Review on the Current State of the Mold Inspection and Mold Remediation Workforce in the Commonwealth (DPOR)

Summary

A report from the Department of Professional and Occupational Regulation to the House Committee on General Laws, the Senate Committee on General Laws and Technology and the Joint Commission on Administrative Rules, dated January 1, 2026. Its title is Department Review on the Current State of the Mold Inspection and Mold Remediation Workforce in the Commonwealth, issued pursuant to House Bill 2195. The preface states that the bill as originally introduced proposed renaming the Virginia Board for Asbestos, Lead, and Home Inspectors and licensing requirements for mold inspection and mold remediation, and that Governor Youngkin signed it on March 21, 2025. The report also contains model legislation on a landlord's duty regarding mold and an appendix of mold certifying organizations.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Cite this document

“Review on the Current State of the Mold Inspection and Mold Remediation Workforce in the Commonwealth (DPOR).” Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/2026-rd247-7f8069a331/, SHA-256 51d6b882ab6defae7c0c1887a4fb07a3a6b119046d138286d8a5114b7394282e.

Full text

DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL
AND OCCUPATIONAL
REGULATION

Report to the
House Committee on General Laws,
Senate Committee on General Laws and Technology,
& Joint Commission on Administrative Rules

Department Review on the Current State of the Mold Inspection and Mold
Remediation Workforce in the Commonwealth pursuant to House Bill 2195
(2025)

January 1, 2026

9960 Mayland Drive, Suite 400
Richmond, Virginia 23233
(804) 367-8500
http://www.dpor.virginia.gov
PREFACE

House Bill 2195, as originally introduced during the 2025 General Assembly session,
proposed to amend provisions in §§ 54.1-300, 54.1-500, 54.1-501, 54.1-516 and 59.1-200 of
the Code of Virginia by renaming the Virginia Board for Asbestos, Lead, and Home
Inspectors as the Virginia Board for Asbestos, Lead, Mold, and Home Inspectors (the
Board) and directed the Board to establish licensing requirements for the practice of mold
inspection and mold remediation in the Commonwealth. Additionally, the bill called for the
repeal of provisions contained in the Virginia Consumer Protection Act related to selling or
offering for sale services as a professional mold remediator, directed the Board to adopt
emergency regulations to implement provisions of the bill and added a licensed mold
inspector or mold remediator member to the Board.

With amendments by way of substitute, including incorporation of House Bill 2355, the bill
passed the House of Delegates. The bill subsequently passed the Senate and was signed by
Governor Youngkin on March 21, 2025. The bill amends § 59.1-200 of the Code of Virginia
relating to the Virginia Consumer Protection Act. Specifically, the bill prohibits the selling
or offering for sale services, to be performed on a residential dwelling, as a professional
mold remediator without holding a mold remediation certification issued by a nationally or
internationally recognized certifying body for mold remediation. Additionally, the bill
directs “…the Department of Professional and Occupational Regulation shall, in
consultation with the Virginia Department of Health and mold industry professionals, study
the current state of the mold inspection and mold remediation workforce in the
Commonwealth utilizing the most up-to-date data available to determine whether there is
sufficient evidence that the licensure or certification of mold inspectors and remediators
would benefit the public health, safety, and welfare and, if so, recommend educational,
experiential, or examination requirements for such licensure or certification.”

The Department of Professional and Occupational Regulation conducted a study with
assistance from a workgroup comprised of various individuals involved in the mold
inspection and mold remediation industry, a member from the Board for Contractors, a
member from the Board for Asbestos, Lead, and Home Inspectors, a representative from
New Virginia Majority, a member from the Home Builders Association of Virginia, and a
representative from the Virginia Department of Health.
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ……………………………………………………………………… 1

Introduction ………………………………………………………………………………... 3
Enabling Legislation ………………………………………………………………….. 3
Powers and Duties of the ALHI Board .…………………………………………….. 3
Background ………………………………………………………………………………… 4
History of Mold Regulation in the Commonwealth ……………………………….. 4
Occupational Regulation in Virginia ………………………………………………… 4
HB 2195 (2025) – Directive to Study Mold Industry and Level of Regulation …… 5
Review Methodology ………………………………………………………………… 7

Research …………………………………………………………………………………….. 7
Mold Workgroup …………………………………………………………………….. 7
Current State of the Mold Industry and Existing Certifications …………………... 8
Practices ………………………………………………………………………. 9
Industry Participation Level …………………………………………………. 10
Concerns Amongst Industry Professionals …………………………………. 11
Licensure Requirements Across the Country ………………………………. 12
Mold and Public Health ……………………………………………………………… 13
Public Comments …………………………………………………………………….. 17

Findings and Recommendations ………………………………………………………. 18
Analysis ……………………………………………………………………………….. 18
Legal Basis for Licensure ……………………………………………………. 18
Applying § 54.1-100 in Considering the Regulation of Mold Professionals 19
DPOR Recommendations and Methods of Mitigating Risk to the Public ……….. 20
Amendment to the Virginia Consumer Protection Act ……………………. 20
Amendment to the Virginia Residential Landlord and Tenant Act ………. 21
Educating the Community ………………………………………………….. 23
Amendment to the Uniform Statewide Building Code ……………………. 24

DPOR Conclusion ……………………………………………………………………….. 24

Appendices …………………………………………………………………………………. 26
CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS REPORT:
Workgroup Membership
Robert Bradshaw
Dwight Flammia
Michael Donitzen
Andrew Clark
Chlo’e Edwards
Patrick Studley
Doug Lowe

With participation from:
Rebecca Tomazin
Francis Adams

Staff Acknowledgements

James B. Wilkinson, Jr., Director
Department of Professional and Occupational Regulation

Stephen Kirschner, Director of Licensing & Regulatory Programs
Department of Professional and Occupational Regulation

Joseph C. Haughwout, Jr., Regulatory Affairs Manager
Department of Professional and Occupational Regulation

Jennifer Sayegh, Policy and Legislative Affairs Manager
Department of Professional and Occupational Regulation

Marjorie King, Executive Director
Virginia Board for Asbestos, Lead, and Home Inspectors

Cameron Parris, Regulatory Operations Administrator
Virginia Board for Asbestos, Lead, and Home Inspectors

Kyle Mathews, Regulatory Analyst
Virginia Board for Asbestos, Lead, and Home Inspectors
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Chapter 251 of the 2025 Virginia Acts of Assembly (House Bill 2195) amended the Virginia
Consumer Protection Act (VCPA) and directed the Department of Professional and
Occupational Regulation (DPOR) to study the current state of the mold inspection and
mold remediation workforce to determine whether certification or licensure would benefit
the health, safety, and welfare of the public, and if so, recommend requirements for such
certification or licensure. The 2025 amendment to the VCPA added specific standards for
remediation, though it only applies to mold remediation, not mold inspections. DPOR
formed a workgroup of various professionals that work in and around the mold industry or
that work with populations affected by mold and also consulted the Virginia Department of
Health (VDH) in acquiring data relevant to the potential effects mold has on health.

Based on discussion, data, and input from the public, the common opinion of the
workgroup is that the population most adversely affected by mold and improper mold
remediation is the tenant community. Further, research indicates that certification or
licensure are not likely to offer significant benefit to the health, safety, and welfare of the
public as neither would govern mold-related issues that arise between a landlord and a
tenant.

DPOR has concluded that there does not appear to be sufficient evidence that increasing the
level of regulation to certification or licensure of mold inspectors and mold remediators will
mitigate the risk mold presents to the public. Recognizing that the highest area of risk
involves the tenant population, DPOR has identified five (5) recommendations that are
more likely to effectively mitigate risks to the health, safety, and welfare of the public:

1. Incorporate mold inspectors into the VCPA in order to ensure existing inspection
services meet the same standards currently required of mold remediation services.

2. Beginning in 2030, the Board for Professional and Occupational Regulation can
study the impact of recent changes to the VCPA regarding mold remediation
standards to determine whether (i) the VCPA made a measurable impact on
public health outcomes and (ii) whether that outcome requires a reassessment of
the current level of regulation of the mold industry.

3. Amend the Virginia Residential Landlord and Tenant Act (VRLTA) to require
landlords to utilize professional mold remediators certified under the same
standards set forth in the VCPA.

4. In conjunction with recommendation #1, amend the VRLTA to require landlords
to utilize professional mold inspectors certified under the same standards set forth
in the VCPA.

1
5. The Department of Housing and Community Development can create and publish
a bulletin to educate the public on laws, policies, and more general information
about the mold inspection and mold remediation industry in Virginia, to include
website links to the Environmental Protection Agency’s mold resources and
national accrediting organizations for the mold industry.

2
INTRODUCTION

Enabling Legislation
Chapters 2 and 3 of Title 54.1 of the Code of Virginia set forth professions and occupations
regulated by DPOR and provide criteria by which to determine whether the regulation of a
profession is necessary to protect the public health, safety, and welfare.

The Virginia Board for Asbestos, Lead, and Home Inspectors has undergone notable
changes since its establishment in 1993. Initially referred to as the Virginia Board for
Asbestos Licensing, Senate Bill 405, introduced during the 1994 General Assembly session,
revised the asbestos contractor and worker licensure law to provide for the licensure of
asbestos contractors, asbestos workers, and also the certification of lead contractors and lead
workers. The bill also established the Joint Subcommittee on Abatement of Lead-Based
Paint, which was tasked with studying and recommending a lead abatement regulatory
program. 1 In 1997, by enactment of House Bill 2554, the level of regulation for lead
0F

contractors and lead workers was enhanced from certification to licensure. 2 During the 2001
1F

General Assembly session, House Bill 2174 provided for the voluntary certification of
residential home inspectors, effectively renaming the board to the Virginia Board for
Asbestos, Lead, and Home Inspectors (ALHI Board). 3 The requirement for residential
2F

home inspectors to obtain certification was later heightened to a licensure requirement
during the 2016 General Assembly session, through Senate Bill 453. 4 3F

Powers and Duties of the ALHI Board
Section 54.1-500.1 of the Code of Virginia establishes the ALHI Board, which consists of 12
members appointed by the Governor, while § 54.1-501 of the Code of Virginia sets forth the
specific duties of the Board.

Broadly speaking, the duties of the Board include:

• Promulgating regulations necessary to carry out the requirements of Chapter 5 of
Title 54.1 of the Code of Virginia, which includes licensure programs for asbestos,
lead-based paint activities, and home inspectors; and
• Approving criteria, training programs, and examinations for accredited asbestos
training programs and accredited lead training programs.

1
Virginia Acts of Assembly, 1994 Session, Chapter 185 (Bill Tracking - 1994 session > Legislation)
2
Virginia Acts of Assembly, 1997 Session, Chapter 885 (Bill Tracking - 1997 session > Legislation)
3
Virginia Acts of Assembly, 2001 Session, Chapter 723 (Bill Tracking - 2001 session > Legislation)
4
Virginia Acts of Assembly, 2016 Session, Chapter 161 (Bill Tracking - 2016 session > Legislation)

3
(A comprehensive list of the powers and duties of the ALHI Board are included in
Appendix A).

BACKGROUND

History of Mold Regulation in the Commonwealth
During the 2009 General Assembly session, House Bill 2032 was passed, which established
a requirement for licensure for individuals practicing the profession of mold inspectors and
mold remediators. Additionally, the ALHI Board was renamed to the Virginia Board for
Asbestos, Lead, Mold, and Home Inspectors. 5 The Virginia Board for Asbestos, Lead,
4F

Mold, and Home Inspectors spent nearly two (2) years developing the newly required
regulatory program, which became effective July 1, 2011. Subsequently, with enactment of
Governor McDonnell’s Reorganization Plan (Senate Bill 678), mold inspectors and mold
remediators became deregulated in April 2012. 6 5F

Occupational Regulation in Virginia
Chapter 1 of Title 54.1 of the Code of Virginia establishes general provisions for professions
and occupations.

Section 54.1-100 of the Code of Virginia provides that:

The right of every person to engage in any lawful profession, trade, or occupation of
his choice is clearly protected by both the Constitution of the United States and the
Constitution of the Commonwealth of Virginia. The Commonwealth cannot abridge
such rights except as a reasonable exercise of its police powers when (i) it is clearly
found that such abridgement is necessary for the protection or preservation of the
health, safety, and welfare of the public and (ii) any such abridgment is no greater
than necessary to protect or preserve the public health, safety, and welfare.

The section further provides that:

No regulation shall be imposed upon any profession or occupation except for the
exclusive purpose of protecting the public interest when:

1. The unregulated practice of the profession or occupation can harm or
endanger the health, safety, or welfare of the public, and the potential for
harm is recognizable and not remote or dependent upon tenuous argument;

5
Virginia Acts of Assembly, 2009 Session, Chapter 358 (Bill Tracking - 2009 session > Legislation)
6
Virginia Acts of Assembly, 2012 Session, Chapter 835 (LIS > Bill Tracking > SB678 > 2012 session)

4
2. The practice of the profession or occupation has inherent qualities peculiar
to it that distinguish it from ordinary work and labor;

3. The practice of the profession or occupation requires specialized skill or
training and the public needs, and will benefit by, assurance of initial and
continuing professional and occupational ability; and

4. The public is not effectively protected by other means.

The Board for Professional and Occupational Regulation (BPOR) is an oversight board for
DPOR. Chapter Three (3) of Title 54.1 of the Code of Virginia tasks the BPOR board with
reviewing currently unregulated professions to determine whether regulation is necessary.
Section 54.1-311 (A) of the Code of Virginia provides five (5) degrees of regulation to
consider when determining whether regulation of a profession or occupation is necessary for
the protection of the public health, safety, and welfare. With number one (1) being the least
stringent degree of regulation, the five (5) degrees of regulation are listed below and include
examples of items and professions that fall under each degree:

1. Private civil actions and criminal prosecutions – VCPA
2. Inspection and injunction - Restaurants
3. Registration – Athlete Agents
4. Certification – Certified Interior Designers
5. Licensing – Real Estate Brokers

Currently, the mold industry is regulated under the first degree of regulation: private civil
actions and criminal prosecutions. Many professions are regulated at this level by the VCPA
(Code of Virginia, Title 59, Chapter 17), which safeguards consumers from unfair and
deceptive business practices and provides legal recourse for those misled by service
providers when otherwise unregulated professions cause consumer harm. The VCPA sets
forth a requirement that those selling or offering services as a professional mold remediator
must hold a mold remediation certification from a nationally or internationally recognized
certifying body and must comply with standards established by the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), American National Standards Institute
(ANSI)/IICRC S520, or any other ANSI-accredited standard. Consumers seeking
restitution for complaints related to individuals or companies offering mold remediation
services must go through a complaint process established by the Office of the Attorney
General.

HB 2195 (2025) – Directive to Study Mold Industry and Level of Regulation
During the 2025 General Assembly session, two separate bills were introduced related to
governance of the mold industry. Delegate Wilt proposed House Bill 2355 to expand on
existing language in the VCPA, which was added in 2024. House Bill 2355 proposed that
professional mold remediators selling or offering for sale residential services hold a mold

5
remediation certification from a nationally or internationally recognized certifying body.
The bill also directed DPOR to conduct a study. Simultaneously, Delegate McQuinn
introduced House Bill 2195 that proposed to create a licensure program, very similar to
House Bill 2032 (2009). Through discussion, the main concerns expressed by stakeholders
involved tenants residing in mold infested buildings where landlords neglect to take action
to properly address or remediate mold.

House Bill 2195, as originally introduced during the 2025 session, proposed to amend
provisions in §§ 54.1-300, 54.1-500, 54.1-501, 54.1-516 and 59.1-200 of the Code of Virginia
by renaming the ALHI Board as the Virginia Board for Asbestos, Lead, Mold, and Home
Inspectors with directive to establish licensing requirements for the practice of mold
inspection and mold remediation in the Commonwealth. Additionally, the bill called for the
repeal of provisions contained in the VCPA related to selling or offering for sale services as a
professional mold remediator, required the adoption of emergency regulations to implement
provisions of the bill, and added a licensed mold inspector or mold remediator member to
the newly named board.

With amendments by way of substitute, including incorporation of House Bill 2355, the bill
passed the House of Delegates. The bill subsequently passed the Senate and enrolled on
February 19, 2025. It was signed by Governor Youngkin on March 21, 2025. The bill, as
amended, amends § 59.1-200 of the Code of Virginia relating to the VCPA. Specifically, the
bill prohibits the

“…selling or offering for sale services as a professional mold remediator to be
performed upon any residential dwelling without holding a mold remediation
certification from a nationally or internationally recognized certifying body for mold
remediation, and failing to comply with (i) the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s
publication on Mold Remediation in Schools and Commercial Buildings as revised; (ii) the
ANSI/IICRC S520 Standard for Professional Mold Remediation, as revised,; or (iii) any other
equivalent ANSI-accredited mold remediation standard, when conducting or offering to
conduct mold remediation in the Commonwealth.”

Additionally, the bill directs that

“…the Department of Professional and Occupational Regulation shall, in
consultation with the Virginia Department of Health and mold industry
professionals, study the current state of the mold inspection and mold remediation
workforce in the Commonwealth utilizing the most up-to-date data available to
determine whether there is sufficient evidence that the licensure or certification of
mold inspectors and remediators would benefit the public health, safety, and welfare
and, if so, recommend educational, experiential, or examination requirements for
such licensure or certification.”

6
(See Appendix B for a complete copy of House Bill 2195).

Review Methodology
DPOR formed a workgroup with the specific intention of gathering information related to
the mold inspection and mold remediation industry and mold-related health data. The
workgroup included various individuals involved in the mold inspection and mold
remediation industry, a member from the Board for Contractors, a member from the ALHI
Board, a representative from New Virginia Majority, a member from the Home Builders
Association of Virginia, and a representative from VDH.

To aid the workgroup, DPOR sought public comment by posting two (2) General Notices
on the Virginia Regulatory Town Hall. One General Notice was directed toward
professionals involved in the mold industry while the other General Notice sought input
from consumers that have encountered mold or interacted with professionals in inspecting,
assessing, or remediating mold. Comments were accepted from June 20, 2025, through July
31, 2025.

