The registered researcher answers for the acts of the unregistered one
What the document says“``(iii) affirms that any act taken by that agent or employee involving a controlled substance shall be attributable to the registered researcher, as if the researcher had directly committed the act, for purposes of any proceeding under section 304(a) to suspend or revoke the registration of the registered researcher; and”
The third condition in subparagraph (C). The registered researcher must also inform the Attorney General of the name, position title and employing institution of the agent or employee who is not separately registered, and authorize that person to perform research under the registration. The clause quoted adds that the researcher affirms that the other person's acts count as the researcher's own in a proceeding under section 304(a) of the Controlled Substances Act to suspend or revoke the registration.
What the document actually says“``(iii) affirms that any act taken by that agent or employee involving a controlled substance shall be attributable to the registered researcher, as if the researcher had directly committed the act, for purposes of any proceeding under section 304(a) to suspend or revoke the registration of the registered researcher; and”
What the second person does counts as the first person's act. That matters if the sign-up is called into question. It is treated as if the first person did it.
The first researcher must also name the second to the Attorney General. They must say the second may work under their sign-up. In return they carry the risk.
No action is recorded against this proposal. That is not evidence that none has been taken, and nobody has yet read it against the record. See what the tracker does not yet cover.