we insist that laws give the Person of ordinary intelligence a reasonable opportunity to know what is prohibited (bold and underline in original text that they considered it so important)

****
It just now occurred to me you didn't bother reading the thread. The entire 44 pages of the section are in the PDF.

"Re: "Unable to comply". I knew it was bunk when I first saw it. Now I've found it. The FAA is breaking the law by threatening to bring enforcement action against people for RID non-compliance in the interim September 16, 2023 to March 16, 2024.

Supreme Court of the United States
Rules of Statutory Construction and Interpretation

(underline and bold in original text)

It is a basic principle of due process that an enactment is void for vagueness if its prohibitions are not clearly defined. Vague laws offend several important values. First, because we assume that man is free to steer between lawful and unlawful conduct, we insist that laws give the Person of ordinary intelligence a reasonable opportunity to know what is prohibited, so that he may act accordingly. Vague laws may trap the innocent by not providing fair warning.

Second, if arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement is to be prevented, laws must provide explicit standards for those who apply them. A vague law impermissibly delegates [408 US 109] basic policy matters to policemen, judges, and juries for resolution on an ad hoc and subjective basis, with the attendant dangers of arbitrary and discriminatory application.

[Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408,U.S. 104 (1972)]

Does "unable to comply" mean that a person has to buy the first module available? Does unable to comply mean on the original enforcement date of September 16, 2023? Does unable to comply mean that a person cannot afford a module? And probable that a few others could be found.

This would not survive a first administrative hearing. Of course the FAA knows that, therefore it's never going to happen.