N-CSR

UNITEDSTATES
SECURITIESANDEXCHANGECOMMISSION
Washington,D.C.20549

FORM N-CSR

CERTIFIED SHAREHOLDER REPORT OF REGISTERED MANAGEMENT
INVESTMENT COMPANIES

Investment Company Act file number 811-07156

Name of Fund: BlackRock MuniYield Insured Investment Fund (MFT)

Fund Address: 100 Bellevue Parkway, Wilmington, DE 19809

Name and address of agent for service: Anne F. Ackerley, Chief Executive Officer, BlackRock
MuniYield Insured Investment Fund, 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

Annual Report

BlackRock MuniHoldings California Insured Fund, Inc. (MUC)

BlackRock MuniHoldings New Jersey Insured Fund, Inc. (MUJ)

BlackRock MuniYield Insured Investment Fund (MFT)

BlackRock MuniYield Michigan Insured Fund, Inc. (MIY)

BlackRock MuniYield New Jersey Insured Fund, Inc. (MJI)

BlackRock MuniYield Pennsylvania Insured Fund (MPA)

July 31, 2010

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	10
Derivative Financial Instruments	10
Financial Statements:
Schedules of Investments	11
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	44
Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm	51
Important Tax Information	53
Disclosure of Investment Advisory Agreements and Sub-Advisory Agreements	54
Automatic Dividend Reinvestment Plan	58
Officers and Directors	59
Additional Information	62

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 corp-

orate 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.

THIS PAGE NOT PART OF YOUR FUND REPORT

3

Fund Summary as of July 31, 2010

BlackRock MuniHoldings California Insured Fund, Inc.

Fund Overview

BlackRock MuniHoldings California Insured Fund, Inc.’s (MUC) (the “Fund”) investment objective is to provide shareholders with current income exempt
from federal and California income taxes. The Fund seeks to achieve its investment objective by investing primarily in municipal obligations exempt from fed-
eral income taxes (except that the interest may be subject to the federal alternative minimum tax) and California income taxes. Under normal market condi-
tions, the Fund invests at least 80% of its assets in investment grade municipal obligations with remaining maturities of one year or more at the time of
investment 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 22.40% based on market price, and 16.96% based on net asset value (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 performance of the Lipper category does not necessarily correlate to that of the Fund, as
the Lipper group is comprised of funds representing various states and not California alone. 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 coupon interest income from its securities holdings, which was a positive factor. The tight-
ening 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. Throughout this 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 under-
lying credits while the market placed less value on monoline insurance also aided relative performance. However, downgrades of monoline insurers had a
negative impact on performance in all funds that invest in bonds utilizing insurance wraps. Secondary market demand for insured municipals weakened,
resulting in limited liquidity and widening spreads on 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 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 New York Stock Exchange (“NYSE”)	MUC
Initial Offering Date	February 27, 1998
Yield on Closing Market Price as of July 31, 2010 ($14.04)1	6.03%
Tax Equivalent Yield2	9.28%
Current Monthly Distribution per Common Share3	$0.0705
Current Annualized Distribution per Common Share3	$0.8460
Leverage as of July 31, 20104	42%

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 Share, declared on September 1, 2010, was increased to $0.0735. 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 distribution rate is not constant and is subject to further change in the future.
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 10.

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			$14.04	$12.18	15.27%	$14.11	$11.95
Net Asset Value			$14.55	$13.21	10.14%	$14.82	$13.20
The following charts show the sector and credit quality allocations of the Fund’s long-term investments:
Sector Allocations			Credit Quality Allocations5
	7/31/10	7/31/09				7/31/10	7/31/09
County/City/Special District/School District	43%	46%	AAA/Aaa			48%	37%
Utilities	26	24	AA/Aa			32	29
Education	10	9	A			20	33
Transportation	10	13	BBB/Baa			—	1
Corporate	5	—	5 Using the higher of Standard & Poor’s (“S&P’s”) or Moody’s Investors Service
State	4	4	(“Moody’s”) ratings.
Health	2	4

4 ANNUAL REPORT

JULY 31, 2010

Fund Summary as of July 31, 2010

BlackRock MuniHoldings New Jersey Insured Fund, Inc.

Fund Overview

BlackRock MuniHoldings New Jersey Insured Fund, Inc.’s (MUJ) (the “Fund”) investment objective is to provide shareholders with current income exempt
from federal income tax and New Jersey personal 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)
and New Jersey personal income taxes. 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 19.37% based on market price, and 11.95% 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 performance of the Lipper category does not necessarily correlate to that of the Fund, as the Lipper group is
comprised of funds representing various states and not New Jersey alone. The Fund's discount to NAV, which narrowed during the period, accounts for the dif-
ference between performance based on market price and performance based on NAV. The following discussion relates to performance based on NAV. While
the Fund benefited from increasing bond prices in the declining interest rate environment, its exposure to pre-refunded and escrowed issues detracted from
performance as their shorter maturity structure limited their upward price movement. The Fund benefited from its allocation to the health sector, which per-
formed well during the period. Positive investment income coupled with a low cost of leverage enabled the Fund to increase its dividend in 2010.

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	MUJ
Initial Offering Date	March 11, 1998
Yield on Closing Market Price as of July 31, 2010 ($15.05)1	5.82%
Tax Equivalent Yield2	8.95%
Current Monthly Distribution per Common Share3	$0.073
Current Annualized Distribution per Common Share3	$0.876
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 share, declared on September 1, 2010, was increased to $0.0740. 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 further 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 10.

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			$15.05	$13.38	12.48%	$15.07	$13.28
Net Asset Value			$15.19	$14.40	5.49%	$15.51	$14.38
The following charts show the sector and credit quality allocations of the Fund’s long-term investments:
Sector Allocations			Credit Quality Allocations5
	7/31/10	7/31/09				7/31/10	7/31/09
State	30%	35%	AAA/Aaa			38%	41%
Transportation	18	15	AA/Aa			25	20
County/City/Special District/			A			28	27
School District	17	17	BBB/Baa			7	9
Education	12	10	Not Rated6			2	3
Health	9	9	5 Using the higher of S&P’s and Moody’s ratings.
Housing	6	7	6 The investment advisor has deemed certain of these non-rated securities to be of
Utilities	6	5	investment grade quality. As of July 31, 2010 and July 31, 2009, the market value of
Corporate	1	1	these securities was $7,659,796, representing 2% and $15,862,145, representing
			3%, respectively, of the Fund’s long-term investments.
Tobacco	1	1

ANNUAL REPORT

JULY 31, 2010

5

Fund Summary as of July 31, 2010

BlackRock MuniYield Insured Investment Fund

Fund Overview

BlackRock MuniYield Insured Investment Fund’s (MFT) (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 invest-
ment 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 pay-
ment 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 28.72% based on market price, and 14.99% 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. The Fund’s holdings
of Florida issues detracted from performance during the period as Florida underperformed the national market. The Fund continues to seek to reduce its
exposure to Florida, however, this transition is prolonged due to the lack of availability in the national insured market and the limited liquidity of some of
the Fund’s Florida holdings. On the positive side, the Fund held health, utilities 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 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	MFT
Initial Offering Date	October 30, 1992
Yield on Closing Market Price as of July 31, 2010 ($14.28)1	5.97%
Tax Equivalent Yield2	9.18%
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 distribution rate 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 10.

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			$14.28	$11.80	21.02%	$14.38	$11.80
Net Asset Value			$13.87	$12.83	8.11%	$14.20	$12.81
The following charts show the sector and credit quality allocations of the Fund’s long-term investments:
Sector Allocations			Credit Quality Allocations5
	7/31/10	7/31/09				7/31/10	7/31/09
Utilities	27%	28%	AAA/Aaa			58%	55%
County/City/Special District/School District	26	22	AA/Aa			22	13
			A			17	27
Transportation	16	17	Not Rated6			3	5
Health	14	15
			5 Using the higher of S&P’s or Moody’s ratings.
State	11	10
			6 The investment advisor has deemed certain of these non-rated securities to be of
Housing	4	5	investment grade quality. As of July 31, 2010 and July 31, 2009, the market value of
Education	2	3	these securities was $4,251,053, representing 2% and $7,910,411, representing
			5%, respectively, of the Fund’s long-term investments.

6 ANNUAL REPORT

JULY 31, 2010

Fund Summary as of July 31, 2010

BlackRock MuniYield Michigan Insured Fund, Inc.

Fund Overview

BlackRock MuniYield Michigan Insured Fund, Inc.’s (MIY) (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 26.76% based on market price, and 14.31% 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 performance of the Lipper category does not necessarily correlate to that of the Fund, as the Lipper group
is comprised of funds representing various states and not Michigan alone. 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 at the end of 2009. While the Fund benefited from increasing bond prices in the declining interest
rate environment, its exposure to pre-refunded and escrowed issues detracted from performance as their shorter maturity structure 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	MIY
Initial Offering Date	October 30, 1992
Yield on Closing Market Price as of July 31, 2010 ($14.55)1	6.19%
Tax Equivalent Yield2	9.52%
Current Monthly Distribution per Common Share3	$0.075
Current Annualized Distribution per Common Share3	$0.900
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 share, declared on September 1, 2010, was increased to $0.0765. 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 further 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 10.

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			$14.55	$12.25	18.78%	$14.73	$12.18
Net Asset Value			$14.92	$13.93	7.11%	$15.16	$13.91
The following charts show the sector and credit quality allocations of the Fund’s long-term investments:
Sector Allocations			Credit Quality Allocations5
	7/31/10	7/31/09				7/31/10	7/31/09
County/City/Special District/School District	33%	22%	AAA/Aaa			43%	32%
Health	14	14	AA/Aa			26	22
Utilities	12	14	A			28	42
			BBB/Baa			1	2
Transportation	12	11	Not Rated6			2	2
Corporate	11	14
			5 Using the higher of S&P’s or Moody’s ratings.
State	9	12
			6 The investment advisor has deemed certain of these non-rated securities to be of
Education	6	10
			investment grade quality. As of July 31, 2010 and July 31, 2009, the market value of
Housing	3	3	these securities was $2,921,098, representing 1% and $3,021,972, representing
			1%, respectively, of the Fund’s long-term investments.

ANNUAL REPORT

JULY 31, 2010

7

Fund Summary as of July 31, 2010

BlackRock MuniYield New Jersey Insured Fund, Inc.

Fund Overview

BlackRock MuniYield New Jersey Insured Fund, Inc.’s (MJI) (the “Fund”) investment objective is to provide shareholders with as high a level of current income
exempt from federal income taxes and New Jersey personal income tax 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 Jersey 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 24.34% based on market price, and 13.90% 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 performance of the Lipper category does not necessarily correlate to that of the Fund, as the Lipper group is
comprised of funds representing various states and not New Jersey alone. 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.
While the Fund benefited from increasing bond prices in the declining interest rate environment, its exposure to pre-refunded and escrowed issues detracted
from performance as their shorter maturity structure limited their upward price movement. 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 in 2010.

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	MJI
Initial Offering Date	October 30, 1992
Yield on Closing Market Price as of July 31, 2010 ($14.92)1	5.79%
Tax Equivalent Yield2	8.91%
Current Monthly Distribution per Common Share3	$0.072
Current Annualized Distribution per Common Share3	$0.864
Leverage as of July 31, 20104	34%

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 rate 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 10.

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			$14.92	$12.82	16.38%	$15.16	$12.82
Net Asset Value			$15.00	$14.07	6.61%	$15.38	$14.04
The following charts show the sector and credit quality allocations of the Fund’s long-term investments:
Sector Allocations			Credit Quality Allocations5
	7/31/10	7/31/09				7/31/10	7/31/09
State	28%	26%	AAA/Aaa			31%	32%
County/City/Special District/School District	17	18	AA/Aa			23	22
Education	16	15	A			36	34
Health	10	10	BBB/Baa			5	8
Transportation	9	10	Not Rated6			5	4
Utilities	9	12	5 Using the higher of S&P’s and Moody’s ratings.
Housing	7	7	6 The investment advisor has deemed certain of these non-rated securities to be of
Corporate	3	1	investment grade quality. As of July 31, 2010 and July 31, 2009, the market value of
Tobacco	1	1	these securities was $8,904,633, representing 5% and $7,777,159, representing
			4%, respectively, of the Fund’s long-term investments.

8 ANNUAL REPORT

JULY 31, 2010

Fund Summary as of July 31, 2010

BlackRock MuniYield Pennsylvania Insured Fund

Fund Overview

BlackRock MuniYield Pennsylvania Insured Fund’s (MPA) (the “Fund”) investment objective is to provide shareholders with as high a level of current income
exempt from federal and Pennsylvania 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 Pennsylvania 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 25.70% based on market price, and 14.18% 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 performance of the Lipper category does not necessarily correlate to that of the Fund, as the Lipper group is
comprised of funds representing various states and not Pennsylvania alone. 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 increased exposure to interest rate-sensitive bonds as tax-exempt, 30-year interest rates rallied 70 basis points (0.70%) lower over
the period. Broader market recognition of the value of tightly held issuers also had a positive impact on performance as valuations on such holdings were
pushed higher. Detracting from performance was the Fund’s exposure to zero-coupon bonds, which remained out of favor with investors and underperformed
current coupon bonds throughout the period.

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	MPA
Initial Offering Date	October 30, 1992
Yield on Closing Market Price as of July 31, 2010 ($15.26)1	5.66%
Tax Equivalent Yield2	8.71%
Current Monthly Distribution per Common Share3	$0.072
Current Annualized Distribution per Common Share3	$0.864
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 share, declared on September 1, 2010, was increased to $0.0745. 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 further 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 10.

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			$15.26	$12.87	18.57%	$15.27	$12.80
Net Asset Value			$15.38	$14.28	7.70%	$15.64	$14.25
The following charts show the sector and credit quality allocations of the Fund’s long-term investments:
Sector Allocations			Credit Quality Allocations5
	7/31/10	7/31/09				7/31/10	7/31/09
County/City/Special District/School District	29%	38%	AAA/Aaa			41%	39%
State	23	15	AA/Aa			42	42
Health	12	9	A			16	18
			BBB/Baa			1	1
Utilities	12	11
Transportation	12	11	5 Using the higher of S&P’s or Moody’s ratings.
Education	5	6
Housing	4	4
Corporate	3	6

ANNUAL REPORT

JULY 31, 2010

9

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 invest-
ments, each Fund’s Common Shareholders will benefit from the incre-
mental net income.

To illustrate these concepts, assume a Fund’s Common Shares capital-
ization 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 incremen-
tal 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 pervailing 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 divi-
dends on the higher short-term interest rates whereas the Fund’s total port-
folio earns income based on lower long-term interest rates.

Furthermore, the value of the Fund’s 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 Fund’s Preferred Shares does not fluctuate in
relation to interest rates. As a result, changes in interest rates can influence
the Fund’s 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 gen-
erally 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 avail-
able for distribution to Common Shareholders will be reduced. Each Fund
may be required to sell portfolio securities at inopportune times or at dis-
tressed 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/or
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
MUC	42%
MUJ	37%
MFT	38%
MIY	37%
MJI	34%
MPA	37%

Derivative Financial Instruments

The Funds may invest in various derivative instruments, including finan-
cial futures contracts, as specified in Note 2 of the Notes to Financial
Statements, which may constitute forms of economic leverage. Such instru-
ments 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 pre-
dict 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 appre-
ciation 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.

10 ANNUAL REPORT

JULY 31, 2010

Schedule of Investments July 31, 2010

BlackRock MuniHoldings California Insured Fund, Inc. (MUC)

(Percentages shown are based on Net Assets)

	Par
Municipal Bonds	(000)	Value
California — 102.4%
Corporate — 0.5%
City of Chula Vista California, Refunding RB, San Diego
Gas & Electric, Series A, 5.88%, 2/15/34	$ 2,435	$ 2,691,673
County/City/Special District/School District — 43.4%
Alameda County Joint Powers Authority, Refunding RB,
Lease (AGM), 5.00%, 12/01/34	13,180	13,179,077
Bonita Unified School District California, GO, Election
of 2004, Series B:
(BHAC), 5.00%, 8/01/31	5,000	5,162,100
(NPFGC), 5.00%, 8/01/29	8,350	8,629,558
Central Unified School District, GO, Election of 2008,
Series A (AGC), 5.63%, 8/01/33	2,600	2,806,570
City of Garden Grove California, COP, Series A, Financing
Project (AMBAC), 5.50%, 3/01/26	4,040	4,239,778
City of Lodi California, COP, Refunding, Series A (AGM),
5.00%, 10/01/32	2,030	2,053,020
City of Redding California, COP, Refunding, Series A
(AGM), 5.00%, 6/01/30	5,000	5,133,350
Colton Joint Unified School District, GO, Series A
(NPFGC), 5.38%, 8/01/26	2,500	2,666,100
Corona Department of Water & Power, COP (NPFGC),
5.00%, 9/01/29	5,910	5,981,156
Corona-Norca Unified School District California, GO,
Election of 2006, Series A (AGM), 5.00%, 8/01/31	5,000	5,121,600
County of Kern California, COP, Capital Improvements
Projects, Series A (AGC), 6.00%, 8/01/35	3,500	3,898,930
Covina-Valley Unified School District California, GO,
Refunding, Series A (AGM), 5.50%, 8/01/26	2,395	2,539,227
Culver City Redevelopment Finance Authority California,
Tax Allocation Bonds, Refunding, Series A (AGM),
5.60%, 11/01/25	3,750	3,834,863
East Side Union High School District-Santa Clara
County California, GO, CAB, Election of 2002, Series E
(Syncora), 5.12%, 8/01/28 (a)	11,000	3,582,260
Fullerton Joint Union High School District California, GO,
Election of 2002, Series B (NPFGC), 5.00%, 8/01/29	6,685	6,878,464
Jurupa Public Financing Authority, RB, Superior Lien,
Series A (AGM) (b):
5.00%, 9/01/30	4,000	4,000,000
5.00%, 9/01/33	2,000	1,986,420
5.00%, 9/01/39	3,000	2,954,730
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%, 7/01/35	9,000	9,312,660
Los Angeles Unified School District California, GO,
Election of 2004, Series H (AGM), 5.00%, 7/01/32	2,250	2,296,058
Los Gatos Union School District California, GO, Election
of 2001, Series B (AGM), 5.00%, 8/01/30	2,735	2,783,765

		Par
Municipal Bonds		(000)	Value
California (continued)
County/City/Special District/School District (continued)
Marin Community College District, GO, Election of 2004,
Series A (NPFGC), 5.00%, 8/01/28	$ 5,885		$ 6,090,092
Marysville Joint Unified School District California, GO,
Election of 2008 (AGC), 5.13%, 8/01/34		6,915	7,123,556
Merced Community College District California, GO,
School Facilities Improvement District No. 1 (NPFGC),
5.00%, 8/01/31		6,340	6,392,305
Port of Oakland, Refunding RB, Series M, AMT (NPFGC),
5.38%, 11/01/27		22,465	22,484,320
Poway Unified School District, Special Tax Bonds
(AMBAC), 5.00%, 9/15/31		3,960	3,903,887
Redlands Unified School District California, GO, Election
of 2008 (AGM), 5.25%, 7/01/33		5,000	5,210,100
Redwoods Community College District, GO, Election
of 2004 (NPFGC), 5.00%, 8/01/31		4,630	4,698,709
Riverside Unified School District California, GO, Election
of 2001, Series B (NPFGC), 5.00%, 8/01/30		10,735	10,868,114
Saddleback Valley Unified School District California, GO
(AGM), 5.00%, 8/01/29		4,115	4,225,982
Salinas Union High School District California, GO,
Election of 2002, Series B (NPFGC), 5.00%, 6/01/26		3,490	3,594,735
San Diego Community College District California, GO,
Election of 2002 (AGM), 5.00%, 5/01/30		7,000	7,213,080
San Francisco Community College District California, GO,
Election of 2001, Series C (AGM), 5.00%, 6/15/31		4,195	4,343,629
San Jose Evergreen Community College District California,
GO, Refunding, CAB, Election of 2004, Series A
(NPFGC), 5.17%, 9/01/24 (a)		10,410	5,087,992
San Juan Unified School District California, GO, Election
of 2002 (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		5,650	5,906,002
Sanger Unified School District California, GO, Election
of 2006, Series A (AGM), 5.00%, 8/01/27		7,345	7,685,000
Santa Clara Redevelopment Agency California, Tax
Allocation Bonds, Bayshore North Project, Series A
(AMBAC), 5.50%, 6/01/23		10,000	10,062,700
Santa Rosa High School District California, GO, Election
of 2002 (NPFGC), 5.00%, 8/01/28		2,855	2,885,092
Sierra Joint Community College District California, GO,
Improvement District No. 2-Western Nevada County
Campus, Series A (NPFGC), 5.00%, 8/01/28		1,550	1,590,858
Snowline Joint Unified School District, COP, Refunding,
Refining Project (AGC), 5.75%, 9/01/38		5,635	6,279,869
Vista Unified School District California, GO, Series B
(NPFGC), 5.00%, 8/01/28		2,550	2,617,218
Walnut Valley Unified School District California, GO,
Election of 2007, Measure S, Series A (AGM),
5.00%, 2/01/33		2,000	2,061,160

Portfolio Abbreviations
To simplify the listings of portfolio holdings in the		BHAC	Berkshire Hathaway Assurance Corp.	GO	General Obligation Bonds
Schedules of Investments, the names and descriptions of		CAB	Capital Appreciation Bonds	HDA	Housing Development Authority
many of the securities have been abbreviated according		CIFG	CDC IXIS Financial Guaranty	HFA	Housing Finance Agency
to the following list:		COP	Certificates of Participation	HRB	Housing Revenue Bonds
		EDA	Economic Development Authority	IDA	Industrial Development Authority
ACA	ACA Financial Guaranty Corp.	EDC	Economic Development Corp.	ISD	Independent School District
AGC	Assured Guaranty Corp.	ERB	Education Revenue Bonds	LRB	Lease Revenue Bonds
AGM	Assured Guaranty Municipal Corp.	FGIC	Financial Guaranty Insurance Co.	NPFGC	National Public Finance Guarantee Corp.
AMBAC	American Municipal Bond Assurance Corp.	FHA	Federal Housing Administration	RB	Revenue Bonds
AMT	Alternative Minimum Tax (subject to)	GAN	Grant Anticipation Notes	S/F	Single-Family
		GARB	General Airport Revenue Bonds
See Notes to Financial Statements.

