SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2011
Summary Of Significant Accounting Policies
SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES	NOTE B – SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES Interim reporting While the information presented in the accompanying interim condensed consolidated financial statements is unaudited, it includes all adjustments, which are, in the opinion of management, necessary to present fairly the financial position, results of operations and cash flows for the interim periods presented in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. These interim financial statements follow the same accounting policies and methods of application as used in the December 31, 2010 audited financial statements of the Company. All adjustments are of a normal, recurring nature. Interim financial statements and the notes thereto do not contain all of the disclosures normally found in year-end audited financial statements and these Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements are abbreviated and contain only certain disclosures related to the nine month period ended September 30, 2011. It is suggested that these interim financial statements be read in conjunction with the Company’s audited financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2010. Operating results for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2011 are not necessarily indicative of the results that can be expected for the year ending December 31, 2011. Reclassifications Certain 2010 amounts have been reclassified to conform to current year presentation. Recently Issued Accounting Standards In May 2011, the Financial Accounting Standards Board ("FASB") issued Accounting Standards Update ("ASU") ASU No. 2011-04, "Fair Value Measurement (Topic 820) Amendments to Achieve Common Fair Value Measurement and Disclosure Requirements in U.S. GAAP and IFRSs." ASU No. 2011-04 is intended to improve the comparability of fair value measurements presented and disclosed in financial statements prepared in accordance with U.S. GAAP and IFRSs, by ensuring that fair value has the same meaning in U.S. GAAP and IFRSs and that their respective disclosure requirements are the same except for inconsequential differences in wording and style. The amendments in ASU No. 2011-04 apply to all reporting entities that are required or permitted to measure or disclose the fair value of an asset, a liability, or an instrument classified in a reporting entity’s shareholders’ equity in the financial statements. Some of the disclosures required by ASU No. 2011-04 are not required for nonpublic entities. These amendments change the wording used to describe many of the requirements in U.S. GAAP for measuring fair value and for disclosing information about fair value measurements. For many of the requirements, the Board does not intend for the amendments to result in a change in the application of the requirements in Accounting Standards Codification ("ACS") Topic 820. Some of the amendments clarify the Board’s intent about the application of existing fair value measurement requirements. Other amendments change a particular principle or requirement for measuring fair value or for disclosing information about fair value measurements. The adoption of ASU No. 2011-04 did not have a material impact on the Company’s results of operations or financial condition. In December 2010, the FASB issued ASU No. 2010-29, "Business Combinations (ASC Topic 805): Disclosure of Supplementary Pro Forma Information for Business Combinations." The amendments in this ASU affect any public entity as defined by ASC Topic 805 that enters into business combinations that are material on an individual or aggregate basis. The amendments in this ASU specify that if a public entity presents comparative financial statements, the entity should disclose revenue and earnings of the combined entity as though the business combination(s) that occurred during the current year had occurred as of the beginning of the comparable prior annual reporting period only. The amendments also expand the supplemental pro forma disclosures to include a description of the nature and amount of material, nonrecurring pro forma adjustments directly attributable to the business combination included in the reported pro forma revenue and earnings. The amendments are effective prospectively for business combinations for which the acquisition date is on or after the beginning of the first annual reporting period beginning on or after December 15, 2010. The adoption of ASU 2010-29 was incorporated in the Company's 2011 financial statements. In December 2010, the FASB issued ASU 2010-28, "Intangibles — Goodwill and Other (ASC Topic 350): When to Perform Step 2 of the Goodwill Impairment Test for Reporting Units with Zero or Negative Carrying Amounts." The amendments in this ASU modify Step 1 of the goodwill impairment test for reporting units with zero or negative carrying amounts. For those reporting units, an entity is required to perform Step 2 of the goodwill impairment test if it is more likely than not that a goodwill impairment exists. In determining whether it is more likely than not that a goodwill impairment exists, an entity should consider whether there are any adverse qualitative factors indicating that an impairment may exist. The qualitative factors are consistent with the existing guidance and examples, which require that goodwill of a reporting unit be tested for impairment between annual tests if an event occurs or circumstances change that would more likely than not reduce the fair value of a reporting unit below its carrying amount. For public entities, the amendments in this ASU are effective for fiscal years, and interim periods within those years, beginning after December 15, 2010. The adoption of ASU 2010-28 did not have a material impact on the Company’s results of operations or financial condition. In April 2010, the FASB issued ASU 2010-17, Revenue Recognition — Milestone Method ("ASU 2010-17"). ASU 2010-17 provides guidance on the criteria that should be met for determining whether the milestone method of revenue recognition is appropriate. A vendor can recognize consideration that is contingent upon achievement of a milestone in its entirety as revenue in the period in which the milestone is achieved only if the milestone meets all criteria to be considered substantive. The following criteria must be met for a milestone to be considered substantive. The consideration earned by achieving the milestone should (i) be commensurate with either the level of effort required to achieve the milestone or the enhancement of the value of the item delivered as a result of a specific outcome resulting from the vendor’s performance to achieve the milestone; (ii) be related solely to past performance; and (iii) be reasonable relative to all deliverables and payment terms in the arrangement. No bifurcation of an individual milestone is allowed and there can be more than one milestone in an arrangement. Accordingly, an arrangement may contain both substantive and non-substantive milestones. ASU 2010-17 is effective on a prospective basis for milestones achieved in fiscal years, and interim periods within those years, beginning on or after June 15, 2010. The adoption of ASU 2010-17 did not have a material effect on the Company’s results of operations or financial condition. In January, 2010, the FASB issued ASU 2010-06, Fair Value Measurements and Disclosures: Improving Disclosures about Fair Value Measurements, which amends ASC 820, Fair Value Measurements and Disclosures ("ASU 2010-06") to add new requirements for disclosures about transfers into and out of Levels 1 and 2 and separate disclosures about purchases, sales, issuances, and settlements relating to Level 3 measurements. ASU 2010-06 also clarifies existing fair value disclosures about the level of disaggregation and about inputs and valuation techniques used to measure fair value. The Company adopted the provisions of ASU 2010-06 as required on January 1, 2010. In October 2009, the FASB issued ASU 2009-13, Multiple-Deliverable Revenue Arrangements, (amendments to FASB ASC Topic 605, Revenue Recognition ) (“ASU 2009-13”). ASU 2009-13 requires entities to allocate revenue in an arrangement using estimated selling prices of the delivered goods and services based on a selling price hierarchy. The amendments eliminate the residual method of revenue allocation and require revenue to be allocated using the relative selling price method. ASU 2009-13 should be applied on a prospective basis for revenue arrangements entered into or materially modified in fiscal years beginning on or after June 15, 2010, with early adoption permitted. The adoption of ASU 2009-13 did not have a material impact on the Company’s results of operations or financial condition. Management does not believe that any other recently issued, but not yet effective, accounting standards if currently adopted would have a material effect on the accompanying financial statements.

SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES

9 Months Ended

Sep. 30, 2011

Summary Of Significant Accounting Policies

SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES

NOTE B – SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES

Interim reporting

While the information presented in the accompanying interim condensed consolidated financial statements is unaudited, it includes all adjustments, which are, in the opinion of management, necessary to present fairly the financial position, results of operations and cash flows for the interim periods presented in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. These interim financial statements follow the same accounting policies and methods of application as used in the December 31, 2010 audited financial statements of the Company. All adjustments are of a normal, recurring nature. Interim financial statements and the notes thereto do not contain all of the disclosures normally found in year-end audited financial statements and these Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements are abbreviated and contain only certain disclosures related to the nine month period ended September 30, 2011. It is suggested that these interim financial statements be read in conjunction with the Company’s audited financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2010. Operating results for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2011 are not necessarily indicative of the results that can be expected for the year ending December 31, 2011.

Reclassifications

Certain 2010 amounts have been reclassified to conform to current year presentation.

Recently Issued Accounting Standards

In May 2011, the Financial Accounting Standards Board ("FASB") issued Accounting Standards Update ("ASU") ASU No. 2011-04, "Fair Value Measurement (Topic 820) Amendments to Achieve Common Fair Value Measurement and Disclosure Requirements in U.S. GAAP and IFRSs." ASU No. 2011-04 is intended to improve the comparability of fair value measurements presented and disclosed in financial statements prepared in accordance with U.S. GAAP and IFRSs, by ensuring that fair value has the same meaning in U.S. GAAP and IFRSs and that their respective disclosure requirements are the same except for inconsequential differences in wording and style. The amendments in ASU No. 2011-04 apply to all reporting entities that are required or permitted to measure or disclose the fair value of an asset, a liability, or an instrument classified in a reporting entity’s shareholders’ equity in the financial statements. Some of the disclosures required by ASU No. 2011-04 are not required for nonpublic entities. These amendments change the wording used to describe many of the requirements in U.S. GAAP for measuring fair value

and for disclosing information about fair value measurements. For many of the requirements, the Board does not intend for the amendments to result in a change in the application of the requirements in Accounting Standards Codification ("ACS") Topic 820. Some of the amendments clarify the Board’s intent about the application of existing fair value measurement requirements. Other amendments change a particular principle or requirement for measuring fair value or for disclosing information about fair value measurements. The adoption of ASU No. 2011-04 did not have a material impact on the Company’s results of operations or financial condition.