In addition, DPOR conducted research. Research included reviewing applicable laws and
regulations in Virginia as well as in other states that have some level of regulation around
the mold industry. Mold-related health data available from the Virginia Department of
Health and other state’s health departments and national databases was also collected.
DPOR also compiled public comments received.

RESEARCH

Mold Workgroup
As directed by House Bill 2195, in consultation with VDH and mold industry professionals,
the mold workgroup first met on May 14, 2025. This meeting was held to survey the current
state of the mold inspection and mold remediation industry within Virginia. At this meeting,
the workgroup was presented with questions regarding (i) industry job descriptions; (ii)
industry practices; (iii) the industry population; and (iv) the skills, education, and experience
requirements necessary to meet industry standards.

The mold workgroup met again on July 16, 2025, to discuss the health effects of mold,
relevant data, and regulatory requirements placed on the mold industry in other states.
During this meeting, available mold-related data was presented by representatives from
VDH. This meeting was held to help determine whether there is sufficient evidence that the
licensure or certification of mold inspectors or mold remediators would benefit the public
health, safety, and welfare.

7
(A copy of the Workgroup Discussion Summary is provided in Appendix C)

Current State of the Mold Industry and Existing Certifications
As previously cited, the VCPA requires any individual presenting as a mold remediator, or
engaging in mold remediation services, to hold a certificate obtained through a nationally or
internationally recognized certifying body for mold remediation.

The three (3) leading national organizations in the mold remediation industry are (i) the
American Council for Accredited Certification (ACAC); (ii) the Institute of Inspection
Cleaning and Restoration Certification (IICRC); and (iii) the National Organization of
Remediators and Microbial Inspectors (NORMI). Current national industry standards for
the professions of mold inspection and mold remediation are largely established by these
organizations.

ACAC offers vocational certifications for Microbial Investigation & Consulting (Council-
certified Structural Mold Investigator) and Microbial Remediation (Council-certified
Residential Microbial Remediator) which require current employment in the field. ACAC
also offers a certificate for Residential Mold Inspection (Council-certified Residential Mold
Inspector), which is classified as a professional certification, and requires two (2) or more
years of field experience. All ACAC certifications require an examination. Re-certification
is required every two (2) years and 20 hours of professional development activities are
required annually. 7 6F

The IICRC offers an Applied Microbial Remediation Technician (AMRT) certification
which requires the applicant to obtain a Water Damage Restoration Technician (WRT)
certification and complete 25 hours of AMRT instruction. The IICRC also offers a mold
remediation specialist (MRS) certification which requires one (1) year of verifiable mold
remediation experience and an examination. The IICRC requires 14 hours of continuing
education every two (2) years and annual renewal. 8 7F

NORMI offers a Certified Mold Assessor (CMA) certification which requires 24 to 32 hours
of education in advanced mold assessment techniques. NORMI also offers a Certified Mold
Remediator (CMR) certification which requires 24 hours of education in mold remediation
techniques. Both certifications require an examination. NORMI requires seven (7) hours of
continuing education annually to re-certify. 9 8F

Of the leading national organizations in mold inspection and mold remediation

7
https://www.acac.org/programs

8
https://iicrc.org/iicrccertifications/
9
https://www.normi.org/national-organization-of-remediators-and-mold-inspectors/#certifications

8
certification, formal education is not considered.

There are several other organizations that offer certifications or guidance for mold industry
professionals. Organizations offering certifications related to mold inspection and mold
remediation include the International Association of Certified Home Inspectors
(InterNACHI), the Mold Inspection Consulting and Remediation Organization (MICRO),
and the American Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA). Additionally, there are many
organizations that do not offer certifications, but do offer some level of standards or guidance
for professionals working within the mold industry in various capacities. These industries
include the Global Council for Environmental Health and Safety (GCEHS), the Restoration
Industry Association (RIA), the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA),
and the EPA.

Practices
Mold inspections are designed to detect the presence of mold and to identify the source and
extent of any mold detected. Mold is most likely to grow in areas with poor ventilation, high
humidity, and where moisture persists. Due to the nature of mold inspections and areas that
most often require inspection, there is an expectation among industry professionals that
mold inspectors possess a working knowledge of structural systems, HVAC systems,
plumbing systems, roofing systems, and environmental science. Key skills associated with
proper mold inspection include mold identification, microbial sampling, and report writing.
Industry professionals agree that these skills are best acquired through hands-on, field-based
experience.

Mold inspectors may perform limited or full inspections. A limited mold inspection consists
of isolated audits, such as a moisture audit or crawlspace audit. A full mold inspection
consists of a “property walk-around” that may include examining crawl spaces, exterior
openings or entry points, roofs, gutters, plumbing and HVAC systems; thermal scanners are
utilized on interior surfaces. National standards for conducting an inspection include
attention to the contents of the home, such as furniture, clothing, or other personal effects,
as well as the home itself. Inspectors may take surface or air samples, which are sent to
laboratories for testing. National standards promote the use of accredited laboratories,
which are often ISO / IEC 17025 10 certified. Individuals within the industry may use test
9F

kits from home improvement stores such as Lowe’s or Home Depot, though this is largely
considered an unacceptable practice by certified industry professionals. Inspectors generally
prepare a “mold remediation protocol” (MRP), a document outlining procedures and

10
“ISO” means International Organization for Standardization. “IEC” means International Electrotechnical
Commission. The “ISO / IEC 17025” certiﬁcation enables laboratories to demonstrate that they operate
competently and generate valid results, thereby promoting conﬁdence in their work both nationally and
internationally (www.iso.org).

9
standards for effectively removing mold, for later use by a mold remediator.

Once mold has been identified, remediation compliant with the VCPA should be performed
by a certified mold remediator. Industry professionals expect mold remediators to possess
strong technical skills, many of which are associated with the contracting profession. Key
skills associated with proper mold remediation include containment, demolition, and
encapsulation, though techniques vary depending on whether the surface is porous or non-
porous. Porous surfaces require the removal of materials, while non-porous surfaces require
sanitization. Industry professionals agree that these skills are best acquired through hands-
on, field-based experience.

Mold remediators often develop a “mold remediation workplan” (MRW), a documented
approach to addressing mold contamination, which is based on the inspector’s MRP or their
own assessment. Mold remediators may take their own surface and air samples if the work
of the inspector is inadequate. Establishing a containment field is vital to the remediation
process. Containment is established to prevent the spread of mold spores and is obtained by
securing plastic to ceilings and floors to create an enclosed space with walls and a zippered
entry. Filtration devices such as HEPA fans and vacuums are utilized to create negative
pressure and capture contaminated air. After remediation, a post-remediation evaluation
(PRE) is performed. A third party Indoor Environmental Professional (IEP) might be called
upon to perform a final test, or post remediation verification (PRV).

Employers in the mold inspection and mold remediation industry value experience and
ability to be trained over educational background. The ability to read and write is necessary
for creating and following reports, though a lack of formal education does not negate
literacy.

Industry Participation Level
Because there is no required registration or certification in Virginia, the exact number of
individuals engaged in the mold inspection and remediation industry cannot be determined.
In part, § 54.1-1100 of the Code of Virginia defines contractor as “any person, that for a
fixed price, commission, fee, or percentage undertakes to bid upon, or accepts, or offers to
accept, orders or contracts for performing, managing, or superintending in whole or in part,
the construction, removal, repair, or improvement of any building or structure permanently
annexed to real property owned, controlled, or leased by him or another person or any other
improvements to such real property.” The section further states, “[f]or purposes of this
chapter, "improvement" shall include (i) remediation, cleanup, or containment of premises
to remove contaminants or (ii) site work necessary to make certain real property usable for
human occupancy.” Due to the nature of the work, most firms engaged in mold
remediation in Virginia are undoubtedly required to hold a contractor license, however,

10
many may be operating without the appropriate license. 11 10F

ACAC has issued an estimated 67 Microbial Investigation & Consulting, Microbial
Remediation, and Residential Mold Inspection certifications in Virginia. The IICRC has
issued at least 500 certifications for Applied Microbial Remediation Technicians and Mold
Remediation Specialists in Virginia. NORMI currently has 12 active members in Virginia,
many of whom hold multiple certifications.

Concerns Amongst Industry Professionals
Among industry professionals, there are two chief concerns regarding the current state of the
mold industry in Virginia. The first concern involves the lack of any statutory or regulatory
requirements for mold inspectors. The second revolves around the lack of requirements for
landlords to utilize properly accredited mold remediation companies, or to properly
remediate mold when reported by a tenant.

As the VCPA does not govern mold inspections, only remediation, there is no requirement
that any individual presenting as a mold inspector, or engaging in mold inspection services,
hold a certificate obtained through a nationally or internationally recognized certifying
body. Certified mold remediators in Virginia are receiving incorrect and insufficient
inspection reports from uncertified individuals who present themselves as mold inspectors.
As such, a significant portion of certified mold remediators are conducting additional
inspections and taking their own samples prior to preparing an MRW to begin remediation.
This is resulting in additional time and labor costs to remediators, as well as time and
monetary costs for consumers.

Many mold inspectors in Virginia are operating outside of industry standards established by
nationally and internationally accredited organizations. As industry standards require
inspectors and remediators to work in tandem, accredited industry professionals are
concerned that inspectors are not meeting standards to set mold remediators up for success.

According to industry professionals, tenants are disproportionately affected by the presence
of mold and by improper mold remediation. Complaints received by the Office of the
Attorney General (OAG) and VDH regarding mold are overwhelmingly made by tenants
filing against a landlord. A vast majority of the complex, more severe cases seen by mold
professionals are at rental properties. While the VRLTA requires landlords to meet certain
federal standards for remediation, landlords are not currently required to utilize certified
professionals to inspect or remediate mold when reported by a tenant. This is a substantial
concern within the industry and amongst the public.

11
Contractors engaged in mold remediation should hold either a Class A, Class B, or Class C license. As of
October 1, 2025, there are 54,885 contractors licensed in Virginia. DPOR does not have the ability to identify
the number of contractors engaged in work specifically related to mold remediation.

11
Homeowners have the liberty to seek out services and choose the individuals or companies
who perform mold inspection and remediation services on their property, while tenants do
not have such freedom and must rely on their landlord. Without the requirement to seek
certified individuals, landlords are often opting for cheaper alternatives in the mold
remediation process risking improper or incomplete remediation performed by uncertified
individuals. Workgroup members shared sentiment that it is not uncommon for mold
industry professionals to encounter situations where a landlord or a maintenance team has
simply wiped clean or painted over mold growth rather than having it properly remediated.
This inevitably leads to further mold growth and tenant exposure. Tenants who wish to hold
their landlord accountable for failing to properly remediate mold may file a civil action,
however, many are not likely to pursue such a course of action out of fear of retribution in
the form of raised rent prices or eviction.

Licensure Requirements Across the Country
Six (6) states, and the District of Columbia, have established laws and regulations
around the mold inspection and mold remediation industry. The remaining 44 states
do not require certification or licensure in the mold industry, The states, and federal
district, that do regulate the industry have each implemented a form of certification,
registration, or licensure requirement to offer services as a mold inspector and mold
remediator. The requirements for entry into mold professions vary from state to
state, as does the stringency of established regulations. Florida, Texas, and New
York have the most accessible data for both regulatory aspects and mold-related
health statistics. As such, heavier focus in this report is placed on those states.
Florida and Texas provide pathways to licensure through a combination of
education and experience and, for some licenses, require passing an applicable
examination. Licensure requirements for New York focus on the completion of
training courses. 12
11F

Florida requires licensure for both mold assessors and mold remediators. An
individual can attain licensure as an assessor or remediator by obtaining a two (2)
year degree in a related field (biology, chemistry, environmental earth, or physical
science) with an additional year of field experience, or by obtaining a high school
diploma with an additional four (4) years of field experience. An examination is
required for individuals seeking licensure as a mold assessor.

Texas requires licensure for mold assessors, mold remediators, and for varying
individuals and companies providing mold-related services. Assessment licensure is
further broken down into a mold assessment technician license and a mold

12
Refer to the table included in Attachment # 1 for a complete picture of requirements for states that have
established some degree of regulation over the mold industry.

12
assessment consultant license. Mold assessment consultants may perform the duties
of a technician and additional duties related to developing plans, interpreting results,
preparing reports, creating protocols, and evaluating remediation projects. 13 An
12F

assessment technician can attain licensure by obtaining a high school diploma or
equivalent and passing an approved training course. To obtain licensure as an
assessment consultant, a combination of education and experience is required. Both
technicians and consultants are required to pass an examination. Entry requirements
for remediation contractors include a combination of education and experience or
certification and experience, as well as passing an examination.

New York also requires licensure for mold assessors, mold remediators, and for
varying individuals offering mold-related services. Both assessors and remediators
must pass an approved training course specific to the license to obtain licensure.
There is not an examination requirement for either assessors or remediators.

Each of the six (6) states, and the District of Columbia, require a form of
certification, registration, or licensure for individuals and entities working in the
mold industry. These certifications, registrations, and licenses encompass mold
assessors, mold remediators, mold remediation contractors, mold remediations
companies, mold abatement worker supervisors, mold abatement workers, mold
assessment technicians, mold assessment consultants, and mold analysis
laboratories. Three (3) of these states require a combination of education and
experience to obtain certification, registration, or licensure, while the other three (3)
states require proof of having completed approved training. Additionally, three (3)
localities require an applicant to pass an examination to obtain certain licenses.

(A comprehensive comparison of the degrees of regulation and entry requirements
for these states and federal district is provided in Appendix D).

Mold and Public Health
Mold is a category of commonly occurring fungus that develops in moisture containing
environments. Damp, wet, and humid environments are particularly conducive to mold
growth and exist both indoors and outdoors. Mold may grow in visible or hidden areas of a
building or home and may also be introduced from outside sources. 14 13F

13
Texas Mold Assessment and Remediation Rules
14
https://www.cdc.gov/mold-health/about/index.html

13
an individual’s health upon contact, inhalation, or ingestion. Mold spores can be found in
the air in almost any environment. Certain mold, often referred to as “toxic mold,”
produces mycotoxins. 15 14F

The health effects of continuous mold exposure vary by individual. Some may experience
no adverse effects when exposed to mold, while particularly vulnerable groups might face a
greater burden of health effects. Individuals continuously exposed to mold that do not have
underlying or pre-existing health conditions, may experience no symptoms or symptoms
such as irritation to the eyes, skin, nose, throat, or lungs, headaches, memory problems,
mood changes, or aches and pains. 16 Adverse health effects are more prevalent in those with
15F

a mold allergy, asthma or other respiratory illness, immune-compromised individuals,
young children, or the elderly. 1716F

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the three most
common indoor molds are Cladosporium, Penicillium, and Aspergillus. 18 Exposure to17F

Aspergillus may cause complications for immune-compromised individuals and those with
chronic respiratory conditions. The CDC states, “most people do not get sick from
Aspergillus,” however it may cause a “mild to severe” illness for susceptible individuals. 19 18F

While there are ongoing studies regarding the effect that mold exposure has on health,
available information indicates that mold exposure impacts individuals differently. It is also
evident that an individual’s health-related pre-dispositions play a significant role in the
health effects experienced due to mold exposure.
Standardized data are not available for instances of mold-specific hospitalizations or illness
rates in Virginia or the United States. As symptoms vary by individual, and fungal
infections such as Aspergillosis are not routinely reportable conditions throughout the
United States, it is challenging to determine the frequency of these conditions in Virginia or
elsewhere. Since mold is known to trigger individuals with asthma and other respiratory
illnesses, data obtained for this report focused on asthma and COPD (chronic obstructive
pulmonary disease) hospitalization rates across localities in Virginia and areas that are most
affected. Asthma and COPD exist without the presence of mold and the data do not
indicate causation; however, it may highlight communities that might be vulnerable to
complications due to mold exposure.

Data available through the VDH Environmental Public Health Tracking on asthma and

15
According to the Environmental Protection Agency, mycotoxins are byproducts produced by certain molds.
These byproducts are considered toxic; however, limited information is available from government sources
concerning their potential health effects from home exposure. Government focus regarding mycotoxins is
predominately associated with exposure through food, rather than mold growth in residences, schools, or
workplaces.
16
List derived from multiple sources, see references.
17
List derived from multiple sources, see references.
18
https://www.cdc.gov/mold-health/about/index.html
19
https://www.cdc.gov/aspergillosis/about/index.html

14
COPD hospitalization rates, by locality, in Virginia from 2019 through 2023, were
explored; 20 these are the most relevant, up-to-date data available and are described as rates
19F

per 100,000 people. For each of the five years examined, the top ten highest rates of asthma
and COPD hospitalizations were noted. Of those five years, the frequency of each locality
within the top ten highest rates was also noted. The three localities appearing in the top ten
highest asthma hospitalization rates for all five years were Hopewell City with an average
rate of 138.7, Petersburg City with an average rate of 111.9, and Richmond City with an
average rate of 105.96. 21 For COPD, the only locality appearing in the top ten highest rates
20F

for all five years was Martinsville City with an average rate of 688.34. 22 21F

The data for asthma and COPD hospitalization rates were available by age range, statewide.
From 2019 through 2023, children 0-4 years of age experienced the highest average asthma
hospitalization rate, with an average rate of 62.5, followed by children 5-14 years of age
with an average rate of 42. For COPD, the highest hospitalization rate was for individuals
85 years and older, with an average of 394.6, followed by those who were 65 to 84 years of
age with an average of 339.1.

(Available asthma and COPD hospitalization rates in Virginia can be found in Appendix
E).

