Termination penalties . If the FCC requires us to modify or terminate existing LMAs before the terms of the LMAs expire,  or under certain circumstances, we elect not to extend the terms of the LMAs, we may be forced to pay termination  penalties under the terms of some of our LMAs. Any such termination penalty could be material. The following paragraphs discuss various proceedings relevant to our LMAs.  In 1999, the FCC established a new local television ownership rule. LMAs fell under this rule, however the rule grandfathered  LMAs that were entered into prior to November 5, 1996, and permitted the applicable stations to continue operations pursuant to  the LMAs until the conclusion of the FCC’s 2004 biennial review. The FCC stated it would conduct a case-by-case review of  grandfathered LMAs and assess the appropriateness of extending the grandfathering periods. The FCC did not initiate any review  of grandfathered LMAs in 2004 or as part of its 2006 quadrennial review. We do not know when, or if, the FCC will conduct any  such review of grandfathered LMAs. For LMAs executed on or after November 5, 1996, the FCC required compliance with the  1999 local television ownership rule by August 6, 2001. We challenged the 1999 rules in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C.  Circuit (D.C. Circuit), resulting in the exclusion of post-November 5, 1996 LMAs from the 1999 rules. In 2002, the D.C. Circuit  ruled in  Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc. v. F.C.C ., 284 F.3d 114 (D.C. Cir. 2002) that the 1999 local television ownership rule was  arbitrary and capricious and sent the rule back to the FCC for further refinement. In 2003, the FCC revised its ownership rules, including the local television ownership rule; however the U. S. Court of Appeals  for the Third Circuit (Third Circuit) did not enable the 2003 rules to become effective and sent the 2003 rules back to the FCC  for further refinement. Due to the court decisions, the FCC concluded the 1999 rules could not be justified as necessary in the  public interest and as a result, we took the position that an issue exists regarding whether the FCC has any current legal right to  enforce any rules prohibiting the acquisition of television stations. Several parties, including us, filed petitions with the Supreme  Court of the United States seeking review of the Third Circuit decision, but the Supreme Court denied the petitions in June 2005. On November 15, 1999, we entered into an agreement to acquire WMYA-TV (formerly WBSC-TV) in Anderson, South  Carolina from Cunningham Broadcasting Corporation (Cunningham), but that transaction was denied by the FCC. Since none of  the FCC rule changes ever became effective, we filed a petition for reconsideration with the FCC and amended our application to  acquire the license of WMYA-TV. We also filed applications in November 2003 to acquire the license assets of, at that time, the  remaining five Cunningham stations: WRGT-TV, Dayton, Ohio; WTAT-TV, Charleston, South Carolina; WVAH-TV,  Charleston, West Virginia; WNUV-TV, Baltimore, Maryland; and WTTE-TV, Columbus, Ohio. Rainbow/PUSH filed a petition  to deny these five applications and to revoke all of our licenses. The FCC dismissed our applications and denied the  Rainbow/PUSH petition due to the abovementioned 2003 Third Circuit decision. Rainbow/PUSH filed a petition for  reconsideration of that denial and we filed an application for review of the dismissal. In 2005, we filed a petition with the D. C.  Circuit requesting that the Court direct the FCC to take final action on our applications, but that petition was dismissed. On  January 6, 2006, we submitted a motion to the FCC requesting that it take final action on our applications. The applications and  the associated petition to deny are still pending. We believe the Rainbow/PUSH petition is without merit. On February 8, 2008,  we filed a petition with the D.C. Circuit requesting that the Court direct the FCC to act on our applications and cease its use of  the 1999 rules. In July 2008, the D.C. Circuit transferred the case to the Ninth Circuit, and we filed a petition with the D.C.  Circuit challenging that decision; however, it was denied. We also filed with the Ninth Circuit a motion to transfer that case back  to the D.C. Circuit. In November 2008, the Ninth Circuit consolidated and sent our petition seeking final FCC action on our  applications to the Third Circuit. In December 2008, we agreed voluntarily with the parties to our proceeding to dismiss our  petition seeking final FCC action on our applications. In July 2006, the FCC released a Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making seeking comment on how to address the issues  raised by the Third Circuit’s decision. In January 2008, the FCC released an order containing ownership rules that re-adopted the  1999 rules. On February 29, 2008, several parties, including us, separately filed petitions for review in a number of federal  appellate courts challenging the 1999 rules. Those petitions were consolidated in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit  (Ninth Circuit) and in November 2008, transferred by the Ninth Circuit to the Third Circuit where the proceedings are still  pending. 11. RELATED PERSON TRANSACTIONS:  David, Frederick, Duncan and Robert Smith (collectively, the controlling shareholders) are brothers and hold substantially all of  the Class B Common Stock and some of our Class A Common Stock. We engaged in the following transactions with them  and/or entities in which they have substantial interests. Related Person Leases . Certain assets used by us and our operating subsidiaries are leased from Cunningham Communications  Inc., Keyser Investment Group, Gerstell Development Limited Partnership and Beaver Dam, LLC (entities owned by the  controlling shareholders). Lease payments made to these entities were $4.5 million, $4.7 million and $4.8 million for the years  ended December 31, 2010, 2009 and 2008, respectively.  54    Sinclair Broadcast Group 