Barbara E. Lichman, Ph.D. has an extensive and successful record representing airports, municipalities, developers, and other public and private clients in litigation and administrative proceedings under Federal Aviation statutes such as the Airline Deregulation Act and Airport Noise and Capacity Act; the California Public Utilities Code governing land use in airport environs (Aeronautics Act); and federal and state environmental statutes including the National Environmental Policy Act, the Federal Clean Air Act, the Federal Clean Water Act, the California Environmental Quality Act, and the California Coastal Act. She has also successfully represented clients in litigation involving land use issues such as inverse condemnation, development agreements and specific plan amendments. Dr. Lichman holds a doctorate in urban and regional planning.

Dr. Lichman’s experience is both national and international. As a Registered Federal Lobbyist, Dr. Lichman successfully lobbied and testified before Congress on behalf of aircraft owners and operators on issues including the grant of investment tax credits for noise reduction of aircraft engines. She also served as counsel to Air AAA Group, a consortium of international architectural, engineering and construction companies in their airport development activities at Pudong Airport, Shanghai, China. Dr. Lichman served as managing partner of Chevalier, Allen & Lichman, LLP, for sixteen years, and has been at Buchalter for six years.

Dr. Lichman’s clients include public entities, airport owners/sponsors, land developers, major power generating companies, airport fixed-base operators (FBOs), and aircraft owners.

Aviation & Airport Development Law News Blog

Published Cases

United States Courts of Appeals

• City of Mukilteo, Wa. v. U.S. Dept. of Transp., 815 F.3d 632 (9^th Cir. 2016)
• Tinicum Township, Pa. v. U.S. Dept. of Transp., 685 F.3d 288 (3rd Cir. 2012)
• 41 North 73 West, Inc. v. U.S. D.O.T., 408 Fed.Appx. 393 (2nd Cir. 2010)
• City of Las Vegas, Nev. v. F.A.A., 570 F.3d 1109 (9th Cir. 2009)
• County of Delaware, Pa. v. Department of Transp., 554 F.3d 143 (D.C. Cir. 2009)
• City of Olmsted Falls, Ohio v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 435 F.3d 632 (6th Cir. 2006)

State Courts of Appeal

• Olmsted Falls v. Jones, 152 Ohio App.3d 282 (Ohio App. 10th Dist. 2003)

U.S. District Courts

• SilverWing at Sandpoint, LLC V. Bonner County, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 165000 (D. Idaho 2014)
• City of Olmsted Falls v. U.S. E.P.A., 266 F.Supp.2d 718 (N.D. Ohio 2003)
• City of Olmsted Falls v. U.S. E.P.A., 233 F.Supp.2d 890 (N.D. Ohio 2002)

Bar Admissions

• California

Education

• USC Gould School of Law
• Brandeis University

• Colorado Court Judgment Finds Noise Modeling Significantly Understates Aircraft Noise
• Proposed Legislation Repudiates Congress’ Hands Off Policy Toward Aircraft Certification
• Executive Order Presents a Trade-Off Between Infrastructure Investment and Environmental Regulation
• FAA Sidesteps Congressional Mandate to Evaluate Alternative Noise Metrics
• Regulation of VTOLS Lags Far Behind Technology
• FAA Seeks to Free Airlines from “Burden” of Consumer Protections
• Quiet Skies Congressional Caucus Gets Brush Off from FAA
• FAA Focuses on Controlling Revenue Diversion
• FAA Ignores Its Own Regulations in Allowing Expenditure of Airport Revenue to Demolish Runway at Santa Monica Municipal Airport
• DOT Inspector General Finds “Challenges” in Achievement of FAA’s Safety Mission
• The National Transportation Safety Board Report Mutes Criticism of the 737 Max Aircraft Design
• California Courts Close Loopholes in Definition of “Project” Under CEQA
• Supreme Court Lightens Property Owners’ Procedural Burdens in “Taking” Cases
• Pilots Take Boeing and FAA to the Woodshed in Testimony on the 737 Max Tragedies
• The Aviation Industry Has Grand Ambitions for Urban Air Mobility – In the Not Too Distant Future
• FAA Administrator Explains Agency’s Hands Off Approach to Safety Certification
• Drones Get Center Stage as FAA Proposes to Loosen Restrictions
• Congress Provides for Numerous Noise Studies in 2018 FAA Reauthorization Act
• FAA Stands Firm in Defense of Federal Preemption of Airspace Regulations
• Appellate Court Affirms FAA Control Over Recreational Drones
• Law 360: How The House FAA Bill Champions Air Travelers’ Rights
• FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018 Gives the Nod to Passenger’s Rights, Both in the Air and On the Ground
• FAA Supports the Right of Airport Sponsor to Use Airport Funds in Defense of Locally Enacted Noise Restrictions
• The First Round in Petitioners’ Challenge to the SoCal Metroplex Project
• Challenge to FAA’s Southern California Airspace Redesign Progresses
• The Privatization of Air Traffic Control Vigorously Opposed by General Aviation Groups
• Operators of Small Unmanned Aircraft Uses for Recreational Purposes Will Soon Face Regulation
• Connecticut State Statute Limiting the Length of the Runway at Tweed-New Haven Airport Resists Federal Preemption Challenge
• Congress’ Attempt to Transfer Air Traffic Control to a Private Corporation Leaves a Great Deal to the Imagination
• Privatization of the United States Air Traffic Control System Hits Roadblock in the U.S. Senate