Additional data were considered to highlight the individuals and communities most affected
by mold exposure in Virginia. This includes data specific to age groups and data related to
the percentage of rental properties located in the areas with the highest rates of asthma and
COPD-related hospitalizations. Analysis of the data collected shows that individuals 0-4
years of age experience the highest rate of asthma-related hospitalizations across all states
and individuals over the age of 65, respectively, experience the highest rate of COPD-related
hospitalizations across all states. 23 22F

During the workgroup meeting on July 16, 2025, VDH staff presented mold-related,
syndromic surveillance data that had been reported by emergency departments 24 and urgent 23F

care centers in Virginia 25 from January 2022 to May 2025. The data consisted of visits to
24F

emergency departments and urgent care centers where the chief complaint mentioned

20
A ﬁve-year window was chosen to maintain relevancy.
21
Rate calculated per 100,000 population: Virginia Department of Health. Division of Population Health Data.
Environmental Public Health Tracking Program. Asthma Hospitalizations.
https://www.vdh.virginia.gov/environmental-public-health-tracking/asthma/asthma-hospitalizations/
22
Virginia Department of Health. Division of Population Health Data. Environmental Public Health Tracking
Program. COPD Hospitalizations. https://www.vdh.virginia.gov/environmental-public-health-
tracking/copd/copd-hospitalizations-dashboard/
23
Data derived from multiple sources, see References.
24
Syndromic Surveillance Data, Division of Surveillance and Investigation, Office of Epidemiology, Virginia
Department of Health. Syndromic Surveillance – Surveillance and Investigation
25
The data included Virginia and non-Virginia residents that were seen at reporting facilities in Virginia. The
geographic location was assigned by patients’ residential zip codes.

15
“mold,” or where the discharge diagnosis code represented “contact with and (suspected)
exposure to mold (toxic).” The data presented two (2) possible trends: (i) on an annual
basis, peaks in visits occurred between June and October; and (ii) the regions with the
highest rate of visits were Virginia’s Central Region and Eastern Region. These data are not
public and were compiled specifically for this study.

In Virginia, the areas with some of the highest percentages of properties that are rental
properties are located in the greater Richmond area, to include the Cities of Richmond,
Hopewell, and Petersburg. 26 These data were obtained to establish whether there may be a
25F

correlation between the percentage of individuals likely residing in rental properties and
incidence rates of asthma and COPD related hospitalizations, which may indicate a higher
likelihood of exposure to mold.

Data similar to that collected from VDH were also obtained from Florida, Texas, and New
York. This was done to compare Virginia data to data from states that regulate mold
professionals. Analysis of the data collected shows that overall, Virginia had similar or
lower asthma and COPD hospitalization rates than Florida, Texas, and New York.

(A comparison of asthma and COPD hospitalization rates between Virginia, Florida, Texas,
and New York from 2021 to 2023 can be found in Appendices F, G, and H, respectively.)

Using available data, it is not possible to identify when mold may have caused or
contributed to asthma and COPD-related hospitalizations. The public health effects of mold
exposure remain unclear. While certain data about asthma and COPD-related
hospitalization rates are available, it cannot be determined with any certainty how often
mold contributed to these instances. It is difficult to determine the extent to which mold
licensure may impact public health, as mold-related illnesses are hard to track. Further,
there is no analysis of asthma or COPD hospitalization rates prior to the implementation of
mold professional certification, registration, or licensure requirements in the given states.
Without such data, no correlation can be drawn regarding the impact of mold professional
certification, registration, or licensure on public health.

Regarding mold-related complaints in Virginia, DPOR staff reached out to the OAG for
applicable data. Between 2018 and 2025, the OAG received 100 official complaints 27 26F

containing the keyword “mold.” Of these complaints 67% were from tenants concerning a
landlord’s failure to address mold in rental properties or units, and five (5) percent of
complaints were against licensed contractors. The OAG had also received seven (7)
unofficial complaints containing the keyword “mold,” of which 71% were landlord tenant
related.

26
Virginia Housing Data | BestNeighborhood.org
27
Official complaints must be submitted on an OAG provided form.

16
Public Comments
Two (2) General Notices were posted on Town Hall: one seeking comments from
individuals working in the mold industry and the other seeking comments from consumers
that have had experience with mold or mold-related services such as remediation. DPOR
accepted public comments from June 20, 2025, through July 31, 2025. Across both General
Notices, a total of three (3) comments were received. Additionally, two (2) individuals
offered comments during the public comment period of the workgroup meeting held on July
16, 2025.

The main focus of the comments received was related to the issues tenants face when
attempting to have mold in rental properties properly remediated. Commenters suggested
that landlords are largely indifferent to a tenant’s mold concerns, rely on unqualified and
uncertified individuals, such as a maintenance team, to address mold complaints, and fail to
adequately rectify the legitimate concerns that may impact the health and quality of life of
tenants around the Commonwealth.

Rachel Hefner, a community organizer working with New Virginia Majority states,

“Renters are at the mercy of their housing providers and mold inspectors who may
not be trained or equipped to remove mold appropriately. Renters don’t have as
much consumer choice as homeowners and enforcement is key to ensure healthy
housing, remove renter burden, and hold housing providers and mold inspectors
accountable.”

Kashish Pillai, a Housing Policy Analyst with New Virginia Majority states,

“It is important to recognize that the people most impacted by mold regulation are
the ones who have less choice in the professionals entering their home, oftentimes
who are renters and at-risk populations…”

Bailey Scarff, a renter residing in Ashburn, Virginia commented,

“…I alerted the apartment community manager that there had been significant mold
growth covering my furniture, décor, stairs, railings, and on the walls…they have
now hired a team to essentially surface clean the entire apartment which does not at
all comply with the extensive remediation this unit needs.”

Remmie Arnold, an industry professional, states,

“…there is a definite need for consumer protection…from: uncertified, unqualified
inspectors; uncertified, unqualified remediators; landlords who ignore mold
problems, landlords who threaten eviction or raising rent for complainers, landlords
who send uncertified, unqualified maintenance staff…”

17
The commenters also raised other concerns, such as the necessity that mold remediation
services only be provided by qualified individuals and the thought that establishing
regulations may cause unintentional, negative consequences for contractors.

Robert McCarty, owner of Patriot Crawl Space Repairs, states,

“Anyone doing residential mold remediation or cleanup should already be an RBC
or HIC contractor class B or higher…[meaning] they have already proven their
qualifications in conducting residential repair, demo, cleaning, rebuilding etc. Mold
is pretty much always part of this process…The proper remedy would be some type
of disclosure that requires contractors doing mold cleaning to disclose to
homeowners that it is not a comprehensive “mold remediation” project…Everything
doesn't need to be regulated into a box with the idea that citizens can't determine the
difference, or companies can't use the free market to convey differences. But creating
mold regulations that handcuff home improvement and building contractors into
strict mold protocols violates a slew of laws already on the books, mainly the
Virginia [e]xisting Building Code.”

(Copies of the full comments received are provided in Appendix H).

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Analysis
Legal Basis for Licensure
Chapter 1 of Title 54.1 of the Code of Virginia establishes general provisions for professions
and occupations. Specifically, § 54.1-100 sets forth the protections offered by both the
Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Virginia in
regard to every person’s right to engage in practicing any lawful profession, trade, or
occupation. Further, the Commonwealth cannot abridge such rights except when it is clear
that such abridgement is necessary to protect the public health, safety, and welfare.

The section further provides that:

No regulation shall be imposed upon any profession or occupation except for the
exclusive purpose of protecting the public interest when:

18
2. The practice of the profession or occupation has inherent qualities peculiar
to it that distinguish it from ordinary work and labor;

4. The public is not effectively protected by other means.

Applying § 54.1-100 in Considering the Regulation of Mold Professionals
To justify regulating a profession, § 54.1-100 of the code of Virginia requires looking at the
risks to the public and the least restrictive way to mitigate those risks. This report has
identified risks to the public presented by mold, the populations most affected by mold
exposure, and how those risks are properly mitigated.

When analyzing the current state of the mold industry in Virginia, including the research
performed and data collected, the area perceivably at the highest risk of experiencing
adverse health-related effects due to mold exposure is the tenant population; specifically, the
tenant population residing in the cities of Hopewell, Petersburg, and Richmond. Individuals
that own their homes are able to freely decide how to address a mold issue that may arise,
including which industry professionals are hired, while tenants are at the mercy of a
landlord as to how a reported mold issue is addressed.

Neither the Mold Workgroup nor DPOR intend to suggest that tenants are the only
community adversely affected by mold exposure and acknowledgement is given to the
health-related effects any given individual might experience as a result of being exposed to
mold. However, as the purpose of this study is to determine whether there is sufficient
evidence that the licensure or certification of mold inspectors and remediators would
benefit the public health, safety, and welfare, the recommendations offered are based on a
broader focus, which is placed on the communities most affected by mold exposure.

In reviewing the four (4) criteria listed above, the following conclusions are offered:

The unregulated practice of mold inspection and mold remediation may harm or endanger
the health, safety, or welfare of the public, and the potential for harm is recognizable. Harm
from mold exposure varies from one individual to the next and is likely to be affected by
pre-existing, health-related conditions. However, the current mold industry is not entirely
unregulated and there are avenues by which consumers are able to report mold-related
complaints.

The practice of mold inspection and mold remediation may have inherent qualities peculiar
to it that distinguish it from ordinary work and labor and the practice of mold inspection
and mold remediation requires a certain level of competency, skill, and training, and the

19
public will benefit by assurance of initial occupational ability. National accrediting
organizations such as ACAC, IICRC, and NORMI all have established programs, which
include training and examination requirements, by which individuals can gain competency
through training while developing skills necessary to obtain certification as a mold inspector
and mold remediator.

While there are gaps in statutory requirements governing the mold industry, there is no
indication that the current level of regulation does not provide adequate protection to the
public. Identified gaps or areas of risk may be mitigated by revising existing statute without
establishing a more stringent level of regulation on the mold industry.

DPOR Recommendations and Methods of Mitigating Risk to the Public
Placing more stringent regulation on the mold industry is not likely to have an appreciable
impact on mold related issues for consumers or tenants. Specifically, regulation imposed by
DPOR will not apply to landlords. As indicated by public comments, OAG complaints, and
inferred by other data collected, tenants are at the greatest risk for prolonged mold exposure.
Individual homeowners already have the liberty to choose who performs mold-related work,
whether inspection or remediation, and also have avenues by which to remedy mold-related
complaints.

DPOR concludes that there does not appear to be sufficient evidence that increasing the
level of regulation to certification or licensure of mold inspectors and mold remediators will
mitigate risks to the health, safety, and welfare of the public. In turn, DPOR has several
recommendations, some of which include amendments to existing statute, that do not
require the formation of a regulatory program or heighten the level of regulation placed on
the mold industry but are likely to mitigate risk to the public, especially the tenant
community.

Amendment to the Virginia Consumer Protection Act
Recommendation #1: Incorporate mold inspectors into the VCPA in order to ensure
existing inspection services meet the same standards currently required of mold
remediation services.

As described previously in this report, the current level of regulation imposed upon the mold
industry is the first degree of regulation, which is established by the VCPA, and includes
private civil actions and criminal prosecutions. The current version of the VCPA prohibits
the:

“…selling or offering for sale services as a professional mold remediator to be
performed upon any residential dwelling without holding a mold remediation
certification from a nationally or internationally recognized certifying body for mold
remediation, and failing to comply with (i) the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s
20
publication on Mold Remediation in Schools and Commercial Buildings as revised; (ii) the
ANSI/IICRC S520 Standard for Professional Mold Remediation, as revised,; or (iii) any other
equivalent ANSI-accredited mold remediation standard, when conducting or offering to
conduct mold remediation in the Commonwealth.”

Industry professionals agree that, similarly to the requirements for those selling or offering
for sale services as a professional mold remediator, those selling or offering for sale services
as a professional mold inspector should be required to hold a certification from a nationally
or internationally recognized certifying body. Doing so will not only add an additional layer
of protection for consumers but can be reasonably accomplished by mold professionals
through already established certification programs. This requirement can be achieved
through further amendment to the VCPA.

(See Appendix J for model legislation).

Recommendation #2: Beginning in 2030, the BPOR can study the impact of recent
changes to the VCPA regarding mold remediation standards to determine whether (i) the
VCPA made a measurable impact on public health outcomes and (ii) whether that
outcome requires a reassessment of the current level of regulation of the mold industry.
This report can be provided to the House Committee on General Laws, the Senate
Committee on General Laws and Technology, and the Joint Commission on
Administrative Rules no later than December 1, 2030.

Of notable importance, amendments to the VCPA just recently became effective on July 1,
2025, with the passing of House Bill 2195. While the previous version of the VCPA still
regulated the mold industry by the first degree, there were no requirements that mold
remediators comply with standards established by the EPA, ANSI/IICRC S520, or any
other ANSI-accredited mold remediation standards. Due to the recentness of amendments
to the VCPA, there is no way to determine at this time how the amendments have impacted
the mold industry or the public health, safety, and welfare, or whether there is any gradation
of mitigation to the existing risk consumers face related to mold.

While there are benefits associated with further expansion, amending the VCPA alone will
not address all existing statutory gaps. Stakeholders have suggested that, from a restitution
standpoint, the VCPA is more likely to benefit those willing to engage in litigation. Some
populations may be unwilling to seek recompense through a civil route, while others may
not have the means to do so. Amending the VCPA is something that can be considered in
addition to other alternative methods outlined below.

Amendment to the Virginia Residential Landlord and Tenant Act
Recommendation #3: Amend the VRLTA to require landlords to utilize professional
mold remediators certified under the same standards set forth in the VCPA.

21
The VRLTA establishes the rights, remedies, and responsibilities of landlords and tenants in
Virginia. Overall, the VRLTA lacks inclusion of adequate mold-related policies and
practices, leaving landlords tremendous discretion in how mold-related complaints are
handled and putting tenants at risk of prolonged mold exposure.

Section 55.1-1200 of the Code of Virginia defines “mold remediation in accordance with
professional standards” as mold remediation “…performed consistent with guidance
documents published by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Department
of Housing and Urban Development, or the American Conference of Governmental
Industrial Hygienists; Standard and Reference Guides of the Institute of Inspection,
Cleaning and Restoration (IICRC) for Professional Water Damage Restoration and
Professional Mold Remediation; or any protocol for mold remediation prepared by an
industrial hygienist consistent with such guidance documents.” While it does establish
standards by which mold must be remediated, the current definition does not set forth a
requirement that a landlord hire a properly certified mold remediator to perform
remediation work.

Requiring landlords to hire certified mold remediators will help ensure remediation is done
correctly. The current practice often involves landlords sending unqualified maintenance
teams to perform surface cleanings or performing surface cleanings themselves. This
practice does not eradicate mold that forms on porous surfaces. By amending the definition
of “mold remediation in accordance with industry standards” from its current form to
mirror language included in the VCPA, landlords will have a responsibility to ensure that
only properly credentialed individuals are performing mold remediation work in accordance
with industry standards.

(See Appendix K for model legislation).

Another section of the VRLTA, § 55.1-1215, requires that, as part of the written report of
the move-in inspection, “the landlord shall disclose whether there is any visible evidence of
mold in areas readily accessible within the interior of the dwelling unit.” The section further
requires that, if, within five (5) days of receiving the inspection report, the tenant identifies
the presence of mold, notifies the landlord in writing, and still wishes to occupy the
property, the landlord must remediate the existing mold condition. Subsequently, the
landlord must conduct a new inspection and prepare a new inspection report stating there is
no visible presence of mold.

Requiring the disclosure of the existence of mold only in instances where there is “visible
evidence of mold” provides little actual protection for tenants. As identified in this report,
mold can easily be cleaned from a surface with a cleaning agent and a wipe or simply
painted over. This does not constitute mold remediation and almost always, the mold will
return. Further, landlords may not possess the skills and knowledge necessary to properly
inspect for and make a determination as to the existence of mold. Greater protections would
22
be offered by requiring that mold inspections performed subsequent to a remediation done
as a stipulation of a move-in or a tenant complaint, are done so by a properly credentialed
individual.

Recommendation #4 – In conjunction with recommendation #1, amend the VRLTA to
require landlords to utilize professional mold inspectors certified under the same
standards set forth in the VCPA.

The VRLTA also requires that landlords maintain fit premises. Similarly to § 55.1-1215,
number five (5) under § 55.1-1220 of the VRLTA requires that, in the event a tenant has
reported the existence of mold, a landlord remediate the mold condition and reinspect the
dwelling to confirm that there is no longer visible evidence of mold. This provision does not
afford notable protection to the tenant as there is no requirement that remediation or
inspection be performed by a credentialed individual.

Requiring landlords to hire individuals that are skilled, trained, and credentialed to perform
work related to mold inspection and mold remediation will ensure that tenants are afforded
a layer of protection that is in addition to the current requirements established in the
VRLTA. Amending the VRLTA to strengthen mold-related policies, ensuring that mold is
being properly identified and eradicated, is a viable alternative method that will mitigate
risks associated with mold exposure without imposing more stringent regulation.

(See Appendix K for model legislation).

Educating the Community
Accredited mold inspectors and remediators also feel as though more education within their
communities, to include the implementation of programs or methods by which information
and resources related to mold remediation can be distributed to the public, is another
method that may mitigate risks associated with mold exposure. Providing tenants,
landlords, and consumers with the resources they need to seek proper remediation or
remedy the improper handling of mold conditions may return a positive impact for any
individual experiencing mold issues.

Recommendation #5: The DHCD can create and publish a bulletin to educate the public
on laws, policies, and more general information about the mold inspection and mold
remediation industry in Virginia, to include website links to the EPA and national
accrediting organizations for the mold industry.

While the EPA provides resources related to mold for consumers and homeowners, there
are no resources offered that are explicitly directed towards tenants. Currently, the DHCD
provides resources regarding the VRLTA, including the Statement of Tenant Rights and
Responsibilities. As tenants in Virginia are likely accustomed to utilizing resources offered
by DHCD, it may be helpful to expand these on the DHCD website.

23
To aid in the assistance of mold resource distribution, DHCD staff can share links on the
agency’s website directing consumers to the EPA, as well as national accrediting
organizations. ACAC, IICRC, and NORMI are three (3) prominent standard-setting
organizations in the mold inspection and remediation industry. Their websites contain an
abundance of information related to certifications offered, training, and the certification
process for inspectors and remediators. These websites also provide information as to how
to locate properly certified individuals.

(See Appendix L for links to ACAC, IICRC, and NORMI, and Appendix M for a sample
bulletin).