ANNUAL REPORT

JULY 31, 2010

11

Schedule of Investments (continued)

BlackRock MuniHoldings California Insured Fund, Inc. (MUC)

(Percentages shown are based on Net Assets)

		Par
Municipal Bonds		(000)	Value
California (continued)
County/City/Special District/School District (concluded)
West Contra Costa Unified School District California,
GO (AGM):
Election of 2002, Series B, 5.00%, 8/01/32	$ 6,690		$ 6,693,746
Election of 2005, Series A, 5.00%, 8/01/26		2,595	2,646,718
Westminster Redevelopment Agency California, Tax
Allocation Bonds, Subordinate, Commercial
Redevelopment Project No. 1 (AGC),
6.25%, 11/01/39		4,300	4,918,985
			258,152,365
Education — 8.6%
California State Public Works Board, RB, University of
California, Institute Project, Series C (AMBAC),
5.00%, 4/01/30		5,000	5,039,000
California State University, RB, Systemwide, Series A
(AGM), 5.00%, 11/01/39		6,950	7,024,226
California State University, Refunding RB, Systemwide,
Series A (AGM), 5.00%, 11/01/29		5,000	5,135,500
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	9,010,312
San Diego Community College District, GO, Election
of 2006 (AGM), 5.00%, 8/01/30		6,360	6,654,150
University of California, RB, Limited Project, Series D
(AGM), 5.00%, 5/15/37		5,950	6,157,239
University of California, Refunding RB, General, Series A
(AMBAC), 5.00%, 5/15/27		10,500	11,049,885
			51,309,287
Health — 2.5%
ABAG Finance Authority for Nonprofit Corps,
Refunding RB, Sharp Healthcare, 6.25%, 8/01/39		5,000	5,521,100
California Health Facilities Financing Authority,
Refunding RB, Catholic Healthcare West, Series A,
6.00%, 7/01/34		3,700	3,988,304
California Statewide Communities Development
Authority, RB, Health Facility, Memorial Health Services,
Series A, 6.00%, 10/01/23		4,915	5,139,271
			14,648,675
State — 6.6%
California Community College Financing Authority, RB,
Grossmont-Palomar-Shasta, Series A (NPFGC),
5.63%, 4/01/26		2,180	2,209,060
California State Public Works Board, RB, Department
of Education, Riverside Campus Project, Series B,
6.50%, 4/01/34		3,500	3,768,450
California State University, Refunding RB, Systemwide,
Series C (NPFGC), 5.00%, 11/01/28		16,215	16,757,878
State of California, GO, Various Purpose:
6.00%, 3/01/33		5,000	5,412,500
6.50%, 4/01/33		10,000	11,246,100
			39,393,988
Transportation — 16.7%
City of Fresno California, RB, Series B, AMT (AGM),
5.50%, 7/01/20		4,455	4,501,332
City of San Jose California, Refunding RB, Series A, AMT
(AGM), 5.50%, 3/01/19		5,220	5,766,169
County of Orange California, RB, Series B,
5.75%, 7/01/34		6,345	6,910,149
County of Sacramento California, RB, Senior Series B:
5.75%, 7/01/39		2,650	2,868,519
AMT (AGM), 5.75%, 7/01/28		13,170	13,879,204
AMT (AGM), 5.25%, 7/01/33		19,525	19,561,707

		Par
Municipal Bonds		(000)	Value
California (concluded)
Transportation (concluded)
Port of Oakland, RB, Series K, AMT (NPFGC),
5.75%, 11/01/29	$ 19,660		$ 19,660,983
San Francisco City & County Airports Commission, RB,
Series E, 6.00%, 5/01/39		9,650	10,657,557
San Francisco City & County Airports Commission,
Refunding RB, Second Series 34E, AMT (AGM),
5.75%, 5/01/24		5,000	5,411,650
San Mateo County Transportation Authority,
Refunding RB, Series A (NPFGC), 5.00%, 6/01/32		10,000	10,249,500
			99,466,770
Utilities — 24.1%
City of Escondido California, COP, Refunding, Series A
(NPFGC), 5.75%, 9/01/24		465	471,422
City of Glendale California, RB (AGC), 5.00%, 2/01/31		5,030	5,224,359
City of Santa Clara California, RB, Sub-Series A (NPFGC),
5.00%, 7/01/28		6,050	6,111,892
East Bay Municipal Utility District, RB, Sub-Series A
(NPFGC), 5.00%, 6/01/35		150	155,460
East Bay Municipal Utility District, Refunding RB,
Sub-Series A (AMBAC), 5.00%, 6/01/33		6,545	6,892,736
Los Angeles Department of Water & Power, RB
(AMBAC), System:
Sub-Series A-1, 5.00%, 7/01/36		4,610	4,742,906
Sub-Series A-2, 5.00%, 7/01/35		1,150	1,183,764
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, RB,
Series B-1 (NPFGC), 5.00%, 10/01/33		9,000	9,262,260
Oxnard Financing Authority, RB (NPFGC):
Project, 5.00%, 6/01/31		10,000	10,044,500
Redwood Trunk Sewer & Headworks, Series A,
5.25%, 6/01/34		13,000	13,210,990
Sacramento City Financing Authority California,
Refunding RB (NPFGC), 5.00%, 12/01/29		8,775	8,742,094
Sacramento Municipal Utility District, RB, Cosumnes
Project (NPFGC), 5.13%, 7/01/29		36,760	37,500,714
San Francisco City & County Public Utilities
Commission, RB:
Series A (NPFGC), 5.00%, 11/01/32		15,000	15,277,050
Series B, 5.00%, 11/01/30		16,705	17,931,815
Turlock Public Financing Authority California, RB, Series A
(NPFGC), 5.00%, 9/15/33		6,655	6,746,772
			143,498,734
Total Municipal Bonds — 102.4%			609,161,492
Municipal Bonds Transferred to
Tender Option Bond Trusts (c)
California — 58.9%
Corporate — 7.1%
San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District,
Refunding RB, Series A (NPFGC), 5.00%, 7/01/30		23,100	24,237,213
University of California, RB, Limited Project, Series B
(AGM), 5.00%, 5/15/33		17,397	17,744,198
			41,981,411
County/City/Special District/School District — 26.2%
Contra Costa Community College District California, GO,
Election of 2002 (NPFGC), 5.00%, 8/01/28		7,800	8,021,910
Desert Community College District California, GO,
Series C (AGM), 5.00%, 8/01/37		16,530	16,852,666
Los Angeles Community College District California, GO:
Series A, Election of 2001 (NPFGC), 5.00%, 8/01/32		6,647	6,809,121
Series A, Election of 2008, 6.00%, 8/01/33		9,596	10,826,270
Series E, Election of 2003 (AGM), 5.00%, 8/01/31		11,216	11,508,373

See Notes to Financial Statements.

12 ANNUAL REPORT

JULY 31, 2010

Schedule of Investments (continued)

BlackRock MuniHoldings California Insured Fund, Inc. (MUC)

(Percentages shown are based on Net Assets)

Municipal Bonds Transferred to		Par
Tender Option Bond Trusts (c)		(000)	Value
California (concluded)
County/City/Special District/School District (concluded)
Ohlone Community College District, GO, Ohlone, Series B
(AGM), 5.00%, 8/01/30	$ 16,518		$ 16,988,887
Peralta Community College District, GO, Election of 2000,
Series D (AGM), 5.00%, 8/01/35		15,490	15,840,384
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		17,770	18,289,417
San Diego Community College District California, GO,
Election of 2002 (AGM), 5.00%, 5/01/30		12,549	12,930,659
San Francisco Bay Area Transit Financing Authority,
Refunding RB, Series A (NPFGC), 5.00%, 7/01/34		2,499	2,596,259
San Jose Financing Authority, Refunding RB, Civic Center
Project, Series B (AMBAC), 5.00%, 6/01/32		14,800	14,873,704
Vista Unified School District California, GO, Series A
(AGM), 5.25%, 8/01/25		10,016	10,476,795
			156,312,045
Education — 8.0%
Chaffey Community College District, GO, Election
of 2002, Series B (NPFGC), 5.00%, 6/01/30		9,905	10,122,039
Peralta Community College District, GO, Peralta
Community College (AGM), 5.00%, 8/01/32		6,980	7,187,655
Riverside Community College District, GO, Election
of 2004, Series C (NPFGC), 5.00%, 8/01/32		8,910	9,137,383
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
			47,320,615
Utilities — 17.6%
City of Napa California, RB (AMBAC), 5.00%, 5/01/35		9,100	9,367,176
East Bay Municipal Utility District, RB, Sub-Series A
(NPFGC), 5.00%, 6/01/35		12,070	12,509,348
East Bay Municipal Utility District, Refunding RB,
Sub-Series A (AMBAC), 5.00%, 6/01/37		14,510	15,210,398
Los Angeles Department of Water & Power, RB,
Power System (AGM):
Sub-Series A-1, 5.00%, 7/01/31		4,993	5,177,267
Sub-Series A-2, 5.00%, 7/01/35		7,500	7,720,200
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, RB,
Series A (AGM), 5.00%, 7/01/35		12,870	13,386,730
Rancho Water District Financing Authority, Refunding RB,
Series A (AGM), 5.00%, 8/01/34		5,008	5,164,859
Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District, RB,
Sacramento Regional County Sanitation (NPFGC),
5.00%, 12/01/36		4,500	4,607,145
San Diego County Water Authority, COP, Refunding:
Series 2002-A (NPFGC), 5.00%, 5/01/32		10,000	10,118,700
Series 2008-A (AGM), 5.00%, 5/01/33		16,740	17,381,477
San Diego County Water Authority, COP, Series A (AGM),
5.00%, 5/01/31		4,000	4,106,840
			104,750,140
Total Municipal Bonds Transferred to
Tender Option Bond Trusts — 58.9%			350,364,211
Total Long-Term Investments
(Cost — $945,641,151) — 161.3%			959,525,703

Short-Term Securities	Shares	Value
BIF California Municipal Money Fund,
0.04% (d)(e)	71,270,966	$ 71,270,966
Total Short-Term Securities
(Cost – $71,270,966) – 12.0%		71,270,966
Total Investments (Cost — $1,016,912,117*) — 173.3%		1,030,796,669
Liabilities in Excess of Other Assets — (0.0)%		(80,678)
Liability for Trust Certificates, Including Interest
Expense and Fees Payable — (30.6)%		(181,967,280)
Preferred Shares, at Redemption Value — (42.7)%		(254,015,094)
Net Assets Applicable to Common Shares — 100.0%		$ 594,733,617

* 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	$834,751,050
Gross unrealized appreciation	$ 18,043,234
Gross unrealized depreciation	(3,852,248)
Net unrealized appreciation	$ 14,190,986

(a) Represents a zero-coupon bond. Rate shown reflects the current yield as of
report date.
(b) When-issued security. Unsettled when-issued transactions were as follows:

		Unrealized
		Appreciation
Counterparty	Value	(Depreciation)
Stone and Youngberg	$8,941,150	$ —

(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) 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:

	Shares Held		Shares Held
	at July 31,	Net	at July 31,
Affiliate	2009	Activity	2010	Income
BIF California
Municipal
Money Fund	20,500,814	50,770,152	71,270,966	$ 6,168

(e) Represents the current yield as of report date.
•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 mar-
ket 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:

		Expiration	Notional	Unrealized
Contracts	Issue	Date	Value	Depreciation
50	10-Year U.S.
	Treasury Bond	September 2010	$6,083,484	$ (107,141)

See Notes to Financial Statements.

ANNUAL REPORT

JULY 31, 2010

13

Schedule of Investments (concluded)

BlackRock MuniHoldings California Insured Fund, Inc. (MUC)

• 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	—	$ 959,525,703	—	$ 959,525,703
Short-Term
Securities	$ 71,270,966	—	—	71,270,966
Total	$ 71,270,966	$ 959,525,703	—	$1,030,796,669
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	$ (107,141)	—	—	$ (107,141)

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

See Notes to Financial Statements.

14 ANNUAL REPORT

JULY 31, 2010

Schedule of Investments July 31, 2010

BlackRock MuniHoldings New Jersey Insured Fund, Inc. (MUJ)

(Percentages shown are based on Net Assets)

		Par
Municipal Bonds		(000)	Value
New Jersey — 136.3%
Corporate — 2.3%
New Jersey EDA, RB, Disposal, Waste Management
of New Jersey, Series A, Mandatory Put Bonds, AMT,
5.30%, 6/01/15	$ 2,500		$ 2,698,775
New Jersey EDA, Refunding RB, AMT, New Jersey
American Water Co., Inc. Project:
Series A, 5.70%, 10/01/39		2,500	2,567,300
Series B, 5.60%, 11/01/34		2,150	2,211,640
			7,477,715
County/City/Special District/School District — 23.7%
Borough of Hopatcong New Jersey, GO, Refunding,
Sewer (AMBAC), 4.50%, 8/01/33		2,690	2,733,847
Camden County Improvement Authority, RB (AGM),
5.50%, 9/01/10 (a)		1,540	1,547,007
City of Perth Amboy New Jersey, GO, CAB (AGM) (b):
5.09%, 7/01/32		4,605	4,310,879
5.10%, 7/01/33		1,395	1,302,623
5.14%, 7/01/37		1,470	1,363,234
County of Middlesex New Jersey, COP (NPFGC):
5.25%, 6/15/23		1,550	1,554,635
Refunding, 5.50%, 8/01/16		1,375	1,438,291
East Orange Board Of Education, COP (AGM),
5.50%, 8/01/12		5,450	5,686,530
Edgewater Borough Board of Education, GO (AGM):
4.25%, 3/01/34		1,235	1,225,861
4.25%, 3/01/35		1,300	1,286,259
4.30%, 3/01/36		1,370	1,353,601
4.30%, 3/01/37		1,440	1,439,050
4.30%, 3/01/38		1,515	1,506,713
4.30%, 3/01/39		1,590	1,579,331
4.30%, 3/01/40		1,668	1,652,221
Essex County Improvement Authority, LRB, County
Correctional Facility Project, Series A (FGIC),
5.00%, 10/01/13 (a)		4,400	5,008,344
Essex County Improvement Authority, RB,
County Correctional Facility Project (FGIC),
6.00%, 10/01/10 (a)		4,000	4,039,000
Essex County Improvement Authority, Refunding RB,
Project Consolidation (NPFGC), 5.50%, 10/01/27		250	289,460
Hudson County Improvement Authority, RB,
Harrison Parking Facility Project, Series C (AGC),
5.38%, 1/01/44		3,600	3,857,688
Hudson County Improvement Authority, Refunding RB,
Hudson County Lease Project (NPFGC),
5.38%, 10/01/24		2,530	2,546,673
Middlesex County Improvement Authority, RB,
Senior Citizens Housing Project, AMT (AMBAC),
5.50%, 9/01/30		500	500,115
Monmouth County Improvement Authority, Refunding RB,
Governmental Loan (AMBAC):
5.35%, 12/01/10 (a)		695	707,024
5.38%, 12/01/10 (a)		535	544,304
5.35%, 12/01/17		845	856,593
5.38%, 12/01/18		935	947,875
Morristown Parking Authority, RB (NPFGC):
5.00%, 8/01/30		1,830	1,938,519
5.00%, 8/01/33		3,000	3,144,300
New Jersey State Transit Corp., COP, Subordinate,
Federal Transit Administration Grants, Series A (AGM),
5.00%, 9/15/21		2,000	2,085,080
Newark Housing Authority, Refunding RB, Newark
Redevelopment Project (NPFGC), 4.38%, 1/01/37		620	597,488

		Par
Municipal Bonds		(000)	Value
New Jersey (continued)
County/City/Special District/School District (concluded)
North Bergen Township Board Of Education, COP
(AGM) (a):
6.00%, 12/15/10	$ 1,000		$ 1,031,740
6.25%, 12/15/10		1,580	1,631,634
6.25%, 12/15/10		1,680	1,734,902
Salem County Improvement Authority, RB, Finlaw Street
Office Building (AGM), 5.38%, 8/15/28		500	516,390
South Jersey Port Corp., Refunding RB:
4.50%, 1/01/15		3,750	3,952,987
4.50%, 1/01/16		1,920	2,005,882
Township of West Deptford New Jersey, GO (FGIC) (a):
5.63%, 9/01/10		4,170	4,189,390
5.63%, 9/01/10		4,410	4,430,506
			76,535,976
Education — 19.2%
New Jersey EDA, RB:
International Center For Public Health Project,
University of Medicine and Dentistry (AMBAC),
6.00%, 6/01/32		5,000	5,000,100
School Facilities Construction, Series Y,
5.00%, 9/01/33		3,000	3,129,540
New Jersey Educational Facilities Authority, RB:
Montclair State University, Series A (AMBAC),
5.00%, 7/01/21		1,200	1,285,512
Montclair State University, Series A (AMBAC),
5.00%, 7/01/22		2,880	3,069,446
Richard Stockton College, Series F (NPFGC),
5.00%, 7/01/31		2,625	2,669,258
Rowan University, Series C (NPFGC),
5.00%, 7/01/14 (a)		3,260	3,768,136
Rowan University, Series C (NPFGC),
5.13%, 7/01/14 (a)		3,615	4,195,822
New Jersey Educational Facilities Authority, Refunding RB:
College of New Jersey, Series D (AGM),
5.00%, 7/01/35		9,540	9,964,339
Montclair State University, Series J (NPFGC),
4.25%, 7/01/30		3,775	3,670,961
Ramapo College, Series I (AMBAC),
4.25%, 7/01/31		1,250	1,198,075
Ramapo College, Series I (AMBAC),
4.25%, 7/01/36		900	840,411
Rowan University, Series C (FGIC),
5.25%, 7/01/11 (a)		240	253,430
Rowan University, Series C (FGIC),
5.25%, 7/01/11 (a)		285	300,949
Rowan University, Series C (FGIC),
5.25%, 7/01/11 (a)		265	279,829
Rowan University, Series C (NPFGC),
5.25%, 7/01/17		2,135	2,229,879
Rowan University, Series C (NPFGC),
5.25%, 7/01/18		2,535	2,645,247
Rowan University, Series C (NPFGC),
5.25%, 7/01/19		2,370	2,470,844
Stevens Institute of Technology, Series A,
5.00%, 7/01/27		2,800	2,847,376
Stevens Institute of Technology, Series A,
5.00%, 7/01/34		900	885,159
William Paterson University, Series C (AGC),
5.00%, 7/01/28		250	265,773
William Paterson University, Series C (AGC),
4.75%, 7/01/34		4,000	4,049,920
University of Medicine & Dentistry of New Jersey, COP
(NPFGC), 5.00%, 6/15/29		2,000	1,992,620
University of Medicine & Dentistry of New Jersey, RB,
Series A (AMBAC), 5.50%, 12/01/27		4,740	4,825,794
			61,838,420

See Notes to Financial Statements.

ANNUAL REPORT

JULY 31, 2010

15

Schedule of Investments (continued)

BlackRock MuniHoldings New Jersey Insured Fund, Inc. (MUJ)

(Percentages shown are based on Net Assets)

	Par
Municipal Bonds	(000)	Value
New Jersey (continued)
Health — 13.6%
New Jersey Health Care Facilities Financing Authority, RB:
Greystone Park Psychiatric Hospital (AMBAC),
5.00%, 9/15/23	$ 10,775	$ 11,113,119
Meridian Health, Series I (AGC), 5.00%, 7/01/38	770	783,059
Meridian Health, Series II (AGC), 5.00%, 7/01/38	7,385	7,510,250
Meridian Health, Series V (AGC), 5.00%, 7/01/38	3,950	4,016,992
South Jersey Hospital, 6.00%, 7/01/12 (a)	5,440	6,014,138
Virtua Health (AGC), 5.50%, 7/01/38	1,900	2,028,174
New Jersey Health Care Facilities Financing Authority,
Refunding RB:
AHS Hospital Corp., Series A (AMBAC),
6.00%, 7/01/13 (c)	4,000	4,604,000
Atlantic City Medical Center, 5.75%, 7/01/12 (a)	1,525	1,675,578
Atlantic City Medical Center, 6.25%, 7/01/12 (a)	530	587,383
Atlantic City Medical System, 6.25%, 7/01/17	925	976,911
Atlantic City Medical System, 5.75%, 7/01/25	1,975	2,028,977
Hackensack University Medical Center (AGC),
5.13%, 1/01/27	1,500	1,571,055
Meridian Health System Obligation Group (AGM),
5.38%, 7/01/24	1,000	1,000,790
		43,910,426
Housing — 5.1%
New Jersey State Housing & Mortgage Finance
Agency, RB:
Capital Fund Program, Series A (AGM),
4.70%, 11/01/25	10,840	11,070,675
Series AA, 6.50%, 10/01/38	2,720	2,979,189
New Jersey State Housing & Mortgage Finance
Agency, Refunding RB, S/F Housing, Series T, AMT,
4.70%, 10/01/37	800	764,720
Newark Housing Authority, RB, South Ward Police
Facility (AGC):
5.75%, 12/01/30	850	917,430
6.75%, 12/01/38	500	571,820
		16,303,834
State — 41.9%
Garden State Preservation Trust, RB (AGM):
CAB, Series B, 5.12%, 11/01/23 (d)	9,000	5,223,960
CAB, Series B, 4.32%, 11/01/25 (d)	10,000	5,191,900
Election of 2005, Series A, 5.80%, 11/01/21	1,960	2,331,930
Election of 2005, Series A, 5.80%, 11/01/23	2,730	3,243,922
Garden State Preservation Trust, Refunding RB,
Series C (AGM):
5.25%, 11/01/20	5,000	6,140,050
5.25%, 11/01/21	7,705	9,495,026
New Jersey EDA, RB:
Cigarette Tax, 5.63%, 6/15/19	2,700	2,700,567
Cigarette Tax (Radian), 5.75%, 6/15/29	2,000	2,001,900
Cigarette Tax (Radian), 5.50%, 6/15/31	585	570,363
Cigarette Tax (Radian), 5.75%, 6/15/34	1,180	1,167,822
Liberty State Park Project, Series C (AGM),
5.00%, 3/01/22	2,670	2,920,740
Motor Vehicle Surcharge, Series A (NPFGC),
5.25%, 7/01/24	1,785	1,951,362
Motor Vehicle Surcharge, Series A (NPFGC),
5.25%, 7/01/25	4,000	4,341,480
Motor Vehicle Surcharge, Series A (NPFGC),
5.25%, 7/01/26	7,500	8,072,100
Motor Vehicle Surcharge, Series A (NPFGC),
5.25%, 7/01/33	11,105	11,316,883
Motor Vehicle Surcharge, Series A (NPFGC),
5.00%, 7/01/34	2,000	1,972,460
School Facilities Construction, Series L (AGM),
5.00%, 3/01/30	9,000	9,350,460

		Par
Municipal Bonds		(000)	Value
New Jersey (continued)
State (concluded)
New Jersey EDA, RB:
School Facilities Construction, Series O,
5.25%, 3/01/23	$ 1,420		$ 1,547,133
School Facilities Construction, Series Z (AGC),
6.00%, 12/15/34		2,800	3,184,804
School Facilities, Series U (AMBAC),
5.00%, 9/01/37		2,500	2,585,750
New Jersey EDA, Refunding RB, School Facilities
Construction, Series N-1 (NPFGC), 5.50%, 9/01/27		1,000	1,129,820
New Jersey Educational Facilities Authority, RB,
Series A (a):
Capital Improvement Fund (AGM), 5.75%, 9/01/10		8,300	8,339,508
Higher Education Capital Improvement (AMBAC),
5.13%, 9/01/12		5,500	6,036,030
New Jersey Sports & Exposition Authority, RB, Series A
(NPFGC), 6.00%, 3/01/13		2,400	2,410,392
New Jersey Sports & Exposition Authority, Refunding
RB (NPFGC):
5.50%, 3/01/21		5,890	6,841,765
5.50%, 3/01/22		3,000	3,472,470
New Jersey Transportation Trust Fund Authority, RB:
CAB, Transportation System, Series C (AGM),
4.74%, 12/15/32 (d)		4,050	1,125,860
CAB, Transportation System, Series C (AMBAC),
5.05%, 12/15/36 (d)		5,500	1,153,680
Transportation System, Series D (AGM),
5.00%, 6/15/19		5,240	5,755,459
New Jersey Transportation Trust Fund Authority,
Refunding RB, Transportation System, Series A (AGM),
5.25%, 12/15/20		10,750	12,479,137
State of New Jersey, COP, Equipment Lease Purchase,
Series A, 5.25%, 6/15/27		1,080	1,141,096
			135,195,829
Tobacco — 1.7%
Tobacco Settlement Financing Corp. New Jersey, RB,
7.00%, 6/01/13 (a)		4,755	5,607,524
Transportation — 24.4%
Delaware River Port Authority Pennsylvania & New Jersey,
RB (AGM):
5.50%, 1/01/12		5,000	5,018,800
5.63%, 1/01/13		6,000	6,022,620
Delaware River Port Authority, RB:
Port District Project, Series B (AGM),
5.63%, 1/01/26		2,425	2,427,668
Series D (AGC), 5.00%, 1/01/40		3,700	3,803,415
New Jersey State Turnpike Authority, RB, Growth & Income
Securities, Series B (AMBAC), 5.22%, 1/01/15 (b)		7,615	6,215,668
New Jersey State Turnpike Authority, Refunding RB:
Series A (AGM), 5.25%, 1/01/29		2,000	2,286,860
Series A (AGM), 5.25%, 1/01/30		4,000	4,548,000
Series A (BHAC), 5.25%, 1/01/29		500	578,050
Series C (NPFGC), 6.50%, 1/01/16		910	1,098,006
Series C (NPFGC), 6.50%, 1/01/16 (c)		4,355	5,016,960
Series C-2005 (NPFGC), 6.50%, 1/01/16 (c)		255	320,818
New Jersey Transportation Trust Fund Authority, RB:
CAB, Transportation System, Series C (AMBAC),
5.05%, 12/15/35 (d)		1,400	313,894
Transportation System, Series A (AGC),
5.63%, 12/15/28		2,000	2,247,420
Transportation System, Series A (AGM),
5.50%, 12/15/22		150	176,313
Transportation System, Series A (AMBAC),
5.00%, 12/15/32		1,425	1,474,647

See Notes to Financial Statements.

