28 TAC § 34.616 contains two prohibitions that are unusual in this subchapter, because neither is about the firm’s own credentials. A REGISTERED FIRM MAY NOT MONITOR A FIRE ALARM SYSTEM LOCATED IN THE STATE OF TEXAS FOR AN UNREGISTERED FIRM. And a REGISTERED FIRM MAY NOT CONNECT A FIRE ALARM SYSTEM TO A MONITORING SERVICE UNLESS the monitoring service is registered under Insurance Code Chapter 6002 or is exempt from that chapter’s licensing requirements, AND the monitoring equipment being used complies with Insurance Code § 6002.251. A firm can hold a current certificate, employ correctly licensed people, and be in breach of both — because what each prohibition asks about is the party at the other end.

The two run in opposite directions, which is why they are separate sentences. The first looks UPSTREAM from the central station: a monitoring firm asked to watch signals for another company has to know whether that company is registered. The second looks DOWNSTREAM from the installer: a firm connecting a system to somebody else’s monitoring service has to know whether that service is registered or exempt, and whether its equipment meets the labeling and listing requirement Chapter 8 covered. Each is a question about a party the firm does not control and can only ask.

The exemption branch in the second prohibition deserves care, because it is the only place in this subchapter where a firm is asked to assess somebody else’s exemption. “Registered under Insurance Code Chapter 6002 OR EXEMPT FROM THE LICENSING REQUIREMENTS of that chapter” points straight back at the eleven narrow, heavily conditioned carve-outs Chapter 2 works through — and Chapter 2’s lesson was that every one of them collapses if a condition fails. A firm relying on a counterparty’s exemption is relying on conditions it cannot see. The registration is checkable. The exemption is an assertion.