Amendments to the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code
Industry professionals and workgroup members agree on several other possible routes that
may alleviate the burden mold has on tenants and homeowners alike. While not a formal
recommendation from DPOR, one route offered includes making amendments to the
building code. By amending the building code, it is possible to grant building officials more
authority in making determinations as to whether work performed, whether it be new
construction, remodeling, or renovation, is more susceptible to mold growth. This may
address issues present in rental properties and require landlords and building contractors to
address violations that contribute to conditions in which mold may grow.

DPOR CONCLUSION

DPOR Conclusion
Existing evidence does not show harm to the general public that cannot be effectively
mitigated by less restrictive means than occupational licensure or certification in the mold
industry. Through the discussions held with the Mold Workgroup, public comments
received, and analysis of all research performed and data collected, it appears the
community most adversely affected by the lack of or improper mold remediation is the
tenant community. The duties and responsibilities of landlords and tenants are governed by
the VRLTA, and disputes between these parties must be addressed through civil process.
Moreover, licensure or certification requirements will not, by themselves, mitigate the
existing landlord/tenant problems, as bad actor landlords would not be impacted by
occupational regulation. Currently, landlords have access to qualified mold remediators
through existing industry certification. As such, establishing a higher level of regulation to
be enforced by DPOR, such as a licensure or certification program aimed at regulating the
mold industry, will not effectively mitigate risks to those most susceptible to harm
associated with mold exposure.

24
Further, and with attention to the criteria established in §§ 54.1-100 and 54.1-311 of the
Code of Virginia, there is insufficient evidence to support a level of regulation significantly
more stringent than what is currently in place. As suggested in this report’s previous section,
there are alternative methods by which the risk to the public may be more effectively
mitigated.

25
APPENDICES

Appendix A: Powers and Duties of the ALHI Board

Appendix B: House Bill 2195

Appendix C: Workgroup Discussion Summary

Appendix D: Degrees of Regulation and Entry Requirements

Appendix E: Asthma and COPD Hospitalization Rates in Virginia

Appendix F: Comparison – Virginia and Florida

Appendix G: Comparison – Virginia and Texas

Appendix H: Comparison – Virginia and New York

Appendix I: Public Comments

Appendix J: Model Legislation – VCPA

Appendix K: Model Legislation – VRLTA

Appendix L: Mold Professional Certifying Organizations

Appendix M: Sample Mold Bulletin

26
Appendix A
Code of Virginia
Title 54.1, Chapter 5, § 54.1-501
Powers and Duties of the Board
The duties of the Board are to:

• Promulgate regulations necessary to carry out the requirements of Chapter 5 of Title
54.1 of the Code of Virginia in accordance with the provisions of the Administrative
Process Act to include, but not be limited to, the prescription of fees, procedures,
and qualifications for the issuance and renewal of asbestos and lead licenses, and
governing conflicts of interest among various categories of asbestos and lead
licenses;
• Approve the criteria for accredited asbestos training programs, accredited lead
training programs, training managers, and principal instructors;
• Approve accredited asbestos training programs, accredited lead training programs,
examinations and the grading system for testing applicants for asbestos and lead
licensure;
• Promulgate regulations governing the licensing of and establishing performance
criteria applicable to asbestos analytical laboratories;
• Promulgate regulations governing the functions and duties of project monitors on
asbestos projects, circumstances in which project monitors shall be required for
asbestos projects, and training requirements for project monitors;
• Promulgate, in accordance with the Administrative Process Act, regulations
necessary to establish procedures and requirements for the: (i) approval of accredited
lead training programs, (ii) licensure of individuals and firms to engage in lead-based
paint activities, and (iii) establishment of standards for performing lead-based paint
activities consistent with the Residential Lead-based Paint Hazard Reduction Act
and United States Environmental Protection Agency regulations. If the United
States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has adopted, prior to the
promulgation of any related regulations by the Board, any final regulations relating
to lead-based paint activities, then the related regulations of the Board shall not be
more stringent than the EPA regulations in effect as of the date of such
promulgation. In addition, if the EPA shall have outstanding any proposed
regulations relating to lead-based paint activities (other than as amendments to
existing EPA regulations), as of the date of promulgation of any related regulations
by the Board, then the related regulations of the Board shall not be more stringent
than the proposed EPA regulations. In the event that the EPA shall adopt any final
regulations subsequent to the promulgation by the Board of related regulations, then
the Board shall, as soon as practicable, amend its existing regulations so as to be not
more stringent than such EPA regulations; and
• Promulgate regulations for the licensing of home inspectors not inconsistent with
this chapter regarding the professional qualifications of home inspectors applicants,
the requirements necessary for passing home inspectors examinations, the proper
conduct of its examinations, the proper conduct of the home inspectors licensed by
the Board, and the proper discharge of its duties.
Appendix B
House Bill 2195
VIRGINIA ACTS OF ASSEMBLY - 2025 SESSION

CHAPTER 251
An Act to amend and reenact § 59.1-200, as it is currently effective and as it shall become effective, of the
Code of Virginia, relating to Virginia Consumer Protection Act; mold remediation; emergency.

[H 2195]
Approved March 21, 2025
Be it enacted by the General Assembly of Virginia:

