, 2009)
	Frank J. Fabozzi
	James T. Flynn
	W. Carl Kester
	Karen P. Robards
(b)	Not Applicable

Item 6 –	Investments
	(a) The registrant’s Schedule of Investments is included as part of the Report to Stockholders filed under Item 1 of this Form.
	(b) Not Applicable due to no such divestments during the semi-annual period covered since the previous Form N-CSR filing.

Item 7 – Disclosure of Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures for Closed-End Management Investment Companies – The board of directors has delegated the voting of proxies for the Fund securities to the Fund’s investment adviser (“Investment Adviser”) pursuant to the Investment Adviser’s proxy voting guidelines. Under these guidelines, the Investment Adviser will vote proxies related to Fund securities in the best interests of the Fund and its stockholders. From time to time, a vote may present a conflict between the interests of the Fund’s stockholders, on the one hand, and those of the Investment Adviser, or any affiliated person of the Fund or the Investment Adviser, on the other. In such event, provided that the Investment Adviser’s Equity Investment Policy Oversight Committee, or a sub-committee thereof (the “Oversight Committee”) is aware of the real or potential conflict or material non-routine matter and if the Oversight Committee does not reasonably believe it is able to follow its general voting guidelines (or if the particular proxy matter is not addressed in the guidelines) and vote impartially, the Oversight Committee may retain an independent fiduciary to advise the Oversight Committee on how to vote or to cast votes on behalf of the Investment Adviser’s clients. If the Investment Adviser determines not to retain an independent fiduciary, or does not desire to follow the advice of such independent fiduciary, the Oversight Committee shall

determine how to vote the proxy after consulting with the Investment Adviser’s Portfolio Management Group and/or the Investment Adviser’s Legal and Compliance Department and concluding that the vote cast is in its client’s best interest notwithstanding the conflict. A copy of the Fund’s Proxy Voting Policy and Procedures are attached as Exhibit 99.PROXYPOL. Information on how the Fund voted proxies relating to portfolio securities during the most recent 12-month period ended June 30 is available without charge, (i) at www.blackrock.com and (ii) on the SEC’s website at http://www.sec.gov.

Item 8 –

Portfolio Managers of Closed-End Management Investment Companies – as of July 31, 2010.

(a)(1) The registrant is managed by a team of investment professionals comprised of Michael Kalinoski, Director at BlackRock, Inc., Theodore R. Jaeckel, Jr., CFA, Managing Director at BlackRock, Inc., and Walter O’Connor, Managing Director at BlackRock, Inc. Each is a member of BlackRock, Inc.’s municipal tax-exempt management group. Each is jointly responsible for the day-to-day management of the registrant’s portfolio, which includes setting the registrant’s overall investment strategy, overseeing the management of the registrant and/or selection of its investments. Messrs. Kalinoski, Jaeckel and O’Connor have been members of the registrant’s portfolio management team since 2008, 2006 and 2006, respectively.

Portfolio Manager	Biography
Michael Kalinoski	Director of BlackRock, Inc. since 2006; Director of Merrill Lynch Investment Managers, L.P. (“MLIM”) from 1999 to 2006.
Theodore R. Jaeckel, Jr.	Managing Director at BlackRock, Inc. since 2006; Managing Director of MLIM from 2005 to 2006; Director of MLIM from 1997 to 2005.
Walter O’Connor	Managing Director of BlackRock, Inc. since 2006; Managing Director of MLIM from 2003 to 2006; Director of MLIM from 1998 to 2003.

(a)(2) As of April 30, 2010:

	(ii) Number of Other Accounts Managed and Assets by Account Type			(iii) Number of Other Accounts and Assets for Which Advisory Fee is Performance-Based
(i) Name of Portfolio Manager	Other Registered Investment Companies	Other Pooled Investment Vehicles	Other Accounts	Other Registered Investment Companies	Other Pooled Investment Vehicles	Other Accounts
Michael Kalinoski	6	0	0	0	0	0
	$2.30 Billion	$0	$0	$0	$0	$0
Theodore R. Jaeckel, Jr.	72	0	0	0	0	0
	$19.32 Billion	$0	$0	$0	$0	$0
Walter O’Connor	72	0	0	0	0	0
	$19.32 Billion	$0	$0	$0	$0	$0

(iv) Potential Material Conflicts of Interest

BlackRock and its affiliates (collectively, herein “BlackRock”) has built a professional working environment, firm-wide compliance culture and compliance procedures and systems designed to protect against potential incentives that may favor one account over another. BlackRock has adopted policies and procedures that address the allocation of investment opportunities, execution of portfolio transactions, personal trading by employees and other potential conflicts of interest that are designed to ensure that all client accounts are treated equitably over time. Nevertheless, BlackRock furnishes investment management and advisory services to numerous clients in addition to the Fund, and BlackRock may, consistent with applicable law, make investment recommendations to other clients or accounts (including accounts which are hedge funds or have performance or higher fees paid to BlackRock, or in which portfolio managers have a personal interest in the receipt of such fees), which may be the same as or different from those made to the Fund.  In addition, BlackRock, its affiliates and significant shareholders and any officer, director, stockholder or employee may or may not have an interest in the securities whose purchase and sale BlackRock recommends to the Fund.  BlackRock, or any of its affiliates or significant shareholders, or any officer, director, stockholder, employee or any member of their families may take different actions than those recommended to the Fund by BlackRock with respect to the same securities.  Moreover, BlackRock may refrain from rendering any advice or services concerning securities of companies of which any of BlackRock’s (or its affiliates’ or significant shareholders’) officers, directors or employees are directors or officers, or companies as to which BlackRock or any of its affiliates or significant shareholders or the officers, directors and employees of any of them has any substantial economic interest or possesses material non-public information.  Each portfolio manager also may manage accounts whose investment strategies may at times be opposed to the strategy utilized for a fund.  In this connection, it should be noted that a portfolio manager may currently manage certain accounts that are subject to performance fees.  In addition, a portfolio manager may assist in managing certain hedge funds and may be entitled to receive a portion of any incentive fees earned on such funds and a portion of such incentive fees may be voluntarily or involuntarily deferred.  Additional portfolio managers may in the future manage other such accounts or funds and may be entitled to receive incentive fees.

As a fiduciary, BlackRock owes a duty of loyalty to its clients and must treat each client fairly.  When BlackRock purchases or sells securities for more than one account, the trades must be allocated in a manner consistent with its fiduciary duties.  BlackRock attempts to allocate investments in a fair and equitable manner among client accounts, with no account receiving preferential treatment.  To this end, BlackRock has adopted a policy that is intended to ensure that investment opportunities are allocated fairly and equitably among client accounts over time.  This policy also seeks to achieve reasonable efficiency in client transactions and provide BlackRock with sufficient flexibility to allocate investments in a manner that is consistent with the particular investment discipline and client base.

(a)(3) As of July 31, 2010:

Portfolio Manager Compensation Overview

BlackRock’s financial arrangements with its portfolio managers, its competitive compensation and its career path emphasis at all levels reflect the value senior management places on key resources. Compensation may include a variety of components and may vary from year to year based on a number of factors. The principal components of compensation include a base salary, a performance-based discretionary bonus, participation in various benefits programs and one or more of the incentive compensation programs established by BlackRock such as its Long-Term Retention and Incentive Plan and Restricted Stock Program.

Base compensation.Generally, portfolio managers receive base compensation based on their seniority and/or their position with the firm. Senior portfolio managers who perform additional management functions within the portfolio management group or within BlackRock may receive additional compensation for serving in these other capacities.

Discretionary Incentive Compensation

Discretionary incentive compensation is a function of several components: the performance of BlackRock, Inc., the performance of the portfolio manager’s group within BlackRock, the investment performance, including risk-adjusted returns, of the firm’s assets under management or supervision by that portfolio manager relative to predetermined benchmarks, and the individual’s seniority, role within the portfolio management team, teamwork and contribution to the overall performance of these portfolios and BlackRock.  In most cases, including for the portfolio managers of the Fund, these benchmarks are the same as the benchmark or benchmarks against which the performance of the Fund or other accounts managed by the portfolio managers are measured. BlackRock’s Chief Investment Officers determine the benchmarks against which the performance of funds and other accounts managed by each portfolio manager is compared and the period of time over which performance is evaluated.  With respect to the portfolio managers, such benchmarks include a combination of market-based indices (e.g., Barclays Capital Municipal Bond Index), certain customized indices and certain fund industry peer groups.