16 ANNUAL REPORT

JULY 31, 2010

Schedule of Investments (continued)

BlackRock MuniHoldings New Jersey Insured Fund, Inc. (MUJ)

(Percentages shown are based on Net Assets)

		Par
Municipal Bonds		(000)	Value
New Jersey (concluded)
Transportation (concluded)
New Jersey Transportation Trust Fund Authority,
RB (concluded):
Transportation System, Series A (NPFGC),
5.75%, 6/15/24	$ 1,205		$ 1,432,082
Transportation System, Series C,
5.50%, 6/15/13 (a)		780	890,315
New Jersey Transportation Trust Fund Authority,
Refunding RB, Transportation System, Series B
(NPFGC), 5.50%, 12/15/21		9,165	10,827,073
Port Authority of New York & New Jersey, RB, Special
Project, JFK International Air Terminal, Series 6,
AMT (NPFGC):
6.25%, 12/01/11		13,500	13,940,370
6.25%, 12/01/15		1,500	1,607,025
5.75%, 12/01/25		3,000	3,004,290
Port Authority of New York & New Jersey, Refunding RB,
Consolidated, 152nd Series, AMT, 5.75%, 11/01/30		5,175	5,548,583
			78,798,877
Utilities — 4.4%
Atlantic Highlands Highland Regional Sewage Authority,
Refunding RB (NPFGC), 5.50%, 1/01/20		1,875	1,911,000
Essex County Utilities Authority, Refunding RB (AGC),
4.13%, 4/01/22		2,000	2,082,060
New Jersey EDA, RB, Series A, American Water, AMT
(AMBAC), 5.25%, 11/01/32		3,000	2,988,030
North Hudson Sewerage Authority, Refunding RB,
Series A (NPFGC), 5.13%, 8/01/20		4,335	4,639,664
Rahway Valley Sewerage Authority, RB, CAB, Series A
(NPFGC), 4.79%, 9/01/28 (d)		6,600	2,482,128
			14,102,882
Total Municipal Bonds in New Jersey			439,771,483
Guam — 0.6%
Utilities — 0.6%
Guam Power Authority, Refunding RB, Series A (AGM),
5.00%, 10/01/37		1,860	1,862,809
Puerto Rico — 11.2%
County/City/Special District/School District — 1.9%
Puerto Rico Sales Tax Financing Corp., Refunding RB,
First Sub-Series C (AGM), 5.13%, 8/01/42		6,120	6,330,589
Health — 1.1%
Puerto Rico Industrial Tourist Educational Medical &
Environmental Control Facilities Financing Authority, RB:
Hosp Auxilio Mutuo Obligation Group, Series A
(NPFGC), 6.25%, 7/01/24		1,780	1,781,922
Hospital De La Concepcion, Series A,
6.50%, 11/15/20		1,750	1,787,468
			3,569,390
Housing — 2.0%
Puerto Rico Housing Finance Authority, Refunding RB,
Subordinate, Capital Fund Modernization,
5.13%, 12/01/27		6,285	6,346,153
State — 0.9%
Puerto Rico Commonwealth Infrastructure
Financing Authority, RB, CAB, Series A (AMBAC),
4.36%, 7/01/37 (d)		4,000	658,040

	Par
Municipal Bonds	(000)	Value
Puerto Rico (concluded)
State (concluded)
Puerto Rico Public Buildings Authority, Refunding RB,
Government Facilities, Series M-3 (NPFGC),
6.00%, 7/01/27	$ 2,125	$ 2,248,229
		2,906,269
Transportation — 1.7%
Puerto Rico Highway & Transportation Authority,
Refunding RB, Series CC (AGC), 5.50%, 7/01/31	5,000	5,375,950
Utilities — 3.6%
Puerto Rico Aqueduct & Sewer Authority, RB,
Senior Lien, Series A (AGC), 5.13%, 7/01/47	6,120	6,178,446
Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority, RB, Series RR
(CIFG), 5.00%, 7/01/28	4,100	4,121,115
Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority, Refunding RB,
Series VV (NPFGC), 5.25%, 7/01/26	1,325	1,409,058
		11,708,619
Total Municipal Bonds in Puerto Rico		36,236,970
Total Municipal Bonds — 148.1%		477,871,262
Municipal Bonds Transferred to
Tender Option Bond Trusts (e)
New Jersey — 7.0%
Housing — 1.6%
New Jersey State Housing & Mortgage Finance
Agency, RB, Capital Fund Program, Series A (AGM),
5.00%, 5/01/27	4,790	5,204,910
State — 3.5%
Garden State Preservation Trust, RB, Election of 2005,
Series A (AGM), 5.75%, 11/01/28	9,160	11,248,846
Transportation — 1.9%
Port Authority of New York & New Jersey, Refunding RB,
Consolidated, 152nd Series, AMT, 5.25%, 11/01/35	5,998	6,186,210
Total Municipal Bonds Transferred to
Tender Option Bond Trusts — 7.0%		22,639,966
Total Long-Term Investments
(Cost — $481,753,647) — 155.1%		500,511,228
Short-Term Securities	Shares
BIF New Jersey Municipal Money Fund,
0.04% (f)(g)	1,117,529	1,117,529
Total Short-Term Securities
(Cost — $1,117,529) — 0.3%		1,117,529
Total Investments (Cost — $482,871,176*) — 155.4%		501,628,757
Other Assets Less Liabilities — 2.2%		7,034,897
Liability for Trust Certificates, Including Interest
Expense and Fees Payable — (4.1)%		(13,272,794)
Preferred Shares, at Redemption Value — (53.5)%		(172,709,943)
Net Assets Applicable to Common Shares — 100.0%		$322,680,917

* 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	$469,951,009
Gross unrealized appreciation	$ 21,231,946
Gross unrealized depreciation	(2,817,128)
Net unrealized appreciation	$ 18,414,818

See Notes to Financial Statements.

ANNUAL REPORT

JULY 31, 2010

17

Schedule of Investments (concluded)

BlackRock MuniHoldings New Jersey Insured Fund, Inc. (MUJ)

(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 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.
(c) Security is collateralized by Municipal or US Treasury obligations.
(d) Represents a zero-coupon bond. Rate shown reflects the current yield as of
report date.
(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:

	Shares Held		Shares Held
	at July 31,	Net	at July 31,
Affiliate	2009	Activity	2010	Income
BIF New Jersey
Municipal
Money Fund	3,311,943	(2,194,414)	1,117,529	$ 1,783

(g) Represents the current yield as of report date.
•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 mar-
ket 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	—	$ 500,511,228	—	$ 500,511,228
Short-Term
Securities	$ 1,117,529	—	—	1,117,529
Total	$ 1,117,529	$ 500,511,228	—	$ 501,628,757
1 See above Schedule of Investments for values in each sector.

See Notes to Financial Statements.

18 ANNUAL REPORT

JULY 31, 2010

Schedule of Investments July 31, 2010

BlackRock MuniYield Insured Investment Fund (MFT)
(Percentages shown are based on Net Assets)

		Par
Municipal Bonds		(000)	Value
Alabama — 4.2%
Birmingham Special Care Facilities Financing Authority,
RB, Children’s Hospital (AGC):
6.13%, 6/01/34	$ 1,500		$ 1,641,645
6.00%, 6/01/39		2,985	3,259,590
			4,901,235
Arizona — 0.5%
State of Arizona, COP, Department of Administration,
Series A (AGM):
5.25%, 10/01/28		480	499,090
5.00%, 10/01/29		125	126,921
			626,011
California — 13.8%
California State Public Works Board, RB, Various Capital
Projects, Series G-1 (AGC), 5.25%, 10/01/24		2,000	2,079,540
California State University, RB, Systemwide, Series A
(AGM), 5.00%, 11/01/39		1,000	1,010,680
County of Sacramento California, RB, Senior Series A
(AGC), 5.50%, 7/01/41		1,400	1,478,022
Los Angeles Community College District California, GO,
Election of 2001, Series A (NPFGC), 5.00%, 8/01/32		2,780	2,847,609
San Diego Public Facilities Financing Authority,
Refunding RB, Series B (AGC), 5.38%, 8/01/34		1,020	1,090,921
San Jacinto Unified School District, GO, Election of 2006
(AGM), 5.25%, 8/01/32		1,000	1,022,910
State of California, GO, Various Purpose:
(AGC), 5.50%, 11/01/39		3,450	3,610,080
(AGM), 5.00%, 6/01/32		3,000	3,039,660
			16,179,422
Colorado — 1.2%
Colorado Health Facilities Authority, RB, Hospital,
NCMC Inc. Project, Series B (AGM), 6.00%, 5/15/26		1,300	1,460,277
Florida — 23.4%
Broward County Educational Facilities Authority, RB,
Educational Facilities, Nova Southeastern University
(AGC), 5.00%, 4/01/31		1,720	1,717,678
City of Jacksonville Florida, Refunding RB (NPFGC),
5.25%, 10/01/32		1,455	1,475,123
City of Lakeland Florida, Refunding RB, Series A
(NPFGC), 5.00%, 10/01/28		1,075	1,083,428
County of Lee Florida, RB, Series A, AMT (AGM),
6.00%, 10/01/29		1,000	1,012,160
County of Miami-Dade Florida, RB, AMT (AGM), Miami
International Airport, Series A:
5.00%, 10/01/33		1,385	1,351,483
5.25%, 10/01/41		150	150,582
5.50%, 10/01/41		2,400	2,448,840
County of Orange Florida, Refunding RB (AMBAC),
5.00%, 10/01/29		2,190	2,226,726
County of Osceola Florida, RB, Series A (NPFGC),
5.50%, 10/01/27		1,100	1,124,706
County of St. John’s Florida, RB (AGM),
5.00%, 10/01/31		2,135	2,215,575
Florida Housing Finance Corp., HRB, Brittany
Rosemont Apartments, Series C-1, AMT (AMBAC),
6.75%, 8/01/14		640	640,973
Florida Housing Finance Corp., RB, Homeowner
Mortgage, Series 11, AMT (AGM), 5.95%, 1/01/32		1,415	1,415,976

		Par
Municipal Bonds		(000)	Value
Florida (concluded)
Florida Housing Finance Corp., Refunding RB,
Homeowner Mortgage, Series 4, AMT (AGM),
6.25%, 7/01/22	$ 215		$ 227,820
Jacksonville Economic Development Commission, RB,
Mayo Clinic, Series B (NPFGC), 5.50%, 11/15/36		750	765,773
Miami-Dade County IDA, RB, BAC Funding Corp. Project,
Series A (AMBAC), 5.38%, 10/01/30		1,655	1,696,193
Palm Beach County School District, COP, Refunding,
Series D (AGM), 5.25%, 8/01/21		1,950	2,084,979
Santa Rosa County School Board, COP, Refunding,
Series 2 (NPFGC), 5.25%, 2/01/26		2,000	2,107,240
St. Lucie West Services District, RB (NPFGC),
5.25%, 10/01/34		1,000	1,017,110
Village Center Community Development District, RB,
Series A (NPFGC):
5.38%, 11/01/34		1,640	1,456,238
5.13%, 11/01/36		1,000	845,490
Volusia County IDA, RB, Student Housing, Stetson
University Project, Series A (CIFG), 5.00%, 6/01/35		525	455,789
			27,519,882
Georgia — 4.0%
County of Fulton Georgia, RB (NPFGC), 5.25%, 1/01/35		1,000	1,052,420
Gwinnett County Hospital Authority, Refunding RB,
Gwinnett Hospital System, Series D (AGM),
5.50%, 7/01/41		1,375	1,407,037
Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority, RB, Third
Indenture, Series B (AGM), 5.00%, 7/01/34		2,100	2,196,054
			4,655,511
Illinois — 12.3%
Chicago Board of Education Illinois, GO, Refunding,
Chicago School Reform Board, Series A (NPFGC),
5.50%, 12/01/26		825	940,484
Chicago Transit Authority, RB, Federal Transit
Administration Section 5309, Series A (AGC),
6.00%, 6/01/26		1,400	1,617,140
City of Chicago Illinois, GO, Refunding, Projects,
Series A (AGM):
5.00%, 1/01/28		945	1,007,068
5.00%, 1/01/29		1,465	1,550,673
5.00%, 1/01/30		585	614,572
City of Chicago Illinois, RB, General, Third Lien, Series C
(AGM), 5.25%, 1/01/35		835	865,736
City of Chicago Illinois, Refunding RB, Second Lien
(NPFGC), 5.50%, 1/01/30		895	993,960
Illinois Municipal Electric Agency, RB, Series A (NPFGC):
5.25%, 2/01/28		1,565	1,635,018
5.25%, 2/01/35		1,250	1,283,912
State of Illinois, RB:
(AGM), 5.00%, 6/15/27		1,000	1,024,260
Build Illinois, Series B, 5.25%, 6/15/28		1,750	1,858,220
Village of Schaumburg Illinois, GO, Series B (NPFGC),
5.00%, 12/01/38		1,000	1,017,070
			14,408,113

See Notes to Financial Statements.

ANNUAL REPORT

JULY 31, 2010

19

Schedule of Investments (continued)

BlackRock MuniYield Insured Investment Fund (MFT)
(Percentages shown are based on Net Assets)

		Par
Municipal Bonds		(000)	Value
Indiana — 4.4%
Indiana Municipal Power Agency, RB, Series A (NPFGC),
5.00%, 1/01/42	$ 1,485		$ 1,501,186
Indianapolis Local Public Improvement Bond Bank,
Refunding RB, Waterworks Project, Series A (AGC),
5.50%, 1/01/38		3,310	3,607,503
			5,108,689
Iowa — 1.1%
Iowa Finance Authority, Refunding RB, Iowa Health
System (AGC), 5.25%, 2/15/29		1,190	1,253,558
Kentucky — 1.1%
Kentucky Municipal Power Agency, RB, Prairie State
Project, Series A (BHAC), 5.25%, 9/01/42		1,250	1,297,838
Louisiana — 1.9%
Louisiana State Citizens Property Insurance Corp., RB,
Series C-3 (AGC), 6.13%, 6/01/25		1,405	1,563,976
New Orleans Aviation Board Louisiana, Refunding RB
(AGC), Restructuring GARB:
Series A-1, 6.00%, 1/01/23		375	429,304
Series A-2, 6.00%, 1/01/23		160	183,169
			2,176,449
Maine — 1.0%
City of Portland Maine, RB, General (AGM),
5.25%, 1/01/35		1,125	1,163,813
Michigan — 17.7%
City of Detroit Michigan, RB:
Second Lien, Series B (AGM), 6.25%, 7/01/36		1,800	1,973,808
Second Lien, Series B (AGM), 7.00%, 7/01/36		200	231,140
Second Lien, Series B (NPFGC), 5.50%, 7/01/29		1,640	1,681,148
Senior Lien, Series B (AGM), 7.50%, 7/01/33		1,500	1,806,105
Senior Lien, Series B (BHAC), 5.50%, 7/01/35		3,750	3,928,650
System, Second Lien, Series A (BHAC),
5.50%, 7/01/36		2,265	2,353,222
City of Detroit Michigan, Refunding RB:
Second Lien, Series E (BHAC), 5.75%, 7/01/31		2,270	2,425,994
Senior Lien, Series C-1 (AGM), 7.00%, 7/01/27		1,650	1,929,065
Michigan State Building Authority, RB, Facilities Program,
Series H (AGM), 5.00%, 10/15/26		375	390,131
Michigan State Building Authority, Refunding RB,
Facilities Program, Series I (AGC):
5.25%, 10/15/22		1,350	1,504,602
5.25%, 10/15/24		615	669,932
5.25%, 10/15/25		310	334,626
Royal Oak Hospital Finance Authority Michigan,
Refunding RB, William Beaumont Hospital,
8.25%, 9/01/39		1,265	1,510,511
			20,738,934
Minnesota — 2.9%
City of Minneapolis Minnesota, Refunding RB, Fairview
Health Services, Series B (AGC), 6.50%, 11/15/38		3,000	3,373,590
Nevada — 2.0%
County of Clark Nevada, RB, Las Vegas-McCarran
International Airport, Series A (AGC), 5.25%, 7/01/39		2,355	2,402,241
New Jersey — 2.2%
New Jersey EDA, RB, School Facilities Construction,
Series Z (AGC), 6.00%, 12/15/34		1,000	1,137,430
New Jersey Health Care Facilities Financing Authority,
RB, Virtua Health (AGC), 5.50%, 7/01/38		1,400	1,494,444
			2,631,874

		Par
Municipal Bonds		(000)	Value
New York — 5.8%
New York City Transitional Finance Authority, RB,
Fiscal 2009:
Series S-3, 5.25%, 1/15/39	$ 1,000		$ 1,069,680
Series S-4 (AGC), 5.50%, 1/15/29		2,000	2,234,740
New York State Dormitory Authority, ERB, Series B,
5.25%, 3/15/38		3,250	3,523,975
			6,828,395
Ohio — 1.4%
Ohio Higher Educational Facility Commission, Refunding
RB, Summa Health System, 2010 Project (AGC),
5.25%, 11/15/40		1,650	1,665,345
Pennsylvania — 1.3%
Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission, RB, Sub-Series B
(AGM), 5.25%, 6/01/39		1,455	1,528,332
Puerto Rico — 1.3%
Puerto Rico Sales Tax Financing Corp., RB, First
Sub-Series A, 6.38%, 8/01/39		1,425	1,573,257
Texas — 20.4%
City of Austin Texas, Refunding RB, Series A (AGM):
5.00%, 11/15/28		720	770,796
5.00%, 11/15/29		915	973,240
City of Dallas Texas, Refunding RB (AGC),
5.25%, 8/15/38		850	882,827
City of Houston Texas, Refunding RB, Combined,
First Lien, Series A (AGC):
6.00%, 11/15/35		2,700	3,107,565
6.00%, 11/15/36		2,055	2,363,558
5.38%, 11/15/38		1,000	1,088,640
County of Bexar Texas, RB, Venue Project, Motor Vehicle
Rental (BHAC):
5.00%, 8/15/27		1,040	1,111,635
5.00%, 8/15/28		1,090	1,155,836
5.00%, 8/15/39		880	910,598
Frisco ISD Texas, GO, School Building (AGC),
5.50%, 8/15/41		1,210	1,319,699
Harris County Health Facilities Development Corp.,
Refunding RB, Memorial Hermann Healthcare System,
Series B, 7.25%, 12/01/35		500	568,935
Lower Colorado River Authority, Refunding RB,
LCRA Transmission Services Project (AGC),
5.50%, 5/15/36		1,155	1,229,393
Lubbock Cooper ISD Texas, GO, School Building (AGC),
5.75%, 2/15/42		500	539,495
North Texas Tollway Authority, RB, System, First Tier,
Series K-1 (AGC), 5.75%, 1/01/38		1,400	1,524,530
North Texas Tollway Authority, Refunding RB, System,
First Tier, Series A:
(AGC), 5.75%, 1/01/40		1,500	1,618,080
(NPFGC), 5.13%, 1/01/28		3,500	3,603,180
Tarrant County Cultural Education Facilities Finance
Corp., Refunding RB, Christus Health, Series A (AGC),
6.50%, 7/01/37		1,100	1,207,448
			23,975,455
Utah — 1.5%
City of Riverton Utah, RB, IHC Health Services Inc.,
5.00%, 8/15/41		1,670	1,708,995
Virginia — 1.1%
Virginia Public School Authority, RB, School Financing,
6.50%, 12/01/35		1,100	1,277,155
Total Municipal Bonds — 126.5%			148,454,371

See Notes to Financial Statements.

20 ANNUAL REPORT

JULY 31, 2010

Schedule of Investments (continued)

BlackRock MuniYield Insured Investment Fund (MFT)
(Percentages shown are based on Net Assets)

Municipal Bonds Transferred to		Par
Tender Option Bond Trusts (a)		(000)	Value
Alabama — 1.3%
Mobile Board of Water & Sewer Commissioners, RB
(NPFGC), 5.00%, 1/01/31	$ 1,500		$ 1,528,440
California — 2.2%
San Diego Community College District California, GO,
Election of 2002 (AGM), 5.00%, 5/01/30		2,500	2,576,100
District of Columbia — 0.7%
District of Columbia Water & Sewer Authority, RB,
Series A, 6.00%, 10/01/35		750	847,600
Florida — 8.9%
City of Jacksonville Florida, RB, Better Jacksonville
(NPFGC), 5.00%, 10/01/27		1,320	1,356,089
Hillsborough County Aviation Authority, RB, Series A,
AMT (AGC), 5.50%, 10/01/38		2,499	2,555,152
Lee County Housing Finance Authority, RB,
Multi-County Program, Series A-2, AMT (Ginnie Mae),
6.00%, 9/01/40		1,035	1,141,802
Manatee County Housing Finance Authority, RB,
Series A, AMT (Ginnie Mae), 5.90%, 9/01/40		891	952,759
South Broward Hospital District, RB, Hospital (NPFGC),
5.63%, 5/01/12 (b)		4,000	4,386,720
			10,392,522
Illinois — 2.6%
Chicago Transit Authority, Refunding RB, Federal Transit
Administration Section 5309 (AGM), 5.00%, 6/01/28		2,999	3,066,603
Kentucky — 0.9%
Kentucky State Property & Building Commission,
Refunding RB, Project No. 93 (AGC), 5.25%, 2/01/27		1,002	1,096,079
Nevada — 3.8%
Clark County Water Reclamation District, GO:
Limited Tax, 6.00%, 7/01/38		2,010	2,258,737
Series B, 5.50%, 7/01/29		1,994	2,207,476
			4,466,213
New Jersey — 1.5%
New Jersey State Housing & Mortgage Finance Agency,
RB, S/F Housing, Series CC, 5.25%, 10/01/29		1,620	1,686,697
New York — 2.8%
New York City Municipal Water Finance Authority, RB,
Series FF-2, 5.50%, 6/15/40		1,095	1,222,406
New York State Thruway Authority, RB, Series G (AGM),
5.00%, 1/01/32		2,000	2,071,280
			3,293,686
Texas — 2.4%
City of San Antonio Texas, Refunding RB, Series A,
5.25%, 2/01/31		2,609	2,840,654
Total Municipal Bonds Transferred to
Tender Option Bond Trusts — 27.1%			31,794,594
Total Long-Term Investments
(Cost — $172,561,778) — 153.6%			180,248,965

Short-Term Securities	Shares	Value
FFI Institutional Tax-Exempt Fund, 0.21% (c)(d)	8,124,572	$ 8,124,572
Total Short-Term Securities
(Cost — $8,124,572) — 6.9%		8,124,572
Total Investments (Cost — $180,686,350*) — 160.5%		188,373,537
Other Assets Less Liabilities — 1.5%		1,710,357
Liability for Trust Certificates, Including Interest
Expense and Fees Payable — (13.8)%		(16,213,087)
Preferred Shares, at Redemption Value — (48.2)%		(56,529,959)
Net Assets Applicable to Common Shares — 100.0%		$117,340,848

* 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	$164,395,067
Gross unrealized appreciation	$ 8,247,313
Gross unrealized depreciation	(469,130)
Net unrealized appreciation	$ 7,778,183

(a) 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.
(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) 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:

	Shares Held		Shares Held
	at July 31,	Net	at July 31,
Affiliate	2009	Activity	2010	Income
FFI Institutional
Tax-Exempt Fund	2,301,550	5,823,022	8,124,572	$ 12,732
(d) Represents the current yield as of report date.

See Notes to Financial Statements.

ANNUAL REPORT

JULY 31, 2010

21

Schedule of Investments (concluded)

BlackRock MuniYield Insured Investment Fund (MFT)

• 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	—	$ 180,248,965	—	$ 180,248,965
Short-Term
Securities	$ 8,124,572	—	—	8,124,572
Total	$ 8,124,572	$ 180,248,965	—	$ 188,373,537

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

See Notes to Financial Statements.