1. That § 59.1-200, as it is currently effective and as it shall become effective, of the Code of Virginia is
amended and reenacted as follows:
§ 59.1-200. (Effective until July 1, 2025) Prohibited practices.
A. The following fraudulent acts or practices committed by a supplier in connection with a consumer
transaction are hereby declared unlawful:
1. Misrepresenting goods or services as those of another;
2. Misrepresenting the source, sponsorship, approval, or certification of goods or services;
3. Misrepresenting the affiliation, connection, or association of the supplier, or of the goods or services,
with another;
4. Misrepresenting geographic origin in connection with goods or services;
5. Misrepresenting that goods or services have certain quantities, characteristics, ingredients, uses, or
benefits;
6. Misrepresenting that goods or services are of a particular standard, quality, grade, style, or model;
7. Advertising or offering for sale goods that are used, secondhand, repossessed, defective, blemished,
deteriorated, or reconditioned, or that are "seconds," irregulars, imperfects, or "not first class," without clearly
and unequivocally indicating in the advertisement or offer for sale that the goods are used, secondhand,
repossessed, defective, blemished, deteriorated, reconditioned, or are "seconds," irregulars, imperfects, or "not
first class";
8. Advertising goods or services with intent not to sell them as advertised, or with intent not to sell at the
price or upon the terms advertised.
In any action brought under this subdivision, the refusal by any person, or any employee, agent, or servant
thereof, to sell any goods or services advertised or offered for sale at the price or upon the terms advertised or
offered, shall be prima facie evidence of a violation of this subdivision. This paragraph shall not apply when
it is clearly and conspicuously stated in the advertisement or offer by which such goods or services are
advertised or offered for sale, that the supplier or offeror has a limited quantity or amount of such goods or
services for sale, and the supplier or offeror at the time of such advertisement or offer did in fact have or
reasonably expected to have at least such quantity or amount for sale;
9. Making false or misleading statements of fact concerning the reasons for, existence of, or amounts of
price reductions;
10. Misrepresenting that repairs, alterations, modifications, or services have been performed or parts
installed;
11. Misrepresenting by the use of any written or documentary material that appears to be an invoice or bill
for merchandise or services previously ordered;
12. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, using in any manner the words "wholesale,"
"wholesaler," "factory," or "manufacturer" in the supplier's name, or to describe the nature of the supplier's
business, unless the supplier is actually engaged primarily in selling at wholesale or in manufacturing the
goods or services advertised or offered for sale;
13. Using in any contract or lease any liquidated damage clause, penalty clause, or waiver of defense, or
attempting to collect any liquidated damages or penalties under any clause, waiver, damages, or penalties that
are void or unenforceable under any otherwise applicable laws of the Commonwealth, or under federal statutes
or regulations;
13a. Failing to provide to a consumer, or failing to use or include in any written document or material
provided to or executed by a consumer, in connection with a consumer transaction any statement, disclosure,
notice, or other information however characterized when the supplier is required by 16 C.F.R. Part 433 to so
provide, use, or include the statement, disclosure, notice, or other information in connection with the consumer
transaction;
14. Using any other deception, fraud, false pretense, false promise, or misrepresentation in connection
with a consumer transaction;
15. Violating any provision of § 3.2-6509, 3.2-6512, 3.2-6513, 3.2-6513.1, 3.2-6514, 3.2-6515, 3.2-6516,
or 3.2-6519 is a violation of this chapter;
16. Failing to disclose all conditions, charges, or fees relating to:
2 of 9
a. The return of goods for refund, exchange, or credit. Such disclosure shall be by means of a sign attached
to the goods, or placed in a conspicuous public area of the premises of the supplier, so as to be readily
noticeable and readable by the person obtaining the goods from the supplier. If the supplier does not permit a
refund, exchange, or credit for return, he shall so state on a similar sign. The provisions of this subdivision
shall not apply to any retail merchant who has a policy of providing, for a period of not less than 20 days after
date of purchase, a cash refund or credit to the purchaser's credit card account for the return of defective,
unused, or undamaged merchandise upon presentation of proof of purchase. In the case of merchandise paid
for by check, the purchase shall be treated as a cash purchase and any refund may be delayed for a period of
10 banking days to allow for the check to clear. This subdivision does not apply to sale merchandise that is
obviously distressed, out of date, post season, or otherwise reduced for clearance; nor does this subdivision
apply to special order purchases where the purchaser has requested the supplier to order merchandise of a
specific or unusual size, color, or brand not ordinarily carried in the store or the store's catalog; nor shall this
subdivision apply in connection with a transaction for the sale or lease of motor vehicles, farm tractors, or
motorcycles as defined in § 46.2-100;
b. A layaway agreement. Such disclosure shall be furnished to the consumer (i) in writing at the time of
the layaway agreement, or (ii) by means of a sign placed in a conspicuous public area of the premises of the
supplier, so as to be readily noticeable and readable by the consumer, or (iii) on the bill of sale. Disclosure
shall include the conditions, charges, or fees in the event that a consumer breaches the agreement;
16a. Failing to provide written notice to a consumer of an existing open-end credit balance in excess of $5
(i) on an account maintained by the supplier and (ii) resulting from such consumer's overpayment on such
account. Suppliers shall give consumers written notice of such credit balances within 60 days of receiving
overpayments. If the credit balance information is incorporated into statements of account furnished
consumers by suppliers within such 60-day period, no separate or additional notice is required;
17. If a supplier enters into a written agreement with a consumer to resolve a dispute that arises in
connection with a consumer transaction, failing to adhere to the terms and conditions of such an agreement;
18. Violating any provision of the Virginia Health Club Act, Chapter 24 (§ 59.1-294 et seq.);
19. Violating any provision of the Virginia Home Solicitation Sales Act, Chapter 2.1 (§ 59.1-21.1 et seq.);
20. Violating any provision of the Automobile Repair Facilities Act, Chapter 17.1 (§ 59.1-207.1 et seq.);
21. Violating any provision of the Virginia Lease-Purchase Agreement Act, Chapter 17.4 (§ 59.1-207.17
et seq.);
22. Violating any provision of the Prizes and Gifts Act, Chapter 31 (§ 59.1-415 et seq.);
23. Violating any provision of the Virginia Public Telephone Information Act, Chapter 32 (§ 59.1-424 et
seq.);
24. Violating any provision of § 54.1-1505;
25. Violating any provision of the Motor Vehicle Manufacturers' Warranty Adjustment Act, Chapter 17.6
(§ 59.1-207.34 et seq.);
26. Violating any provision of § 3.2-5627, relating to the pricing of merchandise;
27. Violating any provision of the Pay-Per-Call Services Act, Chapter 33 (§ 59.1-429 et seq.);
28. Violating any provision of the Extended Service Contract Act, Chapter 34 (§ 59.1-435 et seq.);
29. Violating any provision of the Virginia Membership Camping Act, Chapter 25 (§ 59.1-311 et seq.);
30. Violating any provision of the Comparison Price Advertising Act, Chapter 17.7 (§ 59.1-207.40 et
seq.);
31. Violating any provision of the Virginia Travel Club Act, Chapter 36 (§ 59.1-445 et seq.);
32. Violating any provision of §§ 46.2-1231 and 46.2-1233.1;
33. Violating any provision of Chapter 40 (§ 54.1-4000 et seq.) of Title 54.1;
34. Violating any provision of Chapter 10.1 (§ 58.1-1031 et seq.) of Title 58.1;
35. Using the consumer's social security number as the consumer's account number with the supplier, if
the consumer has requested in writing that the supplier use an alternate number not associated with the
consumer's social security number;
36. Violating any provision of Chapter 18 (§ 6.2-1800 et seq.) of Title 6.2;
37. Violating any provision of § 8.01-40.2;
38. Violating any provision of Article 7 (§ 32.1-212 et seq.) of Chapter 6 of Title 32.1;
39. Violating any provision of Chapter 34.1 (§ 59.1-441.1 et seq.);
40. Violating any provision of Chapter 20 (§ 6.2-2000 et seq.) of Title 6.2;
41. Violating any provision of the Virginia Post-Disaster Anti-Price Gouging Act, Chapter 46 (§ 59.1-525
et seq.). For the purposes of this subdivision, "consumer transaction" has the same meaning as provided in §
59.1-526;
42. Violating any provision of Chapter 47 (§ 59.1-530 et seq.);
43. Violating any provision of § 59.1-443.2;
44. Violating any provision of Chapter 48 (§ 59.1-533 et seq.);
45. Violating any provision of Chapter 25 (§ 6.2-2500 et seq.) of Title 6.2;
46. Violating the provisions of clause (i) of subsection B of § 54.1-1115;
3 of 9
47. Violating any provision of § 18.2-239;
48. Violating any provision of Chapter 26 (§ 59.1-336 et seq.);
49. Selling, offering for sale, or manufacturing for sale a children's product the supplier knows or has
reason to know was recalled by the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission. There is a rebuttable
presumption that a supplier has reason to know a children's product was recalled if notice of the recall has
been posted continuously at least 30 days before the sale, offer for sale, or manufacturing for sale on the
website of the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission. This prohibition does not apply to children's
products that are used, secondhand or "seconds";
50. Violating any provision of Chapter 44.1 (§ 59.1-518.1 et seq.);
51. Violating any provision of Chapter 22 (§ 6.2-2200 et seq.) of Title 6.2;
52. Violating any provision of § 8.2-317.1;
53. Violating subsection A of § 9.1-149.1;
54. Selling, offering for sale, or using in the construction, remodeling, or repair of any residential dwelling
in the Commonwealth, any drywall that the supplier knows or has reason to know is defective drywall. This
subdivision shall not apply to the sale or offering for sale of any building or structure in which defective
drywall has been permanently installed or affixed;
55. Engaging in fraudulent or improper or dishonest conduct as defined in § 54.1-1118 while engaged in a
transaction that was initiated (i) during a declared state of emergency as defined in § 44-146.16 or (ii) to repair
damage resulting from the event that prompted the declaration of a state of emergency, regardless of whether
the supplier is licensed as a contractor in the Commonwealth pursuant to Chapter 11 (§ 54.1-1100 et seq.) of
Title 54.1;
56. Violating any provision of Chapter 33.1 (§ 59.1-434.1 et seq.);
57. Violating any provision of § 18.2-178, 18.2-178.1, or 18.2-200.1;
58. Violating any provision of Chapter 17.8 (§ 59.1-207.45 et seq.). For the purposes of this subdivision,
"consumer transaction" also includes transactions involving an automatic renewal or continuous service offer
by a supplier to a small business, as those terms are defined in § 59.1-207.45;
59. Violating any provision of subsection E of § 32.1-126;
60. Violating any provision of § 54.1-111 relating to the unlicensed practice of a profession licensed under
Chapter 11 (§ 54.1-1100 et seq.) or Chapter 21 (§ 54.1-2100 et seq.) of Title 54.1;
61. Violating any provision of § 2.2-2001.5;
62. Violating any provision of Chapter 5.2 (§ 54.1-526 et seq.) of Title 54.1;
63. Violating any provision of § 6.2-312;
64. Violating any provision of Chapter 20.1 (§ 6.2-2026 et seq.) of Title 6.2;
65. Violating any provision of Chapter 26 (§ 6.2-2600 et seq.) of Title 6.2;
66. Violating any provision of Chapter 54 (§ 59.1-586 et seq.);
67. Knowingly violating any provision of § 8.01-27.5;
68. Failing to, in accordance with § 59.1-207.46, (i) make available a conspicuous online option to cancel
a recurring purchase of a good or service or (ii) with respect to a free trial lasting more than 30 days, notify a
consumer of his option to cancel such free trial within 30 days of the end of the trial period to avoid an
obligation to pay for the goods or services;
69. Selling or offering for sale any substance intended for human consumption, orally or by inhalation,
that contains a synthetic derivative of tetrahydrocannabinol. As used in this subdivision, "synthetic derivative"
means a chemical compound produced by man through a chemical transformation to turn a compound into a
different compound by adding or subtracting molecules to or from the original compound. This subdivision
shall not (i) apply to products that are approved for marketing by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and
scheduled in the Drug Control Act (§ 54.1-3400 et seq.) or (ii) be construed to prohibit any conduct permitted
under Chapter 16 (§ 4.1-1600 et seq.) of Title 4.1;
70. Selling or offering for sale to a person younger than 21 years of age any substance intended for human
consumption, orally or by inhalation, that contains tetrahydrocannabinol. This subdivision shall not (i) apply
to products that are approved for marketing by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and scheduled in the
Drug Control Act (§ 54.1-3400 et seq.) or (ii) be construed to prohibit any conduct permitted under Chapter
16 (§ 4.1-1600 et seq.) of Title 4.1;
71. Selling or offering for sale any substance intended for human consumption, orally or by inhalation,
that contains tetrahydrocannabinol, unless such substance is (i) contained in child-resistant packaging, as
defined in § 4.1-600; (ii) equipped with a label that states, in English and in a font no less than 1/16 of an inch,
(a) that the substance contains tetrahydrocannabinol and may not be sold to persons younger than 21 years of
age, (b) all ingredients contained in the substance, (c) the amount of such substance that constitutes a single
serving, and (d) the total percentage and milligrams of tetrahydrocannabinol included in the substance and the
number of milligrams of tetrahydrocannabinol that are contained in each serving; and (iii) accompanied by a
certificate of analysis, produced by an independent laboratory that is accredited pursuant to standard ISO/IEC
17025 of the International Organization of Standardization by a third-party accrediting body, that states the
tetrahydrocannabinol concentration of the substance or the tetrahydrocannabinol
4 of 9
concentration of the batch from which the substance originates. This subdivision shall not (i) apply to products
that are approved for marketing by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and scheduled in the Drug Control
Act (§ 54.1-3400 et seq.) or (ii) be construed to prohibit any conduct permitted under Chapter 16 (§ 4.1-1600
et seq.) of Title 4.1;
72. Manufacturing, offering for sale at retail, or selling at retail an industrial hemp extract, as defined in §
3.2-5145.1, a food containing an industrial hemp extract, or a substance containing tetrahydrocannabinol that
depicts or is in the shape of a human, animal, vehicle, or fruit;
73. Selling or offering for sale any substance intended for human consumption, orally or by inhalation,
that contains tetrahydrocannabinol and, without authorization, bears, is packaged in a container or wrapper
that bears, or is otherwise labeled to bear the trademark, trade name, famous mark as defined in 15 U.S.C. §
1125, or other identifying mark, imprint, or device, or any likeness thereof, of a manufacturer, processor,
packer, or distributor of a product intended for human consumption other than the manufacturer, processor,
packer, or distributor that did in fact so manufacture, process, pack, or distribute such substance;
74. Selling or offering for sale a topical hemp product, as defined in § 3.2-4112, that does not include a
label stating that the product is not intended for human consumption. This subdivision shall not (i) apply to
products that are approved for marketing by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and scheduled in the
Drug Control Act (§ 54.1-3400 et seq.), (ii) be construed to prohibit any conduct permitted under Chapter 16
(§ 4.1-1600 et seq.) of Title 4.1, or (iii) apply to topical hemp products that were manufactured prior to July
1, 2023, provided that the person provides documentation of the date of manufacture if requested;
75. Violating any provision of § 59.1-466.8;
76. Violating subsection F of § 36-96.3:1;
77. Selling or offering for sale (i) any kratom product to a person younger than 21 years of age or (ii) any
kratom product that does not include a label listing all ingredients and with the following guidance: "This
product may be harmful to your health, has not been evaluated by the FDA, and is not intended to diagnose,
treat, cure, or prevent any disease." As used in this subdivision, "kratom" means any part of the leaf of the
plant Mitragyna speciosa or any extract thereof;
78. Advertising of any ignition interlock system in Virginia by an ignition interlock vendor not approved
by the Commission on the Virginia Alcohol Safety Action Program to operate in Virginia; targeted advertising
of any ignition interlock system to a person before determination of guilt; and any advertising, whether before
or after determination of guilt, without a conspicuous statement that such advertisement is not affiliated with
any government agency. For purposes of this subdivision, "ignition interlock system" has the same meaning
as ascribed to that term in § 18.2-270.1 and "targeted advertising" has the same meaning ascribed to that term
in § 59.1-575 and includes direct mailings to an individual. This provision shall not apply to ignition interlock
service vendor ads, pamphlets, or kiosk advertisements approved by the Commission on the Virginia Alcohol
Safety Action Program and provided at a Commission-approved location;
79. Failing to disclose the total cost of a good or continuous service, as defined in § 59.1-207.45, to a
consumer, including any mandatory fees or charges, prior to entering into an agreement for the sale of any
such good or provision of any such continuous service;
80. Violating any provision of the Unfair Real Estate Service Agreement Act (§ 55.1-3200 et seq.);
81. Selling or offering for sale services as a professional mold remediator to be performed upon any
residential dwelling without holding a mold remediation certification from the Institute of Inspection,
Cleaning and Restoration Certification (IICRC) a nationally or internationally recognized certifying body for
mold remediation, and failing to comply with (i) the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's publication on
Mold Remediation in Schools and Commercial Buildings, as revised; (ii) the ANSI/IICRC S520 Standard for
Professional Mold Remediation, as revised; or (iii) any other equivalent ANSI-accredited mold remediation
standard, when conducting or offering to conduct mold remediation in the Commonwealth; and
82. Willfully violating any provision of § 59.1-444.4.
B. Nothing in this section shall be construed to invalidate or make unenforceable any contract or lease
solely by reason of the failure of such contract or lease to comply with any other law of the Commonwealth
or any federal statute or regulation, to the extent such other law, statute, or regulation provides that a violation
of such law, statute, or regulation shall not invalidate or make unenforceable such contract or lease.
§ 59.1-200. (Effective July 1, 2025) Prohibited practices.
A. The following fraudulent acts or practices committed by a supplier in connection with a consumer
transaction are hereby declared unlawful:
1. Misrepresenting goods or services as those of another;
2. Misrepresenting the source, sponsorship, approval, or certification of goods or services;
3. Misrepresenting the affiliation, connection, or association of the supplier, or of the goods or services,
with another;
4. Misrepresenting geographic origin in connection with goods or services;
5. Misrepresenting that goods or services have certain quantities, characteristics, ingredients, uses, or
benefits;
5 of 9
6. Misrepresenting that goods or services are of a particular standard, quality, grade, style, or model;
7. Advertising or offering for sale goods that are used, secondhand, repossessed, defective, blemished,
deteriorated, or reconditioned, or that are "seconds," irregulars, imperfects, or "not first class," without clearly
and unequivocally indicating in the advertisement or offer for sale that the goods are used, secondhand,
repossessed, defective, blemished, deteriorated, reconditioned, or are "seconds," irregulars, imperfects, or "not
first class";
8. Advertising goods or services with intent not to sell them as advertised, or with intent not to sell at the
price or upon the terms advertised.
In any action brought under this subdivision, the refusal by any person, or any employee, agent, or servant
thereof, to sell any goods or services advertised or offered for sale at the price or upon the terms advertised or
offered, shall be prima facie evidence of a violation of this subdivision. This paragraph shall not apply when
it is clearly and conspicuously stated in the advertisement or offer by which such goods or services are
advertised or offered for sale, that the supplier or offeror has a limited quantity or amount of such goods or
services for sale, and the supplier or offeror at the time of such advertisement or offer did in fact have or
reasonably expected to have at least such quantity or amount for sale;
9. Making false or misleading statements of fact concerning the reasons for, existence of, or amounts of
price reductions;
10. Misrepresenting that repairs, alterations, modifications, or services have been performed or parts
installed;
11. Misrepresenting by the use of any written or documentary material that appears to be an invoice or bill
for merchandise or services previously ordered;
12. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, using in any manner the words "wholesale,"
"wholesaler," "factory," or "manufacturer" in the supplier's name, or to describe the nature of the supplier's
business, unless the supplier is actually engaged primarily in selling at wholesale or in manufacturing the
goods or services advertised or offered for sale;
13. Using in any contract or lease any liquidated damage clause, penalty clause, or waiver of defense, or
attempting to collect any liquidated damages or penalties under any clause, waiver, damages, or penalties that
are void or unenforceable under any otherwise applicable laws of the Commonwealth, or under federal statutes
or regulations;
13a. Failing to provide to a consumer, or failing to use or include in any written document or material
provided to or executed by a consumer, in connection with a consumer transaction any statement, disclosure,
notice, or other information however characterized when the supplier is required by 16 C.F.R. Part 433 to so
provide, use, or include the statement, disclosure, notice, or other information in connection with the consumer
transaction;
14. Using any other deception, fraud, false pretense, false promise, or misrepresentation in connection
with a consumer transaction;
15. Violating any provision of § 3.2-6509, 3.2-6512, 3.2-6513, 3.2-6513.1, 3.2-6514, 3.2-6515, 3.2-6516,
or 3.2-6519 is a violation of this chapter;
16. Failing to disclose all conditions, charges, or fees relating to:
a. The return of goods for refund, exchange, or credit. Such disclosure shall be by means of a sign attached
to the goods, or placed in a conspicuous public area of the premises of the supplier, so as to be readily
noticeable and readable by the person obtaining the goods from the supplier. If the supplier does not permit a
refund, exchange, or credit for return, he shall so state on a similar sign. The provisions of this subdivision
shall not apply to any retail merchant who has a policy of providing, for a period of not less than 20 days after
date of purchase, a cash refund or credit to the purchaser's credit card account for the return of defective,
unused, or undamaged merchandise upon presentation of proof of purchase. In the case of merchandise paid
for by check, the purchase shall be treated as a cash purchase and any refund may be delayed for a period of
10 banking days to allow for the check to clear. This subdivision does not apply to sale merchandise that is
obviously distressed, out of date, post season, or otherwise reduced for clearance; nor does this subdivision
apply to special order purchases where the purchaser has requested the supplier to order merchandise of a
specific or unusual size, color, or brand not ordinarily carried in the store or the store's catalog; nor shall this
subdivision apply in connection with a transaction for the sale or lease of motor vehicles, farm tractors, or
motorcycles as defined in § 46.2-100;
b. A layaway agreement. Such disclosure shall be furnished to the consumer (i) in writing at the time of
the layaway agreement, or (ii) by means of a sign placed in a conspicuous public area of the premises of the
supplier, so as to be readily noticeable and readable by the consumer, or (iii) on the bill of sale. Disclosure
shall include the conditions, charges, or fees in the event that a consumer breaches the agreement;
16a. Failing to provide written notice to a consumer of an existing open-end credit balance in excess of $5
(i) on an account maintained by the supplier and (ii) resulting from such consumer's overpayment on such
account. Suppliers shall give consumers written notice of such credit balances within 60 days of receiving
overpayments. If the credit balance information is incorporated into statements of account furnished
consumers by suppliers within such 60-day period, no separate or additional notice is required;
6 of 9
17. If a supplier enters into a written agreement with a consumer to resolve a dispute that arises in
connection with a consumer transaction, failing to adhere to the terms and conditions of such an agreement;
18. Violating any provision of the Virginia Health Club Act, Chapter 24 (§ 59.1-294 et seq.);
19. Violating any provision of the Virginia Home Solicitation Sales Act, Chapter 2.1 (§ 59.1-21.1 et seq.);
20. Violating any provision of the Automobile Repair Facilities Act, Chapter 17.1 (§ 59.1-207.1 et seq.);
21. Violating any provision of the Virginia Lease-Purchase Agreement Act, Chapter 17.4 (§ 59.1-207.17
et seq.);
22. Violating any provision of the Prizes and Gifts Act, Chapter 31 (§ 59.1-415 et seq.);
23. Violating any provision of the Virginia Public Telephone Information Act, Chapter 32 (§ 59.1-424 et
seq.);
24. Violating any provision of § 54.1-1505;
25. Violating any provision of the Motor Vehicle Manufacturers' Warranty Adjustment Act, Chapter 17.6
(§ 59.1-207.34 et seq.);
26. Violating any provision of § 3.2-5627, relating to the pricing of merchandise;
27. Violating any provision of the Pay-Per-Call Services Act, Chapter 33 (§ 59.1-429 et seq.);
28. Violating any provision of the Extended Service Contract Act, Chapter 34 (§ 59.1-435 et seq.);
29. Violating any provision of the Virginia Membership Camping Act, Chapter 25 (§ 59.1-311 et seq.);
30. Violating any provision of the Comparison Price Advertising Act, Chapter 17.7 (§ 59.1-207.40 et
seq.);
31. Violating any provision of the Virginia Travel Club Act, Chapter 36 (§ 59.1-445 et seq.);
32. Violating any provision of §§ 46.2-1231 and 46.2-1233.1;
33. Violating any provision of Chapter 40 (§ 54.1-4000 et seq.) of Title 54.1;
34. Violating any provision of Chapter 10.1 (§ 58.1-1031 et seq.) of Title 58.1;
35. Using the consumer's social security number as the consumer's account number with the supplier, if
the consumer has requested in writing that the supplier use an alternate number not associated with the
consumer's social security number;
36. Violating any provision of Chapter 18 (§ 6.2-1800 et seq.) of Title 6.2;
37. Violating any provision of § 8.01-40.2;
38. Violating any provision of Article 7 (§ 32.1-212 et seq.) of Chapter 6 of Title 32.1;
39. Violating any provision of Chapter 34.1 (§ 59.1-441.1 et seq.);
40. Violating any provision of Chapter 20 (§ 6.2-2000 et seq.) of Title 6.2;
41. Violating any provision of the Virginia Post-Disaster Anti-Price Gouging Act, Chapter 46 (§ 59.1-525
et seq.). For the purposes of this subdivision, "consumer transaction" has the same meaning as provided in §
59.1-526;
42. Violating any provision of Chapter 47 (§ 59.1-530 et seq.);
43. Violating any provision of § 59.1-443.2;
44. Violating any provision of Chapter 48 (§ 59.1-533 et seq.);
45. Violating any provision of Chapter 25 (§ 6.2-2500 et seq.) of Title 6.2;
46. Violating the provisions of clause (i) of subsection B of § 54.1-1115;
47. Violating any provision of § 18.2-239;
48. Violating any provision of Chapter 26 (§ 59.1-336 et seq.);
49. Selling, offering for sale, or manufacturing for sale a children's product the supplier knows or has
reason to know was recalled by the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission. There is a rebuttable
presumption that a supplier has reason to know a children's product was recalled if notice of the recall has
been posted continuously at least 30 days before the sale, offer for sale, or manufacturing for sale on the
website of the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission. This prohibition does not apply to children's
products that are used, secondhand or "seconds";
50. Violating any provision of Chapter 44.1 (§ 59.1-518.1 et seq.);
51. Violating any provision of Chapter 22 (§ 6.2-2200 et seq.) of Title 6.2;
52. Violating any provision of § 8.2-317.1;
53. Violating subsection A of § 9.1-149.1;
54. Selling, offering for sale, or using in the construction, remodeling, or repair of any residential dwelling
in the Commonwealth, any drywall that the supplier knows or has reason to know is defective drywall. This
subdivision shall not apply to the sale or offering for sale of any building or structure in which defective
drywall has been permanently installed or affixed;
55. Engaging in fraudulent or improper or dishonest conduct as defined in § 54.1-1118 while engaged in a
transaction that was initiated (i) during a declared state of emergency as defined in § 44-146.16 or (ii) to repair
damage resulting from the event that prompted the declaration of a state of emergency, regardless of whether
the supplier is licensed as a contractor in the Commonwealth pursuant to Chapter 11 (§ 54.1-1100 et seq.) of
Title 54.1;
56. Violating any provision of Chapter 33.1 (§ 59.1-434.1 et seq.);
57. Violating any provision of § 18.2-178, 18.2-178.1, or 18.2-200.1;
7 of 9
58. Violating any provision of Chapter 17.8 (§ 59.1-207.45 et seq.). For the purposes of this subdivision,
"consumer transaction" also includes transactions involving an automatic renewal or continuous service offer
by a supplier to a small business, as those terms are defined in § 59.1-207.45;
59. Violating any provision of subsection E of § 32.1-126;
60. Violating any provision of § 54.1-111 relating to the unlicensed practice of a profession licensed under
Chapter 11 (§ 54.1-1100 et seq.) or Chapter 21 (§ 54.1-2100 et seq.) of Title 54.1;
61. Violating any provision of § 2.2-2001.5;
62. Violating any provision of Chapter 5.2 (§ 54.1-526 et seq.) of Title 54.1;
63. Violating any provision of § 6.2-312;
64. Violating any provision of Chapter 20.1 (§ 6.2-2026 et seq.) of Title 6.2;
65. Violating any provision of Chapter 26 (§ 6.2-2600 et seq.) of Title 6.2;
66. Violating any provision of Chapter 54 (§ 59.1-586 et seq.);
67. Knowingly violating any provision of § 8.01-27.5;
68. Failing to, in accordance with § 59.1-207.46, (i) make available a conspicuous online option to cancel
a recurring purchase of a good or service or (ii) with respect to a free trial lasting more than 30 days, notify a
consumer of his option to cancel such free trial within 30 days of the end of the trial period to avoid an
obligation to pay for the goods or services;
69. Selling or offering for sale any substance intended for human consumption, orally or by inhalation,
that contains a synthetic derivative of tetrahydrocannabinol. As used in this subdivision, "synthetic derivative"
means a chemical compound produced by man through a chemical transformation to turn a compound into a
different compound by adding or subtracting molecules to or from the original compound. This subdivision
shall not (i) apply to products that are approved for marketing by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and
scheduled in the Drug Control Act (§ 54.1-3400 et seq.) or (ii) be construed to prohibit any conduct permitted
under Chapter 16 (§ 4.1-1600 et seq.) of Title 4.1;
70. Selling or offering for sale to a person younger than 21 years of age any substance intended for human
consumption, orally or by inhalation, that contains tetrahydrocannabinol. This subdivision shall not (i) apply
to products that are approved for marketing by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and scheduled in the
Drug Control Act (§ 54.1-3400 et seq.) or (ii) be construed to prohibit any conduct permitted under Chapter
16 (§ 4.1-1600 et seq.) of Title 4.1;
71. Selling or offering for sale any substance intended for human consumption, orally or by inhalation,
that contains tetrahydrocannabinol, unless such substance is (i) contained in child-resistant packaging, as
defined in § 4.1-600; (ii) equipped with a label that states, in English and in a font no less than 1/16 of an inch,
(a) that the substance contains tetrahydrocannabinol and may not be sold to persons younger than 21 years of
age, (b) all ingredients contained in the substance, (c) the amount of such substance that constitutes a single
serving, and (d) the total percentage and milligrams of tetrahydrocannabinol included in the substance and the
number of milligrams of tetrahydrocannabinol that are contained in each serving; and (iii) accompanied by a
certificate of analysis, produced by an independent laboratory that is accredited pursuant to standard ISO/IEC
17025 of the International Organization of Standardization by a third-party accrediting body, that states the
tetrahydrocannabinol concentration of the substance or the tetrahydrocannabinol concentration of the batch
from which the substance originates. This subdivision shall not (i) apply to products that are approved for
marketing by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and scheduled in the Drug Control Act (§ 54.1-3400 et
seq.) or (ii) be construed to prohibit any conduct permitted under Chapter 16 (§ 4.1-1600 et seq.) of Title 4.1;
72. Manufacturing, offering for sale at retail, or selling at retail an industrial hemp extract, as defined in §
3.2-5145.1, a food containing an industrial hemp extract, or a substance containing tetrahydrocannabinol that
depicts or is in the shape of a human, animal, vehicle, or fruit;
73. Selling or offering for sale any substance intended for human consumption, orally or by inhalation,
that contains tetrahydrocannabinol and, without authorization, bears, is packaged in a container or wrapper
that bears, or is otherwise labeled to bear the trademark, trade name, famous mark as defined in 15 U.S.C. §
1125, or other identifying mark, imprint, or device, or any likeness thereof, of a manufacturer, processor,
packer, or distributor of a product intended for human consumption other than the manufacturer, processor,
packer, or distributor that did in fact so manufacture, process, pack, or distribute such substance;
74. Selling or offering for sale a topical hemp product, as defined in § 3.2-4112, that does not include a
label stating that the product is not intended for human consumption. This subdivision shall not (i) apply to
products that are approved for marketing by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and scheduled in the
Drug Control Act (§ 54.1-3400 et seq.), (ii) be construed to prohibit any conduct permitted under Chapter 16
(§ 4.1-1600 et seq.) of Title 4.1, or (iii) apply to topical hemp products that were manufactured prior to July
1, 2023, provided that the person provides documentation of the date of manufacture if requested;
75. Violating any provision of § 59.1-466.8;
76. Violating subsection F of § 36-96.3:1;
77. Selling or offering for sale (i) any kratom product to a person younger than 21 years of age or (ii) any
kratom product that does not include a label listing all ingredients and with the following guidance: "This
8 of 9
product may be harmful to your health, has not been evaluated by the FDA, and is not intended to diagnose,
treat, cure, or prevent any disease." As used in this subdivision, "kratom" means any part of the leaf of the
plant Mitragyna speciosa or any extract thereof;
78. Advertising of any ignition interlock system in Virginia by an ignition interlock vendor not approved
by the Commission on the Virginia Alcohol Safety Action Program to operate in Virginia; targeted advertising
of any ignition interlock system to a person before determination of guilt; and any advertising, whether before
or after determination of guilt, without a conspicuous statement that such advertisement is not affiliated with
any government agency. For purposes of this subdivision, "ignition interlock system" has the same meaning
as ascribed to that term in § 18.2-270.1 and "targeted advertising" has the same meaning ascribed to that term
in § 59.1-575 and includes direct mailings to an individual. This provision shall not apply to ignition interlock
service vendor ads, pamphlets, or kiosk advertisements approved by the Commission on the Virginia Alcohol
Safety Action Program and provided at a Commission-approved location;
79. Failing to disclose the total cost of a good or continuous service, as defined in § 59.1-207.45, to a
consumer, including any mandatory fees or charges, prior to entering into an agreement for the sale of any
such good or provision of any such continuous service;
80. Violating any provision of the Unfair Real Estate Service Agreement Act (§ 55.1-3200 et seq.);
81. Selling or offering for sale services as a professional mold remediator to be performed upon any
residential dwelling without holding a mold remediation certification from the Institute of Inspection,
Cleaning and Restoration Certification (IICRC) a nationally or internationally recognized certifying body for
mold remediation, and failing to comply with (i) the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's publication on
Mold Remediation in Schools and Commercial Buildings, as revised; (ii) the ANSI/IICRC S520 Standard for
Professional Mold Remediation, as revised; or (iii) any other equivalent ANSI-accredited mold remediation
standard, when conducting or offering to conduct mold remediation in the Commonwealth;
82. Willfully violating any provision of § 59.1-444.4; and
83. Violating any provision of Chapter 23.2 (§ 59.1-293.10 et seq.).
B. Nothing in this section shall be construed to invalidate or make unenforceable any contract or lease
solely by reason of the failure of such contract or lease to comply with any other law of the Commonwealth
or any federal statute or regulation, to the extent such other law, statute, or regulation provides that a violation
of such law, statute, or regulation shall not invalidate or make unenforceable such contract or lease.
2. That an emergency exists and the provisions of the first enactment of this act are in force from its
passage.
3. That the Department of Professional and Occupational Regulation (the Department) shall, in
consultation with the Virginia Department of Health and mold industry professionals, study the current
state of the mold inspection and mold remediation workforce in the Commonwealth utilizing the most
up-to-date data available to determine whether there is sufficient evidence that the licensure or
certification of mold inspectors and mold remediators would benefit the public health, safety, or welfare
and, if so, recommend educational, experiential, or examination requirements for such licensure or
certification. The Department shall submit a report on the state of the mold inspection and mold
remediation workforce in the Commonwealth to the House Committee on General Laws, the Senate
Committee on General Laws and Technology, and the Joint Commission on Administrative Rules by
January 1, 2026.
Appendix C
Workgroup Discussion Summary
Workgroup Discussion
House Bill 2195 directed DPOR to work with VDH and mold industry professionals to
study the current state of the mold inspection and mold remediation workforce. A
workgroup was formed that included various individuals involved in the mold inspection
and mold remediation industry, a member from the Board for Contractors, a member from
the Virginia Board for Asbestos, Lead, and Home Inspectors, a representative from New
Virginia Majority, a member from the Home Builders Association of Virginia, and a
representative from VDH. In addition to workgroup members, guest speakers from the
Division of Population Health Data with VDH contributed to the study.