BlackRock’s Chief Investment Officers make a subjective determination with respect to the portfolio managers’ compensation based on the performance of the funds and other accounts managed by each portfolio manager relative to the various benchmarks noted above.  Performance is measured on both a pre-tax and after-tax basis over various time periods including 1, 3, 5 and 10-year periods, as applicable. 

Distribution of Discretionary Incentive Compensation

Discretionary incentive compensation is distributed to portfolio managers in a combination of cash and BlackRock, Inc. restricted stock units which vest ratably over a number of years. The BlackRock, Inc. restricted stock units, if properly vested, will be settled in BlackRock, Inc. common stock. Typically, the cash bonus, when combined with base salary, represents more than 60% of total compensation for the portfolio managers. Paying a portion of annual bonuses in stock puts compensation earned by a portfolio manager for a given year “at risk” based on BlackRock’s ability to sustain and improve its performance over future periods.

Long-Term Retention and Incentive Plan (“LTIP”) — From time to time long-term incentive equity awards are granted to certain key employees to aid in retention, align their interests with long-term shareholder interests and motivate performance.  Equity awards are generally granted in the form of BlackRock, Inc. restricted stock units that, once vested, settle in BlackRock, Inc. common stock. Messrs. Jaeckel and O’Connor have each received awards under the LTIP.

Deferred Compensation Program — A portion of the compensation paid to eligible BlackRock employees may be voluntarily deferred into an account that tracks the performance of certain of the firm’s investment products. Each participant in the deferred compensation program is permitted to allocate his deferred amounts among the various investment options. Messrs. Kalinoski, Jaeckel and O’Connor have each participated in the deferred compensation program.

Other compensation benefits. In addition to base compensation and discretionary incentive compensation, portfolio managers may be eligible to receive or participate in one or more of the following:

Incentive Savings Plans — BlackRock, Inc. has created a variety of incentive savings plans in which BlackRock employees are eligible to participate, including a 401(k) plan, the BlackRock Retirement Savings Plan (RSP), and the BlackRock Employee Stock Purchase Plan (ESPP). The employer contribution components of the RSP include a company match equal to 50% of the first 6% of eligible pay contributed to the plan capped at $4,000 per year, and a company retirement contribution equal to 3-5% of eligible compensation.  The RSP offers a range of investment options, including registered investment companies managed by the firm. BlackRock contributions follow the investment direction set by participants for their own contributions or, absent employee investment direction, are invested into a balanced portfolio.  The ESPP allows for investment in BlackRock common stock at a 5% discount on the fair market value of the stock on the purchase date.  Annual participation in the ESPP is limited to the purchase of 1,000 shares or a dollar value of $25,000.  Each portfolio manager is eligible to participate in these plans.

(a)(4) Beneficial Ownership of Securities – As of July 31, 2010.

Portfolio Manager	Dollar Range of Equity Securities Beneficially Owned
Michael Kalinoski	None
Theodore R. Jaeckel, Jr.	$1 - $10,000
Walter O’Connor	None

(b) Not Applicable

Item 9 –	Purchases of Equity Securities by Closed-End Management Investment Company and Affiliated Purchasers – Not Applicable due to no such purchases during the period covered by this report.
Item 10 –	On September 17, 2010, the Board of Directors of the Fund amended and restated in its entirety the bylaws of the Fund (the "Amended and Restated Bylaws"). The Amended and Restated Bylaws were deemed effective as of September 17, 2010 and set forth, among other things, the processes and procedures that shareholders of the Fund must follow, and specifies additional information that shareholders of the Fund must provide, when proposing director nominations at any annual meeting or special meeting in lieu of an annual meeting or other business to be considered at an annual meeting or special meeting.
Item 11 –	Controls and Procedures
11(a) –	The registrant’s principal executive and principal financial officers or persons performing similar functions have concluded that the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Rule 30a-3(c) under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “1940 Act”)) are effective as of a date within 90 days of the filing of this report based on the evaluation of these controls and procedures required by Rule 30a-3(b) under the 1940 Act and Rule 13a-15(b) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

11(b) –	There were no changes in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Rule 30a-3(d) under the 1940 Act) that occurred during the second fiscal quarter of the period covered by this report that have materially affected, or are reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.
Item 12 –	Exhibits attached hereto
12(a)(1) –	Code of Ethics – See Item 2
12(a)(2) –	Certifications – Attached hereto
12(a)(3) –	Not Applicable
12(b) –	Certifications – Attached hereto

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the Investment Company Act of 1940, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.
BlackRock MuniYield Insured Fund, Inc.
By:	/s/ Anne F. Ackerley
	Anne F. Ackerley
	Chief Executive Officer of
	BlackRock MuniYield Insured Fund, Inc.
Date: October 6, 2010
Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the Investment Company Act of 1940, this report has been signed below by the following persons on behalf of the registrant and in the capacities and on the dates indicated.
By:	/s/ Anne F. Ackerley
	Anne F. Ackerley
	Chief Executive Officer (principal executive officer) of
	BlackRock MuniYield Insured Fund, Inc.
Date: October 6, 2010
By:	/s/ Neal J. Andrews
	Neal J. Andrews
	Chief Financial Officer (principal financial officer) of
	BlackRock MuniYield Insured Fund, Inc.
Date: October 6, 2010

EX-99.CERT

EX-99. CERT

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 30a-2(a) UNDER THE 1940 ACT AND SECTION 302 OF
THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Anne F. Ackerley, Chief Executive Officer (principal executive officer) of BlackRock MuniYield Insured Fund, Inc., certify that:

1. I have reviewed this report on Form N-CSR of BlackRock MuniYield Insured Fund, Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations, changes in net assets, and cash flows (if the financial statements are required to include a statement of cash flows) of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Rule 30a-3(c) under the Investment Company Act of 1940) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Rule 30a-3(d) under the Investment Company Act of 1940) for the registrant and have:

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

b) designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;

c) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this report, based on such evaluation; and

d) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the second fiscal quarter of the period covered by this report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize, and report financial information; and

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting.

Date: October 6, 2010

/s/ Anne F. Ackerley

Anne F. Ackerley

Chief Executive Officer (principal executive officer) of

BlackRock MuniYield Insured Fund, Inc.

EX-99. CERT

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 30a-2(a) UNDER THE 1940 ACT AND SECTION 302 OF
THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Neal J. Andrews, Chief Financial Officer (principal financial officer) of BlackRock MuniYield Insured Fund, Inc., certify that:

1. I have reviewed this report on Form N-CSR of BlackRock MuniYield Insured Fund, Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations, changes in net assets, and cash flows (if the financial statements are required to include a statement of cash flows) of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Rule 30a-3(c) under the Investment Company Act of 1940) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Rule 30a-3(d) under the Investment Company Act of 1940) for the registrant and have:

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

b) designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;

c) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this report, based on such evaluation; and

d) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the second fiscal quarter of the period covered by this report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize, and report financial information; and

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting.

Date: October 6, 2010

/s/ Neal J. Andrews

Neal J. Andrews

Chief Financial Officer (principal financial officer) of

BlackRock MuniYield Insured Fund, Inc.

EX-99.906CERT

Exhibit 99.1350CERT

Certification Pursuant to Rule 30a-2(b) under the 1940 Act and

Section 906 of the Sarbanes Oxley Act

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, the undersigned officer of BlackRock MuniYield Insured Fund, Inc. (the “Registrant”), hereby certifies, to the best of her knowledge, that the Registrant’s Report on Form N-CSR for the period ended July 31, 2010 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.

Date: October 6, 2010

/s/ Anne F. Ackerley

Anne F. Ackerley

Chief Executive Officer (principal executive officer) of

BlackRock MuniYield Insured Fund, Inc.

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, the undersigned officer of BlackRock MuniYield Insured Fund, Inc. (the “Registrant”), hereby certifies, to the best of his knowledge, that the Registrant’s Report on Form N-CSR for the period ended July 31, 2010 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.