22 ANNUAL REPORT

JULY 31, 2010

Schedule of Investments July 31, 2010

BlackRock MuniYield Michigan Insured Fund, Inc. (MIY)

(Percentages shown are based on Net Assets)

	Par
Municipal Bonds	(000)	Value
Michigan — 138.4%
Corporate — 12.4%
Delta County EDC, Refunding RB, Mead Westvaco-
Escanaba, Series B, AMT, 6.45%, 4/15/12 (a)	$ 1,500	$ 1,654,260
Dickinson County EDC Michigan, Refunding RB,
International Paper Co. Project, Series A,
5.75%, 6/01/16	3,900	4,003,779
Michigan Strategic Fund, Refunding RB, Detroit
Edison Co. Project, Series A, AMT (NPFGC),
5.55%, 9/01/29	10,250	10,263,325
Monroe County EDC Michigan, Refunding RB,
Detroit Edison Co. Project, Series AA (NPFGC),
6.95%, 9/01/22	15,000	17,763,600
		33,684,964
County/City/Special District/School District — 48.1%
Adrian City School District Michigan, GO (AGM) (a):
5.00%, 5/01/14	2,000	2,305,340
5.00%, 5/01/14	1,600	1,844,272
Avondale School District Michigan, GO (AGC):
4.00%, 5/01/20	1,000	1,012,270
4.30%, 5/01/22	400	406,904
Bay City School District Michigan, GO, School
Building & Site (AGM), 5.00%, 5/01/36	9,000	9,202,320
Birmingham City School District Michigan, GO, School
Building & Site (AGM), 5.00%, 11/01/33	1,000	1,026,880
Charter Township of Canton Michigan, GO, Capital
Improvement (AGM):
5.00%, 4/01/25	1,840	1,947,787
5.00%, 4/01/26	2,000	2,104,000
5.00%, 4/01/27	500	530,490
City of Oak Park Michigan, GO, Street Improvement
(NPFGC), 5.00%, 5/01/30	500	516,095
County of Genesee Michigan, GO, Refunding, Series A
(NPFGC), 5.00%, 5/01/19	600	643,128
County of Genesee Michigan, GO, Water Supply System
(NPFGC), 5.13%, 11/01/33	1,000	1,010,200
County of Wayne Michigan, GO (NPFGC), Series A:
Airport Hotel, Detroit Metropolitan Airport,
5.00%, 12/01/30	1,750	1,631,385
Building Authority, Capital Improvement,
5.25%, 6/01/16	1,000	1,003,590
Dearborn Brownfield Redevelopment Authority, GO,
Limited Tax, Redevelopment, Series A (AGC),
5.50%, 5/01/39	3,300	3,489,816
Detroit City School District Michigan, GO, Refunding,
School Building & Site Improvement, Series A (AGM),
5.00%, 5/01/21	3,000	3,095,310
Detroit City School District Michigan, GO, School
Building & Site Improvement (FGIC):
Series A, 5.38%, 5/01/13 (a)	1,300	1,466,270
Series B, 5.00%, 5/01/28	3,100	3,102,139
Eaton Rapids Public Schools Michigan, GO, School
Building & Site (AGM):
5.25%, 5/01/20	1,325	1,470,008
5.25%, 5/01/21	1,675	1,831,880
Ecorse Public School District Michigan, GO, Refunding
(AGM), 5.00%, 5/01/27	1,000	1,037,130
Gibraltar School District Michigan, GO, School
Building & Site:
(FGIC), 5.00%, 5/01/14 (a)	2,940	3,380,618
(NPFGC), 5.00%, 5/01/28	710	726,018
Grand Blanc Community Schools Michigan, GO
(NPFGC), 5.63%, 5/01/20	1,100	1,151,997
Grand Rapids Building Authority Michigan, RB, Series A
(AMBAC) (a):
5.50%, 10/01/12	435	482,672
5.50%, 10/01/12	600	665,754

		Par
Municipal Bonds		(000)	Value
Michigan (continued)
County/City/Special District/School
District (concluded)
Grand Rapids Public Schools Michigan, GO, School
Building & Site (AGM), 4.13%, 5/01/11	$ 500		$ 513,185
Gull Lake Community School District Michigan, GO,
School Building & Site (AGM) (a):
5.00%, 5/01/14		2,000	2,305,340
5.00%, 5/01/14		3,625	4,178,429
Harper Creek Community School District Michigan, GO,
Refunding (AGM), 5.00%, 5/01/22		1,125	1,215,337
Harper Woods School District Michigan, GO, Refunding,
School Building & Site:
(FGIC), 5.00%, 5/01/14 (a)		4,345	5,008,351
(NPFGC), 5.00%, 5/01/34		430	435,246
Jenison Public Schools Michigan, GO, Building and Site
(NPFGC), 5.50%, 5/01/19		1,575	1,678,651
L’Anse Creuse Public Schools Michigan, GO, School
Building & Site (AGM):
5.00%, 5/01/12		650	695,844
5.00%, 5/01/24		1,000	1,062,080
5.00%, 5/01/25		1,525	1,611,955
5.00%, 5/01/26		1,600	1,682,672
5.00%, 5/01/35		3,000	3,069,780
Lansing Building Authority Michigan, GO, Series A
(NPFGC), 5.38%, 6/01/13 (a)		1,510	1,714,137
Lincoln Consolidated School District Michigan, GO,
Refunding (NPFGC), 4.63%, 5/01/28		5,500	5,556,375
Livonia Public Schools School District Michigan, GO,
Refunding, Series A (NPFGC), 5.00%, 5/01/24		1,000	1,043,070
Michigan State Building Authority, Facilities, Series I:
5.50%, 10/15/11 (a)		145	154,073
5.50%, 10/15/18		2,355	2,450,825
Michigan State Building Authority, RB, Facilities Program,
Series H (AGM), 5.00%, 10/15/26		4,500	4,681,575
Michigan State Building Authority, Refunding RB,
Facilities Program, Series I (AGM):
5.50%, 10/15/10		4,330	4,375,855
5.50%, 10/15/10 (b)		420	424,616
5.50%, 10/15/11		14,175	14,998,851
Montrose Community Schools, GO (NPFGC),
6.20%, 5/01/17		1,000	1,200,460
New Haven Community Schools Michigan, GO,
Refunding, School Building & Site (AGM),
5.00%, 5/01/23		1,500	1,594,770
Orchard View Schools Michigan, GO, School Building &
Site (NPFGC), 5.00%, 11/01/13 (a)		5,320	6,062,300
Pennfield School District Michigan, GO, School
Building & Site (a):
(FGIC), 5.00%, 5/01/14		765	878,121
(NPFGC), 5.00%, 5/01/14		605	694,461
Reed City Public Schools Michigan, GO, School
Building & Site (AGM), 5.00%, 5/01/14 (a)		1,425	1,642,555
Southfield Public Schools Michigan, GO, School
Building & Site, Series B (AGM), 5.00%, 5/01/14 (a)		3,500	4,009,180
Thornapple Kellogg School District Michigan, GO,
School Building & Site (NPFGC), 5.00%, 5/01/32		2,500	2,563,150
Van Dyke Public Schools Michigan, GO, School
Building & Site (AGM), 5.00%, 5/01/28		1,250	1,312,137
West Bloomfield School District Michigan, GO,
Refunding (NPFGC):
5.50%, 5/01/17		1,710	1,822,535
5.50%, 5/01/18		1,225	1,305,617
Zeeland Public Schools Michigan, GO, School
Building & Site (NPFGC), 5.00%, 5/01/29		1,600	1,633,872
			130,659,678

See Notes to Financial Statements.

ANNUAL REPORT

JULY 31, 2010

23

Schedule of Investments (continued)

BlackRock MuniYield Michigan Insured Fund, Inc. (MIY)
(Percentages shown are based on Net Assets)

		Par
Municipal Bonds		(000)	Value
Michigan (continued)
Education — 5.4%
Eastern Michigan University, Refunding RB, General
(AMBAC), 6.00%, 6/01/20	$ 435		$ 440,851
Grand Valley State University Michigan, RB, General
(NPFGC), 5.50%, 2/01/18		2,070	2,299,418
Michigan Higher Education Facilities Authority, RB,
Limited Obligation, Hillsdale College Project,
5.00%, 3/01/35		1,875	1,810,594
Michigan Higher Education Facilities Authority,
Refunding RB, Limited Obligation, Creative Studies (a):
5.85%, 6/01/12		1,235	1,354,091
5.90%, 6/01/12		1,145	1,256,454
Michigan Higher Education Student Loan Authority, RB,
AMT (AMBAC), Student Loan:
Series XVII-B, 5.40%, 6/01/18		2,500	2,502,050
Series XVII-Q, 5.00%, 3/01/31		3,000	2,862,600
Saginaw Valley State University Michigan, Refunding RB,
General (NPFGC), 5.00%, 7/01/24		2,100	2,175,411
			14,701,469
Health — 21.2%
Dickinson County Healthcare System, Refunding RB,
Series A (ACA), 5.80%, 11/01/24		3,100	3,067,140
Flint Hospital Building Authority Michigan, Refunding RB
(ACA), Hurley Medical Center:
6.00%, 7/01/20		1,205	1,195,179
Series A, 5.38%, 7/01/20		615	581,532
Kent Hospital Finance Authority Michigan, RB, Spectrum
Health, Series A (NPFGC), 5.50%, 7/15/11 (a)		3,000	3,177,480
Kent Hospital Finance Authority Michigan, Refunding RB,
Butterworth, Series A (NPFGC), 7.25%, 1/15/13 (b)		1,955	2,094,020
Michigan State Hospital Finance Authority, RB:
Ascension Health Senior Credit Group,
5.00%, 11/15/25		3,700	3,931,398
Hospital, MidMichigan Obligation Group, Series A
(AMBAC), 5.50%, 4/15/18		2,530	2,591,909
McLaren Health Care, Series C, 5.00%, 8/01/35		1,000	983,180
MidMichigan Obligation Group, Series A,
5.00%, 4/15/36		1,750	1,681,365
Michigan State Hospital Finance Authority, Refunding RB:
Henry Ford Health System, Series A,
5.25%, 11/15/46		2,500	2,298,100
Hospital, Crittenton, Series A, 5.63%, 3/01/27		2,050	2,055,002
Hospital, Oakwood Obligation Group, Series A,
5.00%, 7/15/25		3,260	3,235,844
Hospital, Oakwood Obligation Group, Series A,
5.00%, 7/15/37		630	576,078
Hospital, Sparrow Obligated, 5.00%, 11/15/31		3,100	2,970,451
McLaren Health Care, 5.75%, 5/15/38		4,500	4,671,090
Trinity Health Credit, Series A, 6.00%, 12/01/20		2,200	2,238,104
Trinity Health Credit, Series A, 6.25%, 12/01/28		930	1,035,183
Trinity Health Credit, Series A, 6.50%, 12/01/33		1,000	1,117,840
Trinity Health Credit, Series A (AMBAC),
6.00%, 12/01/10 (a)		90	92,477
Trinity Health Credit, Series A (AMBAC),
6.00%, 12/01/27		6,310	6,405,344
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		3,755	3,764,087
Trinity Health Credit, Series D, 5.00%, 8/15/34		3,100	3,040,418
Royal Oak Hospital Finance Authority Michigan,
Refunding RB, William Beaumont Hospital,
8.25%, 9/01/39		1,000	1,194,080
Saginaw Hospital Finance Authority Michigan,
Refunding RB, Covenant Medical Center, Series E
(NPFGC), 5.63%, 7/01/13		2,500	2,506,900
			57,520,671

		Par
Municipal Bonds		(000)	Value
Michigan (concluded)
Housing — 4.5%
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		6,990	7,258,835
Series A, AMT (NPFGC), 5.30%, 10/01/37		130	130,194
Williams Pavilion, AMT (Ginnie Mae),
4.75%, 4/20/37		3,925	3,803,403
			12,202,272
State — 11.5%
Michigan Municipal Bond Authority, RB, Local
Government Loan Program, Group A (AMBAC),
5.50%, 11/01/20		1,065	1,066,118
Michigan Municipal Bond Authority, Refunding RB, Local
Government, Charter County Wayne, Series B (AGC):
5.00%, 11/01/14		2,400	2,725,128
5.00%, 11/01/15		1,500	1,686,615
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		3,900	4,318,626
Facilities Program, Series I (AGC), 5.25%, 10/15/24		4,000	4,357,280
Facilities Program, Series I (AGC), 5.25%, 10/15/25		2,000	2,158,880
Facilities Program, Series I (AGC), 5.25%, 10/15/26		600	642,924
Facilities Program, Series II (NPFGC),
5.00%, 10/15/29		3,500	3,525,515
Series IA (NPFGC), 5.00%, 10/15/32		2,500	2,513,050
State of Michigan, COP (AMBAC),
5.54%, 6/01/22 (b)(c)		3,000	1,945,680
State of Michigan, RB, GAN (AGM), 5.25%, 9/15/27		5,250	5,562,953
			31,209,549
Transportation — 16.8%
County of Wayne Michigan, RB, Detroit Metropolitan,
Wayne County, Series A, AMT (NPFGC),
5.38%, 12/01/15		10,660	10,734,087
Wayne County Airport Authority, RB, Detroit Metropolitan
Wayne County Airport, AMT (NPFGC):
5.25%, 12/01/25		7,525	7,338,832
5.25%, 12/01/26		6,300	6,072,003
5.00%, 12/01/34		9,160	7,963,154
Wayne County Airport Authority, Refunding RB,
AMT (AGC):
5.75%, 12/01/25		4,000	4,136,040
5.75%, 12/01/26		1,000	1,027,210
5.38%, 12/01/32		8,700	8,281,356
			45,552,682
Utilities — 18.5%
City of Detroit Michigan, RB:
Second Lien, Series B (AGM), 7.00%, 7/01/36		3,000	3,467,100
Second Lien, Series B (NPFGC),
5.00%, 7/01/13 (a)		1,550	1,739,859
Second Lien, Series B (NPFGC), 5.00%, 7/01/34		2,420	2,376,827
Senior Lien, Series A (AGM), 5.00%, 7/01/25		4,000	4,077,800
Senior Lien, Series A (FGIC), 5.75%, 7/01/11 (a)		5,250	5,546,205
Senior Lien, Series A (NPFGC), 5.00%, 7/01/34		6,900	6,758,274
Series B (NPFGC), 5.25%, 7/01/13 (a)		11,790	13,319,163
City of Detroit Michigan, Refunding RB:
(FGIC), 6.25%, 7/01/12 (b)		525	560,968
Second Lien, Series C (AGM), 5.00%, 7/01/29		10,570	10,677,391
City of Muskegon Heights Michigan, RB, Series A
(NPFGC), 5.63%, 11/01/10 (a)		1,830	1,854,980
			50,378,567
Total Municipal Bonds in Michigan			375,909,852

See Notes to Financial Statements.

24 ANNUAL REPORT

JULY 31, 2010

Schedule of Investments (concluded)

BlackRock MuniYield Michigan Insured Fund, Inc. (MIY)

(Percentages shown are based on Net Assets)

	Par
Municipal Bonds	(000)	Value
Guam — 0.6%
Utilities — 0.6%
Guam Power Authority, Refunding RB, Series A (AGM),
5.00%, 10/01/37	$ 1,565	$ 1,567,363
Puerto Rico — 6.4%
County/City/Special District/School District — 1.9%
Puerto Rico Sales Tax Financing Corp., Refunding RB,
First Sub-Series C (AGM), 5.13%, 8/01/42	5,100	5,275,491
Housing — 0.7%
Puerto Rico Housing Finance Authority, Refunding RB,
Subordinate, Capital Fund Modernization,
5.13%, 12/01/27	2,000	2,019,460
State — 2.2%
Puerto Rico Public Buildings Authority, Refunding RB,
Government Facilities, Series M-3 (NPFGC),
6.00%, 7/01/27	2,100	2,221,779
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	20,000	2,102,200
		5,934,729
Transportation — 1.6%
Puerto Rico Highway & Transportation Authority,
Refunding RB, Series CC (AGC), 5.50%, 7/01/31	4,000	4,300,760
Total Municipal Bonds in Puerto Rico		17,530,440
Total Municipal Bonds — 145.4%		395,007,655
Municipal Bonds Transferred to
Tender Option Bond Trusts (d)
Michigan — 11.9%
Corporate — 4.7%
Wayne State University, Refunding RB, General (AGM),
5.00%, 11/15/35	12,210	12,713,540
County/City/Special District/School District — 2.6%
Lakewood Public Schools Michigan, GO, School
Building & Site (AGM), 5.00%, 5/01/37	6,470	6,993,229
Education — 4.6%
Portage Public Schools Michigan, GO, School
Building & Site (AGM), 5.00%, 5/01/31	4,650	4,849,904
Saginaw Valley State University, Refunding RB, General
(AGM), 5.00%, 7/01/31	7,500	7,808,100
		12,658,004
Total Municipal Bonds Transferred to
Tender Option Bond Trusts — 11.9%		32,364,773
Total Long-Term Investments
(Cost — $415,095,523) — 157.3%		427,372,428
Short-Term Securities	Shares
BIF Michigan Municipal Money Fund, 0.00% (e)(f)	1,734,583	1,734,583
Total Short-Term Securities
(Cost — $1,734,583) — 0.7%		1,734,583

	Value
Total Investments (Cost — $416,830,106*) — 158.0%	$429,107,011
Other Assets Less Liabilities — 1.3%	3,364,555
Liability for Trust Certificates, Including Interest
Expense and Fees Payable — (6.0)%	(16,198,810)
Preferred Shares, at Redemption Value — (53.3)%	(144,663,323)
Net Assets Applicable to Common Shares — 100.0%	$271,609,433

* 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	$400,516,721
Gross unrealized appreciation	$ 18,088,048
Gross unrealized depreciation	(5,687,758)
Net unrealized appreciation	$ 12,400,290

(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) 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:

	Shares Held		Shares Held
	at July 31,	Net	at July 31,
Affiliate	2009	Activity	2010	Income
BIF Michigan
Municipal
Money Fund	7,530,323	(5,795,740)	1,734,583	$ 958

(f) Represents the current yield as of report date.
•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 mar-
ket 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	—	$ 427,372,428	—	$ 427,372,428
Short-Term
Securities	$ 1,734,583	—	—	1,734,583
Total	$ 1,734,583	$ 427,372,428	—	$ 429,107,011
1 See above Schedule of Investments for values in each sector.

See Notes to Financial Statements.

ANNUAL REPORT

JULY 31, 2010

25

Schedule of Investments July 31, 2010

BlackRock MuniYield New Jersey Insured Fund, Inc. (MJI)

(Percentages shown are based on Net Assets)

		Par
Municipal Bonds		(000)	Value
New Jersey — 121.3%
Corporate — 3.9%
New Jersey EDA, Refunding RB, New Jersey American
Water Co., Series A, AMT, 5.70%, 10/01/39	$ 5,000		$ 5,134,600
County/City/Special District/School District — 23.6%
Borough of Hopatcong New Jersey, GO, Refunding,
Sewer (AMBAC), 4.50%, 8/01/33		750	762,225
City of Perth Amboy New Jersey, GO, CAB (AGM),
5.11%, 7/01/35 (a)		1,250	1,162,125
County of Hudson New Jersey, COP, Refunding (NPFGC),
6.25%, 12/01/16		1,000	1,174,740
County of Middlesex New Jersey, COP, Refunding
(NPFGC), 5.00%, 8/01/22		3,000	3,087,270
Edgewater Borough Board of Education, GO (AGM):
4.25%, 3/01/34		300	297,780
4.25%, 3/01/35		300	296,829
4.30%, 3/01/36		300	296,409
4.30%, 3/01/37		300	299,802
4.30%, 3/01/38		300	298,359
4.30%, 3/01/39		300	297,987
4.30%, 3/01/40		300	297,162
Essex County Improvement Authority, Refunding RB, AMT
(NPFGC), 4.75%, 11/01/32		1,000	933,500
Hudson County Improvement Authority, RB:
CAB, Series A-1 (NPFGC), 4.51%, 12/15/32 (b)		1,000	277,990
Harrison Parking Facility Project, Series C (AGC),
5.38%, 1/01/44		1,400	1,500,212
Hudson County Improvement Authority, Refunding RB,
Hudson County Lease Project (NPFGC),
5.38%, 10/01/24		7,500	7,549,425
Monmouth County Improvement Authority, RB,
Governmental Loan (AMBAC):
5.00%, 12/01/11 (c)		975	1,036,601
5.00%, 12/01/11 (c)		980	1,041,916
5.00%, 12/01/17		605	620,228
5.00%, 12/01/18		545	556,783
5.00%, 12/01/19		560	570,707
Monmouth County Improvement Authority, Refunding RB,
Governmental Loan (AMBAC):
5.20%, 12/01/14		240	242,650
5.25%, 12/01/15		765	772,061
Morristown Parking Authority, RB (NPFGC),
4.50%, 8/01/37		1,355	1,362,276
New Jersey State Transit Corp., COP, Subordinate,
Federal Transit Administration Grants, Series A (AGM),
5.00%, 9/15/21		1,000	1,042,540
Newark Housing Authority, Refunding RB, Newark
Redevelopment Project (NPFGC), 4.38%, 1/01/37		3,600	3,469,284
Salem County Improvement Authority, RB, Finlaw Street
Office Building (AGM):
5.38%, 8/15/28		1,250	1,290,975
5.25%, 8/15/38		700	701,617
			31,239,453
Education — 22.1%
New Jersey Educational Facilities Authority, RB:
Montclair State University, Series A (AMBAC),
5.00%, 7/01/21		1,600	1,714,016
Rowan University, Series C (NPFGC),
5.00%, 7/01/14 (c)		1,185	1,369,706

		Par
Municipal Bonds		(000)	Value
New Jersey (continued)
Education (concluded)
New Jersey Educational Facilities Authority, Refunding RB:
College of New Jersey, Series D (AGM),
5.00%, 7/01/35	$ 3,725		$ 3,890,688
Montclair State University, Series J (NPFGC),
4.25%, 7/01/30		2,895	2,815,214
Ramapo College, Series I (AMBAC), 4.25%, 7/01/31		1,250	1,198,075
Ramapo College, Series I (AMBAC), 4.25%, 7/01/36		3,890	3,632,443
Rowan University, Series B (AGC), 5.00%, 7/01/26		2,575	2,779,043
Stevens Institute of Technology, Series A,
5.00%, 7/01/34		1,500	1,475,265
William Paterson University, Series C (AGC),
4.75%, 7/01/34		1,115	1,128,915
William Paterson University, Series E (Syncora),
5.00%, 7/01/21		1,725	1,824,653
New Jersey State Higher Education Assistance Authority,
RB, Series A, AMT (AMBAC), 5.30%, 6/01/17		3,565	3,569,742
University of Medicine & Dentistry of New Jersey, RB,
Series A (AMBAC):
5.50%, 12/01/18		570	591,044
5.50%, 12/01/19		1,145	1,182,361
5.50%, 12/01/20		1,130	1,163,313
5.50%, 12/01/21		865	889,142
			29,223,620
Health — 10.9%
New Jersey Health Care Facilities Financing Authority, RB:
Meridian Health, Series I (AGC), 5.00%, 7/01/38		745	757,635
Meridian Health, Series II (AGC), 5.00%, 7/01/38		2,990	3,040,710
Meridian Health, Series V (AGC), 5.00%, 7/01/38		750	762,720
South Jersey Hospital, 6.00%, 7/01/12 (c)		4,000	4,422,160
Virtua Health (AGC), 5.50%, 7/01/38		1,000	1,067,460
New Jersey Health Care Facilities Financing Authority,
Refunding RB:
Atlantic City Medical Center, 5.75%, 7/01/12 (c)		525	576,839
Atlantic City Medical Center, 6.25%, 7/01/12 (c)		290	321,398
Atlantic City Medical System, 6.25%, 7/01/17		325	343,239
Atlantic City Medical System, 5.75%, 7/01/25		790	811,591
Meridian Health System Obligation Group (AGM),
5.25%, 7/01/19		2,250	2,252,610
			14,356,362
Housing — 7.8%
New Jersey State Housing & Mortgage Finance
Agency, RB:
Capital Fund Program, Series A (AGM),
4.70%, 11/01/25		4,325	4,417,036
Home Buyer, Series CC, AMT (NPFGC),
5.80%, 10/01/20		2,640	2,761,097
Series A, AMT (FGIC), 4.90%, 11/01/35		820	796,794
Series AA, 6.50%, 10/01/38		1,075	1,177,437
New Jersey State Housing & Mortgage Finance
Agency, Refunding RB, S/F Housing, Series T, AMT,
4.70%, 10/01/37		500	477,950
Newark Housing Authority, RB, South Ward Police
Facility (AGC):
5.75%, 12/01/30		400	431,732
6.75%, 12/01/38		250	285,910
			10,347,956
State — 36.1%
Garden State Preservation Trust, RB (AGM):
CAB, Series B, 5.12%, 11/01/23 (b)		6,725	3,903,459
Election of 2005, Series A, 5.80%, 11/01/22		2,605	3,102,946

See Notes to Financial Statements.