The first meeting of the workgroup was held on May 14, 2025. Workgroup members were
presented with six (6) questions specific to the mold industry centered around job
descriptions, current practices, the population of the mold industry workforce, and skills,
education, and experience requirements needed to perform in accordance with industry
standards. Discussion was focused on these topics and provided valuable insight into the
mold industry.

There are three (3) leading national organizations in the mold remediation industry: the
American Council for Accredited Certification (ACAC), the Institute of Inspection Cleaning
and Restoration Certification (IICRC), and the National Organization of Remediators and
Microbial Inspectors (NORMI). These organizations offer training and certifications to
individuals working within the industry. Currently, the Virginia Consumer Protection Act
requires any individual presenting as a mold remediator or engaging in mold remediation
services to hold a certificate obtained through a nationally or internationally recognized
certifying body for mold remediation. There are no statutory requirements related to mold
inspection or mold assessment.

In discussing definitions and industry specific terms, it was expressed that some professionals
avoid using the word “mold” and may refer to such substances as “microbial growth” until
such a time that testing has been complete and the presence of “mold” is confirmed.
Contemplation was given to terms such as “moisture audit,” “water intrusion site,” and
“presence of mold” and it was stated that such terms may be limiting or misleading.
Consideration was also given to utilizing terms such as “source of causation,” and “testing
for an environment that is conducive to mold growth” instead, since mold spore is always
present, meaning there will never be an “absence of mold.”. Within the industry, terms such
as “mold management plan” are replaced with “mold remediation protocol” (MRP) and
“mold remediation workplan” (MRW) by national standards. Lastly, national standards for
conducting an inspection include attention to ‘contents of the home’ as well as the home itself.

Workgroup members shared the thought that the lack of any statutory or regulatory
requirements for mold inspectors presents issues within the industry. While the consensus is
that an inspection report 1 is necessary in the mold remediation process, the reports that mold
0F

remediators receive are lacking, often containing improper or insufficient information. More
times than not, remediators are having to conduct additional inspections prior to preparing
an MRW or conducting any remediation, at an added expense to consumers. Guidelines as
to what an inspection report must contain would be beneficial to the industry.

To perform their job, mold inspectors are likely to need the following equipment and tools:
personal protective equipment (PPE), infrared cameras, borescopes, moisture meters, thermo-
hydrometers, and flashlights. Limited inspections, such as a moisture audit or crawlspace
audit, may be performed in certain situations. A full inspection generally involves walking a
property to examine crawl spaces, openings in the exterior, roofs, gutters, plumbing and
HVAC systems, and using thermal scanners on interior surfaces. Inspectors may take samples
from surfaces or the air, which are sent to laboratories for testing. National standards promote
the use of accredited labs, which usually means the lab is ISO / IEC 17025 certified. Though
it does occur within the industry, it is frowned upon to utilize mold test kits from home
improvement stores such as Lowe’s or Home Depot. Inspectors will often prepare an MRP
for use by remediators.

To perform their job, mold remediators are likely to need the following equipment and tools:
PPE, saws, drills, demolition tools, utility blades, pry bars, air filtration devices, drying
devices, containment materials, micro misters, foggers, and HEPA vacuums. Remediators
develop an MRW to follow based on an MRP or the remediators own assessment. It is not
uncommon for a remediator to take surface and air samples depending upon the initial
inspection performed and the thoroughness of the report. A major component of remediation
is establishing a containment field to seal the affected area and prevent the spread of mold
spores. Containment is established by securing plastic to ceilings and floors to create an
enclosed space with walls and a zippered entry. Filtration devices such as HEPA fans and
vacuums are utilized to create negative pressure and capture contaminated air. After
remediation, a post-remediation evaluation (PRE) is performed. A third party Indoor
Environmental Professional (IEP) might be called upon to perform a final test, or post
remediation verification (PRV).

It is difficult to pinpoint the number of individuals engaged in mold inspection and mold
remediation in Virginia. ACAC, IICRC, and NORMI, among other nationally recognized
organizations, offer different certifications for mold professionals. ACAC offers certification
for Microbial Investigation & Consulting, Microbial Remediation, and Residential Mold
Inspection with roughly 67 certifications issued in Virginia. The IICRC offers certification for
Applied Microbial Remediation Technicians (AMRT) and Mold Remediation Specialists

1
For purposes of this report, the term “inspection report” assumes the lay meaning of a written report that is
created after an examination or inspection occurs and which clearly and objectively describes the findings of
said examination or inspection.
(MRS) with at least 500 certifications held in Virginia. NORMI offers certification for
Remediators and Microbial Inspectors and currently has 12 active members in Virginia, many
of whom hold numerous certifications. Other organizations offering certifications related to
mold inspection and mold remediation include the International Association of Certified
Home Inspectors (InterNACHI), the Mold Inspection Consulting and Remediation
Organization (MICRO), and the American Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA). Though
certification may not be offered, the Global Council for Environmental Health and Safety
(GCEHS), the Restoration Industry Association (RIA), the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA), and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) offer some level
of standards or guidance for professionals working within the mold industry in various
capacities.

To be an effective mold inspector, one must possess a working knowledge of structural
systems, HVAC, plumbing, roofing, and environmental science. Key skills include mold
identification, sampling techniques, and report writing. Much of these necessary skills are
acquired through hands-on, field-based experience. Remediators need strong technical skills,
similar to contractors, particularly in containment, demolition, and encapsulation.
Remediation techniques vary depending on whether the affected surfaces are porous,
requiring removal of materials, or non-porous, requiring sanitization. Similar to an inspector,
skills necessary to properly remediate mold are best acquired through hands-on, field-based
experience.

Current industry standards for entry into the profession of mold inspection and mold
remediation are largely established by national and international organizations such as
ACAC, IICRC, and NORMI, as few states require licensure or certification for mold
inspectors and mold remediators. There was consensus that a high school diploma (or
equivalent) is beneficial to those required to write reports and manage projects, but the
workgroup agreed that overall, training and experience outweigh formal education in
preparing individuals for the field.

In discussing the potential for licensing, there was discussion as to whether or not individual
workers or just firms should be licensed. Licensing on the individual level may promote
accountability, but licensing firms may negate concerns related to turnover and temporary
labor of individuals. It appears most likely that firms engaging in remediation activities in
Virginia are required to hold a contractor license based on the nature of work performed.
There was not a consensus that this is industry practice, suggesting many firms engaged in
remediation services are also engaged in unlicensed contracting.

The workgroup also discussed the potential conflict of interest in performing both the
inspection and remediation on a single project, with supporters of separation pointing to
ethical risks and financial exploitation and opponents of separation pointing to practicality,
particularly in underserved communities, and the lack of regulation for inspectors. Most
organizations currently promote or even mandate conflict-of-interest disclosure.

In closing, the workgroup touched on the health implications of mold exposure, noting that
the main focus of the next meeting will be on the effect mold exposure has on health with a
smaller focus being on licensing and certification requirements of other states.

The workgroup met again on July 16, 2025. During this meeting, discussion was focused on
the effects mold has on health, specifically, whether mold poses a significant risk to the health
and wellbeing of the public. The workgroup was shown a collection of data obtained by
DPOR staff as well as a presentation offered by representatives from the Virginia Department
of Health (VDH). 2 In addition to health-related data, the workgroup was provided with
1F

information regarding regulatory requirements placed on the mold industry in several other
states and Washington, D.C. After the data was presented, the workgroup was given four (4)
questions specific to health risks related to mold including the innate dangers of mold, the
significance of dangers associated with mold exposure, communities most susceptible to mold
exposure and improper remediation, and the likelihood that more stringent regulation will
significantly impact the number of individuals affected by mold exposure. Additionally, two
(2) individuals shared comments during the public comment period at the beginning of the
meeting. 32F

Drawing a conclusion as to the extent of those affected by mold or the true effects mold has
on health is difficult. There is no health-related data available, on a national, state, or local
level, that is specific to mold related illness. As such, the data presented centered around
asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) rates since mold exposure may
be a trigger for these conditions.

The innate dangers of mold affect both person and property. While mold and mold dangers
are the same everywhere, some areas will experience greater mold risks due to climate and
weather. The costs associated with remedying mold vary. In a situation where mold has
infested both building components and personal household items such as furniture, the costs
for remediation are likely to be high.

The significance of the dangers associated with mold appear to be situational and largely
impacted by underlying health issues and other outlying factors. While exposure to mold may
cause severe illness in an immunocompromised individual, the same exposure may not trigger
any reaction whatsoever in an otherwise healthy individual. While it is not fair to say that the
dangers of mold exposure are entirely insignificant, it appears fair to conclude that the dangers
are more significant to a sensitive portion of the population.

2
The full collection of data, as well as a summary and analysis of data presented by VDH is contained in
various attachments included with this report.
3
The full comments received are contained in Attachment #2.
It does appear that the community most affected by mold and improper mold remediation are
tenants. There is no requirement for landlords to utilize properly accredited mold remediation
companies or to properly remediate mold when reported by a tenant. In looking at the
channels through which individuals are able to file complaints related to mold and mold
remediation services, the overwhelming majority are made by tenants filing against a
landlord. Calls to VDH regarding mold related complaints are also largely from tenants
seeking remedy against a landlord.

Additional Workgroup Observations
• There is no standard for what level of mold is considered acceptable or unacceptable
which may pose challenges in effectively regulating the mold industry.
• Mold is naturally occurring and exists everywhere; there can never be a guarantee,
despite any level of remediation, that mold will not return.
• There is a need to ensure that individuals offering services related to mold
inspections are held to a similar standard as those offering mold remediation
services.
• There is no health-related data that specifically identifies the actual danger that mold
presents; while asthma and COPD rates can be considered, there are many other
environmental factors, as well as an individual’s lifestyle, that contribute to these
conditions.
• The way buildings are constructed has a direct impact on conditions in which mold
exists; without proper ventilation and routine care such as HVAC maintenance, the
likelihood of the existence of mold is not only greater, but likely.
• Making amendments to the building code might enable building officials to play a
bigger role in preventing the construction of buildings that are more susceptible to
mold growth and also addressing issues present in rental properties, requiring
landlords and residential building contractors to address violations that may
contribute to mold existence.
• Tenants, rather than homeowners, appear to be the population most affected by
improper mold remediation; homeowners have the ability to seek services and
choose an individual or company to perform inspection and remediation services
while tenants are at the mercy of a landlord.
• The only remedy tenants have when seeking to hold a landlord accountable for
failing to properly remediate mold is to file a civil action; many tenants are not likely
to pursue this for fear of retribution in the form of raised rent prices or eviction.
• More education, to include the implementation of programs or methods by which
information and resources related to mold remediation can be distributed to the
public, specifically for tenants and landlords, may return a positive impact for tenants
experiencing mold issues.
• Requiring landlords to hire certified mold remediators may help ensure remediation
is done correctly; often times landlords are sending maintenance teams to perform
surface cleanings that do not eradicate mold.
• Placing more stringent regulation on the mold industry will not have any impact on
mold related issues for tenants since such regulation will not apply to landlords.

Health Effects of Mold
Mold is a commonly occurring fungus that develops in moisture containing environments.
Damp, wet, and humid environments are particularly conducive to mold growth and exist
both indoors and outdoors. Mold may grow in visible or hidden areas of a building or home
and may also be introduced from outside sources. 4 3F

Mold spreads through the release of spores which are visually undetectable. Spores can
attach to nearly any surface such as clothing, bags, shoes, or pets, and be carried from one
area to another. The spores are potential irritants and allergens produced by mold, which
may be impactful to an individual’s health upon contact, inhalation, or ingestion. Mold
spores can be found in the air in almost any environment.

Mycotoxins are byproducts produced by certain molds. These byproducts are considered
toxic; however, limited information is available from government sources concerning their
potential health effects from home exposure. 5 Government focus regarding mycotoxins is
4F

predominately associated with exposure through food, rather than mold growth in
residences, schools, or workplaces.

The health effects of continuous mold exposure vary by individual. Some may experience
no adverse effects when exposed to mold, while particularly vulnerable groups might face a
greater burden of health effects. Individuals continuously exposed to mold, who have no
comorbidities, may experience no symptoms, or symptoms such as irritation to the eyes,
skin, nose, throat, or lungs, headaches, memory problems, mood changes, or aches and
pains. 6 Though it is possible for individuals with no comorbidities to present with the listed
5F

symptoms, adverse health effects are more prevalent in those with a mold allergy, asthma or
other respiratory illness, immune-compromised individuals, young children, or the elderly. 7 6F

4
https://www.cdc.gov/mold-health/about/index.html
5
https://www.epa.gov/mold/mold-course-chapter-1
6
List derived from multiple sources, see references.
7
List derived from multiple sources, see references.
According to the Center for Disease Control (CDC), the three most common indoor molds
are Cladosporium, Penicillium, and Aspergillus. 8 Exposure to Aspergillus may cause
7F

complications for immune-compromised individuals and those with chronic respiratory
conditions. The CDC states, “most people do not get sick from Aspergillus,” however it
may cause a “mild to severe” illness for susceptible individuals. 9 8F

While there are ongoing studies regarding the impact mold exposure has on health,
available information indicates that mold exposure impacts individuals very differently. It is
also evident that an individual’s pre-dispositions play a significant role in the health effects
experienced due to mold exposure.