Date: October 6, 2010

/s/ Neal J. Andrews

Neal J. Andrews

Chief Financial Officer (principal financial officer) of

BlackRock MuniYield Insured Fund, Inc.

This certification is being furnished pursuant to Rule 30a-2(b) under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended, and 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Form N-CSR with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

EX-99.PROXYPOL

Global corporate
governance &
engagement principles

December 2009

Table of contents

1. INTRODUCTION TO BLACKROCK 1

2. PHILOSOPHY ON CORPORATE GOVERNACE 1

3. CORPORATE GOVERNANCE, ENGAGEMENT AND VOTING 2

Boards and directors 3

Accounting and audit-related issues 5

Capital structure, merger, asset sales and other special transactions 6

Remuneration and benefits 6

Social, ethical, and environmental issues 7

General corporate governance matters 8

4. BLACKROCK’S OVERSIGHT OF ITS CORPORATE GOVERNANCE ACTIVITIES 8

Oversight 8

Vote execution 9

Conflicts management 10

Voting guidelines 12

Reporting 12

BLACKROCK

GLOBAL CORPORATE GOVERNANCE & ENGAGEMENT
PRINCIPLES

1. INTRODUCTION TO BLACKROCK

BlackRock is the world’s preeminent asset management firm and a premier provider of global investment management, risk management and advisory services to institutional and individual clients around the world. With more than $3.3 trillion¹ in assets under management, BlackRock offers a wide range of investment strategies and product structures to meet clients’ needs, including individual and institutional separate accounts, mutual funds, and other pooled investment vehicles and the industry-leading iShares exchange traded funds. Through BlackRock Solutions®, we offer risk management, strategic advisory and enterprise investment system services to a broad base of clients with portfolios totaling approximately US$7.25 trillion.¹

2. PHILOSOPHY ON CORPORATE GOVERNACE

BlackRock’s corporate governance program is focused on protecting and enhancing the economic value of the companies in which it invests on behalf of clients. We do this through engagement with boards and management of investee companies and, for those clients who have given us authority, through voting at shareholder meetings.

We believe that there are certain fundamental rights attached to share ownership: companies should be accountable to shareholders for the use of their money, companies and their boards should be structured with appropriate checks and balances to ensure that they operate in shareholders’ interests, effective voting rights are central to the rights of ownership and there should be one vote for one share. Key elements of shareholder protection include protection against excessive dilution, the election of directors and the appointment of auditors. Specifically, shareholders should have the right to elect, remove and nominate directors and to amend the corporate charter or by-laws. Shareholders should also be able to vote on matters that are material to the protection of their investment including but not limited to changes to the purpose of the business, the distribution of income and the capital structure. In order to exercise these rights in their own best interests, we believe shareholders have the right to sufficient and timely information to be able to take an informed view of the performance of the company and management.

__________________________

1 Data is as of September 30, 2009, is subject to change, and is based on a pro forma estimate of assets under management at BlackRock, Inc. and Barclays Global Investors, N.A.

BlackRock global corporate governance & engagement principles

Our focus is on the board of directors, as the agents of shareholders, who should set the company’s strategic aims within a framework of prudent and effective controls which enables risk to be assessed and managed. The board should provide direction and leadership to the management and oversee their performance. Our starting position is to be supportive of boards in their oversight efforts on our behalf and the items of business they put to a shareholder vote at shareholder meetings. Votes against or withheld from resolutions proposed by the board are a signal that we are concerned that the directors or management have either not acted in the interests of shareholders or have not responded adequately to shareholder concerns communicated to it regarding the strategy or management of a company.

These principles set out our approach to engaging with companies, provide guidance on our position on the key aspects of corporate governance and outline how these might be reflected in our voting decisions. Corporate governance practices vary internationally and our expectations in relation to individual companies are based on the legal and regulatory framework of each market. However, we do believe that there are some overarching principles of corporate governance that apply globally. We assess voting matters on a case-by-case basis and in light of a company’s unique circumstances. We are interested to understand from the company’s reporting the approach taken, particularly where it is different from the usual market practice and to understand how it benefits shareholders.

BlackRock also believes that shareholders are responsible for exercising oversight of, and promoting due care in, the stewardship of their investment in a company. These ownership responsibilities include, in our view, engaging in certain circumstances with management or board members on corporate governance matters, voting proxies in the best long-term economic interests of shareholders and engaging with regulatory bodies to ensure a sound policy framework consistent with promoting long-term shareholder value creation. Institutional shareholders also have responsibilities to their clients to have appropriate resources and oversight structures. BlackRock’s approach to oversight in relation to its corporate governance activities is set out in section 4.

3. CORPORATE GOVERNANCE, ENGAGEMENT AND VOTING

We recognize that accepted standards of corporate governance differ between markets but we believe that there are sufficient common threads globally to identify an overarching set of principles. The primary objective of our corporate governance activities is the protection and enhancement of our

2

BlackRock global corporate governance & engagement principles

clients’ investments in public corporations. Thus, these principles focus on practices and structures that we consider to be supportive of long-term value creation. We discuss below the principles under six key themes. In our regional and market-specific voting guidelines we explain how these principles inform our voting decisions in relation to specific resolutions that may appear on the agenda of a shareholder meeting in the relevant market.

The six key themes are:

• Boards and directors

• Accounting and audit-related issues

• Capital structure, mergers, asset sales and other special transactions

• Remuneration and benefits

• Social, ethical and environmental issues

• General corporate governance matters

At a minimum we would expect companies to observe the accepted corporate governance standard in their domestic market or to explain why doing so is not in the interests of shareholders. Where company reporting and disclosure is inadequate or the approach taken is inconsistent with our view of what is in the best interests of shareholders we will engage with the company and/or use our vote to encourage better practice. In making voting decisions, we take into account research from external proxy advisors, other internal and external research and academic articles, information published by the company or provided through engagement and the views of our equity portfolio managers.

BlackRock views engagement as an important activity; engagement provides BlackRock with the opportunity to improve our understanding of investee companies and their governance structures, so that our voting decisions may be better informed. Engagement also allows us to share our philosophy and approach to investment and corporate governance with issuers to enhance their understanding of our objectives. There are a range of approaches we may take in engaging companies depending on the nature of the issue under consideration, the company and the market.

Boards and directors

The performance of the board is critical to the economic success of the company and to the protection of shareholders’ interests. Board members serve as agents of shareholders in overseeing the operation and strategic direction of the company. For this reason, BlackRock focuses on directors in many of its engagements and sees the election of directors as one of its most important responsibilities in the proxy voting context.

3

BlackRock global corporate governance & engagement principles

We expect the board of directors to promote and protect shareholder interests by:

• establishing an appropriate corporate governance structure;

• overseeing and supporting management in setting strategy;

• ensuring the integrity of financial statements;

• making decisions regarding mergers, acquisitions and disposals;

• establishing appropriate executive compensation structures; and

• addressing business issues including social, ethical and environmental issues when they have the potential to materially impact company reputation and performance.

There should be clear definitions of the role of the board, the sub-committees of the board and the senior management such that the responsibilities of each are well understood and accepted. Companies should report publicly the approach taken to governance (including in relation to board structure) and why this approach is in the interest of shareholders. We will engage with the appropriate directors where we have concerns about the performance of the board or the company, the broad strategy of the company or the performance of individual board members. Concerns about individual board directors may include their membership on the board of a different company where that board has performed poorly and failed to protect shareholder interests.

BlackRock believes that directors should stand for re-election on a regular basis. We assess directors nominated for election or re-election in the context of the composition of the board as a whole. There should be detailed disclosure of the relevant credentials of the individual directors in order that shareholders can assess the caliber of an individual nominee. We expect there to be a sufficient number of independent directors on the board to ensure the protection of the interests of all shareholders. Common impediments to independence include but are not limited to:

• current employment at the company or a subsidiary;

• former employment within the past several years as an executive of the company;

• providing substantial professional services to the company and/or members of the company’s management;

• having had a substantial business relationship in the past three years;

• having, or representing a shareholder with, a substantial shareholding in the company;

• being an immediate family member of any of the aforementioned; and

• interlocking directorships.