26 ANNUAL REPORT

JULY 31, 2010

Schedule of Investments (continued)

BlackRock MuniYield New Jersey Insured Fund, Inc. (MJI)

(Percentages shown are based on Net Assets)

	Par
Municipal Bonds	(000)	Value
New Jersey (continued)
State (concluded)
New Jersey EDA, RB:
CAB, Motor Vehicle Surcharge, Series R (NPFGC),
4.95%, 7/01/21 (b)	$ 2,325	$ 1,361,683
Cigarette Tax, 5.63%, 6/15/19	1,060	1,060,223
Cigarette Tax (Radian), 5.75%, 6/15/29	785	785,746
Cigarette Tax (Radian), 5.50%, 6/15/31	225	219,370
Motor Vehicle Surcharge, Series A (NPFGC),
5.25%, 7/01/25	1,000	1,085,370
Motor Vehicle Surcharge, Series A (NPFGC),
5.00%, 7/01/29	3,900	3,944,070
Motor Vehicle Surcharge, Series A (NPFGC),
5.25%, 7/01/33	8,500	8,662,180
Motor Vehicle Surcharge, Series A (NPFGC),
5.00%, 7/01/34	1,765	1,740,696
School Facilities Construction, Series Z (AGC),
6.00%, 12/15/34	1,200	1,364,916
School Facilities, Series U (AMBAC),
5.00%, 9/01/37	1,000	1,034,300
New Jersey EDA, Refunding RB, New Jersey-American
Water Co. Project, Series B, AMT, 5.60%, 11/01/34	1,000	1,028,670
New Jersey EDA, Refunding RB, School Facilities
Construction, Series K (NPFGC), 5.25%, 12/15/17	750	856,560
New Jersey Sports & Exposition Authority,
Refunding RB (NPFGC):
5.50%, 3/01/21	1,540	1,788,849
5.50%, 3/01/22	1,000	1,157,490
New Jersey Transportation Trust Fund Authority, RB,
Transportation System:
CAB, Series C (AGM), 4.85%, 12/15/32 (b)	4,750	1,320,452
CAB, Series C (AMBAC), 5.05%, 12/15/35 (b)	2,760	618,820
Series A (AGC), 5.63%, 12/15/28	780	876,494
Series D (AGM), 5.00%, 6/15/19	3,000	3,295,110
New Jersey Transportation Trust Fund Authority,
Refunding RB, Transportation System:
Series A (AGM), 5.25%, 12/15/20	4,250	4,933,612
Series B (NPFGC), 5.50%, 12/15/21	1,000	1,181,350
State of New Jersey, COP, Equipment Lease Purchase,
Series A, 5.25%, 6/15/27	500	528,285
State of New Jersey, GO, Refunding, Series D (NPFGC),
6.00%, 2/15/13	1,725	1,952,803
		47,803,454
Tobacco — 1.5%
Tobacco Settlement Financing Corp. New Jersey, RB,
7.00%, 6/01/13 (c)	1,715	2,022,482
Transportation — 4.3%
New Jersey State Turnpike Authority, RB, Growth &
Income Securities, Series B (AMBAC),
5.22%, 1/01/15 (a)	3,005	2,452,801
New Jersey State Turnpike Authority, Refunding RB,
Series A (AGM), 5.25%, 1/01/29	2,000	2,286,860
New Jersey Transportation Trust Fund Authority, RB,
Transportation System, Series A:
(AGM), 5.50%, 12/15/22	150	176,313
(AMBAC), 5.00%, 12/15/32	730	755,433
		5,671,407
Utilities — 11.1%
Essex County Utilities Authority, Refunding RB (AGC),
4.13%, 4/01/22	1,000	1,041,030
Jersey City Municipal Utilities Authority, Refunding RB
(AMBAC), 6.25%, 1/01/14	3,750	4,063,687
New Jersey EDA, RB, Series A, American Water, AMT
(AMBAC), 5.25%, 11/01/32	1,000	996,010

	Par
Municipal Bonds	(000)	Value
New Jersey (concluded)
Utilities (concluded)
New Jersey EDA, Refunding RB, United Water of
New Jersey Inc., Series B (AMBAC),
4.50%, 11/01/25	$ 1,000	$ 1,056,860
North Hudson Sewerage Authority, Refunding RB,
Series A (NPFGC), 5.13%, 8/01/20	1,710	1,830,179
Rahway Valley Sewerage Authority, RB, CAB, Series A
(NPFGC) (b):
4.74%, 9/01/26	4,100	1,771,569
4.40%, 9/01/33	2,350	639,459
Union County Utilities Authority, Refunding RB, Senior
Lease, Ogden Martin, Series A, AMT (AMBAC):
5.38%, 6/01/17	1,590	1,591,495
5.38%, 6/01/18	1,670	1,671,202
		14,661,491
Total Municipal Bonds in New Jersey		160,460,825
Guam — 0.6%
Utilities — 0.6%
Guam Power Authority, Refunding RB, Series A (AGM),
5.00%, 10/01/37	735	736,110
New York — 6.1%
Transportation — 6.1%
Port Authority of New York & New Jersey, RB,
Consolidated, 93rd Series, 6.13%, 6/01/94	1,000	1,205,070
Port Authority of New York & New Jersey, Refunding RB,
AMT, Consolidated:
152nd Series, 5.75%, 11/01/30	2,000	2,144,380
155th Series (AGM), 4.25%, 12/01/32	5,000	4,763,750
Total Municipal Bonds in New York		8,113,200
Pennsylvania — 1.2%
Transportation — 1.2%
Delaware River Port Authority, RB, Series D (AGC),
5.00%, 1/01/40	1,500	1,541,925
Puerto Rico — 12.7%
County/City/Special District/School District — 1.9%
Puerto Rico Sales Tax Financing Corp., Refunding RB,
First Sub-Series C (AGM), 5.13%, 8/01/42	2,380	2,461,896
Education — 2.2%
Puerto Rico Industrial Tourist Educational Medical &
Environmental Control Facilities Financing Authority,
RB, University Plaza Project, Series A (NPFGC),
5.00%, 7/01/33	3,000	2,947,650
Health — 3.2%
Puerto Rico Industrial Tourist Educational Medical &
Environmental Control Facilities Financing Authority,
RB, Hospital De La Concepcion, Series A,
6.13%, 11/15/30	4,220	4,281,190
Housing — 0.8%
Puerto Rico Housing Finance Authority, Refunding RB,
Subordinate, Capital Fund Modernization,
5.13%, 12/01/27	1,000	1,009,730

See Notes to Financial Statements.

ANNUAL REPORT

JULY 31, 2010

27

Schedule of Investments (concluded)

BlackRock MuniYield New Jersey Insured Fund, Inc. (MJI)

(Percentages shown are based on Net Assets)

	Par
Municipal Bonds	(000)	Value
Puerto Rico (concluded)
State — 1.5%
Puerto Rico Commonwealth Infrastructure Financing
Authority, RB, CAB, Series A (b):
(AMBAC), 4.37%, 7/01/37	$ 2,250	$ 370,148
(FGIC), 4.49%, 7/01/30	2,750	764,335
Puerto Rico Public Buildings Authority, Refunding RB,
Government Facilities, Series M-3 (NPFGC),
6.00%, 7/01/27	850	899,291
		2,033,774
Transportation — 1.0%
Puerto Rico Highway & Transportation Authority,
Refunding RB, Series CC (AGC), 5.50%, 7/01/31	1,185	1,274,100
Utilities — 2.1%
Puerto Rico Aqueduct & Sewer Authority, RB, Senior Lien,
Series A (AGC), 5.13%, 7/01/47	1,750	1,766,712
Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority, RB, Series RR
(CIFG), 5.00%, 7/01/28	1,000	1,005,150
		2,771,862
Total Municipal Bonds in Puerto Rico		16,780,202
Total Municipal Bonds — 141.9%		187,632,262
Municipal Bonds Transferred to
Tender Option Bond Trusts (d)
New Jersey — 6.1%
Housing — 1.6%
New Jersey State Housing & Mortgage Finance
Agency, RB, Capital Fund Program, Series A (AGM),
5.00%, 5/01/27	1,980	2,151,508
State — 3.1%
Garden State Preservation Trust, RB, Election of 2005,
Series A (AGM), 5.75%, 11/01/28	3,300	4,052,532
Transportation — 1.4%
Port Authority of New York & New Jersey, Refunding RB,
Consolidated, 152nd Series, AMT, 5.25%, 11/01/35	1,829	1,886,794
Total Municipal Bonds Transferred to
Tender Option Bond Trusts — 6.1%		8,090,834
Total Long-Term Investments
(Cost — $190,142,988) — 148.0%		195,723,096
Short-Term Securities	Shares
BIF New Jersey Municipal Money Fund, 0.04% (e)(f)	4,549,254	4,549,254
Total Short-Term Securities
(Cost — $4,549,254) — 3.4%		4,549,254
Total Investments (Cost — $194,692,242*) — 151.4%		200,272,350
Other Assets Less Liabilities — 0.9%		1,177,741
Liability for Trust Certificates, Including Interest
Expense and Fees Payable — (3.5)%		(4,687,841)
Preferred Shares, at Redemption Value — (48.8)%		(64,481,025)
Net Assets Applicable to Common Shares — 100.0%		$132,281,225

* •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	$189,792,587
Gross unrealized appreciation	$ 8,283,404
Gross unrealized depreciation	(2,488,010)
Net unrealized appreciation	$ 5,795,394

(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) 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.
(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, are as follows:

	Shares Held		Shares Held
	at July 31,	Net	at July 31,
Affiliate	2009	Activity	2010	Income
BIF New Jersey
Municipal
Money Fund	1,325,347	3,223,907	4,549,254	$ 1,052

(f) Represents the current yield as of report date.
•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 mar-
ket 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	—	$ 195,723,096	—	$ 195,723,096
Short-Term
Securities	$ 4,549,254	—	—	4,549,254
Total	$ 4,549,254	$ 195,723,096	—	$ 200,272,350
1 See above Schedule of Investments for values in each sector.

See Notes to Financial Statements.

28 ANNUAL REPORT

JULY 31, 2010

Schedule of Investments July 31, 2010

BlackRock MuniYield Pennsylvania Insured Fund (MPA)

(Percentages shown are based on Net Assets)

	Par
Municipal Bonds	(000)	Value
Pennsylvania — 108.3%
Corporate — 5.5%
Delaware County IDA Pennsylvania, Refunding RB,
Water Facilities, Aqua Pennsylvania Inc. Project,
Series B, AMT (NPFGC), 5.00%, 11/01/36	$ 2,520	$ 2,527,888
Northumberland County IDA, Refunding RB,
Aqua Pennsylvania Inc. Project, AMT (NPFGC),
5.05%, 10/01/39	6,000	6,001,800
Pennsylvania Economic Development Financing
Authority, RB, Waste Management Inc. Project,
Series A, AMT, 5.10%, 10/01/27	1,200	1,193,808
		9,723,496
County/City/Special District/School District — 41.3%
Chambersburg Area School District, GO (NPFGC):
5.25%, 3/01/26	2,115	2,216,668
5.25%, 3/01/27	2,500	2,608,525
City of Philadelphia Pennsylvania, GO, Refunding,
Series A (AGM), 5.25%, 12/15/32	7,000	7,209,860
Connellsville Area School District, GO, Series B (AGM),
5.00%, 11/15/37	1,000	1,015,680
Delaware Valley Regional Financial Authority, RB,
Series A (AMBAC), 5.50%, 8/01/28	2,230	2,383,290
East Stroudsburg Area School District, GO, Series A
(NPFGC), 7.75%, 9/01/27	2,000	2,438,020
Erie County Conventional Center Authority, RB (NPFGC),
5.00%, 1/15/36	8,850	9,001,777
Marple Newtown School District, GO (AGM),
5.00%, 6/01/31	3,500	3,707,375
North Allegheny School District, GO, Series C (AGM),
5.25%, 5/01/27	2,175	2,282,641
Northeastern School District York County, GO, Series B
(NPFGC), 5.00%, 4/01/32	1,585	1,640,285
Philadelphia Redevelopment Authority, RB (NPFGC):
Neighborhood Transformation, Series A,
5.50%, 4/15/22	1,750	1,808,888
Quality Redevelopment Neighborhood, Series B,
AMT, 5.00%, 4/15/27	4,645	4,536,679
Philadelphia School District, GO, Refunding, Series A
(BHAC), 5.00%, 6/01/34	1,000	1,056,860
Philadelphia School District, GO:
Series B (FGIC), 5.63%, 8/01/12 (a)	7,500	8,285,100
Series E, 6.00%, 9/01/38	4,800	5,195,376
Reading School District, GO (AGM), 5.00%, 1/15/29	6,000	6,279,540
Scranton School District Pennsylvania, GO, Series A
(AGM), 5.00%, 7/15/38	3,500	3,603,075
Shaler Area School District Pennsylvania, GO, CAB
(Syncora), 4.83%, 9/01/30 (b)	6,145	2,175,944
Township of North Londonderry Pennsylvania, GO
(AGM), 4.75%, 9/01/40	4,360	4,408,919
York City School District, GO, Series A (Syncora),
5.25%, 6/01/22	1,040	1,116,471
		72,970,973
Education — 6.5%
Adams County IDA, Refunding RB, Gettysburg College,
5.00%, 8/15/26	100	106,329
Pennsylvania Higher Educational Facilities Authority,
RB (NPFGC):
Drexel University, Series A, 5.00%, 5/01/37	2,250	2,310,390
Series AE, 4.75%, 6/15/32	8,845	8,985,016
		11,401,735

		Par
Municipal Bonds		(000)	Value
Pennsylvania (continued)
Health — 15.2%
Allegheny County Hospital Development Authority, RB,
Health Center, UPMC Health, Series B (NPFGC),
6.00%, 7/01/26	$ 2,000		$ 2,311,040
County of Lehigh Pennsylvania, RB, Lehigh Valley Health
Network, Series A (AGM), 5.00%, 7/01/33		7,995	8,093,738
Cumberland County Municipal Authority, RB, Diakon
Lutheran, 6.38%, 1/01/39		500	513,220
Lycoming County Authority, Refunding RB, Susquehanna
Health System Project, Series A, 5.75%, 7/01/39		1,160	1,181,808
Monroe County Hospital Authority Pennsylvania,
Refunding RB, Hospital, Pocono Medical Center,
5.13%, 1/01/37		1,265	1,240,712
Montgomery County Higher Education & Health
Authority, Refunding RB, Abington Memorial Hospital,
Series A, 5.13%, 6/01/33		1,760	1,762,975
Montgomery County IDA Pennsylvania, RB:
Acts Retirement Life Community, Series A,
4.50%, 11/15/36		400	323,356
Acts Retirement Life Community, Series A-1,
6.25%, 11/15/29		235	248,014
New Regional Medical Center Project (FHA),
5.38%, 8/01/38		1,600	1,654,416
Pennsylvania Higher Educational Facilities Authority, RB,
UPMC Health System, Series A, 6.00%, 1/15/11 (a)		3,000	3,108,870
Philadelphia Hospitals & Higher Education Facilities
Authority, Refunding RB, Presbyterian Medical Center,
6.65%, 12/01/19 (c)		3,000	3,710,580
Sayre Health Care Facilities Authority, Refunding RB,
Guthrie Health, Series A, 5.88%, 12/01/31		590	599,641
South Fork Municipal Authority, Refunding RB,
Conemaugh Valley Memorial, Series B (AGC),
5.38%, 7/01/35		2,000	2,040,760
			26,789,130
Housing — 4.6%
Pennsylvania HFA, RB, S/F, Series 72A, AMT (NPFGC),
5.25%, 4/01/21		4,090	4,094,867
Pennsylvania HFA, Refunding RB, Series 99A, AMT,
5.15%, 4/01/38		800	827,600
Philadelphia New Public Housing Authority, RB, Series A
(AGM), 5.50%, 12/01/18		3,000	3,186,870
			8,109,337
State — 5.2%
Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission, RB, Series C
of 2003 Pennsylvania Turnpike (NPFGC),
5.00%, 12/01/32		3,600	3,751,704
State Public School Building Authority, RB, CAB, Corry
Area School District (AGM) (b):
4.85%, 12/15/22		1,640	1,002,286
4.87%, 12/15/23		1,980	1,143,212
4.89%, 12/15/24		1,980	1,070,824
4.92%, 12/15/25		1,770	901,319
State Public School Building Authority, Refunding RB,
Harrisburg School District Project, Series A (AGC),
5.00%, 11/15/33		1,200	1,251,948
			9,121,293
Transportation — 12.4%
Delaware River Port Authority, RB, Series D (AGC),
5.00%, 1/01/40		1,560	1,603,602
Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission, RB:
Series A (AMBAC), 5.50%, 12/01/31		7,800	8,275,722
Series A (AMBAC), 5.25%, 12/01/32		350	356,212
Sub-Series B (AGM), 5.25%, 6/01/39		3,500	3,676,400

See Notes to Financial Statements.

ANNUAL REPORT

JULY 31, 2010

29

Schedule of Investments (continued)

BlackRock MuniYield Pennsylvania Insured Fund (MPA)

(Percentages shown are based on Net Assets)

		Par
Municipal Bonds		(000)	Value
Pennsylvania (concluded)
Transportation (concluded)
Philadelphia Authority for Industrial Development,
Refunding RB, Philadelphia Airport System Project,
Series A, AMT (NPFGC):
5.50%, 7/01/17	$ 4,000		$ 4,142,200
5.50%, 7/01/18		3,655	3,796,851
			21,850,987
Utilities — 17.6%
Allegheny County Sanitation Authority, Refunding RB,
Series A (NPFGC), 5.00%, 12/01/30		5,000	5,060,350
City of Philadelphia Pennsylvania, RB:
1998 General Ordinance, 4th Series (AGM),
5.00%, 8/01/32		4,500	4,504,950
Series A, 5.25%, 1/01/36		700	729,456
Series C (AGM), 5.00%, 8/01/40 (d)		3,000	3,056,760
Delaware County IDA Pennsylvania, RB, Pennsylvania
Suburban Water Co. Project, Series A, AMT (AMBAC),
5.15%, 9/01/32		5,500	5,549,665
Northampton Boro Municipal Authority, RB (NPFGC),
5.00%, 5/15/34		935	953,354
Pennsylvania Economic Development Financing
Authority, RB, Philadelphia Biosolids Facility,
6.25%, 1/01/32		900	949,059
Pennsylvania IDA, Refunding RB, Economic Development
(AMBAC), 5.50%, 7/01/20		7,000	7,375,200
Reading Area Water Authority Pennsylvania, RB (AGM),
5.00%, 12/01/27		2,680	2,840,425
			31,019,219
Total Municipal Bonds in Pennsylvania			190,986,170
Guam — 1.9%
Transportation — 1.4%
Guam International Airport Authority, Refunding RB,
General, Series C, AMT (NPFGC), 5.00%, 10/01/23		2,500	2,508,175
Utilities — 0.5%
Guam Power Authority, Refunding RB, Series A (AGM),
5.00%, 10/01/37		850	851,283
Total Municipal Bonds in Guam			3,359,458
Puerto Rico — 0.7%
State — 0.7%
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, GO, Refunding, Public
Improvement, Series A-4 (AGM), 5.25%, 7/01/30		1,270	1,306,932
Total Municipal Bonds — 110.9%			195,652,560
Municipal Bonds Transferred to
Tender Option Bond Trusts (e)
Pennsylvania — 44.5%
County/City/Special District/School District — 4.3%
East Stroudsburg Area School District, GO, Refunding
(AGM), 5.00%, 9/01/25		7,000	7,576,100
Education — 1.4%
University of Pittsburgh Pennsylvania, RB, Capital
Project, Series B, 5.00%, 9/15/28		2,202	2,409,907

Municipal Bonds Transferred to	Par
Tender Option Bond Trusts (e)	(000)	Value
Pennsylvania (concluded)
Health — 3.2%
Geisinger Authority, RB, Series A:
5.13%, 6/01/34	$ 2,500	$ 2,585,075
5.25%, 6/01/39	3,000	3,109,200
		5,694,275
Housing — 1.6%
Pennsylvania HFA, Refunding RB, Series 96-A, AMT,
4.70%, 10/01/37	3,000	2,846,370
State — 29.8%
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, GO, First Series,
5.00%, 3/15/28	5,203	5,698,864
Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission, RB, Series C of 2003
Pennsylvania Turnpike (NPFGC), 5.00%, 12/01/32	10,000	10,421,400
State Public School Building Authority, LRB, Philadelphia
School District Project (AGM), 5.25%, 6/01/13 (a)	15,000	16,952,100
State Public School Building Authority, Refunding RB,
School District of Philadelphia Project, Series B
(AGM), 5.00%, 6/01/26	19,025	19,638,713
		52,711,077
Transportation — 4.2%
City of Philadelphia Pennsylvania, RB, Series A, AMT
(AGM), 5.00%, 6/15/37	7,500	7,347,525
Total Municipal Bonds Transferred to
Tender Option Bond Trusts — 44.5%		78,585,254
Total Long-Term Investments
(Cost — $266,139,666) — 155.4%		274,237,814
Short-Term Securities	Shares
BIF Pennsylvania Municipal Money Fund,
0.00% (f)(g)	8,508,134	8,508,134
Total Short-Term Securities
(Cost — $8,508,134) — 4.8%		8,508,134
Total Investments (Cost — $274,647,800*) — 160.2%		282,745,948
Liabilities in Excess of Other Assets — (0.8)%		(1,390,323)
Liability for Trust Certificates, Including Interest
Expense and Fees Payable — (21.8)%		(38,470,389)
Preferred Shares, at Redemption Value — (37.6)%		(66,354,816)
Net Assets Applicable to Common Shares — 100.0%		$176,530,420

* 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	$236,188,253
Gross unrealized appreciation	$ 9,004,281
Gross unrealized depreciation	(891,722)
Net unrealized appreciation	$ 8,112,559

(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) Security is collateralized by Municipal or US Treasury obligations.
(d) When-issued security. Unsettled when-issued transactions were as follows:

		Unrealized
Counterparty	Value	Appreciation
Citigroup Global Markets, Inc.	$3,056,760	$ 2,460

See Notes to Financial Statements.

30 ANNUAL REPORT

JULY 31, 2010

Schedule of Investments (concluded)

BlackRock MuniYield Pennsylvania Insured Fund (MPA)

(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:

	Shares Held		Shares Held
	at July 31,	Net	at July 31,
Affiliate	2009	Activity	2010	Income
BIF Pennsylvania
Municipal
Money Fund	1,555,231	6,952,903	8,508,134	$ 121

(g) Represents the current yield as of report date.
•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 mar-
ket 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	—	$ 274,237,814	—	$ 274,237,814
Short-Term
Securities	$ 8,508,134	—	—	8,508,134
Total	$ 8,508,134	$ 274,237,814	—	$ 282,745,948
1 See above Schedule of Investments for values in each sector.

See Notes to Financial Statements.

