Liftoff for UPS's Drone Program: A Q&A With General Counsel Norman Brothers
The top lawyer at the package delivery giant talks about UPS's drone program, the role of the legal department in its operation and challenges associated with the emerging technology.
June 11, 2019 at 02:16 PM
6 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Corporate Counsel
UPS Inc. is taking its package delivery empire to new heights—quite literally. Earlier this year, the Atlanta-based company launched the first ongoing, revenue-producing drone flights in the United States with its partner Matternet and now operates multiple daily deliveries of medical samples by drone on the WakeMed hospital campus in Raleigh, North Carolina.
In addition, UPS announced in April its participation in a partnership to expand life-saving drone service into Ghana, providing blood and vaccines to hard-to-reach clinics throughout the African country.
UPS general counsel Norman Brothers Jr. said in an email that, with growth in the health care and life sciences industries a strategic priority for UPS, the WakeMed project will open doors for the company to consider expansion of similar services to other hospital networks.
Brothers and Corporate Counsel exchanged emails about UPS's drone program, the role of the legal department in its operation and challenges associated with the emerging technology. The questions and answers have been edited for length and clarity.
Corporate Counsel: Does UPS have any plans to extend its drone program to commercial delivery?
Norm Brothers: UPS is exploring the use of drones, and we have found them particularly effective in delivering humanitarian aid and life-saving goods including blood and vaccines to hard-to-reach locations that lack conventional roads or dependable transportation infrastructure. We also have used drones to assess damage after natural disasters, and believe there may be uses for them on our facility properties, and inside of our facilities for inventory inspection and security.
We believe drones could someday provide other opportunities for customer benefits that enable us to grow our business.
CC: What is the legal department's role in that process?
NB: UPS operates one of the largest airlines in the world with almost 550 owned and leased aircraft, so our legal department has deep experience in aviation matters. The legal department is meaningfully engaged in this initiative as a valued partner every step of the way. We review contracts with equipment vendors and service providers. We work through intellectual property and risk management issues. We are involved in labor considerations and compliance with health and safety regulations. Unique to this specific engagement are the aviation issues that arise from the use of unmanned aircraft. While the Federal Aviation Administration has come a very long way with integrating unmanned aircraft into the national airspace, there are still a number of unresolved legal issues. We are actively engaged in helping develop solutions to those issues that advance the industry without compromising safety.
CC: How many in-house lawyers do you have working on it?
NB: The demands of the particular legal or regulatory issue influence the number of attorneys who work on a particular matter. For example, at the launch of this initiative, there are many legal issues that must be addressed across various disciplines, including intellectual property, regulatory, aviation, insurance and procurement. During this phase, there are many lawyers who have provided input. As the project progresses, we will adjust our staffing as needed.
CC: Do you expect that, once developed, the drone program will change the makeup of the legal department?
NB: The FAA has jurisdiction over drone operations. UPS already has a pool of talented lawyers with a strong foundation in aviation matters, so we are well positioned to meet the needs of our drone program. Our legal team will remain well versed in the evolving legal and regulatory landscape in this area.
CC: What are the biggest challenges in this space?
NB: The biggest challenge comes from the fact that technology and the law are evolving simultaneously. The ultimate goal for the industry is to have unmanned vehicles that can operate autonomously beyond the visual line of sight of a human operator. In order to do that safely, there are complex technological questions that must be answered. How will the drone detect and avoid other aircraft and obstacles? How will air traffic control be managed for unmanned vehicles? What system will be employed to allow other users of the airspace and law enforcement to remotely identify unmanned vehicles?
In order to answer these questions, a great deal of testing must be done. The testing cannot be done, however, unless there are regulations in place that are sufficiently flexible to do the necessary cutting-edge work. Regulators cannot establish this legal framework unless there is enough data to show how it can be done safely.
This requires UPS to work very closely with the FAA at all phases of the project. This methodical approach has led to a slower development than some might like, but we believe the agency has struck the right balance of moving the technology forward while preserving the safety of the public.
CC: What legal issues do you anticipate arising from the program? For example, will there be significant labor and employment issues with unionized drivers if the program substantially reduces their ranks?
NB: There are still too many unresolved legal and technical issues to provide a specific answer to this question, particularly about the impact it will have, if any, on the workforce. Our expectation and intent is not for drones to replace our uniformed service providers, the UPS drivers who offer a level of service and human interaction that our customers tell us they value, respect and trust. Consider, for example, the program we are running at WakeMed in North Carolina. The service we are providing with drones was not an on-the-ground service provided by UPS prior to the drone solution. Instead, WakeMed contracts with a local ground courier service for same-day delivery—that is not a business UPS is involved in, and our drone solution has no impact on our ground operation and drivers in the area.
At this point, what is clear is that more development will have to be done at both the state and federal levels and in partnership with the private sector to further develop the regulatory environment, and to begin engaging other stakeholders, including the general public.
CC: Who is your outside counsel on the drone program?
NB: UPS has broad relationships with the aviation teams at LeClairRyan and Jenner & Block. Both teams have extensive experience in all aspects of aviation and are at the forefront of the law related to unmanned aircraft.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllState Appellate Court Affirms $2.75M Jury Verdict in Negligence Suit Against Railroad Co.
5 minute readTrump and Latin America: Lawyers Brace for US's Hardline Approach to Region
Uber Not Responsible for Turning Over Information on 'Dangerous Riders' to Competitor, Judge Finds
5 minute readJudge Relies on Recent 8th Circuit Clarification in Quest for Punitive Damages Against Logistics Company
5 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250