BlackRock believes that the operation of the board is enhanced when there is a clearly independent, senior non-executive director to lead it. Where the chairman is also the CEO or is otherwise not

4

BlackRock global corporate governance & engagement principles

independent the company should have an independent lead director. The role of this director is to enhance the effectiveness of the independent members of the board through shaping the agenda, ensuring adequate information is provided to the board and encouraging independent participation in board deliberations. The lead independent board director should be available to shareholders where they have concerns that they wish to discuss.

To ensure that the board remains effective, regular reviews of board performance should be carried out and assessments made of gaps in skills or experience amongst the members. BlackRock believes it is beneficial for new directors to be brought onto the board periodically to refresh the group’s thinking and to ensure both continuity and adequate succession planning. We believe that directors are in the best position to assess the optimal size for the board but we would be concerned if a board seemed too small to have an appropriate balance of directors or too large to be effective.

There are matters for which the board has responsibility that may involve a conflict of interest for executives or for affiliated directors. BlackRock believes that shareholders’ interests are best served when the independent members of the board form a sub-committee to deal with such matters. In many markets, these sub-committees of the board specialize in audit, director nominations and compensation matters. An ad hoc committee might also be formed to decide on a special transaction, particularly one with a related party.

Accounting and audit-related issues

BlackRock recognizes the critical importance of financial statements which provide a complete and accurate picture of a company’s financial condition. We will hold the members of the audit committee or equivalent responsible for overseeing the management of the audit function. We take particular note of cases involving significant financial restatements or ad hoc notifications of material financial weakness.

The integrity of financial statements depends on the auditor being free of any impediments to being an effective check on management. To that end, we believe it is important that auditors are, and are seen to be, independent. Where the audit firm provides services to the company in addition to the audit the fees earned should be disclosed and explained. Audit committees should also have in place a procedure for assuring annually the independence of the auditor.

5

BlackRock global corporate governance & engagement principles

Capital structure, merger, asset sales and other special transactions

The capital structure of a company is critical to its owners, the shareholders, as it impacts the value of their investment and the priority of their interest in the company relative to that of other equity or debt investors. Pre-emption rights are a key protection for shareholders against the dilution of their interests.

In assessing mergers, asset sales or other special transactions, BlackRock’s primary consideration is the long-term economic interests of shareholders. Boards proposing a transaction need to clearly explain the economic and strategic rationale behind it. We will review the transaction to determine the degree to which the proposed transaction enhances long term shareholder value. We would prefer that such transactions have the unanimous support of the board and have been negotiated at arm’s length. We may seek reassurance from the board that executive and/or board members’ financial interests in a given transaction have not affected their ability to place shareholders’ interests before their own. Where the transaction does involve related parties we would expect the recommendation to support it to come from the independent directors and would prefer only non-conflicted shareholders to vote on the proposal.

BlackRock believes that shareholders have a right to dispose of company shares in the open market without unnecessary restriction. In our view, corporate mechanisms designed to limit shareholders’ ability to sell their shares are contrary to basic property rights. Such mechanisms can serve to protect and entrench interests other than those of the shareholders. We believe that shareholders are broadly capable of making decisions in their own best interests. We would expect any so-called ‘shareholder rights plans’ being proposed by a board to be subject to shareholder approval on introduction and periodically thereafter for continuation.

Remuneration and benefits

BlackRock expects a company’s board of directors to put in place a compensation structure that incentivizes and rewards executives appropriately and is aligned with shareholder interests. We would expect the compensation committee to take into account the specific circumstances of the company and the key individuals the board is trying to incentivize. We encourage companies to ensure that their compensation packages incorporate appropriate and challenging performance conditions consistent with corporate strategy and market practice. We use third party research, in addition to our own analysis, to evaluate existing and proposed compensation structures. We hold members of the compensation committee or equivalent accountable for poor compensation practices or structures.

6

BlackRock global corporate governance & engagement principles

BlackRock believes that there should be a clear link between variable pay and company performance as reflected in returns to shareholders. We are not supportive of one-off or special bonuses unrelated to company or individual performance. We support incentive plans that payout rewards earned over multiple and extended time periods. We believe consideration should be given to building claw back provisions into incentive plans such that executives would be required to repay rewards where they were not justified by actual performance. Compensation committees should guard against contractual arrangements that would entitle executives to material compensation for early termination of their contract. Finally, pension contributions should be reasonable in light of market practice.

Outside directors should be compensated in a manner that does not risk compromising their independence or aligning their interests too closely with those of the management, whom they are charged with overseeing.

Social, ethical, and environmental issues

Our fiduciary duty to clients is to protect and enhance their economic interest in the companies in which we invest on their behalf. It is within this context that we undertake our corporate governance activities. We believe that well-managed companies will deal effectively with the social, ethical and environmental (SEE) aspects of their businesses.

BlackRock expects companies to identify and report on the key, business-specific SEE risks and opportunities and to explain how these are managed. This explanation should make clear how the approach taken by the company best serves the interests of shareholders and protects and enhances the long-term economic value of the company. The key performance indicators in relation to SEE matters should also be disclosed and performance against them discussed, along with any peer group benchmarking and verification processes in place. This helps shareholders assess how well management are dealing with the SEE aspects of the business. Any global standards adopted should also be disclosed and discussed in this context.

We may vote against the election of directors where we have concerns that a company might not be dealing with SEE issues appropriately. Sometimes we may reflect such concerns by supporting a shareholder proposal on the issue, where there seems to be either a significant potential threat or realized harm to shareholders’ interests caused by poor management of SEE matters. In deciding our course of action, we will assess whether the company has already taken sufficient steps to address the concern and whether there is a clear and substantial economic disadvantage to the company if the issue is not addressed.

7

BlackRock global corporate governance & engagement principles

More commonly, given that these are often not voting issues, we will engage directly with the board or management. The trigger for engagement on a particular SEE concern is our assessment that there is potential for material economic ramifications for shareholders.

We do not see it as our role to make social, ethical or political judgments on behalf of clients. We expect investee companies to comply, as a minimum, with the laws and regulations of the jurisdictions in which they operate. They should explain how they manage situations where such laws or regulations are contradictory or ambiguous.

General corporate governance matters

BlackRock believes that shareholders have a right to timely and detailed information on the financial performance and situation of the companies in which they invest. In addition, companies should also publish information on the governance structures in place and the rights of shareholders to influence these. The reporting and disclosure provided by companies forms the basis on which shareholders can assess the extent to which the economic interests of shareholders have been protected and enhanced and the quality of the board’s oversight of management. BlackRock considers as fundamental, shareholders’ rights to vote, including on changes to governance mechanisms, to submit proposals to the shareholders’ meeting and to call special meetings of shareholders.

4. BLACKROCK'S OVERSIGHT OF ITS CORPORATE GOVERNANCE ACTIVITIES

Oversight

BlackRock holds itself to a very high standard in its corporate governance activities, including in relation to executing proxy votes. The Global Corporate Governance Group reports in to the equity business and is considered an investment function. BlackRock maintains regional oversight committees (“corporate governance committees”) for the Americas, Europe, Asia ex-Japan, Japan, and Australia/New Zealand, consisting of senior BlackRock investment professionals. All the regional committees report up to the Global Corporate Governance Committee which is composed of the Chair and Vice-Chair of each regional committee. The committees review and approve amendments to the BlackRock Guidelines and grant authority to the Global Head of Corporate Governance (“Global Head”), a dedicated BlackRock employee without sales responsibilities, to vote in accordance with the Guidelines. The Global Head leads a team of dedicated BlackRock employees without sales responsibilities (“Corporate Governance Group”) to carry out engagement, voting and vote operations in a manner consistent with the committees’ mandate. The Corporate Governance Group engages companies in conjunction with the portfolio managers in discussions of significant governance issues,

8

BlackRock global corporate governance & engagement principles

conducts research on corporate governance issues and participates in industry discussions to keep abreast of the field of corporate governance. The Corporate Governance Group, or vendors overseen by the Corporate Governance Group, also monitor upcoming proxy votes, execute proxy votes and maintain records of votes cast. The Corporate Governance Group may refer complicated or particularly controversial matters or discussions to the appropriate investors and/or regional Corporate Governance Committees for their review, discussion and guidance prior to making a voting decision. The Committees likewise retain the authority to, among other things, deliberate or otherwise act directly on specific proxies as they deem appropriate. BlackRock's Equity Investment Portfolio Oversight Committee (EIPOC) oversees certain aspects of the Global Corporate Governance Committee and the corporate governance function’s activities.