ANNUAL REPORT

JULY 31, 2010

31

Statements of Assets and Liabilities
		BlackRock	BlackRock	BlackRock	BlackRock	BlackRock	BlackRock
		MuniHoldings	MuniHoldings	MuniYield	MuniYield	MuniYield	MuniYield
		California	New Jersey	Insured	Michigan	New Jersey	Pennsylvania
		Insured	Insured	Investment	Insured	Insured	Insured
		Fund, Inc.	Fund, Inc.	Fund	Fund, Inc.	Fund, Inc.	Fund
July 31, 2010		(MUC)	(MUJ)	(MFT)	(MIY)	(MJI)	(MPA)
Assets
Investments at value — unaffiliated1	$ 959,525,703		$ 500,511,228	$ 180,248,965	$ 427,372,428	$ 195,723,096	$ 274,237,814
Investments at value — affiliated2		71,270,966	1,117,529	8,124,572	1,734,583	4,549,254	8,508,134
Cash pledged as collateral for financial futures contracts		84,400	—	—	—	—	—
Interest receivable		11,854,718	4,810,156	2,164,938	4,974,990	1,677,006	2,657,166
Investments sold receivable		498,958	4,096,545	267,246	—	266,387	—
Income receivable — affiliated		348	—	—	—	—	—
Prepaid expenses		37,921	18,005	9,979	20,375	8,100	13,031
Other assets		95,237	—	—	—	—	—
Total assets		1,043,368,251	510,553,463	190,815,700	434,102,376	202,223,843	285,416,145
Accrued Liabilities
Investments purchased payable		9,095,380	—	—	—	—	3,054,300
Income dividends payable — Common Shares		2,881,649	1,550,915	600,466	1,365,473	634,854	826,601
Investment advisory fees payable		388,088	233,856	82,755	188,581	86,940	119,636
Interest expense and fees payable		112,647	9,864	12,800	8,810	3,472	25,253
Officer’s and Directors’ fees payable		97,583	712	261	451	209	386
Margin variation payable		35,938	—	—	—	—	—
Other affiliates payable		5,983	3,189	1,177	2,713	1,234	1,732
Other accrued expenses payable		147,639	101,137	47,147	73,592	50,515	57,865
Total accrued liabilities		12,764,907	1,899,673	744,606	1,639,620	777,224	4,085,773
Other Liabilities
Trust certificates3		181,854,633	13,262,930	16,200,287	16,190,000	4,684,369	38,445,136
Total Liabilities		194,619,540	15,162,603	16,944,893	17,829,620	5,461,593	42,530,909
Preferred Shares at Redemption Value
$25,000 per share liquidation preference, plus
unpaid dividends4,5		254,015,094	172,709,943	56,529,959	144,663,323	64,481,025	66,354,816
Net Assets Applicable to Common Shareholders	$ 594,733,617		$ 322,680,917	$ 117,340,848	$ 271,609,433	$ 132,281,225	$ 176,530,420
Net Assets Applicable to Common Shareholders Consist of
Paid-in capital6,7	$ 585,680,722		$ 298,669,716	$ 117,901,782	$ 263,576,016	$ 124,296,855	$ 170,006,768
Undistributed net investment income		9,839,827	6,646,637	1,855,567	4,676,060	3,198,975	2,904,565
Accumulated net realized loss		(14,564,343)	(1,393,017)	(10,103,688)	(8,919,548)	(794,713)	(4,479,061)
Net unrealized appreciation/depreciation		13,777,411	18,757,581	7,687,187	12,276,905	5,580,108	8,098,148
Net Assets Applicable to Common Shareholders	$ 594,733,617		$ 322,680,917	$ 117,340,848	$ 271,609,433	$ 132,281,225	$ 176,530,420
Net asset value per Common Share	$ 14.55		$ 15.19	$ 13.87	$ 14.92	$ 15.00	$ 15.38
1 Investments at cost — unaffiliated	$ 945,641,151		$ 481,753,647	$ 172,561,778	$ 415,095,523	$ 190,142,988	$ 266,139,666
2 Investments at cost — affiliated	$ 71,270,966		$ 1,117,529	$ 8,124,572	$ 1,734,583	$ 4,549,254	$ 8,508,134
3 Represents short-term floating rate certificates
issued by tender option bond trusts.
4 Preferred Shares outstanding:
Par value $0.05 per share		—	—	2,261	4,909	1,965	2,654
Par value $0.10 per share		10,160	6,908	—	877	614	—
5 Preferred Shares authorized		15,600	8,120	1 million	6,600	2,940	1 million
6 Common Shares outstanding, $0.10 par value		40,874,458	21,245,413	8,457,270	18,206,301	8,817,415	11,480,567
7 Common Shares authorized		200 million	200 million	unlimited	200 million	200 million	unlimited

See Notes to Financial Statements.

32 ANNUAL REPORT

JULY 31, 2010

Statements of Operations
		BlackRock	BlackRock	BlackRock	BlackRock	BlackRock	BlackRock
	MuniHoldings		MuniHoldings	MuniYield	MuniYield	MuniYield	MuniYield
		California	New Jersey	Insured	Michigan	New Jersey	Pennsylvania
		Insured	Insured	Investment	Insured	Insured	Insured
		Fund, Inc.	Fund, Inc.	Fund	Fund, Inc.	Fund, Inc.	Fund
Year Ended July 31, 2010		(MUC)	(MUJ)	(MFT)	(MIY)	(MJI)	(MPA)
Investment Income
Interest	$ 44,184,163		$ 24,671,844	$ 9,137,306	$ 20,690,920	$ 9,944,227	$ 12,578,588
Income — affiliated		12,972	1,783	12,732	958	1,052	121
Total income		44,197,135	24,673,627	9,150,038	20,691,878	9,945,279	12,578,709
Expenses
Investment advisory		5,172,204	2,761,404	929,147	2,130,026	991,207	1,339,437
Commissions for Preferred Shares		378,896	256,900	84,970	207,088	97,263	97,887
Accounting services		283,002	123,245	53,001	112,608	49,491	63,339
Officer and Directors		79,059	35,291	12,802	29,495	14,385	19,204
Professional		76,226	58,278	49,306	57,220	48,121	48,790
Printing		69,958	38,724	13,421	31,826	19,422	18,726
Transfer agent		68,848	60,236	35,616	54,479	36,182	47,511
Custodian		40,615	26,287	11,682	21,261	11,830	15,821
Registration		14,186	9,330	9,330	9,330	9,330	9,330
Miscellaneous		124,609	105,942	54,791	83,618	54,788	65,958
Total expenses excluding interest expense and fees		6,307,603	3,475,637	1,254,066	2,736,951	1,332,019	1,726,003
Interest expense and fees1		808,941	95,603	113,817	112,923	33,585	248,191
Total expenses		7,116,544	3,571,240	1,367,883	2,849,874	1,365,604	1,974,194
Less fees waived by advisor		(639,431)	(136,489)	(5,019)	(14,254)	(8,683)	(3,500)
Total expenses after fees waived		6,477,113	3,434,751	1,362,864	2,835,620	1,356,921	1,970,694
Net investment income		37,720,022	21,238,876	7,787,174	17,856,258	8,588,358	10,608,015
Realized and Unrealized Gain (Loss)
Net realized gain (loss) from:
Investments		132,011	217,182	(266,835)	1,576,686	467,325	942,768
Financial futures contracts		(119,579)	(101,608)	13,691	(90,808)	(45,600)	(12,389)
		12,432	115,574	(253,144)	1,485,878	421,725	930,379
Net change in unrealized appreciation/depreciation on:
Investments		50,453,975	14,444,238	8,538,990	15,566,856	8,014,923	10,792,131
Financial futures contracts		(107,141)	—	—	—	—	—
		50,346,834	14,444,238	8,538,990	15,566,856	8,014,923	10,792,131
Total realized and unrealized gain		50,359,266	14,559,812	8,285,846	17,052,734	8,436,648	11,722,510
Dividends and Distributions to Preferred Shareholders From
Net investment income		(1,056,149)	(701,553)	(335,411)	(835,377)	(375,004)	(373,148)
Net realized gain		—	(30,004)	—	—	(93,892)	—
Total dividends and distributions to
Preferred Shareholders		(1,056,149)	(731,557)	(335,411)	(835,377)	(468,896)	(373,148)
Net Increase in Net Assets Applicable to
Common Shareholders Resulting from Operations	$ 87,023,139		$ 35,067,131	$ 15,737,609	$ 34,073,615	$ 16,556,110	$ 21,957,377
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 California Insured Fund, Inc. (MUC)
		Period
	Year Ended	July 1, 2009	Year Ended
	July 31,	to July 31,	June 30,
Increase (Decrease) in Net Assets Applicable to Common Shareholders:	2010	2009	2009
Operations
Net investment income	$ 37,720,022	$ 3,111,119	$ 36,958,531
Net realized gain (loss)	12,432	333,937	(7,708,517)
Net change in unrealized appreciation/depreciation	50,346,834	6,127,212	(29,358,960)
Dividends to Preferred Shareholders from net investment income	(1,056,149)	(108,541)	(5,987,846)
Net increase (decrease) in net assets applicable to Common Shareholders resulting from operations	87,023,139	9,463,727	(6,096,792)
Dividends to Common Shareholders From
Net investment income	(32,433,883)	(2,575,091)	(26,404,900)
Net Assets Applicable to Common Shareholders
Total increase (decrease) in net assets applicable to Common Shareholders	54,589,256	6,888,636	(32,501,692)
Beginning of period	540,144,361	533,255,725	565,757,417
End of period	$594,733,617	$540,144,361	$533,255,725
Undistributed net investment income	$ 9,839,827	$ 5,609,840	$ 5,182,353
	BlackRock MuniHoldings New Jersey Insured Fund, Inc. (MUJ)
		Year Ended July 31,
Increase (Decrease) in Net Assets Applicable to Common Shareholders:		2010	2009
Operations
Net investment income		$ 21,238,876	$ 20,763,269
Net realized gain		115,574	1,281,894
Net change in unrealized appreciation/depreciation		14,444,238	(3,750,895)
Dividends and distributions to Preferred Shareholders from:
Net investment income		(701,553)	(3,341,606)
Net realized gain		(30,004)	—
Net increase in net assets applicable to Common Shareholders resulting from operations		35,067,131	14,952,662
Dividends and Distributions to Common Shareholders From
Net investment income		(17,941,752)	(14,043,218)
Net realized gain		(300,750)	—
Decrease in net assets resulting from dividends and distributions to Common Shareholders		(18,242,502)	(14,043,218)
Net Assets Applicable to Common Shareholders
Total increase in net assets applicable to Common Shareholders		16,824,629	909,444
Beginning of year		305,856,288	304,946,844
End of year		$322,680,917	$305,856,288
Undistributed net investment income		$ 6,646,637	$ 4,051,114

See Notes to Financial Statements.

34 ANNUAL REPORT

JULY 31, 2010

Statements of Changes in Net Assets	BlackRock MuniYield Insured Investment Fund (MFT)
	Year Ended July 31,
Increase (Decrease) in Net Assets Applicable to Common Shareholders:	2010	2009
Operations
Net investment income	$ 7,787,174	$ 7,920,874
Net realized loss	(253,144)	(6,860,292)
Net change in unrealized appreciation/depreciation	8,538,990	919,422
Dividends to Preferred Shareholders from net investment income	(335,411)	(1,287,734)
Net increase in net assets applicable to Common Shareholders resulting from operations	15,737,609	692,270
Dividends to Common Shareholders From
Net investment income	(6,905,867)	(5,707,468)
Capital Share Transactions
Reinvestment of dividends	75,047	—
Net Assets Applicable to Common Shareholders
Total increase (decrease) in net assets applicable to Common Shareholders	8,906,789	(5,015,198)
Beginning of year	108,434,059	113,449,257
End of year	$117,340,848	$108,434,059
Undistributed net investment income	$ 1,855,567	$ 1,298,200
	BlackRock MuniYield Michigan Insured Fund, Inc. (MIY)
	Year Ended July 31,
Increase (Decrease) in Net Assets Applicable to Common Shareholders:	2010	2009
Operations
Net investment income	$ 17,856,258	$ 18,189,609
Net realized gain (loss)	1,485,878	(964,623)
Net change in unrealized appreciation/depreciation	15,566,856	(6,206,801)
Dividends to Preferred Shareholders from net investment income	(835,377)	(2,941,361)
Net increase in net assets applicable to Common Shareholders resulting from operations	34,073,615	8,076,824
Dividends to Common Shareholders From
Net investment income	(16,094,370)	(12,252,841)
Net Assets Applicable to Common Shareholders
Total increase (decrease) in net assets applicable to Common Shareholders	17,979,245	(4,176,017)
Beginning of year	253,630,188	257,806,205
End of year	$271,609,433	$253,630,188
Undistributed net investment income	$ 4,676,060	$ 3,834,385

See Notes to Financial Statements.

ANNUAL REPORT

JULY 31, 2010

35

Statements of Changes in Net Assets	BlackRock MuniYield New Jersey Insured Fund, Inc. (MJI)
	Year Ended July 31,
Increase (Decrease) in Net Assets Applicable to Common Shareholders:	2010	2009
Operations
Net investment income	$ 8,588,358	$ 8,438,803
Net realized gain	421,725	369,858
Net change in unrealized appreciation/depreciation	8,014,923	(2,778,653)
Dividends and distributions to Preferred Shareholders from:
Net investment income	(375,004)	(1,331,483)
Net realized gain	(93,892)	(95,182)
Net increase in net assets applicable to Common Shareholders resulting from operations	16,556,110	4,603,343
Dividends and Distributions to Common Shareholders From
Net investment income	(7,425,642)	(5,879,803)
Net realized gain	(883,128)	(150,243)
Decrease in net assets resulting from dividends and distributions to Common Shareholders	(8,308,770)	(6,030,046)
Capital Share Transactions
Reinvestment of dividends and distributions	227,441	—
Net Assets Applicable to Common Shareholders
Total increase (decrease) in net assets applicable to Common Shareholders	8,474,781	(1,426,703)
Beginning of year	123,806,444	125,233,147
End of year	$132,281,225	$123,806,444
Undistributed net investment income	$ 3,198,975	$ 2,480,404
	BlackRock MuniYield Pennsylvania Insured Fund (MPA)
	Year Ended July 31,
Increase (Decrease) in Net Assets Applicable to Common Shareholders:	2010	2009
Operations
Net investment income	$ 10,608,015	$ 10,633,795
Net realized gain (loss)	930,379	(4,324,778)
Net change in unrealized appreciation/depreciation	10,792,131	2,634,266
Dividends to Preferred Shareholders from net investment income	(373,148)	(1,555,575)
Net increase in net assets applicable to Common Shareholders resulting from operations	21,957,377	7,387,708
Dividends to Common Shareholders From
Net investment income	(9,345,182)	(7,588,655)
Net Assets Applicable to Common Shareholders
Total increase (decrease) in net assets applicable to Common Shareholders	12,612,195	(200,947)
Beginning of year	163,918,225	164,119,172
End of year	$176,530,420	$163,918,225
Undistributed net investment income	$ 2,904,565	$ 2,028,015

See Notes to Financial Statements.

36 ANNUAL REPORT

JULY 31, 2010

Statements of Cash Flows
	Muniholdings	MuniYield
	California	Pennsylvania
	Insured Fund,	Insured Fund
July 31, 2010	Inc. (MUC)	(MPA)
Cash Used for Operating Activities
Net increase in net assets resulting from operations, excluding dividends to Preferred Shareholders	$ 88,079,288	$ 22,330,525
Adjustments to reconcile net increase in net assets resulting from operations to net cash provided by operating activities:
Decrease in interest receivable	781,429	198,159
Increase in other assets	(39,794)	—
Increase in dividends receivable — affiliated	(105)	—
Decrease in prepaid expenses	23,495	13,329
Increase in cash pledged as collateral in connection with futures	(84,400)	—
Increase in investment advisory fees payable	14,919	6,312
Increase in margin variation payable	35,938	—
Decrease in interest expense and fees payable	(13,151)	(22,925)
Increase (decrease) in other affiliates payable	437	(20)
Increase in other accrued expenses payable	3,014	20,483
Increase in Officer’s and Directors’ fees payable	40,242	23
Net realized and unrealized gain	(50,853,823)	(11,734,899)
Amortization and accretion of premium and discount on investments	1,673,159	388,330
Proceeds from sales of long-term investments	232,837,611	18,590,427
Purchases of long-term investments	(265,214,768)	(24,984,859)
Net purchases of short-term securities	(50,770,152)	(6,952,903)
Cash used for operating activities	(43,486,661)	(2,148,018)
Cash Provided by Financing Activities
Cash receipts from trust certificates	85,351,729	11,716,768
Cash payments from trust certificates	(8,700,000)	—
Cash dividends paid to Common Shareholders	(32,127,325)	(9,270,558)
Cash dividends paid to Preferred Shareholders	(1,060,239)	(374,242)
Cash provided by financing activities	43,464,165	2,071,968
Cash
Net decrease in cash	(22,496)	(76,050)
Cash at beginning of year	22,496	76,050
Cash at end of year	—	—
Cash Flow Information
Cash paid during the year for interest and fees	$ 822,092	$ 271,116

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 California Insured Fund, Inc. (MUC)
		Period
	Year Ended	July 1, 2009
	July 31,	to July 31,			Year Ended June 30,
	2010	2009	2009		2008		2007		2006
Per Share Operating Performance
Net asset value, beginning of period	$ 13.21	$ 13.05	$ 13.84	$ 14.48		$ 14.44		$ 15.40
Net investment income1	0.92	0.08	0.90		0.96		1.01		1.05
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss)	1.24	0.14	(0.89)		(0.60)		0.07		(0.85)
Dividends to Preferred Shareholders from net investment income	(0.03)	(0.00)2	(0.15)		(0.32)		(0.31)		(0.25)
Net increase (decrease) from investment operations	2.13	0.22	(0.14)		0.04		0.77		(0.05)
Dividends to Common Shareholders from net investment income	(0.79)	(0.06)	(0.65)		(0.68)		(0.73)		(0.91)
Net asset value, end of period	$ 14.55	$ 13.21	$ 13.05	$ 13.84		$ 14.48		$ 14.44
Market price, end of period	$ 14.04	$ 12.18	$ 11.07	$ 12.24		$ 13.92		$ 13.94
Total Investment Return3
Based on net asset value	16.96%	1.75%4	0.21%		0.64%		5.46%		(0.29)%
Based on market price	22.40%	10.59%4	(3.88)%		(7.41)%		5.02%		(0.98)%
Ratios to Average Net Assets Applicable to Common Shareholders
Total expenses5	1.23%	1.34%6,7	1.59%		1.58%		1.66%		1.41%
Total expenses after fees waived5	1.12%	1.19%6,7	1.40%		1.50%		1.60%		1.35%
Total expenses after fees waived and excluding interest expense and fees5,8	0.98%	1.06%6,7	1.02%		1.14%		1.12%		1.10%
Net investment income5	6.52%	6.59%6,7	7.08%		6.72%		6.81%		7.01%
Dividends to Preferred Shareholders	0.18%	0.23%6	1.15%		2.22%		2.11%		1.68%
Net investment income to Common Shareholders	6.34%	6.36%6,7	5.93%		4.50%		4.70%		5.33%
Supplemental Data
Net assets applicable to Common Shareholders, end of period (000)	$ 594,734	$ 540,144	$ 533,256 $		565,757 $		592,053 $		589,404
Preferred Shares outstanding at $25,000 liquidation preference,
end of period (000)	$ 254,000	$ 254,000	$ 287,375	$ 287,375		$ 390,000		$ 390,000
Portfolio turnover	25%	1%	19%		43%		35%		34%
Asset coverage per Preferred Share at $25,000 liquidation preference,
end of period	$ 83,538	$ 78,166	$ 71,392	$ 74,225		$ 62,965		$ 62,795

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 effects of 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 Certain non-recurring expenses have been included in the ratio but not annualized. If these expenses were annualized, the ratios of total expenses, total expenses after fees
waived, total expenses after fees waived and excluding interest expense and fees, net investment income and net investment income to Common Shareholders would have been
1.43%, 1.28%, 1.15%, 6.50% and 6.27%, respectively.
⁸ 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.

38 ANNUAL REPORT

JULY 31, 2010

Financial Highlights	BlackRock MuniHoldings New Jersey Insured Fund, Inc. (MUJ)
			Year Ended July 31,
	2010	2009	2008		2007	2006
Per Share Operating Performance
Net asset value, beginning of year	$ 14.40	$ 14.35	$ 14.86	$ 14.91		$ 15.62
Net investment income1	1.00	0.98	0.93		1.03	1.03
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss)	0.67	(0.11)	(0.47)		(0.03)	(0.61)
Dividends and distributions to Preferred Shareholders from:
Net investment income	(0.03)	(0.16)	(0.31)		(0.31)	(0.26)
Net realized gain	(0.00)2	—	—		—	—
Net increase from investment operations.	1.64	0.71	0.15		0.69	0.16
Dividends and distributions to Common Shareholders from:
Net investment income	(0.84)	(0.66)	(0.66)		(0.74)	(0.87)
Net realized gain	(0.01)	—	—		—	—
Total dividends and distributions to Common Shareholders	(0.85)	(0.66)	(0.66)		(0.74)	(0.87)
Net asset value, end of year	$ 15.19	$ 14.40	$ 14.35	$ 14.86		$ 14.91
Market price, end of year	$ 15.05	$ 13.38	$ 12.93	$ 14.40		$ 14.98
Total Investment Return3
Based on net asset value	11.95%	6.13%	1.35%		4.71%	1.09%
Based on market price	19.37%	9.45%	(5.76)%		0.99%	(0.16)%
Ratios to Average Net Assets Applicable to Common Shareholders
Total expenses4	1.13%	1.30%	1.30%		1.45%	1.45%
Total expenses after fees waived4	1.08%	1.21%	1.23%		1.40%	1.39%
Total expenses after fees waived and excluding interest expense and fees4,5	1.05%	1.10%	1.15%		1.17%	1.15%
Net investment income4	6.71%	7.04%	6.22%		6.77%	6.80%
Dividends to Preferred Shareholders	0.22%	1.13%	2.11%		2.03%	1.72%
Net investment income to Common Shareholders	6.49%	5.91%	4.11%		4.74%	5.08%
Supplemental Data
Net assets applicable to Common Shareholders, end of year (000)	$ 322,681	$ 305,856	$ 304,947	$ 315,769		$ 315,649
Preferred Shares outstanding at $25,000 liquidation preference, end of year (000)	$ 172,700	$ 172,700	$ 176,700	$ 203,000		$ 203,000
Portfolio turnover	13%	9%	12%		17%	16%
Asset coverage per Preferred Share at $25,000 liquidation preference, end of year	$ 71,713	$ 69,2786	$ 68,1526	$ 63,8986		$ 63,8846

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 effects of sales charges and include the reinvestment of dividends and distributions.
⁴ Do not reflect the effect of dividends to Preferred Shareholders.
⁵ 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.
⁶ Amounts have been recalculated to conform with current year presentation.

See Notes to Financial Statements.

ANNUAL REPORT

JULY 31, 2010

39

Financial Highlights			BlackRock MuniYield Insured Investment Fund (MFT)
			Period
		November 1, 2007
	Year Ended July 31,				Year Ended October 31,
			to July 31,
	2010	2009	2008		2007	2006		2005
Per Share Operating Performance
Net asset value, beginning of period	$ 12.83	$ 13.42	$ 14.38	$ 14.91		$ 14.72	$ 15.22
Net investment income1	0.92	0.94	0.71		0.95	0.97		0.98
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss)	0.98	(0.70)	(0.97)		(0.49)	0.24		(0.38)
Dividends to Preferred Shareholders from net investment income	(0.04)	(0.15)	(0.22)		(0.31)	(0.27)		(0.17)
Net increase (decrease) from investment operations	1.86	0.09	(0.48)		0.15	0.94		0.43
Dividends to Common Shareholders from net investment income	(0.82)	(0.68)	(0.48)		(0.68)	(0.75)		(0.90)
Capital charges resulting from issuance of Preferred Shares	—	—	—		—	—		(0.03)
Net asset value, end of period	$ 13.87	$ 12.83	$ 13.42	$ 14.38		$ 14.91	$ 14.72
Market price, end of period	$ 14.28	$ 11.80	$ 11.75	$ 12.74		$ 14.21	$ 14.18
Total Investment Return2
Based on net asset value	14.99%	1.94%	(2.97)%3		1.39%	6.87%		2.72%
Based on market price	28.72%	7.08%	(4.11)%3		(5.75)%	5.73%		0.54%
Ratios to Average Net Assets Applicable to Common Shareholders
Total expenses4	1.19%	1.40%	1.51%5		1.54%	1.46%		1.38%
Total expenses after fees waived4	1.19%	1.37%	1.49%5		1.52%	1.45%		1.38%
Total expenses after fees waived and excluding interest expense and fees4,6	1.09%	1.19%	1.18%5		1.20%	1.17%		1.20%
Net investment income4	6.80%	7.54%	6.60%5		6.53%	6.58%		6.50%
Dividends to Preferred Shareholders	0.29%	1.23%	2.07%5		2.13%	1.87%		1.13%
Net investment income to Common Shareholders	6.51%	6.31%	4.53%5		4.40%	4.71%		5.37%
Supplemental Data
Net assets applicable to Common Shareholders, end of period (000)	$ 117,341	$ 108,434	$ 113,449	$ 121,574		$ 126,042	$ 124,422
Preferred Shares outstanding at $25,000 liquidation preference,
end of period (000)	$ 56,525	$ 56,525	$ 62,250	$ 72,000		$ 72,000	$ 72,000
Portfolio turnover.	38%	43%	21%		26%	34%		52%
Asset coverage per Preferred Share at $25,000 liquidation preference,
end of period	$ 76,900	$ 72,961	$ 70,569	$ 67,220		$ 68,769	$ 68,212

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 effects of 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.

See Notes to Financial Statements.

