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

Bar Admissions

• California

Education

• USC Gould School of Law, J.D., 1988
• USC School of Urban and Regional Planning, M.P.L. and Ph.D.
• Brandeis University, B.A.

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)

• FAA Regulations Act Exempts Next-Gen Airspace Redesign Projects From Environmental Review
• When it Comes to Airport Noise Regulation, ‘Big Brother’ is Watching You
• The Department of the Interior Releases its Final Land-Based Wind Energy Guidelines
• The Obama Administration Agrees to Expedite Development of Great Lakes Offshore Wind Projects
• The Forest Service Crosses Swords with Ski Area Operators Over Water Rights
• Federal Agencies Take Coordinated Steps to Regulate Hydraulic Fracturing
• Attorney Confident City will Win Appeal
• Mukilteo Seeks Others in Fight Against Paine Field Flights
• City to Appeal FAA's Paine Field Ruling
• Streaming Environmental Review: Myth or Reality?
• Privatization of the United States Air Traffic Control System Hits Roadblock in the U.S. Senate
• Uber Flies High in FAA’s Airspace
• Congress’ Attempt to Transfer Air Traffic Control to a Private Corporation Leaves a Great Deal to the Imagination
• Connecticut State Statute Limiting the Length of the Runway at Tweed-New Haven Airport Resists Federal Preemption Challenge
• Operators of Small Unmanned Aircraft Uses for Recreational Purposes Will Soon Face Regulation
• The Privatization of Air Traffic Control Vigorously Opposed by General Aviation Groups
• Challenge to FAA’s Southern California Airspace Redesign Progresses
• The First Round in Petitioners’ Challenge to the SoCal Metroplex Project
• FAA Supports the Right of Airport Sponsor to Use Airport Funds in Defense of Locally Enacted Noise Restrictions
• FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018 Gives the Nod to Passenger’s Rights, Both in the Air and On the Ground
• Law 360: How The House FAA Bill Champions Air Travelers’ Rights
• Appellate Court Affirms FAA Control Over Recreational Drones
• FAA Stands Firm in Defense of Federal Preemption of Airspace Regulations
• Congress Provides for Numerous Noise Studies in 2018 FAA Reauthorization Act
• Drones Get Center Stage as FAA Proposes to Loosen Restrictions
• FAA Administrator Explains Agency's Hands Off Approach to Safety Certification
• The Aviation Industry Has Grand Ambitions for Urban Air Mobility - In the Not Too Distant Future
• Pilots Take Boeing and FAA to the Woodshed in Testimony on the 737 Max Tragedies
• Supreme Court Lightens Property Owners' Procedural Burdens in "Taking" Cases
• California Courts Close Loopholes in Definition of "Project" Under CEQA
• The National Transportation Safety Board Report Mutes Criticism of the 737 Max Aircraft Design
• DOT Inspector General Finds "Challenges" in Achievement of FAA's Safety Mission
• FAA Ignores Its Own Regulations in Allowing Expenditure of Airport Revenue to Demolish Runway at Santa Monica Municipal Airport
• FAA Focuses on Controlling Revenue Diversion
• Quiet Skies Congressional Caucus Gets Brush Off from FAA
• FAA Seeks to Free Airlines from "Burden" of Consumer Protections
• Regulation of VTOLS Lags Far Behind Technology
• FAA Sidesteps Congressional Mandate to Evaluate Alternative Noise Metrics
• Executive Order Presents a Trade-Off Between Infrastructure Investment and Environmental Regulation
• Proposed Legislation Repudiates Congress' Hands Off Policy Toward Aircraft Certification
• Colorado Court Judgment Finds Noise Modeling Significantly Understates Aircraft Noise