Vote execution

BlackRock carefully considers proxies submitted to funds and other fiduciary accounts (“Funds”) for which it has voting authority. BlackRock votes (or refrains from voting) proxies for each Fund for which it has voting authority based on BlackRock’s evaluation of the best long-term economic interests of shareholders, in the exercise of its independent business judgment, and without regard to the relationship of the issuer of the proxy (or any dissident shareholder) to the Fund, the Fund’s affiliates (if any), BlackRock or BlackRock’s affiliates.

When exercising voting rights, BlackRock will normally vote on specific proxy issues in accordance with its proxy voting guidelines (“Guidelines”) for the relevant market. The Guidelines are reviewed regularly and are amended consistent with changes in the local market practice, as developments in corporate governance occur, or as otherwise deemed advisable by BlackRock’s Corporate Governance Committees. The committees may, in the exercise of their business judgment, conclude that the Guidelines do not cover the specific matter upon which a proxy vote is requested or that an exception to the Guidelines would be in the best long-term economic interests of BlackRock’s clients. In certain markets, proxy voting involves logistical issues which can affect BlackRock’s ability to vote such proxies, as well as the desirability of voting such proxies. These issues include but are not limited to: (i) untimely notice of shareholder meetings; (ii) restrictions on a foreigner’s ability to exercise votes; (iii) requirements to vote proxies in person; (iv) “shareblocking” (requirements that investors who exercise their voting rights surrender the right to dispose of their holdings for some specified period in proximity to the shareholder meeting); (v) potential difficulties in translating the proxy; and (vi) requirements to provide local agents with unrestricted powers of attorney to facilitate voting instructions. We are not supportive of impediments to the exercise of voting rights such as shareblocking or overly burdensome administrative requirements.

9

BlackRock global corporate governance & engagement principles

As a consequence, BlackRock votes proxies in these markets only on a “best-efforts” basis. In addition, the Corporate Governance Committees may determine that it is generally in the best interests of BlackRock clients not to vote proxies of companies in certain countries if the committee determines that the costs (including but not limited to opportunity costs associated with shareblocking constraints) associated with exercising a vote are expected to outweigh the benefit the client will derive by voting on the issuer’s proposal.

While it is expected that BlackRock, as a fiduciary, will generally seek to vote proxies over which BlackRock exercises voting authority in a uniform manner for all BlackRock clients, the relevant Corporate Governance Committee, in conjunction with the portfolio manager of an account, may determine that the specific circumstances of such an account require that such account’s proxies be voted differently due to such account’s investment objective or other factors that differentiate it from other accounts. In addition, BlackRock believes portfolio managers may from time to time legitimately reach differing but equally valid views, as fiduciaries for their funds and the client assets in those funds, on how best to maximize economic value in respect of a particular investment. Accordingly, portfolio managers retain full discretion to vote the shares in the funds they manage based on their analysis of the economic impact of a particular ballot item.

Conflicts management

BlackRock maintains policies and procedures that are designed to prevent undue influence on BlackRock's proxy voting activity that might stem from any relationship between the issuer of a proxy (or any dissident shareholder) and BlackRock, BlackRock's affiliates, a Fund or a Fund's affiliates. Some of the steps BlackRock has taken to prevent conflicts include, but are not limited to:

i) BlackRock has adopted a proxy voting oversight structure whereby the Corporate Governance Committees oversee the voting decisions and other activities of the Global Corporate Governance Group, and particularly its activities with respect to voting in the relevant region of each committee’s jurisdiction.

ii) The Corporate Governance Committees have adopted Guidelines for each region, which set forth the firm’s views with respect to certain corporate governance and other issues that typically arise in the proxy voting context. The Corporate Governance Committee reserves the right to review voting decisions at any time and to make voting decisions as necessary to ensure the independence and integrity of the voting process. In addition, the Committee receives periodic reports regarding the specific votes cast by the Corporate Governance Group and regular updates on material process issues, procedural changes and other matters of concern to the Committee.

10

BlackRock global corporate governance & engagement principles

iii)

BlackRock’s Global Corporate Governance Committee oversees the Global Head, the Corporate Governance Group and the Corporate Governance Committees. The Global Corporate Governance Committee conducts a review, at least annually, of the proxy voting process to ensure compliance with BlackRock’s risk policies and procedures.

iv)

BlackRock maintains a reporting structure that separates the Global Head and Corporate Governance Group from employees with sales responsibilities.  In addition, BlackRock maintains procedures to ensure that all engagements with corporate issuers or dissident shareholders are managed consistently and without regard to BlackRock’s relationship with the issuer of the proxy or dissident shareholder. Within the normal course of business, the Global Head or Corporate Governance Group may engage directly with BlackRock clients, and with employees with sales responsibilities, in discussions regarding general corporate governance policy matters, and to otherwise ensure proxy-related client service levels are met. The Global Head or Corporate Governance Group does not discuss any specific voting matter with a client prior to the disclosure of the vote decision to all applicable clients after the shareholder meeting has taken place, except if the client is acting in the capacity as issuer of the proxy or dissident shareholder and is engaging through the established procedures independent of the client relationship.

v) In certain instances, BlackRock may determine to engage an independent fiduciary to vote proxies as a further safeguard to avoid potential conflicts of interest or as otherwise required by applicable law. The independent fiduciary may either vote such proxies, or provide BlackRock with instructions as to how to vote such proxies. In the latter case, BlackRock votes the proxy in accordance with the independent fiduciary’s determination.  Use of an independent fiduciary has been adopted for voting the proxies related to any company that is affiliated with BlackRock, or any company that includes BlackRock employees on its board of directors.

With regard to the relationship between securities lending and proxy voting, BlackRock’s approach is driven by our clients’ economic interests. The evaluation of the economic desirability of recalling loans involves balancing the revenue producing value of loans against the likely economic value of casting votes. Based on our evaluation of this relationship, we believe that generally the likely economic value of casting most votes is less than the securities lending income, either because the votes will not have significant economic consequences or because the outcome of the vote would not be affected by BlackRock recalling loaned securities in order to ensure they are voted. Periodically, BlackRock analyzes the process and benefits of voting proxies for securities on loan, and will consider whether any modification of its proxy voting policies or procedures is necessary in light of future conditions. In addition, BlackRock may in its discretion determine that the value of voting outweighs the cost of recalling shares, and thus recall shares to vote in that instance.

11

BlackRock global corporate governance & engagement principles

Voting guidelines

The attached issue-specific voting Guidelines for each region/country in which we vote are intended to summarize BlackRock’s general philosophy and approach to issues that may commonly arise in the proxy voting context in each market where we invest. These Guidelines are not intended to be exhaustive. BlackRock applies the Guidelines on a case-by-case basis, in the context of the individual circumstances of each company and the specific issue under review. As such, these Guidelines do not provide a guide to how BlackRock will vote in every instance. Rather, they share our view about corporate governance issues generally, and provide insight into how we typically approach issues that commonly arise on corporate ballots.

Reporting

We report our proxy voting activity directly to clients and publically as required. In addition, we publish for clients a more detailed discussion of our corporate governance activities, including engagement with companies and with other relevant parties.

12

Proxy voting
guidelines for

U.S. securities

December 2009

Table of contents

INTRODUCTION 1

VOTING GUIDELINES 1

Boards and directors 2

Auditors and audit-related issues 6

Capital structure, mergers, asset sales and other special transactions 7

Remuneration and benefits 11

Social, ethical and environmental issues 14

General corporate governance matters 14

BLACKROCK

PROXY VOTING GUIDELINES FOR U.S. SECURITIES

These guidelines should be read in conjunction with BlackRock’s Global Corporate Governance and Engagement Principles.