40 ANNUAL REPORT

JULY 31, 2010

Financial Highlights			BlackRock MuniYield Michigan Insured Fund, Inc. (MIY)
			Period
		November 1, 2007
	Year Ended July 31,				Year Ended October 31,
			to July 31,
	2010	2009	2008		2007	2006		2005
Per Share Operating Performance
Net asset value, beginning of period	$ 13.93	$ 14.16	$ 15.03	$ 15.45		$ 15.32	$ 15.96
Net investment income1	0.98	1.00	0.70		1.06	1.04		1.08
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss)	0.94	(0.40)	(0.82)		(0.45)	0.22		(0.54)
Dividends to Preferred Shareholders from net investment income	(0.05)	(0.16)	(0.23)		(0.32)	(0.29)		(0.18)
Net increase (decrease) from investment operations	1.87	0.44	(0.35)		0.29	0.97		0.36
Dividends to Common Shareholders from net investment income	(0.88)	(0.67)	(0.52)		(0.71)	(0.84)		(0.98)
Capital charges with respect to the issuance of Preferred Shares	—	—	—		—	—		(0.02)
Net asset value, end of period	$ 14.92	$ 13.93	$ 14.16	$ 15.03		$ 15.45	$ 15.32
Market price, end of period	$ 14.55	$ 12.25	$ 12.30	$ 13.40		$ 14.67	$ 15.31
Total Investment Return2
Based on net asset value	14.31%	4.66%	(2.02)%3		2.30%	6.64%		2.24%
Based on market price	26.76%	5.95%	(4.54)%3		(3.95)%	1.32%		6.10%
Ratios to Average Net Assets Applicable to Common Shareholders
Total expenses4	1.07%	1.27%	1.42%5		1.55%	1.62%		1.42%
Total expenses after fees waived4	1.07%	1.25%	1.40%5		1.55%	1.61%		1.42%
Total expenses after fees waived and excluding interest expense and fees4,6	1.03%	1.09%	1.13%5		1.12%	1.11%		1.10%
Net investment income4	6.72%	7.37%	6.19%5		6.95%	6.84%		6.84%
Dividends to Preferred Shareholders	0.31%	1.19%	2.05%5		2.12%	1.87%		1.13%
Net investment income to Common Shareholders	6.41%	6.18%	4.14%5		4.83%	4.97%		5.71%
Supplemental Data
Net assets applicable to Common Shareholders, end of period (000)	$ 271,609	$ 253,630	$ 257,806	$ 273,593		$ 281,350	$ 278,250
Preferred Shares outstanding at $25,000 liquidation preference,
end of period (000)	$ 144,650	$ 144,650	$ 144,650	$ 165,000		$ 165,000	$ 165,000
Portfolio turnover	15%	9%	21%		10%	15%		25%
Asset coverage end of period per $1,000	$ 2,8787	$ 2,7537	$ 2,7827	$ 2,6587		$ 2,7057	$ 2,686

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 effects of 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 $71,945, $68,838, $69,563, $66,461 and
$67,638, respectively.

See Notes to Financial Statements.

ANNUAL REPORT

JULY 31, 2010

41

Financial Highlights		BlackRock MuniYield New Jersey Insured Fund, Inc. (MJI)
			Period
		November 1, 2007
	Year Ended July 31,				Year Ended October 31,
			to July 31,
	2010	2009	2008		2007		2006		2005
Per Share Operating Performance
Net asset value, beginning of period	$ 14.07	$ 14.23	$ 15.02	$ 15.42		$ 15.07		$ 15.46
Net investment income1	0.98	0.96	0.69		0.96		0.97		0.96
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss)	0.94	(0.27)	(0.76)		(0.42)		0.36		(0.27)
Dividends and distributions to Preferred Shareholders from:
Net investment income	(0.04)	(0.15)	(0.21)		(0.28)		(0.25)		(0.16)
Net realized gain	(0.01)	(0.01)	(0.01)		(0.00)2		—		—
Net increase (decrease) from investment operations	1.87	0.53	(0.29)		0.26		1.08		0.53
Dividends and distributions to Common Shareholders from:
Net investment income	(0.84)	(0.67)	(0.49)		(0.65)		(0.73)		(0.92)
Net realized gain	(0.10)	(0.02)	(0.01)		(0.01)		—		—
Total dividends and distributions to Common Shareholders	(0.94)	(0.69)	(0.50)		(0.66)		(0.73)		(0.92)
Capital charges with respect to the issuance of Preferred Shares	—	—	—		—		—		0.003
Net asset value, end of period	$ 15.00	$ 14.07	$ 14.23	$ 15.02		$ 15.42		$ 15.07
Market price, end of period	$ 14.92	$ 12.82	$ 12.81	$ 13.70		$ 14.96		$ 14.65
Total Investment Return4
Based on net asset value	13.90%	4.94%	(1.67)%5		2.00%		7.50%		3.49%
Based on market price	24.34%	6.22%	(2.95)%5		(4.10)%		7.28%		2.60%
Ratios to Average Net Assets Applicable to Common Shareholders
Total expenses6	1.06%	1.22%	1.24%7		1.37%		1.59%		1.52%
Total expenses after fees waived6	1.05%	1.21%	1.24%7		1.37%		1.59%		1.52%
Total expenses after fees waived and excluding interest expense and fees6,8	1.02%	1.11%	1.18%7		1.17%		1.15%		1.16%
Net investment income6	6.64%	7.10%	6.18%7		6.30%		6.46%		6.21%
Dividends to Preferred Shareholders	0.29%	1.12%	1.87%7		1.81%		1.63%		1.03%
Net investment income to Common Shareholders	6.35%	5.98%	4.31%7		4.49%		4.83%		5.18%
Supplemental Data
Net assets applicable to Common Shareholders, end of period (000)	$ 132,281	$ 123,806	$ 125,233	$ 132,174		$ 135,767		$ 132,622
Preferred Shares outstanding at $25,000 liquidation preference,
end of period (000)	$ 64,475	$ 64,475	$ 65,700	$ 73,500		$ 73,500		$ 73,500
Portfolio turnover	12%	8%	13%		23%		11%		29%
Asset coverage per Preferred Share at $25,000 liquidation preference,
end of period	$ 76,294	$ 73,008	$ 72,666	$ 69,965		$ 71,185		$ 70,110

¹ Based on average Common Shares outstanding.
² Amount is less than $(0.01) per share.
³ Amount is less than $0.01 per share.
⁴ 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 effects of sales charges and include the reinvestment of dividends and distributions.
⁵ Aggregate total investment return.
⁶ Do not reflect the effect of dividends to Preferred Shareholders.
⁷ Annualized.
⁸ 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

Financial Highlights			BlackRock MuniYield Pennsylvania Insured Fund (MPA)
				Period
		November 1, 2007
	Year Ended July 31,					Year Ended October 31,
				to July 31,
	2010	2009		2008		2007	2006		2005
Per Share Operating Performance
Net asset value, beginning of period	$ 14.28	$ 14.30	$ 15.49		$ 15.89		$ 15.57	$ 16.04
Net investment income1	0.92	0.93		0.71		1.01	1.01		1.05
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss)	1.02	(0.15)		(1.18)		(0.40)	0.36		(0.35)
Dividends to Preferred Shareholders from net investment income	(0.03)	(0.14)		(0.22)		(0.32)	(0.27)		(0.19)
Net increase (decrease) from investment operations	1.91	0.64		(0.69)		0.29	1.10		0.51
Dividends to Common Shareholders from net investment income	(0.81)	(0.66)		(0.50)		(0.69)	(0.78)		(0.96)
Capital charges with respect to the issuance of Preferred Shares	—	—		—		—	(0.00)2		(0.02)
Net asset value, end of period	$ 15.38	$ 14.28	$ 14.30		$ 15.49		$ 15.89	$ 15.57
Market price, end of period	$ 15.26	$ 12.87	$ 12.43		$ 13.67		$ 14.60	$ 14.91
Total Investment Return3
Based on net asset value	14.18%	5.88%		(4.18)%4		2.19%	7.52%		3.16%
Based on market price	25.70%	9.78%		(5.62)%4		(1.85)%	3.16%		1.51%
Ratios to Average Net Assets Applicable to Common Shareholders
Total expenses5	1.15%	1.27%		1.50%6		1.72%	1.70%		1.70%
Total expenses after fees waived5	1.15%	1.25%		1.48%6		1.72%	1.69%		1.69%
Total expenses after fees waived and excluding interest expense and fees5,7	1.00%	1.06%		1.13%6		1.13%	1.13%		1.13%
Net investment income5	6.17%	6.82%		6.18%6		6.44%	6.49%		6.56%
Dividends to Preferred Shareholders	0.22%	1.00%		1.93%6		2.02%	1.76%		1.17%
Net investment income to Common Shareholders	5.95%	5.82%		4.25%6		4.42%	4.73%		5.39%
Supplemental Data
Net assets applicable to Common Shareholders, end of period (000)	$ 176,530	$ 163,918		$ 164,119		$ 177,807	$ 182,402		$ 178,771
Preferred Shares outstanding at $25,000 liquidation preference,
end of period (000)	$ 66,350	$ 66,350	$ 77,400		$ 102,000		$ 102,000	$ 102,000
Portfolio turnover	6%	18%		24%		35%	25%		42%
Asset coverage per Preferred Share at $25,000 liquidation preference,
end of period	$ 91,517	$ 86,765	$ 78,018		$ 68,585		$ 69,717	$ 68,827

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 effects of 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

43

Notes to Financial Statements

1. Organization and Significant Accounting Policies:

BlackRock MuniHoldings California Insured Fund, Inc. (“MUC”), BlackRock
MuniHoldings New Jersey Fund, Inc. (“MUJ”), BlackRock MuniYield Insured
Investment Fund (“MFT”), BlackRock MuniYield Michigan Insured Fund, Inc.
(“MIY”), BlackRock MuniYield New Jersey Insured Fund, Inc. (“MJI”) and
BlackRock MuniYield Pennsylvania Insured Fund (“MPA”) (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. MUC, MUJ, MIY and MJI
are organized as Maryland corporations. MFT and MPA are organized as
Massachusetts business trusts. The Funds’ financial statements are pre-
pared 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 values 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
each Fund’s Board of Directors/Trustees (the “Board”). Municipal invest-
ments (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 rela-
tionships 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 compa-
nies 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 cur-
rent sale of that asset in an arm’s-length transaction. Fair value determina-
tions 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 trans-
actions 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 deliv-
ery basis, the Funds assume the rights and risks of ownership of the secu-
rity, including the risk of price and yield fluctuations. In the event of default
by the counterparty, 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 con-
tributed 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, there-
fore 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.

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

44 ANNUAL REPORT

JULY 31, 2010

Notes to Financial Statements (continued)

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	Liability
	Municipal Bonds	for Trust	Range of
	Transferred to TOBs	Certificates	Interest Rates
MUC	$350,364,211	$181,854,633	0.25% – 0.30%
MUJ	$ 22,639,966	$ 13,262,930	0.27% – 0.34%
MFT	$ 31,794,594	$ 16,200,287	0.27% – 0.43%
MIY	$ 32,364,773	$ 16,190,000	0.28% – 0.31%
MJI…	$ 8,090,834	$ 4,684,369	0.27% – 0.34%
MPA	$ 78,585,254	$ 38,445,136	0.28% – 0.48%

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	Daily Weighted
	Certificates	Average
	Outstanding	Interest Rate
MUC	$109,166,909	0.74%
MUJ	$ 13,262,930	0.72%
MFT	$ 14,941,501	0.76%
MIY	$ 16,190,000	0.70%
MJI	$ 4,684,369	0.72%
MPA	$ 29,911,366	0.83%

Should short-term interest rates rise, the Funds' investments in TOBs
may adversely affect the Funds' net investment income and distributions
to Common Shareholders. Also, fluctuations in the market values of munici-
pal 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)
each Fund will, consistent with SEC rules and/or certain interpretive letters
issued by the SEC, segregate collateral or designate on its 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 require-
ments 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 trans-
actions 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 distri-
butions 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.

The Funds file US federal and various state and local tax returns. No
income tax returns are currently under examination. The statute of limita-
tions on the Funds’ US federal tax returns remains open for the year ended
July 31, 2010, the period ended July 31, 2009 and for each of the two
years ended June 30, 2009 for MUC, for each of the four years ended July
31, 2010 for MUJ and for each of the two years ended July 31, 2010, and
the period ended July 31, 2008 and for the year ended October 31, 2007
for MFT, MIY, MJI and MPA. 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.

Other: Expenses directly related to a Fund are charged to the 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 applica-
ble, 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.

ANNUAL REPORT

JULY 31, 2010

45

Notes to Financial Statements (continued)

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 unfavor-
able 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
or currencies 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 finan-
cial futures contracts, interest rates and the underlying assets.

Derivative Instruments Categorized by Risk Exposure:

Fair Values of Derivative Instruments as of July 31, 2010

Liability Derivatives
		MUC
	Statement of Assets
	and Liabilities Location		Value
	Net unrealized
Interest rate contracts	appreciation/depreciation*		$ 107,141

*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 Statement of Assets and Liabilities.

	The Effect of Derivative Instruments on the Statements of Operations
		Year Ended July 31, 2010
	Net Realized Gain (Loss) from
	MUC	MUJ		MFT		MIY	MJI	MPA
Interest rate contracts:
Financial futures contracts	$ (119,579)	$ (101,608)	$ 13,691		$ (90,808)		$ (45,600)	$ (12,389)
Net Change in Unrealized Appreciation/Depreciation on
	MUC
Interest rate contracts:
Financial futures contracts	$ (107,141)

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

	MUC	MUJ	MFT	MIY	MJI	MPA
Financial futures contracts:
Average number of contracts purchased	—	6	2	5	3	3
Average number of contracts sold	13	84	2	72	34	38
Average notional value of contracts purchased	—	$ 718,764	$ 230,004	$ 603,762	$ 287,506	$ 373,757
Average notional value of contracts sold	$ 1,520,871	$10,112,190	$ 274,143	$ 8,612,830	$ 4,109,393	$ 4,501,105

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 struc-
ture, 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:

MUC	0.55%
MUJ	0.55%
MFT	0.50%
MIY	0.50%
MJI	0.50%
MPA	0.50%

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

The Manager voluntarily agreed to waive its investment advisory fees by the
amount of investment advisory fees each Fund pays to the Manager indi-
rectly 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. This amount is shown as, or included in,

46 ANNUAL REPORT

JULY 31, 2010

Notes to Financial Statements (continued)

fees waived by advisor in the Statements of Operations. For the year
ended July 31, 2010 the amounts waived were as follows:

MUC	$41,662
MUJ	$15,015
MFT	$ 5,019
MIY	$14,254
MJI	$ 8,683
MPA	$ 3,500

In addition, the Manager has agreed to waive its investment advisory fee
on the proceeds of Preferred Shares and TOBs that exceed 35% of MUC
and MUJ’s average daily net assets. These amounts are included in fees
waived by advisor in the Statements of Operations. For the year ended July
31, 2010, the amounts waived were as follows:

MUC	$597,769
MUJ	$121,474

The Manager entered into a sub-advisory agreement with BlackRock
Investment Management, LLC (“BIM”), an affiliate of the Manager, under
which 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.

MUC	$18,429
MUJ	$ 9,519
MFT	$ 3,616
MIY	$ 8,108
MJI	$ 3,776
MPA	$ 5,097

Certain officers and/or directors of the Funds are officers and/or directors
of BlackRock or its affiliates. The Funds reimburse the Manager for com-
pensation 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
MUC	$274,310,148	$230,581,978
MUJ	$ 63,012,565	$ 62,820,141
MFT	$ 70,564,465	$ 68,421,705
MIY	$ 69,426,774	$ 61,572,543
MJI	$ 22,317,855	$ 26,310,015
MPA	$ 24,568,177	$ 15,155,733

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 reclassification of distributions, the sale of bonds received from tender option bond trusts and distri-
butions received from a regulated investment company were reclassified to the following accounts:

	MUC		MUJ	MFT	MIY	MJI	MPA
Paid-in capital		—	—	—	—	$ (67,360)	$ (17,191)
Undistributed net investment income	$ (3)		$ (48)	$ 11,471	$ (84,836)	$ (69,141)	$ (13,135)
Accumulated net realized loss	$ 3		$ 48	$ (11,471)	$ 84,836	$ 136,501	$ 30,326

The tax character of distributions paid during the year ended June 30, 2009, the fiscal period ended July 31, 2009 and the fiscal year ended July 31, 2010
were as follows:

	MUC	MUJ	MFT	MIY	MJI	MPA
Tax-exempt income
7/31/2010	$33,490,032	$18,643,305	$ 7,241,278	$16,929,747	$ 7,778,168	$ 9,718,330
7/31/2009	—	17,384,824	6,878,717	15,194,202	7,211,286	9,144,230
7/01/2009 — 7/31/2009	2,683,632	—	—	—	—	—
6/30/2009	32,392,746	—	—	—	—	—
Ordinary income
7/31/2010	—	—	—	—	34,535	—
7/31/2009	—	—	116,485	—	—	—
Long-term capital gains
7/31/2010	—	330,754	—	—	964,963	—
7/31/2009	—	—	—	—	245,425	—
Total distributions
7/31/2010	$33,490,032	$18,974,059	$ 7,241,278	$16,929,747	$ 8,777,666	$ 9,718,330
7/31/2009	—	$17,384,824	$ 6,995,202	$15,194,202	$ 7,456,711	$ 9,144,230
7/01/2009 — 7/31/2009	$ 2,683,632	—	—	—	—	—
6/30/2009	$32,392,746	—	—	—	—	—

ANNUAL REPORT

JULY 31, 2010

47

Notes to Financial Statements (continued)
As of July 31, 2010, the tax components of accumulated net earnings (losses) were as follows:
	MUC	MUJ	MFT	MIY	MJI	MPA
Undistributed tax-exempt income	$ 9,843,710	$ 6,352,814	$ 1,787,548	$ 4,259,101	$ 2,756,445	$ 2,679,377
Undistributed ordinary income	5,965	—	24	598	—	111,808
Capital Loss Carryforwards	(13,869,539)	—	(10,090,082)	(7,596,829)	—	(3,842,087)
Net unrealized gains*	13,072,759	17,658,387	7,741,576	11,370,547	5,227,925	7,574,554
Total	$ 9,052,895	$24,011,201	$ (560,934)	$ 8,033,417	$ 7,984,370	$ 6,523,652

* 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,
amortization and accretion methods for premiums and discounts on fixed income securities, the deferral of post-October capital losses for tax purposes, the realization for tax
purposes of unrealized gains (losses) on certain futures contracts, the treatment of residual interests in tender option bond trusts and the deferral of compensation to directors.

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,	MUC	MFT	MIY	MPA
2011	$ 3,015,538	—	—	—
2012	—	$ 2,081,725	$ 3,875,883	—
2016	2,097,897	659,619	1,689,814	—
2017	8,756,104	993,919	2,031,132	$ 2,948,179
2018	—	6,354,819	—	893,908
Total	$ 13,869,539	$ 10,090,082	$ 7,596,829	$ 3,842,087

6. Concentration, Market and Credit Risk:

MUC, MUJ, MIY, MJI, and MPA 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 enters
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 fluctua-
tions. Similar to issuer credit risk, the Funds may be exposed to counter-
party credit risk, or the risk that an entity with which the Funds have
unsettled or open transactions may fail to or be unable to perform on
its commitments. The Funds manage counterparty credit risk by entering
into transactions only with counterparties that it believes 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.

MUC invests a significant portion of its assets in securities in the
County/City/Special District/School District and Utilities sectors.
MUJ invests a significant portion of its assets in securities in the
County/City/Special District/School District, State and Transportation
sectors. MIY invests a significant portion of its assets in securities in the
County/City/Special District/School District and Health sectors. MJI invests
a significant portion of its assets in securities in the County/City/Special
District/School District, Education and State sectors. MPA invests a
significant portion of its assets in securities in the County/City/Special
District/School District and State sectors. Changes in economic conditions
affecting the County/City/Special District/School District, Education,
Health, State, 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.

7. Capital Share Transactions:

MFT and MPA are authorized to issue an unlimited number of Common
Shares of beneficial interest, par value $0.10 per share together with 1
million Preferred Shares of beneficial interest, par value $0.05 per share.
Each Fund’s Board is authorized, however, to reclassify any unissued shares
of Common Shares without approval of Common Shareholders.

MUC, MUJ, MIY, and MJI are authorized to issue 200 million shares, includ-
ing Preferred Shares, par value $0.10 per share or $0.05 per share, 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

Shares issued and outstanding remained constant for MUC, MUJ, MIY
and MPA during the years ended July 31, 2010 and 2009 respectively.

48 ANNUAL REPORT

JULY 31, 2010

Notes to Financial Statements (concluded)

For MFT, shares issued and outstanding increased by 5,456 as a result of
reinvestment of dividends during the year ended July 31, 2010, and
remained constant during the year ended July 31, 2009.

For MJI, shares issued and outstanding increased by 15,316 as a result of
reinvestment of dividends and distributions during the year ended July 31,
2010, and remained constant during the year ended July 31, 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
of Amendment/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 repur-
chases 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 Funds' 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:

				Reset
		Preferred	Effective Frequency
	Series	Shares	Yield	Days
MUC	A	1,2511	0.44%	7
	B	2,5271	0.41%	7
	C	2,0841	0.41%	7
	D	1,9281	0.43%	7
	E	2,3701	0.43%	7
MUJ	A	1,1571	0.44%	7
	B	1,1571	0.41%	7
	C	2,0421	0.43%	7
	D	1,5991	0.43%	7
	E	9531	0.41%	7

				Reset
		Preferred	Effective  Frequency
	Series	Shares	Yield	Days
MFT	A	1,8841	0.44%	7
	B	3772	1.49%	7
MIY	A	1,7531	0.43%	7
	B	1,7531	0.41%	7
	C	1,4031	0.43%	7
	D	8772	1.50%	7
MJI	A	1,9651	0.41%	7
	B	6142	1.47%	7
MPA	A	1,0411	0.44%	7
	B	1,2491	0.43%	7
	C	3642	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.

Dividends on seven-day Preferred Shares are cumulative at a rate, which is
reset every seven days 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 the higher of 110% of the AA commercial paper rate or
100% of 90% of the Kenny S&P 30-day High Grade Index divided by 1.00
minus the marginal tax rate. 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
MUC	A	0.24%	0.58%	0.42%
	B	0.24%	0.58%	0.42%
	C	0.24%	0.58%	0.42%
	D	0.26%	0.58%	0.42%
	E	0.26%	0.58%	0.42%
MUJ	A	0.24%	0.58%	0.42%
	B	0.24%	0.58%	0.41%
	C	0.26%	0.58%	0.42%
	D	0.26%	0.58%	0.42%
	E	0.24%	0.58%	0.41%
MFT	A	0.24%	0.58%	0.42%
	B	1.34%	1.63%	1.48%
MIY	A	0.26%	0.58%	0.42%
	B	0.24%	0.58%	0.41%
	C	0.26%	0.58%	0.42%
	D	1.32%	1.63%	1.48%
MJI	A	0.24%	0.58%	0.41%
	B	1.32%	1.63%	1.48%
MPA	A	0.24%	0.58%	0.42%
	B	0.26%	0.58%	0.42%
	C	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

ANNUAL REPORT

JULY 31, 2010

49

Notes to Financial Statements (concluded)

a Fund's auction rate preferred shares than buyers. It is impossible to pre-
dict 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.

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

		Redemption	Shares	Aggregate
	Series	Date	Redeemed	Principal
MUC	A	7/07/09	164	$4,100,000
	B	7/06/09	332	$8,300,000
	C	7/06/09	274	$6,850,000
	D	7/09/09	253	$6,325,000
	E	7/08/09	312	$7,800,000
MUJ	A	7/07/09	27	$ 675,000
	B	7/06/09	27	$ 675,000
	C	7/08/09	47	$1,175,000
	D	7/09/09	37	$ 925,000
	E	7/06/09	22	$ 550,000
MFT	A	7/14/09	191	$4,775,000
	B	7/09/09	38	$ 950,000
MJI	A	7/06/09	37	$ 925,000
	B	7/06/09	12	$ 300,000
MPA	A	7/14/09	173	$4,325,000
	B	7/08/09	208	$5,200,000
	C	7/06/09	61	$1,525,000

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

Preferred Shares issued and outstanding remained constant for the year
ended July 31, 2010 for all Funds.