In December 2010, the FASB issued ASU No. 2010-29, "Business Combinations (ASC Topic 805): Disclosure of Supplementary Pro Forma Information for Business Combinations." The amendments in this ASU affect any public entity as defined by ASC Topic 805 that enters into business combinations that are material on an individual or aggregate basis. The amendments in this ASU specify that if a public entity presents comparative financial statements, the entity should disclose revenue and earnings of the combined entity as though the business combination(s) that occurred during the current year had occurred as of the beginning of the comparable prior annual reporting period only. The amendments also expand the supplemental pro forma disclosures to include a description of the nature and amount of material, nonrecurring pro forma adjustments directly attributable to the business combination included in the reported pro forma revenue and earnings. The amendments are effective prospectively for business combinations for which the acquisition date is on or after the beginning of the first annual reporting period beginning on or after December 15, 2010. The adoption of ASU 2010-29 was incorporated in the Company's 2011 financial statements.

In December 2010, the FASB issued ASU 2010-28, "Intangibles — Goodwill and Other (ASC Topic 350): When to Perform Step 2 of the Goodwill Impairment Test for Reporting Units with Zero or Negative Carrying Amounts." The amendments in this ASU modify Step 1 of the goodwill impairment test for reporting units with zero or negative carrying amounts. For those reporting units, an entity is required to perform Step 2 of the goodwill impairment test if it is more likely than not that a goodwill impairment exists. In determining whether it is more likely than not that a goodwill impairment exists, an entity should consider whether there are any adverse qualitative factors indicating that an impairment may exist. The qualitative factors are consistent with the existing guidance and examples, which require that goodwill of a reporting unit be tested for impairment between annual tests if an event occurs or circumstances change that would more likely than not reduce the fair value of a reporting unit below its carrying amount. For public entities, the amendments in this ASU are effective for fiscal years, and interim periods within those years, beginning after December 15, 2010. The adoption of ASU 2010-28 did not have a material impact on the Company’s results of operations or financial condition.

In April 2010, the FASB issued ASU 2010-17, Revenue Recognition — Milestone Method ("ASU 2010-17"). ASU 2010-17 provides guidance on the criteria that should be met for determining whether the milestone method of revenue recognition is appropriate. A vendor can recognize consideration that is contingent upon achievement of a milestone in its entirety as revenue in the period in which the milestone is achieved only if the milestone meets all criteria to be considered substantive. The following criteria must be met for a milestone to be considered substantive. The consideration earned by achieving the milestone should (i) be commensurate with either the level of effort required to achieve the milestone or

the enhancement of the value of the item delivered as a result of a specific outcome resulting from the vendor’s performance to achieve the milestone; (ii) be related solely to past performance; and (iii) be reasonable relative to all deliverables and payment terms in the arrangement. No bifurcation of an individual milestone is allowed and there can be more than one milestone in an arrangement. Accordingly, an arrangement may contain both substantive and non-substantive milestones. ASU 2010-17 is effective on a prospective basis for milestones achieved in fiscal years, and interim periods within those years, beginning on or after June 15, 2010. The adoption of ASU 2010-17 did not have a material effect on the Company’s results of operations or financial condition.

In January, 2010, the FASB issued ASU 2010-06, Fair Value Measurements and Disclosures: Improving Disclosures about Fair Value Measurements, which amends ASC 820, Fair Value Measurements and Disclosures ("ASU 2010-06") to add new requirements for disclosures about transfers into and out of Levels 1 and 2 and separate disclosures about purchases, sales, issuances, and settlements relating to Level 3 measurements. ASU 2010-06 also clarifies existing fair value disclosures about the level of disaggregation and about inputs and valuation techniques used to measure fair value. The Company adopted the provisions of ASU 2010-06 as required on January 1, 2010.

In October 2009, the FASB issued ASU 2009-13, Multiple-Deliverable Revenue Arrangements, (amendments to FASB ASC Topic 605, Revenue Recognition ) (“ASU 2009-13”). ASU 2009-13 requires entities to allocate revenue in an arrangement using estimated selling prices of the delivered goods and services based on a selling price hierarchy. The amendments eliminate the residual method of revenue allocation and require revenue to be allocated using the relative selling price method. ASU 2009-13 should be applied on a prospective basis for revenue arrangements entered into or materially modified in fiscal years beginning on or after June 15, 2010, with early adoption permitted. The adoption of ASU 2009-13 did not have a material impact on the Company’s results of operations or financial condition.

Management does not believe that any other recently issued, but not yet effective, accounting standards if currently adopted would have a material effect on the accompanying financial statements.