INTRODUCTION

BlackRock, Inc. and its subsidiaries (collectively, “BlackRock”) seek to make proxy voting decisions in the manner most likely to protect and promote the economic value of the securities held in client accounts. The following issue-specific proxy voting guidelines (the “Guidelines”) are intended to summarize BlackRock’s general philosophy and approach to issues that may commonly arise in the proxy voting context for U.S. Securities. These Guidelines are not intended to limit the analysis of individual issues at specific companies and are not intended to provide a guide to how BlackRock will vote in every instance. Rather, they share our view about corporate governance issues generally, and provide insight into how we typically approach issues that commonly arise on corporate ballots. They are applied with discretion, taking into consideration the range of issues and facts specific to the company and the individual ballot item.

VOTING GUIDELINES

These guidelines are divided into six key themes which group together the issues that frequently appear on the agenda of annual and extraordinary meetings of shareholders.

The six key themes are:

• Boards and directors

• Auditors and audit-related issues

• Capital structure, mergers, asset sales and other special transactions

• Remuneration and benefits

• Social, ethical and environmental issues

• General corporate governance matters

1

BlackRock proxy voting guidelines — U.S. securities

Boards and directors

Director elections

BlackRock generally supports board nominees in most uncontested elections. However, BlackRock may withhold votes from the entire board in certain situations, including, but not limited to:

• Where a board fails to implement shareholder proposals that receive a majority of votes cast at a prior shareholder meeting, and the proposals, in our view, have a direct and substantial impact on shareholders’ fundamental rights or long-term economic interests.

• Where a board implements or renews a poison pill without seeking shareholder approval beforehand or within a reasonable period of time after implementation.

BlackRock may withhold votes from members of particular board committees (or prior members, as the case may be) in certain situations, including, but not limited to:

• An insider or affiliated outsider who sits on any of the board’s key committees (i.e., audit, compensation, nominating and governance), which we believe generally should be entirely independent.  However, BlackRock will examine a board’s complete profile when questions of independence arise prior to casting a withhold vote for any director.  For controlled companies, as defined by the U.S. stock exchanges, we will only vote against insiders or affiliates who sit on the audit committee, but not other key committees.

• Members of the audit committee during a period when the board failed to facilitate quality, independent auditing.

• Members of the audit committee where substantial accounting irregularities suggest insufficient oversight by that committee.

• Members of the audit committee during a period in which we believe the company has aggressively accounted for its equity compensation plans.

• Members of the compensation committee during a period in which executive compensation appears excessive relative to performance and peers, and where we believe the compensation committee has not already substantially addressed this issue.

• Members of the compensation committee where the company has repriced options without contemporaneous shareholder approval.

• The chair of the nominating committee, or where no chair exists, the nominating committee member with the longest tenure, where board members have previously received substantial withhold votes and the board has not taken appropriate action to

2

BlackRock proxy voting guidelines — U.S. securities

	respond to shareholder concerns. This may not apply in cases where BlackRock did not support the initial withhold vote.
•	The chair of the nominating committee, or where no chair exists, the nominating committee member with the longest tenure, where the board is not composed of a majority of independent directors.  However, this would not apply in the case of a controlled company.

BlackRock may withhold votes from individual board members in certain situations, including, but not limited to:

• Where BlackRock obtains evidence that casts significant doubt on a director’s qualifications or ability to represent shareholders.

• Where it appears the director has acted (at the company or at other companies) in a manner that compromises his or her reliability in representing the best long-term economic interests of shareholders.

• Where a director has a pattern of attending less than 75% of combined board and applicable key committee meetings.

Age limits / term limits

We typically oppose limits on the pool of directors from which shareholders can choose their representatives, especially where those limits are arbitrary or unrelated to the specific performance or experience of the director in question.

Board size

We generally defer to the board in setting the appropriate size. We believe directors are generally in the best position to assess what size is optimal to ensure a board’s effectiveness. However, we may oppose boards that appear too small to allow for effective shareholder representation or too large to function efficiently.

Classified board of directors / staggered terms

A classified board of directors is one that is divided into classes (generally three), each of which is elected on a staggered schedule (generally for three years). At each annual meeting, only a single class of directors is subject to reelection (generally one-third of the entire board).

3

BlackRock proxy voting guidelines — U.S. securities

We believe that classification of the board dilutes shareholders’ right to evaluate promptly a board’s performance and limits shareholder selection of their representatives. By not having the mechanism to immediately address concerns we may have with any specific director, we lose the ability to provide valuable feedback to the company. Furthermore, where boards are classified, director entrenchment is more likely, because review of board service generally only occurs every three years. Therefore, we typically vote against classification and for proposals to eliminate board classification.

Cumulative voting for directors

Cumulative voting allocates one vote for each share of stock held, times the number of directors subject to election. A shareholder may cumulate his/her votes and cast all of them in favor of a single candidate, or split them among any combination of candidates. By making it possible to use their cumulated votes to elect at least one board member, cumulative voting is typically a mechanism through which minority shareholders attempt to secure board representation.

BlackRock may support cumulative voting proposals at companies where the board is not majority independent. However, we may oppose proposals that further the candidacy of minority shareholders whose interests do not coincide with our fiduciary responsibility.

Director compensation and equity programs

We believe that compensation for independent directors should be structured to align the interests of the directors with those of shareholders, whom the directors have been elected to represent. We believe that independent director compensation packages based on the company's long-term performance and that include some form of long-term equity compensation are more likely to meet this goal; therefore, we typically support proposals to provide such compensation packages. However, we will generally oppose shareholder proposals requiring directors to own a minimum amount of company stock, as we believe that companies should maintain flexibility in administering compensation and equity programs for independent directors, given each company’s and director’s unique circumstances.

Indemnification of directors and officers

We generally support reasonable but balanced protection of directors and officers. We believe that failure to provide protection to directors and officers might severely limit a

4

BlackRock proxy voting guidelines — U.S. securities

company's ability to attract and retain competent leadership. We generally support proposals to provide indemnification that is limited to coverage of legal expenses. However, we may oppose proposals that provide indemnity for: breaches of the duty of loyalty; transactions from which a director derives an improper personal benefit; and actions or omissions not in good faith or those that involve intentional misconduct.

Independent board composition

We generally support shareholder proposals requesting that the board consist of a two-thirds majority of independent outside directors, as we believe that an independent board faces fewer conflicts and is best prepared to protect shareholder interests.

Liability insurance for directors and officers

Proposals regarding liability insurance for directors and officers often appear separately from indemnification proposals. We will generally support insurance against liability for acts committed in an individual's capacity as a director or officer of a company following the same approach described above with respect to indemnification.

Limits on director removal

Occasionally, proposals contain a clause stipulating that directors may be removed only for cause. We oppose this limitation of shareholders’ rights.

Majority vote requirements

BlackRock generally supports the concept of director election by majority vote. Majority voting standards assist in ensuring that directors who are not broadly supported by shareholders are not elected to serve as their representatives. However, we also recognize that there are many methods for implementing majority vote proposals. Where we believe that the company already has a sufficiently robust majority voting process in place, we may not support a shareholder proposal seeking an alternative mechanism.

Separation of chairman and CEO positions

We generally support shareholder proposals requesting that the positions of chairman and CEO be separated. We may consider the designation of a lead director to suffice in lieu of an independent chair, but will take into consideration the structure of that lead director’s position and overall corporate governance of the company in such cases.

5

BlackRock proxy voting guidelines — U.S. securities

Shareholder access to the proxy

We believe that shareholders should have the opportunity, when necessary and under reasonable conditions, to nominate individuals to stand for election to the boards of the companies they own. In our view, securing a right of shareholders to nominate directors without engaging in a control contest can enhance shareholders’ ability to participate meaningfully in the director election process, stimulate board attention to shareholder interests, and provide shareholders an effective means of directing that attention where it is lacking.

We prefer an access mechanism that is equally applied to companies throughout the market with sufficient protections to limit the potential for abuse. Absent such a mechanism under current law, we consider these proposals on a case-by-case basis. In evaluating a proposal requesting shareholder access at a company, we consider whether access is warranted at that particular company at that time by taking into account the overall governance structure of the company as well as issues specific to that company that may necessitate greater board accountability. We also look for certain minimum ownership threshold requirements, stipulations that access can be used only in non-hostile situations, and reasonable limits on the number of board members that can be replaced through such a mechanism.