Relevant Data
Data are not available for instances of mold-specific hospitalizations or illness rates in
Virginia or the United States. As symptoms vary by individual, and infections such as
Aspergillosis are not reportable conditions in the United States, it is extremely challenging
to determine the frequency of these conditions in Virginia or elsewhere. Since mold is
known to trigger individuals with asthma and other respiratory illnesses, data obtained
focuses on asthma and COPD hospitalization rates across localities in Virginia and what
areas are most affected. Asthma and COPD exist without the presence of mold, and the
data does not indicate causation, however, it may highlight areas containing more at-risk
individuals for complications due to mold exposure.

Utilizing data available through the Virginia Department of Health (VDH) Environmental
Public Health Tracking, research was conducted on the frequency of asthma and COPD
hospitalization rates, by locality, in Virginia from 2019 through 2023; 10 this is the most
9F

relevant, up-to-date data available. For each of the five years examined, the top ten highest
rates of asthma and COPD hospitalizations were noted. Of those five years, the frequency
of each locality within the top ten highest rates was also noted. The three localities
appearing in the top ten highest asthma hospitalization rates for all five years were
Hopewell City with an average rate of 138.7, Petersburg City with an average rate of 111.9,
and Richmond City with an average rate of 105.96. 11 For COPD, the only locality
10F

8
https://www.cdc.gov/mold-health/about/index.html
9
https://www.cdc.gov/aspergillosis/about/index.html
10
A five-year window was chosen to maintain relevancy.
11
Rate calculated per 100,000 population: Virginia Department of Health. Division of Population Health Data.
Environmental Public Health Tracking Program. Asthma Hospitalizations.
https://www.vdh.virginia.gov/environmental-public-health-tracking/asthma/asthma-hospitalizations/
appearing in the top ten highest rates for all five years was Martinsville City with an average
rate of 688.34. 12
11F

The data for asthma and COPD hospitalization rates were available by age range, statewide.
From 2019 through 2023, the range with the highest average asthma hospitalization rate
was 0-4 years of age with an average rate of 62.5, followed by 5-14 years of age with an
average rate of 42. For COPD the highest hospitalization rate was for those who are 85
years and older, with an average of 394.6, followed by those who are 65 to 84 years of age
with an average of 339.1.

Data similar to that collected from VDH was also obtained from Florida, Texas, and New
York. This was done in an effort to establish a potential correlation between regulation of
the mold industry and lower incidence rates of illnesses known to be exacerbated by mold
exposure. Analysis of the data collected shows that overall, Virginia had similar or lower
incidence rates of asthma and COPD than Florida, Texas, and New York. 13 12F

In addition to determining the areas most affected and incidence rates of asthma and
COPD in Virginia, Florida, Texas, and New York, additional data was considered in an
effort to get a more specific picture of individuals and communities most affected by mold
exposure. This includes data specific to age groups as well as data related to the percentage
of rental properties located in the areas with the highest rates of asthma and COPD-related
hospitalizations. Analysis of the data collected shows that individuals aged 0-4 years
experience the highest rate of asthma-related hospitalizations across all states and
individuals over the age of 65, respectively, experience the highest rate of COPD-related
hospitalizations across all states. 14 13F

During the workgroup meeting on July 16, 2025, VDH staff presented mold-related,
syndromic surveillance data that had been reported by emergency departments 15 and urgent 14F

care centers in Virginia 16 from January 2022 to May 2025. The data consisted of visits to
15F

emergency departments and urgent care centers where the chief complaint mentioned
“mold,” or where the discharge diagnosis code represented “contact with and (suspected)
exposure to mold (toxic).” The data presented two (2) possible trends: (i) on an annual
basis, peaks in visits occurred between June and October; and (ii) the regions with the

12
Virginia Department of Health. Division of Population Health Data. Environmental Public Health Tracking
Program. COPD Hospitalizations. https://www.vdh.virginia.gov/environmental-public-health-
tracking/copd/copd-hospitalizations-dashboard/
13
Attachment #3 includes asthma and COPD hospitalization rates for the states referenced.
14
Data derived from multiple sources, see References, to include Attachment #3.
15
Syndromic Surveillance Data, Division of Surveillance and Investigation, Office of Epidemiology, Virginia
Department of Health. Syndromic Surveillance – Surveillance and Investigation
16
The data included Virginia and non-Virginia residents that were seen at reporting facilities in Virginia. The
geographic location was assigned by patients’ residential zip codes.
highest rate of visits were Virginia’s Central Region and Eastern Region. This data is not
public and was compiled for this study.

In Virginia, the areas with some of the highest percentages of properties that are rental
properties are located in the greater Richmond area, to include the Cities of Richmond,
Hopewell, and Petersburg. 17 This data was obtained to establish whether there may be a
16F

There is no way to accurately identify when mold may have caused or contributed to
asthma and COPD-related hospitalizations. This makes the actual public health effects of
mold exposure unclear. While certain data about asthma and COPD-related hospitalization
rates are available, it cannot be determined with any certainty how often mold contributed
to these instances. Further, data collected for asthma and COPD-related hospitalization
rates from states that regulate the mold industry does not suggest that those states have
notably lower hospitalization rates than Virginia. As such, it cannot be concluded that
establishing a certification, registration, or licensure requirement will cause improvement to
public health.

17
Virginia Housing Data | BestNeighborhood.org
Appendix D
Degrees of Regulation and Entry Requirements:
A Comprehensive Comparison
STATE DEGREE of REQUIREMENTS FOR ENTRY EXAM REQUIRED
REGULATION
Florida Licensure; Mold Assessor: 2-year degree in Yes (Assessor)
Assessor & related ﬁeld of science
Mold (biology, chemistry,
Remediator environmental, earth, or
physical science) + 1 year
ﬁeld experience or HS
diploma + 4 years of
demonstrated experience.

Remediator: 2-year degree in
a related ﬁeld of science
(biology, chemistry,
environmental, earth, or
physical science) + 1 year
ﬁeld experience or HS
diploma + 4 years of
demonstrated experience.

Illinois Registration: Submit proof of ﬁnancial No
Mold responsibility + proof of
Remediators certiﬁcation by a nationally
recognized, non-proﬁt
organization.
Louisiana Licensure; Mold 24 hours of training in mold No
Remediation remediation & basic mold
Contractors assessment; workers’ comp
coverage (statutory) + $50k
liability insurance
*Also approve training
providers
New Certiﬁcation; Certiﬁcation issued by No
Hampshire Mold Assessors national nonproﬁt
organization accredited by
ANSI, CESB, NCCA or others
operating in compliance with
ISO
New York Licensure; Mold Assessor: Pass an approved No
Assessor, Mold mold assessor training
Remediation course & submitted evidence
Contractor, of worker’s comp coverage +
Mold $50k liability insurance.
Abatement Remediator: Pass an
Worker approved mold remediation
Supervisor, and training course & submitted
Mold evidence of worker’s comp
Abatement coverage + $50k liability
Worker insurance.
Abatement Worker
Supervisor: Pass an
approved mold remediation
training course.
Abatement Worker: Pass an
approved mold abatement
worker training course.
Texas Registration: Remediation Worker: Yes (technicians,
Mold complete approved training consultants, and
Remediation course applicable to mold remediation
Worker remediation. contractors)
Licensure: Mold Assessment Technician: HS
Assessment Diploma or GED, pass
Technician, approved training course, +
Mold comply with insurance
Remediation requirements.
Contractor, Assessment Consultant:
Mold Bachelor’s or graduate
Assessment degree w/major in natural or
Consultant, physical science,
Mold engineering, architecture,
Assessment building construction, or
Company, Mold building sciences + 1 year of
Remediation experience in related ﬁeld; or
Company, Mold no less than 60 college credit
Analysis hours in natural sciences,
Laboratory physical sciences,
environmental sciences,
building sciences, or a
related ﬁeld + 3 years of
experience in related ﬁeld; or
a HS diploma or GED +
5years of experience in
related ﬁeld; or certiﬁcation
as an industrial hygienist,
professional engineer,
professional registered
sanitarian, certiﬁed safety
professional, or a registered
architect + 1 year of related
experience.
Remediation Contractor:
Bachelor’s or graduate
degree w/major in natural or
physical science,
engineering, architecture,
building construction, or
building sciences + 1 year of
experience in related ﬁeld or
as a contractor in building
construction; or no less than
60 college credit hours in
natural sciences, physical
sciences, environmental
sciences, building sciences,
or a related ﬁeld + 3 years of
experience in related ﬁeld or
as a contractor in building
construction; or HS diploma
or GED + 5 years of
experience in related ﬁeld or
as a contractor in building
construction; or certiﬁcation
as an industrial hygienist,
professional engineer,
professional registered
sanitarian, certiﬁed safety
professional, or a registered
architect + 1 year of
experience in related ﬁeld or
as contractor in building
construction.

Washington Licensure: Mold Assessors & Remediators: 2- Yes
D.C. Assessors & year associate’s degree or
Mold equivalent with at least 30
Remediators semester hours in
microbiology, engineering,
architecture, industrial
hygiene, occupational safety,
or a related ﬁeld of science +
1 year relevant ﬁeld
experience; or hold
certiﬁcation as an industrial
hygienist, professional
engineer, professional
registered sanitarian, safety
professional, or registered
architect + 6 months of
relevant ﬁeld experience; or
a high school diploma or
equivalent + 3 years relevant
ﬁeld experience.
Appendix E
Asthma and COPD Hospitalization Rates in
Virginia, 2019-2023
ASTHMA HOSPITALIZATION RATES DATA INFORMATION

How Data Was Created

Numerator: Hospitalizations or “counts” for asthma, ICD-9-CM 493 or ICD-10-CM J45
as the primary diagnosis

Denominator: Resident population (provided by U.S. Census Bureau)

For rate display, rates are multiplied by a factor of 100,000 to allow for comparison
across localities.

Data Details:

1. The hospital admission data displayed are provided by Virginia Health Information
to the Virginia Department of Health. The data are analyzed by the Division of
Population Health Data, Environmental Public Health Tracking Program, and
displayed by the VDH Center for Public Health Informatics.
2. Hospital admission records are selected using primary diagnosis codes only and are
based on admission year rather than discharge year. This methodology may differ
from other VDH hospitalization data dashboards.
3. Admissions of residents to out-of-state hospitals are excluded. Admissions for border
counties may be underestimated.
4. Rates were calculated based on U.S. Census Bureau Single Race Population
Estimates.
5. Differences in counts and rates in 2015 compared with subsequent years could be a
result of ICD coding changes.
6. Non-zero counts of 1-4 are suppressed for display to protect privacy.
7. Non-zero rates based on a numerator counts of 1-4 are suppressed for display due to
rate instability.
8. Other and unknown race/ethnicity categories have been excluded from display due
to no matching population data for the denominator.
9. Color legend for counts/rates shown in map was created from calculated cut-
offs. Color legend does not change when choosing different filters.

Data Limitations:

• Asthma hospitalizations will include some transfers between hospitals for the same
individual for the same asthma event. Variations in the percentage of transfers or
readmissions for the same asthma event may vary by geographic area.
• Data are based on the date of admission rather than the date of discharge. Admission
date is a better indicator of the time the patient first presented with severe enough
symptoms to result in a hospital admission and may be more closely related to a
potential environmental exposure or trigger. This methodology may differ from other
VDH hospitalization data dashboards.
• Counts are the number of inpatient hospitalizations. A patient could have stayed in
the hospital more than once for asthma. These would count as separate
hospitalizations.
• Data on race and ethnicity are limited for several reasons. These data are not
consistently recorded on medical records and when available are complicated further
by non-standard definitions of race and ethnicity, the use of combined
race/ethnicity, reporting of multiple race categories, and differences in self-report
versus registrar reporting. Cases where race was classified as ‘other’ or ‘unknown’
have not been displayed due to the inability to calculate rates. These cases are
included in the overall counts.
• These data usually include only cases of state residents who were treated within the
state. Measures for geographic areas (e.g., counties) bordering other states may be
underestimated because of health care utilization patterns.
• Excluded from the data are federal institutions such as Veterans Affairs, Indian
Health Services, and prison facilities.
• Practice patterns and payment mechanisms may affect diagnostic coding and
decisions by health care providers to hospitalize patients.
• Sometimes the mailing address of a patient is listed as the residence address of the
patient. Patients may be exposed to environmental triggers in multiple locations, but
geographic information is limited to residence.
• On October 1, 2015, in the United States, the International Classification of
Diseases, Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-10-CM) replaced the ninth
revision (ICD-9-CM) for coding of medical terminology and disease classification.
As a direct result of this change, there are nearly five times as many diagnosis codes
in ICD-10-CM than in ICD-9-CM, allowing further expansion than was possible
with ICD-9-CM. This coding change impacts information classifications for hospital
discharge, emergency department, and outpatient records for administrative and
financial transactions in all healthcare settings. Differences in counts and rates in
years prior to 2015 (ICD-9-CM) compared with 2015 (ICD-9-CM and ICD-10-CM)
and subsequent years (ICD-10-CM) could be a result of this coding change and not
an actual difference in the number of events.
• Hospitalization data, by definition, does not include asthma among individuals who
do not receive medical care or who are not hospitalized, including those who die in
emergency rooms, in nursing homes, or at home without being admitted to a
hospital, and those treated in outpatient settings.
• All-age locality rate is based on a crude, non-adjusted rate calculation. Comparing
the all-age locality rate to the Virginia rate should be interpreted with caution due to
variation in age distribution from locality to locality.
• Rates may differ from those available from CDC’s National Environmental Public
Health Data Explorer due to differences in the multiplier used to display rates (per
100,000 vs 10,000). Rates may also vary from CDC due to differences in population
estimates used to calculate the rate.
• Rates calculated with numerator counts between 5-20 are displayed but should be
interpreted with caution.
• Reporting rates at the state and/or county level will not show the true asthma burden
at a more local level (i.e. neighborhood).
• Differences in rates by area may be due to different socio-demographic
characteristics and associated behaviors.
• When comparing rates across geographic areas, a variety of non-environmental
factors, such as access to medical care and diet, can impact the likelihood of persons
being hospitalized for asthma.
• Reporting rates at the state and/or county level may not be geographically resolved
enough to be linked with many types of environmental data.

Citation:

Virginia Department of Health. Division of Population Health Data. Environmental Public
Health Tracking
Program. Asthma Hospitalizations. https://www.vdh.virginia.gov/environmental-public-
health-tracking/asthma/asthma-hospitalizations/
COPD HOSPITALIZATION RATES DATA INFORMATION

How Data Was Created:

Numerator: Hospitalizations or “counts” for COPD, ICD-9-CM 490-492, 496 as the
primary diagnosis or 493.2 as a primary diagnosis when 490-492, 496 is present in any other
diagnosis codes; ICD-10-CM codes J40-J44 as the primary diagnosis
Denominator: Resident population (provided by U.S. Census Bureau)

For rate display, rates are multiplied by a factor of 100,000 to allow for comparison across
localities.

Data Details:

1. The hospital admission data displayed are provided by Virginia Health Information
to the Virginia Department of Health. The data are analyzed by the Division of
Population Health Data, Environmental Public Health Tracking Program, and
displayed by the VDH Center for Public Health Informatics.
2. Data are based on the date of admission rather than the date of discharge. This
methodology may differ from other VDH hospitalization data dashboards.
3. Data for transfers of a single episode between hospitals have not been excluded.
4. Rates were calculated based on Census Bureau Single Race Population Estimates.
5. Differences in counts and rates in 2015 compared with subsequent years could be a
result of ICD coding changes.
6. Non-zero counts of 1-4 are suppressed for display to protect privacy.
7. Non-zero rates based on a numerator counts of 1-4 are suppressed for display due to
rate instability.
8. Other and unknown race/ethnicity categories have been excluded from display due
to no matching population data for the denominator.
9. Color legend for counts/rates shown in map was created from calculated cut-
offs. Color legend does not change when choosing different filters.

Data Limitations:

• COPD hospitalizations will include some transfers between hospitals for the same
individual for the same COPD event. Variations in the percentage of transfers or
readmissions for the same COPD event may vary by geographic area.
• Data are based on the date of admission rather than the date of discharge. Admission
date is a better indicator of the time the patient first presented with severe enough
symptoms to result in a hospital admission and may be more closely related to a
potential environmental exposure or trigger. This methodology may differ from other
VDH hospitalization data dashboards.
• Hospital admission records are selected using primary diagnosis codes for ICD-10-
CM codes. This methodology may differ from other VDH hospitalization data
dashboards.
• Counts are the number of inpatient hospitalizations. This means that a patient could
have stayed in the hospital more than once for COPD. These would count as
separate hospitalizations.
• Data on race and ethnicity are limited for several reasons. These data are not
consistently recorded on medical records and when available are complicated further
by non-standard definitions of race and ethnicity, the use of combined
race/ethnicity, reporting of multiple race categories, and differences in self-report
versus registrar reporting. Cases where race was classified as ‘other’ or ‘unknown’
have not been displayed due to the inability to calculate rates. These cases are
included in the overall counts.
• These data usually include only cases of state residents who were treated within the
state. Measures for geographic areas (e.g., counties) bordering other states may be
underestimated because of health care utilization patterns.
• Excluded from the data are federal institutions such as Veterans Affairs, Indian
Health Services, and prison facilities.
• Practice patterns and payment mechanisms may affect diagnostic coding and
decisions by health care providers to hospitalize patients.
• Sometimes the mailing address of a patient is listed as the residence address of the
patient. Patients may be exposed to environmental triggers in multiple locations, but
geographic information is limited to residence.
• On October 1, 2015, in the United States, the International Classification of
Diseases, Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-10-CM) replaced the ninth
revision (ICD-9-CM) for coding of medical terminology and disease classification.
As a direct result of this change, there are nearly five times as many diagnosis codes
in ICD-10-CM than in ICD-9-CM, allowing further expansion than was possible
with ICD-9-CM. This coding change impacts information classifications for hospital
discharge, emergency department, and outpatient records for administrative and
financial transactions in all healthcare settings. Differences in counts and rates in
years prior to 2015 (ICD-9-CM) compared with 2015 (ICD-9-CM and ICD-10-CM)
and subsequent years (ICD-10-CM) could be a result of this coding change and not
an actual difference in the number of events.
• Hospitalization data, by definition, does not include COPD among individuals who
do not receive medical care or who are not hospitalized, including those who die in
emergency rooms, in nursing homes, or at home without being admitted to a
hospital, and those treated in outpatient settings.
• Locality rates for all ages are based on a crude, non-adjusted rate calculation.
Comparing the locality rate for all ages to the Virginia rate for all ages should be
interpreted with caution. There is variation in age distribution from locality to
locality.
• Rates may differ from those available from CDC’s National Environmental Public
Health Data Explorer due to differences in the multiplier used to display rates (per
100,000 vs 10,000). Rates may also vary from CDC due to differences in population
estimates used to calculate the rate.
• Rates calculated with numerator counts between 5-20 are displayed but should be
interpreted with caution.
• Reporting rates at the state and/or county level will not show the true COPD burden
at a more local level (i.e. neighborhood).
• Differences in rates by area may be due to different socio-demographic
characteristics and associated behaviors.
• When comparing rates across geographic areas, a variety of non-environmental
factors, such as access to medical care, can impact the likelihood of persons being
hospitalized for COPD.
• Reporting rates at the state and/or county level may not be geographically resolved
enough to be linked with many types of environmental data.