8. Restatement Information:

During the year ended October 31, 2006 MIY determined that the criteria
for sale accounting under US GAAP 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 year ended
October 31, 2005 for MIY 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 MIY	Previously
Year Ended October 31, 2005	Reported	Restated
Total expenses1	1.10%	1.42%
Total expenses after fees waived1	1.10%	1.42%
Portfolio turnover	30.16%	25%
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
MUC	$0.0705
MUJ	$0.0730
MFT	$0.0710
MIY	$0.0750
MJI	$0.0720
MPA	$0.0720

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

	Common Dividend
	Per Share
MUC	$0.0735
MUJ	$0.0740
MFT	$0.0710
MIY	$0.0765
MJI	$0.0720
MPA	$0.0745

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

		Dividends
	Series	Declared
MUC	A	$10,718
	B	$21,320
	C	$17,779
	D	$16,718
	E	$20,600
MUJ	A	$ 9,913
	B	$ 9,871
	C	$17,749
	D	$13,865
	E	$ 8,040
MFT	A	$16,142
	B	$11,487
MIY	A	$15,237
	B	$14,790
	C	$12,165
	D	$26,660
MJI	A	$16,578
	B	$18,640
MPA	A	$ 8,919
	B	$10,857
	C	$11,050

50 ANNUAL REPORT

JULY 31, 2010

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

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

We have audited the accompanying statement of assets and liabilities
of BlackRock MuniHoldings California Insured Fund, Inc., including the
schedule of investments, as of July 31, 2010, and the related statements
of operations and cash flows for the year then ended, the statements of
changes in net assets for the year ended July 31, 2010, the period July 1,
2009 to July 31, 2009 and the year ended June 30, 2009, and the fin-
ancial highlights for each of the periods presented. We have also audited
the accompanying statements of assets and liabilities of BlackRock
MuniHoldings New Jersey Insured Fund, Inc., BlackRock MuniYield New
Jersey Insured Fund, Inc. and BlackRock MuniYield Insured Investment
Fund, including the schedules of investments, as of July 31, 2010, and 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 each of the periods presented. We have also
audited the accompanying statement of assets and liabilities of BlackRock
MuniYield Michigan Insured Fund, Inc., including the schedule of invest-
ments, as of July 31, 2010, and the related statement 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 each of
the two years in the period then ended, 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 statement of assets
and liabilities of BlackRock MuniYield Pennsylvania Insured Fund, including
the schedule of investments, as of July 31, 2010, and the related state-
ments of operations and cash flows for the year then ended, the state-
ments of changes in net assets for each of the two years in the period then
ended, and the financial highlights for each of 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 MuniYield Michigan 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 the 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 report-
ing. 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 signifi-
cant 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 cus-
todians 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 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 the year then ended, the period July 1, 2009
to July 31, 2009 and the year ended June 30, 2009, and the financial
highlights for each of 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 positions
of BlackRock MuniHoldings New Jersey Insured Fund, Inc., BlackRock
MuniYield New Jersey Insured Fund, Inc. and BlackRock MuniYield Insured
Investment Fund, 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 each of 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 Michigan Insured Fund, Inc.,
the results of its operations 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, 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 position of BlackRock
MuniYield Pennsylvania Insured Fund 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 periods presented, in conformity with
accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.

We also have audited the adjustments, applied by management, to
restate certain financial highlights for the year ended October 31, 2005 for
BlackRock MuniYield Michigan Insured Fund, Inc. (the “Fund”) to correct
the errors described in Note 8. These adjustments are the responsibility
of the Fund’s management. The audit procedures that we performed with
respect to the adjustments included such tests as we considered neces-
sary in the circumstances and were designed to obtain reasonable assur-
ance about whether the adjustments are appropriate and have been

ANNUAL REPORT

JULY 31, 2010

51

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm (concluded)

properly applied, in all material respects, to the restated financial highlights
for the year ended October 31, 2005. We did not perform any audit proce-
dures designed to assess whether any additional adjustments to such
financial highlights might be necessary in order for such financial highlights
to be presented in conformity with accounting principles generally accept-
ed in the United States of America. In our opinion, the adjustments to the
financial highlights for the year ended October 31, 2005 for BlackRock
MuniYield Michigan Insured Fund, Inc. 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 such financial
highlights 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 such financial highlights.

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

52 ANNUAL REPORT

JULY 31, 2010

Important Tax Information

The following table summarizes the taxable per share distributions paid by MJI during the taxable year ended July 31, 2010.

	Payable Date	Ordinary Income	Long Term Gains
Common Shareholders	12/31/09	$0.024326	$0.099095
Preferred Shareholders:
Series A	11/16/09	$ 0.10	$ 2.74
	11/23/09	$ 0.12	$ 3.23
	11/30/09	$ 0.12	$ 3.60
	12/7/09	$ 0.12	$ 3.48
	12/14/09	$ 0.10	$ 2.87
	12/21/09	$ 0.12	$ 3.11
	12/28/09	$ 0.12	$ 3.48
	1/4/10	$ 0.16	$ 3.94
	1/11/10	$ 0.02	$ 0.80
Series B	11/13/09	$ 0.40	$ 11.11
	11/20/09	$ 0.41	$ 11.63
	11/27/09	$ 0.43	$ 11.90
	12/4/09	$ 0.43	$ 11.80
	12/11/09	$ 0.40	$ 11.27
	12/18/09	$ 0.22	$ 6.09
All of the other net investment income distributions paid by the Fund qualify as tax-exempt interest dividends for federal income tax purposes.
The following table summarizes the taxable per share distributions paid by MUJ during the taxable year ended July 31, 2010.
		Payable Date	Long Term Gains
Common Shareholders		12/31/09	$0.014156
Preferred Shareholders:
Series A		11/24/09	$ 3.34
		12/1/09	$ 1.02
Series B		11/20/09	$ 3.34
		11/27/09	$ 1.09
Series C		11/25/09	$ 3.72
		12/2/09	$ 0.61
Series D		11/27/09	$ 4.24
		12/3/09	$ 0.03
Series E		11/23/09	$ 3.34
		11/30/09	$ 1.03

All of the net investment income distributions paid by MUC, MUJ, MIY, MFT and MPA during the taxable year ended July 31, 2010 qualify as tax-exempt
interest dividends for federal income tax purposes.

ANNUAL REPORT

JULY 31, 2010

53

Disclosure of Investment Advisory Agreements and Sub-Advisory Agreements

The Board of Directors and the Board of Trustees, as the case may be
(each, a “Board,” and, collectively, the "Boards," and the members of which
are referred to as "Board Members") of each of BlackRock MuniHoldings
California Insured Fund, Inc. (“MUC”), BlackRock MuniHoldings New Jersey
Insured Fund, Inc. (“MUJ”), BlackRock MuniYield Insured Investment Fund
(“MFT”), BlackRock MuniYield Michigan Insured Fund, Inc. (“MIY”),
BlackRock MuniYield New Jersey Insured Fund, Inc. (“MJI”) and BlackRock
MuniYield Pennsylvania Insured Fund (“MPA” and, together with MUC, MUJ,
MFT, MIY and MJI, 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 invest-
ment 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 per-
sons” 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 contin-
uation 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, admin-
istrative 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 appli-
cable, 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 pro-
vided 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 perform-
ance of each Fund as compared with a peer group of funds as determined
by Lipper and a customized peer group selected by BlackRock, as app-
licable (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 mat-
erials 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 informa-
tion and BlackRock responded to these requests with additional written
information in advance of the May 13 – 14, 2010 Board meeting.

54 ANNUAL REPORT

JULY 31, 2010

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

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.

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 perform-
ance of a relevant benchmark, if any. The Boards met with BlackRock’s sen-
ior management personnel responsible for investment operations, including
the senior investment officers. The Boards also reviewed the materials pro-
vided 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 capabili-
ties 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 infor-
mation in connection with the initial public offering and periodic share-
holder 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 ex-
changes; (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 perform-
ance. The Boards also reviewed a narrative and statistical analysis of the
Lipper data that was prepared by BlackRock, which analyzed various fac-
tors 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 MUC, as customized peer group selected by
BlackRock. The Boards were provided with a description of the methodol-
ogy used by Lipper to select peer funds. The Boards regularly review the
performance of each Fund throughout the year.

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

The Board of MUJ noted that, in general, MUJ performed better than
its Peers in that MJU’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 Board of MFT noted that MFT performed below the median of its Lipper
Performance Composite in each of the one-, three- and five-year periods
reported. The Board of MFT and BlackRock reviewed the reasons for MFT’s
underperformance during these periods compared with its Peers. The Board
of MFT was informed that, among other things, while MFT’s management

ANNUAL REPORT

JULY 31, 2010

55

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

team has reduced MFT’s Florida exposure, MFT remains over-weighted in
Florida holdings versus its Peers, which has hindered MFT’s performance,
as the state of Florida continues to have budget deficit concerns and a
very weak housing market.

The Board of MFT and BlackRock discussed BlackRock’s strategy for
improving MFT’s performance and BlackRock’s commitment to providing
the resources necessary to assist MFT’s portfolio managers and to improve
MFT's performance, in part through the repositioning of MFT’s portfolio.

The Board of MIY noted that MIY performed below the median of its
Lipper Performance Composite in the one- and five-year periods reported,
but that MIY performed better than or equal to the median of its Lipper
Performance Composite in the three-year period reported. The Board of
MIY and BlackRock reviewed the reasons for MIY’s underperformance
during the one- and five-year periods compared with its Peers. The Board
of MIY was informed that, among other things, performance is measured
against single state insured municipal debt funds and that MIY’s Lipper
Performance Composite is heavily weighted with New York and California
funds. Additionally, the Board of MIY was informed that the Michigan
economy has suffered greatly leading to a lower overall credit outlook.

The Board of MJI noted that MJI performed below the median of its Lipper
Performance Composite in the one- and five-year periods reported, but
that MJI performed better than or equal to the median of its Lipper Per-
formance Composite in the three-year period reported. The Board of MJI
and BlackRock reviewed the reasons for MJI’s underperformance during the
one- and five-year periods compared with its Peers. The Board of MJI was
informed that, among other things, MJI’s performance was impacted by
a neutral duration posture in a declining rate environment as well as its
sector weighting to water & sewer and transportation, which were under-
performing sectors over the past year. Additionally, opportunities to alter
sector allocations are few as issuance of insured bonds has been very
limited over the past several years.

The Board of MPA noted that MPA performed below the median of its
Lipper Performance Composite in each of the one-, three- and five-year
periods reported. The Board of MPA and BlackRock reviewed the reasons
for MPA’s underperformance during these periods compared with its Peers.
The Board of MPA was informed that, among other things, despite a recent
dividend increase, MPA’s relative distribution yield continues to have a
negative impact on performance.

The Boards of MUC, MIY, MJI and MPA 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 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 prof-
itability 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 profita-
bility 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 com-
petitors. 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 manage-
ment 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.

56 ANNUAL REPORT

JULY 31, 2010

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

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 man-
aged 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.

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 engage-
ment of BlackRock’s affiliates and significant shareholders as service
providers to each Fund, including for administrative and distribution serv-
ices. 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 trans-
actions 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 market-
place, 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 det-
ermination. 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.

ANNUAL REPORT

JULY 31, 2010

57

Automatic Dividend Reinvestment Plan

Pursuant to each Fund’s Dividend Reinvestment Plan (the “Plan”), common
shareholders are automatically enrolled to have all distributions of divi-
dends and capital gains reinvested by BNY Mellon Shareowner Services for
MUC, MUJ, MFT, MIY and MJI and Computershare Trust Company, N.A. for
MPA (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 dis-
tribution, 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 condi-
tion 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 pre-
mium 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 con-
cerning the Plan should be directed to the respective Plan Agent: BNY
Mellon Shareowner Services, P.0. Box 358035, Pittsburgh, PA 15252-
8035, Telephone: (866) 216-0242 for shareholders of MUC, MUJ, MFT,
MIY and MJI 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 MPA.

58 ANNUAL REPORT

JULY 31, 2010

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

ANNUAL REPORT

JULY 31, 2010

59

Officers and Directors (continued)
				Number of
		Length of		BlackRock-
	Position(s)	Time		Advised Funds
Name, Address	Held with	Served as		and Portfolios	Public
and Year of Birth	Funds	a Director2	Principal Occupation(s) During Past Five Years	Overseen	Directorships
Non-Interested Directors1 (concluded)
R. Glenn Hubbard	Director	Since	Dean, Columbia Business School since 2004; Columbia faculty member since	99 Funds	ADP (data and
55 East 52nd Street		2007	1988; Co-Director of Columbia Business School’s Entrepreneurship Program from	97 Portfolios	information services);
New York, NY 10055			1997 to 2004; Chairman, US Council of Economic Advisers under the President		KKR Financial
1958			of the United States from 2001 to 2003; Chairman, Economic Policy Committee		Corporation (finance);
			of the OECD from 2001 to 2003.		Metropolitan Life
					Insurance Company
					(insurance)
W. Carl Kester	Director and	Since	George Fisher Baker Jr. Professor of Business Administration, Harvard Business	99 Funds	None
55 East 52nd Street	Member of	2007	School; Deputy Dean for Academic Affairs from 2006 to 2010; Unit Head,	97 Portfolios
New York, NY 10055	the Audit		Finance, Harvard Business School from 2005 to 2006; Senior Associate Dean
1951	Committee		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.
	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 certain directors as joining the Funds’ board in
	2007, each director first became a member of the board 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	President4	Since	Managing Director, BlackRock, Inc. since 2005; Chief Executive Officer, State	169 Funds	None
55 East 52nd Street	and Director	2007	Street Research & Management Company from 2000 to 2005; Chairman of	292 Portfolios
New York, NY 10055			the Board of Trustees, State Street Research Mutual Funds from 2000 to 2005.
1945
Henry Gabbay	Director	Since	Consultant, BlackRock, Inc. from 2007 to 2008; Managing Director, BlackRock,	169 Funds	None
55 East 52nd Street		2007	Inc. from 1989 to 2007; Chief Administrative Officer, BlackRock Advisors, LLC	292 Portfolios
New York, NY 10055			from 1998 to 2007; President of BlackRock Funds and BlackRock Bond Allocation
1947			Target Shares from 2005 to 2007; Treasurer of certain closed-end funds in the
			BlackRock fund complex from 1989 to 2006.

³ Mr. Davis is an “interested person,” as defined in the Investment Company Act of 1940, of the Funds based on his position 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 owner-
ship 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.
⁴ For MFT and MPA.

60 ANNUAL REPORT

JULY 31, 2010

Officers and Directors (concluded)
	Position(s)
Name, Address	Held with	Length of
and Year of Birth	Funds	Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During Past 5 Years
Officers1
Anne Ackerley	President2	Since	Managing Director of BlackRock, Inc. since 2000; Vice President of the BlackRock-advised funds from 2007 to
55 East 52nd Street	and Chief	20093	2009; Chief Operating Officer of BlackRock’s Global Client Group (GCG) since 2009; Chief Operating Officer
New York, NY 10055	Executive		of BlackRock’s US Retail Group from 2006 to 2009; Head of BlackRock’s Mutual Fund Group from 2000
1962	Officer		to 2006.
Brendan Kyne	Vice	Since	Managing Director of BlackRock, Inc. since 2010; Director of BlackRock, Inc. from 2008 to 2009; Head of Product
55 East 52nd Street	President	2009	Development and Management for BlackRock’s US Retail Group since 2009, Co-head thereof from 2007 to
New York, NY 10055			2009; Vice President of BlackRock, Inc. from 2005 to 2008.
1977
Neal Andrews	Chief	Since	Managing Director of BlackRock, Inc. since 2006; Senior Vice President and Line of Business Head of Fund
55 East 52nd Street	Financial	2007	Accounting and Administration at PNC Global Investment Servicing (US) Inc. from 1992 to 2006.
New York, NY 10055	Officer
1966
Jay Fife	Treasurer	Since	Managing Director of BlackRock, Inc. since 2007 and Director in 2006; Assistant Treasurer of the Merrill Lynch
55 East 52nd Street		2007	Investment Managers, L.P. (“MLIM”) and Fund Asset Management, L.P-advised funds from 2005 to 2006; Director
New York, NY 10055			of MLIM Fund Services Group from 2001 to 2006.
1970
Brian Kindelan	Chief	Since	Chief Compliance Officer of the BlackRock-advised funds since 2007; Managing Director and Senior Counsel of
55 East 52nd Street	Compliance	2007	BlackRock, Inc. since 2005; Director and Senior Counsel of BlackRock Advisors, LLC from 2001 to 2004.
New York, NY 10055	Officer
1959
Howard Surloff	Secretary	Since	Managing Director and General Counsel of US Funds at BlackRock, Inc. since 2006; General Counsel (US) of
55 East 52nd Street		2007	Goldman Sachs Asset Management, L.P. from 1993 to 2006.
New York, NY 10055
1965
	1 Officers of the Funds serve at the pleasure of the Boards.
	2 For MUC, MUJ, MIY and MJI.
	3 Ms. Ackerley has been President and Chief Executive Officer since 2009 and was Vice President from 2007 to 2009.
Investment Advisor	Custodians		Transfer Agent	Auction Agent	Accounting Agent	Legal Counsel
BlackRock Advisors, LLC	State Street Bank		Common Shares	Preferred Shares	State Street Bank	Skadden, Arps, Slate,
Wilmington, DE 19809	and Trust Company4		Computershare Trust	BNY Mellon	and Trust Company	Meagher & Flom LLP
	Boston, MA 02111		Company, N.A.4	Shareowner Services	Princeton, NJ 08540	New York, NY 10036
Sub-Advisor			Providence, RI 02940	Jersey City, NJ 07310
BlackRock Investment	The Bank of				Independent Registered	Address of the Funds
Management, LLC	New York Mellon5		BNY Mellon		Public Accounting Firm	100 Bellevue Parkway
Plainsboro, NJ 08536	New York, NY 10286		Shareowner Services5		Deloitte & Touche LLP	Wilmington, DE 19809
			Jersey City, NJ 07310		Princeton, NJ 08540

⁴ For MPA.
⁵ For MUC, MUJ, MFT, MIY and MJI.

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

ANNUAL REPORT

JULY 31, 2010

61

Additional Information

Board Approvals

On September 1, 2010, the Board of Directors (the “Boards”) of MUC,
MUJ, MFT, MIY, MJI and MPA (the “Funds”) have approved changes to cer-
tain 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 pol-
icy 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 abil-
ity rating of most of the municipal bond insurance providers has been low-
ered 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 invest-
ment 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 inter-
ests of each Fund and its shareholders because it believes that the poten-
tial 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 munici-
pal 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 characteris-
tics. The new names of the Funds will be announced at or prior to the expi-
ration 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 its shareholders on a monthly basis. In order to pro-
vide shareholders with a more stable level of dividend distributions, the
Trusts 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 Trusts 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 com-
prises part of the financial information included in this report.

General Information

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

Electronic Delivery

Electronic copies of most financial reports are available on the Funds’ web-
sites or shareholders can sign up for e-mail notifications of quarterly state-
ments, 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

62 ANNUAL REPORT

JULY 31, 2010

Additional Information (concluded)

General Information (concluded)

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 Schedule of Investments

Each Fund files its complete schedule of portfolio holdings with 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 avail-
able (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 certifica-
tion regarding compliance with the NYSE’s listing standards. The Funds filed

with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) the certification of
its chief executive officer and chief financial officer required by section 302
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act.

Section 19(a) Notices

These reported amounts and sources of distributions are estimates and are not provided for tax reporting purposes. The actual amounts and sources for tax
reporting purposes wll depend upon each Fund’s investment results during the year and may be subject to changes based on tax regulations. Each Fund will
provide a Form 1099-DIV for the calendar year that will explain the character of these dividends and distributions for federal income tax purposes.

July 31, 2010
		Total Cumulative Distributions			% Breakdown of the Total Cumulative
		for the Fiscal Year				Distributions for the Fiscal Year
	Net	Net Realized		Total Per	Net	Net Realized		Total Per
	Investment	Capital	Return of	Common	Investment	Capital	Return of	Common
	Income	Gains	Capital	Share	Income	Gains	Capital	Share
MUJ	$0.844500	$0.014156	—	$0.858656	98%	2%	0%	100%
MJI	$0.843309	$0.100331	—	$0.943640	89%	11%	0%	100%

BlackRock Privacy Principles

BlackRock is committed to maintaining the privacy of its current and for-
mer fund investors and individual clients (collectively, “Clients”) and to
safeguarding their non-public personal information. The following infor-
mation 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 applica-
tions, 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 pro-
cedures 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.

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
	Current	Previous	Current	Previous	Current	Previous	Current	Previous
	Fiscal Year	Fiscal Year	Fiscal Year	Fiscal Year	Fiscal Year	Fiscal Year	Fiscal Year	Fiscal Year
Entity Name	End	End	End	End	End	End	End	End
BlackRock
MuniYield Insured	$28,800	$28,800	$3,500	$3,500	$6,100	$6,100	$0	$1,028
Investment Fund

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:

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

Investment Fund

(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 Robert
Sneeden, 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. Sneeden, Jaeckel and O’Connor have been members of the registrant’s
portfolio management team since 2002, 2006 and 2006, respectively.

Portfolio Manager		Biography
Robert Sneeden		Director of BlackRock, Inc. since 2006; Vice President of Merrill Lynch
		Investment Managers, L.P. (“MLIM”) from 1998 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 July 31, 2010:
	(ii) Number of Other Accounts Managed			(iii) Number of Other Accounts and
	and Assets by Account Type			Assets for Which Advisory Fee is
					Performance-Based
	Other	Other Pooled		Other	Other Pooled
(i) Name of	Registered	Investment	Other	Registered	Investment	Other
Portfolio Manager	Investment	Vehicles	Accounts	Investment	Vehicles	Accounts
	Companies			Companies
Robert Sneeden	13	0	0	0	0	0
	$1.89 Billion	$0	$0	$0	$0	$0
Theodore R. Jaeckel, Jr.	72	0	0	0	0	0
	$20.12 Billion	$0	$0	$0	$0	$0
Walter O’Connor	72	0	0	0	0	0
	$20.12 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. Sneeden, 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 – July 31, 2010.

Portfolio Manager	Dollar Range of Equity Securities
	Beneficially Owned
Robert Sneeden	None
Theodore R. Jaeckel, Jr.	None
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 2, 2010, the Board of Trustees 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 3, 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
trustee 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 Investment Fund

By: /s/ Anne F. Ackerley
Anne F. Ackerley
Chief Executive Officer of
BlackRock MuniYield Insured Investment Fund

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 Investment Fund

Date: October 6, 2010

By: /s/ Neal J. Andrews
Neal J. Andrews
Chief Financial Officer (principal financial officer) of
BlackRock MuniYield Insured Investment Fund

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 Investment
Fund, certify that:

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

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 Investment Fund

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
Investment Fund, certify that:

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

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 Investment Fund

EX-99.906 CERT

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 Investment Fund
(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 Investment Fund

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, the undersigned officer of BlackRock MuniYield Insured Investment Fund
(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 Investment Fund

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

i)	1
. INTRODUCTION TO BLACKROCK	1
ii)	2
. PHILOSOPHY ON CORPORATE GOVERNACE	1
iii)	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	5
Remuneration and benefits	5
Social, ethical, and environmental issues	6
General corporate governance matters	7
iv)	4
. BLACKROCK’S OVERSIGHT OF ITS CORPORATE GOVERNANCE ACTIVITIES	7
Oversight	7
Vote execution	8
Conflicts management	9
Voting guidelines	10
Reporting	10

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.

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

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.

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 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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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, 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.

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:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Proxy voting guidelines for

U.S. securities

December 2009

Table of contents

v)	I
NTRODUCTION	1
vi)	V
OTING GUIDELINES	1
Boards and directors	1
Auditors and audit-related issues	6
Capital structure, mergers, asset sales and other special transactions	6
Remuneration and benefits	10
Social, ethical and environmental issues	12
General corporate governance matters	13

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

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:

1

BlackRock global corporate governance & engagement principles

· 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 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:

2

BlackRock global corporate governance & engagement principles

· 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).

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.

3

BlackRock global corporate governance & engagement principles

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 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.

4

BlackRock global corporate governance & engagement principles

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.

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.

5

BlackRock global corporate governance & engagement principles

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.

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.

6

BlackRock global corporate governance & engagement principles

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 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

7

BlackRock global corporate governance & engagement principles

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.

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

8

BlackRock global corporate governance & engagement principles

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, 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-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.

9

BlackRock global corporate governance & engagement principles

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.

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.

10

BlackRock global corporate governance & engagement principles

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.

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;

11

BlackRock global corporate governance & engagement principles

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.

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.

12

BlackRock global corporate governance & 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.

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

13

BlackRock global corporate governance & engagement principles

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.

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.

14