Auditors and audit-related issues

BlackRock recognizes the critical importance of financial statements that provide a complete and accurate portrayal of a company’s financial condition. Consistent with our approach to voting on boards of directors, we seek to hold the audit committee of the board responsible for overseeing the management of the audit function at a company, and may withhold votes from the audit committee’s members where the board has failed to facilitate quality, independent auditing. We take particular note of cases involving significant financial restatements or material weakness disclosures.

The integrity of financial statements depends on the auditor effectively fulfilling its role. To that end, we favor an independent auditor. In addition, to the extent that an auditor fails to reasonably identify and address issues that eventually lead to a significant financial restatement, or the audit firm has violated standards of practice that protect the interests of shareholders, we may also vote against ratification.

6

BlackRock proxy voting guidelines — U.S. securities

From time to time, shareholder proposals may be presented to promote auditor independence or the rotation of audit firms. We may support these proposals when they are consistent with our views as described above.

Capital structure, mergers, asset sales and other special transactions

In reviewing merger and asset sale proposals, BlackRock's primary concern is the best long-term economic interests of shareholders. While these proposals vary widely in scope and substance, we closely examine certain salient features in our analyses. The varied nature of these proposals ensures that the following list will be incomplete. However, the key factors that we typically evaluate in considering these proposals include:

Market premium: For mergers and asset sales, we make every attempt to determine the degree to which the proposed transaction represents a premium to the company's trading price. In order to filter out the effects of pre-merger news leaks on the parties' share prices, we consider a share price from a time period in advance of the merger announcement. In most cases, business combinations should provide a premium; benchmark premiums vary by industry and direct peer group. Where one party is privately held, we look to the comparable transaction analyses provided by the parties' financial advisors. For companies facing insolvency or bankruptcy, a market premium may not apply.

Strategic reason for transaction:There should be a favorable business reason for the combination.

Board approval/transaction history:Unanimous board approval and arm's-length negotiations are preferred. We examine transactions that involve dissenting boards or that were not the result of an arm's-length bidding process to evaluate the likelihood that a transaction is in shareholders’ interests. We also seek to ensure that executive and/or board members’ financial interests in a given transaction do not affect their ability to place shareholders’ interests before their own.

Financial advisors' fairness opinions:We scrutinize transaction proposals that do not include the fairness opinion of a reputable financial advisor to evaluate whether shareholders’ interests were sufficiently protected in the merger process.

Anti-greenmail provisions

Greenmail is typically defined as payments to a corporate raider to terminate a takeover attempt. It may also occasionally refer to payments made to a dissident shareholder in order to terminate a potential proxy contest or shareholder proposal. We typically view such

7

BlackRock proxy voting guidelines — U.S. securities

payments as a misuse of corporate assets which denies shareholders the opportunity to review a matter of direct economic concern and potential benefit to them. Therefore, we generally support proposals to prevent boards from making greenmail payments. However, we generally will oppose provisions designed to limit greenmail payments that appear to unduly burden or prohibit legitimate use of corporate funds.

Blank check preferred

See Preferred Stock.

Eliminate preemptive rights

Preemptive rights give current shareholders the opportunity to maintain their current percentage ownership despite any subsequent equity offerings. These provisions are no longer common in the U.S., and may restrict management's ability to raise new capital.

We generally support the elimination of preemptive rights, but will often oppose the elimination of limited preemptive rights, (e.g., rights that would limit proposed issuances representing more than an acceptable level of dilution).

Equal voting rights

BlackRock supports the concept of equal voting rights for all shareholders. Some management proposals request authorization to allow a class of common stock to have superior voting rights over the existing common or to allow a class of common to elect a majority of the board. We oppose such differential voting power as it may have the effect of denying shareholders the opportunity to vote on matters of critical economic importance to them.

However, when a shareholder proposal requests to eliminate an existing dual-class voting structure, we seek to determine whether this action is warranted at that company at that time, and whether the cost of restructuring will have a clear economic benefit to shareholders. We evaluate these proposals on a case-by-case basis, and we consider the level and nature of control associated with the dual-class voting structure as well as the company’s history of responsiveness to shareholders in determining whether support of such a measure is appropriate.

8

BlackRock proxy voting guidelines — U.S. securities

Fair price provisions

Originally drafted to protect shareholders from tiered, front-end-loaded tender offers, these provisions have largely evolved into anti-takeover devices through the imposition of supermajority vote provisions and high premium requirements. BlackRock examines proposals involving fair price provisions and generally votes in favor of those that appear designed to protect minority shareholders, but against those that appear designed to impose barriers to transactions or are otherwise against the economic interests of shareholders.

Increase in authorized common shares

BlackRock considers industry specific norms in our analysis of these proposals, as well as a company’s history with respect to the use of its common shares. Generally, we are predisposed to support a company if the board believes additional common shares are necessary to carry out the firm’s business. The most substantial concern we might have with an increase is the possibility of use of common shares to fund a poison pill plan that is not in the economic interests of shareholders. Therefore, we generally do not support increases in authorized common shares where a company has no stated use for the additional common shares and/or has a substantial amount of previously authorized common shares still available for issue that is sufficient to allow the company to flexibly conduct its operations, especially if the company already has a poison pill in place. We may also oppose proposals that include common shares with unequal voting rights.

Increase or issuance of preferred stock

These proposals generally request either authorization of a class of preferred stock or an increase in previously authorized preferred stock. Preferred stock may be used to provide management with the flexibility to consummate beneficial acquisitions, combinations or financings on terms not necessarily available via other means of financing. We generally support these proposals in cases where the company specifies the voting, dividend, conversion and other rights of such stock where the terms of the preferred stock appear reasonable.

However, we frequently oppose proposals requesting authorization of a class of preferred stock with unspecified voting, conversion, dividend distribution and other rights (“blank check” preferred stock) because they may serve as a transfer of authority from shareholders to the board and a possible entrenchment device. We generally view the board’s discretion to establish voting rights on a when-issued basis as a potential anti-takeover device, as it affords the board the ability to place a block of stock with an investor sympathetic to management,

9

BlackRock proxy voting guidelines — U.S. securities

thereby foiling a takeover bid without a shareholder vote. Nonetheless, where the company appears to have a legitimate financing motive for requesting blank check authority, has committed publicly that blank check preferred shares will not be used for anti-takeover purposes, has a history of using blank check preferred stock for financings, or has blank check preferred stock previously outstanding such that an increase would not necessarily provide further anti-takeover protection but may provide greater financing flexibility, we may support the proposal.

Poison pill plans

Also known as Shareholder Rights Plans, these plans generally involve issuance of call options to purchase securities in a target firm on favorable terms. The options are exercisable only under certain circumstances, usually accumulation of a specified percentage of shares in a relevant company or launch of a hostile tender offer. These plans are often adopted by the board without being subject to shareholder vote.

Poison pill proposals generally appear on the proxy as shareholder proposals requesting that existing plans be put to a vote. This vote is typically advisory and therefore non-binding. We generally vote in favor of shareholder proposals to rescind poison pills.

Where a poison pill is put to a shareholder vote, our policy is to examine these plans individually. Although we oppose most plans, we may support plans that include a reasonable 'qualifying offer clause.’ Such clauses typically require shareholder ratification of the pill, and stipulate a sunset provision whereby the pill expires unless it is renewed. These clauses also tend to specify that an all cash bid for all shares that includes a fairness opinion and evidence of financing does not trigger the pill, but forces either a special meeting at which the offer is put to a shareholder vote, or the board to seek the written consent of shareholders where shareholders could rescind the pill in their discretion. We may also support a pill where it is the only effective method for protecting tax or other economic benefits that may be associated with limiting the ownership changes of individual shareholders.

Stock splits and reverse stock splits

We generally support stock splits that are not likely to negatively affect the ability to trade shares or the economic value of a share. We generally support reverse splits that are designed to avoid delisting or to facilitate trading in the stock, where the reverse split will not have a negative impact on share value (e.g. one class is reduced while others remain at pre-

10

BlackRock proxy voting guidelines — U.S. securities

split levels). In the event of a proposal to reverse split that would not also proportionately reduce the company’s authorized stock, we apply the same analysis we would use for a proposal to increase authorized stock.