Citation:

Virginia Department of Health. Division of Population Health Data. Environmental Public
Health Tracking
Program. COPD Hospitalizations. https://www.vdh.virginia.gov/environmental-public-
health-tracking/copd/copd-hospitalizations-dashboard/
Appendix F
A Comparison: Asthma and COPD
Hospitalization Rates Between Virginia and
Florida 2021-2023
Asthma Related Hospitalization Rates
per 10,000
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
2021 2022 2023

Virginia Florida

COPD Related Hospitalization Rates
per 10,000
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
2021 2022 2023

Virginia Florida
Appendix G
A Comparison: Asthma and COPD
Hospitalization Rates Between Virginia and
Texas 2021-2023
Asthma Related Hospitalization Rates
per 10,000
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
2021 2022 2023

Virginia Texas

COPD Related Hospitalization Rates
per 10,000
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
2021 2022

Virginia Texas
Appendix H
A Comparison: Asthma and COPD
Hospitalization Rates Between Virginia and New
York 2021-2023
Asthma Related Hospitalization Rates
per 10,000
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
2021 2022

Virginia New York

COPD Related Hospitalization Rates
per 10,000
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
2021 2022

Virginia New York
Appendix I
Public Comments
General Notice: For Professionals Involved with the Mold Industry [3155]
Commenter Title Comment Date/ID
Remmie Regulatory Based on what I see conducting mold inspections in the field 7/1/25 6:14 pm
Arnold Review of weekly, there is a definite need for consumer protection for CommentID:236943
Mold clients from: uncertified, unqualified inspectors; uncertified,
Inspections unqualified remediators; landlords who ignore mold problems,
landlords who threaten eviction or raising rent for complainers,
landlords who send in uncertified, unqualified maintenance staff
to improperly remediate problems. Renters need a safe place to
complain about the unhealthy conditions they are forced to live
in without retribution and the safe knowledge that the inspectors
and remediators not only know what they are doing but the
results of the work show an independent clean bill of health.
Robert Mold Our company conducts crawl space waterproofing, cleaning, and 7/20/25 2:14 pm
McCarty - Remediation duct repair on a weekly basis, and we obviously encounter a lot CommentID:236980
Patriot Crawl Form of mold in the process.
Space Comment
Repairs There are good and bad things about overlaying additional mold
(RWMcCarty remediation requirements on contractors. I will list some of
LLC) those below, as well as provide my overall opinion.

Anyone doing residential mold remediation or cleanup should
already be an RBC or HIC contractor class B or higher. That
means they have already proven their qualifications in
conducting residential repair, demo, cleaning, rebuilding etc.
Mold is pretty much always part of this process. Any part of a
home that is 50 years old and being remodeled likely has mold
and fungus to some extent.

The questions is where do you draw the line, and turn something
into a mold remediation project, not general home improvement?
I don't think that question has been close to answered by any
governing body and especially not the general assembly. There
is a large difference between someone who has old insulation
and duct-work, and needs their crawl space cleaned up, to
someone who has a chronic autoimmune issues that are being
severely impacted by mold in the home obviously.

Requiring every home cleanup or deferred maintenance project
to be a "mold remediation" project, just because mold cleaning is
mentioned violates the spirit of the Virginia Existing Building
Code, by putting an undue burden on homeowners to turn a basic
crawl space or remodeling project into a "mold remediation"
project. This is why the residential mold and asbestos rules were
eased in 2012.

We also want to protect people that need comprehensive "mold
remediation". My proposal would be to differentiate between
"mold cleaning" and "mold remediation". The idea that an RBC
or HIC can't use the word mold is asinine and insulting. The
proper remedy would be some type of disclosure that requires
contractors doing mold cleaning to disclose to homeowners that
it is not a comprehensive "mold remediation" project if it isn't.
Homeowners are smart enough to know the difference.
Certified mold remediators can also market their expertise to the
public, informing them of the difference between certified mold
remediators, and contractors who clean surfaces of mold, such as
a crawl space encapsulation contractor. Everything doesn't need
to be regulated into a box with the idea that citizens can't
determine the difference, or companies can't use the free market
to convey differences. But creating mold regulations that
handcuff home improvement and building contractors into strict
mold protocols violates a slew of laws already on the books,
mainly the Virginia Existing Building Code.

Final Answer: Find a way to differentiate between basic mold
cleaning as part of general renovations, or maintenance, and
mold remediation. The idea that some contractors do a bad job
isn't a very good argument for creating more legislation and
licensing. People who do a bad job will still do a bad job. Let
the free market work that out.
Bailey Scarff<baileyscarff14@gmail.com>

Good Evening,

I hope that you have had a lovely week. I just came across the call for general public
regarding HB2195, and it comes at the most interesting time. I am currently renting an
apartment at the VYNE in One Loudoun. On Tuesday, July 29th I alerted the apartment
community manager that there had been significant mold growth covering my furniture,
decor, stairs, railings, and on the wall. I swiftly took my bag I had packed from an overnight
trip and left the apartment due to being concerned about my health.

Since then, the apartment complex has allowed their maintenance team and other vendors
into the apartment to assess without informing me. They now have hired a team to
essentially surface clean the apartment which does not at all comply with the extensive
remediation this unit needs. This has truly been incredibly stressful considering it is a result
of them leaving an outside vent open in the maintenance closet. I have expressed
repeatedly that they are being completely negligent with my health, belongings, and
apartment as a whole.

I would deeply appreciate your advice and assistance on what should be done and what
falls under the proper guidelines regarding this.

Thank you,
Bailey Scarff
Hello! My name is Rachel Hefner and I am a community organizer, currently working with
New Virginia Majority. I previously worked on this bill at another organization, Virginia
Organizing, alongside a host of affected tenants and Delegate McQuinn the past two GA
sessions.

I am here to share the "why" behind this piece of legislation and why we need to think critically
about regulating the mold profession. There are many sides to making sure that mold is
eradicated from the homes of our families. This legislation was particularly aimed at the
consumer protedion side of the issue. I can share countless stories of tenants FINALLY
getting mold remediation after persistently asking their landlord to address mold in their home.
When they DO finally get usually a third contraded party to come remediate the mold, MANY
times the person contracted is not properly trained in removing such a harmful substance.
Then the mold comes back and begins its havoc of deeply impacting the family and their
health. Just like we make sure the person who is putting chemicals on our head to dye it is
licensed, we should consider the very risky chemicals and substances that mold
professionals are dealing with and the associated risk to our communities health.

One question I have seen raised in this discussion is who is being impacted by mold. The
answer is simply that mold does not discriminate. Whether it's the public housing resident who
is begging for relief, or the bill patron homeowner who sought services for her home, mold is
everywhere. Where we will see a large impact on regulation is with the tenant population.
Renters are at the mercy of their housing providers and mold inspectors who may not be
trained or equipped to remove mold appropriately. Renters don't have as much consumer
choice as homeowners and enforcement is key to ensure healthy housing, remove renter
burden, and hold housing providers and mold inspectors accountable.

Now let's ask ourselves. How does mold grow? The answer is moisture with a combination of
poor air circulation. With the increasing extreme weather events, there is a pressing need to
consider how mold will continue to wreak havoc on our families and their health. Consider
just these last several days and the flooding in the Richmond and Tri-Cities area. Or the
previous fall with catastrophic flooding to Southwest. This is a timely and
I want to end with a story of one community leader:
She is a mother of three boys, a career and trained chef, and a tenant in
subsidized housing who I have known for almost three years. While the mold was
not visible when she first moved in, within just a few short weeks, each of her
kids were sick with cold-like symptoms, headaches, and were having trouble
sleeping. They missed school and work due to their symptoms
and could not figure out why. When I heard their symptoms during my tenant
organizing efforts in their complex, I suspected mold and contacted the health
department for RELIABLE mold testing on her behalf.

The testing confirmed the presence of mold and so as an advocate for her kids, she
fought for remediation for two years from her landlord. During this time one of her
sons developed chronic bronchitis and another asthma. Finally her landlord gives in
to her relentless advocacy. This time last year she finally was packing up her boxes
which was presumably for quality remediation. Unfortunately, the contractors the
landlord had were the cheapest option and did not hold any internationally or
nationally recognized training in their field. That meant not only
the structural damage from the mold wasn't addressed, but also the furniture they
were tasked with appropriately removing the mold spores from was not done to
standard. Within a month of returning to her apartment after the remediation the
symptoms started again and the mold spores became visible on every fabric surface.
This is the story of many of the families in the Commonwealth.

I urge you to take this study seriously and make sure that you consider the serious
health impacts mold has on our families. We should ensure that the profession tasked
with remediating such a dangerous substance is properly trained so that our families
get the services they need for their health and safety.

Thank you!
Hello! My name is Kashish Pillai and I am a Housing Policy Analyst with New Virginia
Majority. As my colleague stated, mold is a serious public health issue that is
increasingly becoming a public threat to community safety and health. Second to
housing affordability, healthy and clean housing is a top concern widely felt by
homeowners, manufactured homeowners, and renters alike - majority of community
members' concerns are about poor maintenance conditions and uninhabitable
standards, typically pertaining to bug infestations and mold. No property is immune
from a mold outbreak, as one can occur following faulty plumbing, an unattended spill,
poor insulation, and infrastructure. Indoor exposure to mold is linked to upper
respiratory tract symptoms such as asthma, skin irritation, headache, dizziness, and
is most susceptible to those already at-risk, children, elderly, and
immune-compromised people. It is important to recognize that the people most
impacted by mold regulation are the ones who have less choice in the professionals
entering their home, oftentimes who are renters and at-risk populations, who are
already negatively impacted by social determinants of health such as urban heat
island effect, floods, poor weatherization infrastructure, and a lack of access to
proper healthcare.

Mold doesn't stop at infrastructure damage. It spreads beyond the health quality of
the household's environment, devastates the family's well-being, and bleeds into the
community it is a part of.
This is especially a concern for Virginia as our aging housing, 55% of which was
built between 1960 and 1999, is prone to conducive-mold conditions due to
infrastructure deterioration and the lack of effective mold removal. As a top
environmental hazard, mold thrives in warm, damp places, and is most prone in
buildings with poor ventilation.This deeply affects our southern counties in Virginia
that are naturally in humid climates and are in flood-prone areas, increasing the
likelihood of mold threat. This urges the severity of taking action proactively and
effectively to ensure mold is properly remediated to minimize the possibility of mold
growing again. Recent rises in environmental disasters inflame the
ever-growing mold issue. From the recent sewage damage, flooding, and water
crisis in Richmond and Hurricane Helene's flooding inland effects in Buchanan,
Dickenson, and Tazewell earlier this year to the consecutive flooding, swollen creeks,
and backed up storm drains in Virginia Beach, Petersburg, Prince George, and
Chesterfield - mold does not discriminate - it is a widely and deeply felt issue across
the Commonwealth that necessitates state regulations to combat risks and improve
infrastructure conditions.

Although we are here to speak on the effect of mold in housing, please note that this
is also an alarming issue experienced by our Richmond schools who have been
combatting poor ventilation and growing mold affecting student performance and
well-being for years. This stresses the importance of improved regulations,
appropriate certification, proper remediation, and inspection for all types of
infrastructure to ensure we are addressing public health safety as a whole.

Mold is a leading issue across the nation and Virginia can be the leading state to
protect their communities' health by providing adequate and efficient mold
remediation and inspection standards. Strengthening certification to effectively
alleviate mold
contamination will greatly reduce health risks, improve quality housing,
and ensure our Commonwealth retains safe and habitable housing.
This study is the first step of many and we urge the Committee to
center Virginian families to safeguard our public health, community
well-being, and safety.

Thank you!
Appendix J
Model Legislation
Virginia Consumer Protection Act
Be it enacted by the General Assembly of Virginia:

1. That § 59.1-200, as it is currently effective and as it shall become effective, of the code
of Virginia is amended and reenacted as follows:
§ 59.1-200. Prohibited Practices.
A. The following fraudulent acts or practices committed by a supplier in connection
with a consumer transaction are hereby declared unlawful:
81. Selling or offering for sale services as a professional mold inspector or a professional
mold remediator to be performed upon any residential dwelling without holding a
mold inspection or mold remediation certification from a nationally or internationally
recognized certifying body for mold remediation, and failing to comply with (i) the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s publication on Mold Remediation in
Schools and Commercial Buildings as revised; (ii) the ANSI/IICRC S520 Standard
for Professional Mold Remediation, as revised,; or (iii) any other equivalent ANSI-
accredited mold remediation standard, when conducting or offering to conduct mold
remediation in the Commonwealth;”
Appendix K
Model Legislation
Virginia Residential Landlord and Tenant Act
§ 55.1-1200. Definitions.

"Mold remediation in accordance with professional standards" means mold remediation of
that portion of the dwelling unit or premises affected by mold, or any personal property of
the tenant affected by mold, performed by a professional that holds a mold remediation
certification from a nationally or internationally recognized certifying body for mold remediation and
complies with consistent with guidance documents published by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, or the
American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (Bioaerosols: Assessment and
Control); Standard and Reference Guides of the Institute of Inspection, Cleaning and
Restoration Certification (IICRC) for Professional Water Damage Restoration and
Professional Mold Remediation; or any protocol for mold remediation prepared by an
industrial hygienist consistent with such guidance documents (i) the ANSI/IICRC S520
Standard for Professional Mold Remediation, as revised,; or any other equivalent ANSI-accredited
mold remediation standard, when conducting or offering to conduct mold remediation in the
Commonwealth.

§ 55.1-1215. Disclosure of mold in dwelling units.

As part of the written report of the move-in inspection required by § 55.1-1214, the landlord
shall disclose whether there is any visible evidence of mold in areas readily accessible within
the interior of the dwelling unit. If the landlord's written disclosure states that there is no
visible evidence of mold in the dwelling unit, this written statement shall be deemed correct
unless the tenant objects to it in writing within five days after receiving the report. If the
landlord's written disclosure states that there is visible evidence of mold in the dwelling unit,
the tenant shall have the option to terminate the tenancy and not take possession or remain
in possession of the dwelling unit. If the tenant requests to take possession, or remain in
possession, of the dwelling unit, notwithstanding the presence of visible evidence of mold,
the landlord shall promptly engage the services of a professional mold remediator to remediate the
mold condition in accordance with professional standards as provided for in § 55.1-1200 but in no
event later than five business days after the tenant's request to take possession or decision to
remain in possession, reinspect the dwelling unit to confirm that there is no visible evidence
of mold in the dwelling unit, and prepare a new report stating that there is no visible
evidence of mold in the dwelling unit upon reinspection.

§ 55.1-1220. Landlord to maintain fit premises.

5. Maintain the premises in such a condition as to prevent the accumulation of moisture and
the growth of mold and promptly respond to any notices from a tenant as provided in
subdivision A 10 of § 55.1-1227. Where there is visible evidence of mold, the landlord shall
promptly engage the services of a professional remediator to remediate the mold conditions in
accordance with the requirements of subsection E of § 8.01-226.12 and engage the services of a
certified mold inspector to reinspect the dwelling unit to confirm that there is no longer visible
evidence of mold in the dwelling unit. The landlord shall provide a tenant with a copy of a
summary of information related to mold remediation occurring during that tenancy and,
upon request of the tenant, make available the full package of such information and reports
not protected by attorney-client privilege. Once the mold has been remediated in accordance
with professional standards, the landlord shall not be required to make disclosures of a past
incidence of mold to subsequent tenants.

Model legislation offered for § 55.1-1200 above does affect Chapter 3 of Title 8.01, Civil
Remedies and Penalties, of the Code of Virginia. As such, additional model legislation,
which mirrors proposed changes to § 55.1-1200, is offered below.

§ 8.01-226.12. Duty of landlord and managing agent with respect to visible mold.

American Council for Accredited Certification
https://www.acac.org/

The ACAC offers certifications for Microbial Investigation & Consulting, Microbial
Remediation, and Residential Mold Inspection.

Institute of Inspection Cleaning and Restoration Certification
https://iicrc.org/

The IICRC offers certifications for an Applied Microbial Remediation Technician and a
Mold Remediation Specialist.

National Organization of Remediators and Microbial Inspectors
https://www.normi.org/

The NORMI offers certifications for a Certified Mold Assessor and a Certified Mold
Remediator.
Appendix M
Sample Mold Bulletin
Educating the Community

File and source

File: 2026-RD247.pdf
Size: 2,160,557 bytes
SHA-256: 51d6b882ab6defae7c0c1887a4fb07a3a6b119046d138286d8a5114b7394282e
Our copy: 2026-RD247.pdf
Original: No public link identified.