Remuneration and benefits

We note that there are management and shareholder proposals related to executive compensation that appear on corporate ballots. We generally vote on these proposals as described below, except that we typically oppose shareholder proposals on issues where the company already has a reasonable policy in place that we believe is sufficient to address the issue. We may also oppose a shareholder proposal regarding executive compensation if the company’s history suggests that the issue raised is not likely to present a problem for that company.

Adopt advisory resolutions on compensation committee reports

BlackRock generally opposes these proposals, put forth by shareholders, which ask companies to adopt advisory resolutions on compensation committee reports (otherwise known as “Say-on-Pay”). We believe that compensation committees are in the best position to make compensation decisions and should maintain significant flexibility in administering compensation programs, given their knowledge of the wealth profiles of the executives they seek to incentivize, the appropriate performance measures for the company, and other issues internal and/or unique to the company. In our view, shareholders have a sufficient and much more powerful “say-on-pay” today in the form of director elections, in particular with regards to members of the compensation committee.

Advisory resolutions on compensation committee reports

In cases where there is an advisory vote on compensation put forth by management, BlackRock will respond to the proposal as informed by our evaluation of compensation practices at that particular company, and in a manner that appropriately addresses the specific question posed to shareholders. On the question of support or opposition to executive pay practices our vote is likely to correspond with our vote on the directors who are compensation committee members responsible for making compensation decisions. Generally we believe these matters are best left to the compensation committee of the board and that shareholders should not dictate the terms of executive compensation. Our preferred approach to managing pay-for-performance disconnects is via a withhold vote for the compensation committee.

11

BlackRock proxy voting guidelines — U.S. securities

Claw back proposals

Claw back proposals are generally shareholder sponsored and seek recoupment of bonuses paid to senior executives if those bonuses were based on financial results that are later restated. We generally favor recoupment from any senior executive whose compensation was based on faulty financial reporting, regardless of that particular executive’s role in the faulty reporting. We typically support these proposals unless the company already has a robust claw back policy that sufficiently addresses our concerns.

Employee stock purchase plans

An employee stock purchase plan (“ESPP”) gives the issuer’s employees the opportunity to purchase stock in the issuer, typically at a discount to market value. We believe these plans can provide performance incentives and help align employees’ interests with those of shareholders. The most common form of ESPP qualifies for favorable tax treatment under Section 423 of the Internal Revenue Code. Section 423 plans must permit all full-time employees to participate, carry restrictions on the maximum number of shares that can be purchased, carry an exercise price of at least 85 percent of fair market value on grant date with offering periods of 27 months or less, and be approved by shareholders. We will typically support qualified ESPP proposals.

Equity compensation plans

BlackRock supports equity plans that align the economic interests of directors, managers and other employees with those of shareholders. Our evaluation of equity compensation plans in a post-expensing environment is based on a company’s executive pay and performance relative to peers and whether the plan plays a significant role in a pay-for-performance disconnect. We generally oppose plans that contain “evergreen” provisions allowing for the ongoing increase of shares reserved without shareholder approval. We also generally oppose plans that allow for repricing without shareholder approval. Finally, we may oppose plans where we believe that the company is aggressively accounting for the equity delivered through their stock plans.

Golden parachutes

Golden parachutes provide for compensation to management in the event of a change in control. We generally view this as encouragement to management to consider proposals that might be beneficial to shareholders. We normally support golden parachutes put to shareholder vote unless there is clear evidence of excess or abuse.

12

BlackRock proxy voting guidelines — U.S. securities

We may also support shareholder proposals requesting that implementation of such arrangements require shareholder approval. In particular, we generally support proposals requiring shareholder approval of plans that exceed 2.99 times an executive’s current compensation.

Option exchanges

BlackRock may support a request to exchange underwater options under the following circumstances: the company has experienced significant stock price decline as a result of macroeconomic trends, not individual company performance; directors and executive officers are excluded; the exchange is value neutral or value creative to shareholders; and there is clear evidence that absent repricing the company will suffer serious employee incentive or retention and recruiting problems.

Pay-for-performance plans

In order for executive compensation exceeding $1 million to qualify for federal tax deductions, the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (OBRA) requires companies to link that compensation, for the Company’s top five executives, to disclosed performance goals and submit the plans for shareholder approval. The law further requires that a compensation committee comprised solely of outside directors administer these plans. Because the primary objective of these proposals is to preserve the deductibility of such compensation, we generally favor approval in order to preserve net income.

Pay-for-superior-performance

These are typically shareholder proposals requesting that compensation committees adopt policies under which a portion of equity compensation requires the achievement of performance goals as a prerequisite to vesting. We generally believe these matters are best left to the compensation committee of the board and that shareholders should not set executive compensation or dictate the terms thereof. We may support these proposals if we have a substantial concern regarding the company’s compensation practices over a significant period of time, the proposals are not overly prescriptive, and we believe the proposed approach is likely to lead to substantial improvement. However, our preferred approach to managing pay-for-performance disconnects is via a withhold vote for the compensation committee.

13

BlackRock proxy voting guidelines — U.S. securities

Supplemental executive retirement plans

BlackRock may support shareholder proposals requesting to put extraordinary benefits contained in Supplemental Executive Retirement Plans (“SERP”) agreements to a shareholder vote unless the company’s executive pension plans do not contain excessive benefits beyond what is offered under employee-wide plans.

Social, ethical and environmental issues

See Global Corporate Governance and Engagement Principles.

General corporate governance matters

Adjourn meeting to solicit additional votes

We generally support such proposals when the agenda contains items that we judge to be in shareholders’ best long-term economic interests.

Bundled proposals

We believe that shareholders should have the opportunity to review substantial governance changes individually without having to accept bundled proposals. Where several measures are grouped into one proposal, BlackRock may reject certain positive changes when linked with proposals that generally contradict or impede the rights and economic interests of shareholders. The decision to support or oppose bundled proposals requires a balancing of the overall benefits and drawbacks of each element of the proposal.

Change name of corporation

We typically defer to management with respect to appropriate corporate names.

Confidential voting

Shareholders most often propose confidential voting as a means of eliminating undue management pressure on shareholders regarding their vote on proxy issues. We generally support proposals to allow confidential voting. However, we will usually support suspension of confidential voting during proxy contests where dissidents have access to vote information and management may face an unfair disadvantage.

14

BlackRock proxy voting guidelines — U.S. securities

Other business

We oppose giving companies our proxy to vote on matters where we are not given the opportunity to review and understand those measures and carry out an appropriate level of shareholder oversight.

Reincorporation

Proposals to reincorporate from one state or country to another are most frequently motivated by considerations of anti-takeover protections or cost savings. Where cost savings are the sole issue, we will typically favor reincorporating. In all instances, we will evaluate the changes to shareholder protection under the new charter/articles/by-laws to assess whether the move increases or decreases shareholder protections. Where we find that shareholder protections are diminished, we will support reincorporation if we determine that the overall benefits outweigh the diminished rights.

Shareholders' right to call a special meeting or act by written consent

In exceptional circumstances and with sufficiently broad support, shareholders should have the opportunity to raise issues of substantial importance without having to wait for management to schedule a meeting. We therefore believe that shareholders should have the right to call a special meeting or to solicit votes by written consent in cases where a reasonably high proportion of shareholders (typically a minimum of 15%) are required to agree to such a meeting/consent before it is called, in order to avoid misuse of this right and waste corporate resources in addressing narrowly supported interests. However, we may oppose this right in cases where the provision is structured for the benefit of a dominant shareholder to the exclusion of others.

Simple majority voting

We generally favor a simple majority voting requirement to pass proposals. Therefore we will support the reduction or the elimination of supermajority voting requirements to the extent that we determine shareholders’ ability to protect their economic interests is improved. Nonetheless, in situations where there is a substantial or dominant shareholder, supermajority voting may be protective of public shareholder interests and we may therefore support supermajority requirements in those situations.

15

BlackRock proxy voting guidelines — U.S. securities

Stakeholder provisions

Stakeholder provisions introduce the concept that the board may consider the interests of constituencies other than shareholders when making corporate decisions. Stakeholder interests vary widely and are not necessarily consistent with the best long-term economic interests of all shareholders, whose capital is at risk in the ownership of a public company. We believe the board’s fiduciary obligation is to ensure management is employing this capital in the most efficient manner so as to maximize shareholder value, and we oppose any provision that suggests the board should do otherwise.

16